The specific references to former Taoiseach Mr Charles Haughey and former Fine Gael minister Mr Michael Lowry in the terms of reference of the Moriarty Tribunal are fully justified, the State told the Supreme Court yesterday.
Mr Frank Clarke SC said the matter of public concern that led to setting up the Moriarty Tribunal was the monies held in the Ansbacher Bank accounts for the benefit of persons, including the former Taoiseach.
He said "the matter of public concern" arose out of the Dunnes Payments to Politicians Tribunal (the McCracken Tribunal) which found that Mr Haughey and Mr Lowry had received substantial funds from Mr Ben Dunne for their personal benefit. They were the only persons so identified, he said, and that fully justified the specific reference to both men in the Moriarty Tribunal's terms of reference.
It was the fourth day of an appeal by Mr Haughey and members of his family against the High Court's refusal to stop the Moriarty Tribunal investigating their financial affairs.
Mr Clarke said the McCracken Tribunal's terms of reference had prevented it investigating the source of monies paid to Mr Haughey and Mr Lowry, apart from payments by Mr Ben Dunne.
It had been of concern that substantial amounts of money had been held in unusual bank accounts and among those doing so was Mr Haughey.
The McCracken report had also identified payments made by Mr Dunne to Mr Michael Lowry and had criticised Mr Lowry over the period when he chaired the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party.
Some argument had been made that other payments were identified as having been made to other politicians. Mr Clarke said he thought it was clear the McCracken Tribunal had found those payments to have been ordinary political contributions and did not give rise to criticism from Mr Justice McCracken.
The only person identified as holding a substantial amount of money in an Ansbacher account was Mr Haughey. Insofar as there were other people with money in Ansbacher accounts, they would be brought within the terms of reference of the Moriarty Tribunal only if they had been ministerial office- holders.
Mr Clarke said it was not accurate to say that Mr Haughey was being singled out among the Ansbacher account-holders. Clearly, anybody with monies in an Ansbacher account who was identified as having held ministerial office would be dealt with in similar terms. The hearing continues.