A special chapter in the report is headed `Offence by Mr Charles Haughey'. It details Mr Haughey's initially untruthful responses to inquiries from the tribunal and concludes by referring the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The following is Chapter 10 of the report in full
Section 1 (2) of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 as amended by the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Act 1979 includes the following provision:
"If a person. . .by act or omission, obstructs or hinders the tribunal in the performance of its functions. . . the person shall be guilty of an offence"
On 3rd March, 1997, a letter in standard form was sent by the registrar to the tribunal to every person who was known to the tribunal to have been a member of either House of the Oireachtas between 1st January, 1986, and 31st December, 1996, including Mr Charles Haughey. By letter dated 7th March, 1997, Mr Charles Haughey replied denying that either he or any connected person or relative of his as defined in the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 received any payment in cash or in kind of the nature referred to in the Terms of Reference of the Tribunal other than contributions to Mrs Maureen Haughey, Mr Ciaran Haughey, Fr Eoghan Haughey and Mr Sean Haughey TD.
This letter also enclosed copy correspondence between Matheson Ormsby Prentice, solicitors to the Dunnes Stores Group and Mr Charles Haughey in November and December 1994, in the course of which correspondence he specifically denied the receipt of any monies from Mr Ben Dunne. When the tribunal received Mr Ben Dunne's original statement, the solicitor to the tribunal wrote to Mr Charles Haughey on 27th March, 1997, enclosing an extract from that statement referring to the payments alleged to have been made to Mr Charles Haughey and raising certain queries in relation to possible debts of Mr Charles Haughey which might have been discharged out of these payments. The solicitor to the tribunal also asked Mr Charles Haughey to furnish a statement dealing with the various transactions outlined by Mr Ben Dunne. A reminder was sent on 2nd April, 1997, and a reply was received from Mr Charles Haughey dated 3rd April, 1997. This letter raised certain queries by Mr Charles Haughey, and contained the statement:
"It is suggested that the accompanying documents support the said allegations and with respect to the tribunal I venture to suggest that a careful perusal of these documents on their own does not corroborate the allegations being made against me."
The solicitor to the tribunal replied the same day, saying:
"In your letter, you refer to allegations being made against you and to the fact that evidence may be adduced against you. I should make clear that there is no allegation being made by any person to date that in receiving the money in question (either directly or indirectly) you are guilty of any wrongdoing or any breach of law. "Neither is it being alleged that the money in question was paid to you or for your benefit for an improper purpose or with an improper motive or was received by you for an improper purpose or an improper motive."
After some correspondence, and the making of an order for discovery by the tribunal against Mr Charles Haughey, an affidavit of discovery was sworn by him and furnished to the tribunal on 18th April, 1997. This affidavit disclosed the correspondence with Matheson Ormsby Prentice referred to in his original letter.
On 19th April, 1997, the solicitor to the tribunal again wrote to Mr Charles Haughey requesting the information sought in the letter of 27th March, and this was acknowledged by Mr Charles Haughey by letter dated 21st April, 1997, in which he said, inter alia, it was his intention to co-operate with the tribunal of inquiry at all times in accordance with his legal obligations. However, none of the information requested was furnished. As already stated, on 25th April Mr Noel Smyth raised a legal question as to the admissibility of certain evidence proposed to be given by him of conversations with Mr Charles Haughey, and on 28th April, 1997, Mr Charles Haughey was granted limited representation to deal with the issue of the admissibility of Mr Noel Smyth's evidence. On 29th April, the solicitor to the tribunal wrote to the solicitors representing Mr Charles Haughey asking would he wish to avail of this opportunity to assist the tribunal in its work, and repeated the requests for information contained in the letter of 27th March, 1997. No reply was received to that letter.
On 1st May, 1997, a letter was received from Mr Charles Haughey personally which complained that he had not been put on notice of the tribunal's intention to apply by letters of request to the English court to have evidence taken there, and questioned the jurisdiction of the Senior Master in England to make the order in favour of the tribunal, and further alleged that the evidence being taken in London may not be admissible at the tribunal.
On 15th May, 1997, the solicitor for the tribunal again wrote to Mr Charles Haughey requesting the information from him which had originally been sought on 27th March. Again no such information was furnished.
This was followed by a lengthy correspondence with Mr Charles Haughey personally in which he questioned the tribunal's procedures and the validity of orders made by the tribunal. On 20th June, 1997, the solicitor to the tribunal wrote again looking for the information originally sought in the letter of 27th March. Again, no such information was furnished.
In the meantime, the tribunal had furnished Mr Charles Haughey with all witnesses' statements and documents obtained by the tribunal which related to him. Nevertheless, the lengthy correspondence continued without any information being given by Mr Charles Haughey, and still apparently on the basis of his denial of the receipt of any monies contained in his letter of 7th March. It is not necessary in this report to set out this entire correspondence in detail; it is sufficient to say that it was most unhelpful and very time consuming for the staff of the tribunal to deal with.
On 30th June Mr Charles Haughey was granted full representation and his counsel stated that he would furnish a statement in which he would acknowledge that as a matter of probability £1.3 million pounds was paid into accounts managed by Mr Desmond Traynor on his behalf, but he still denied that he had received the three bank drafts personally. The statement was furnished on 7th July, and is the statement set out in the seventh schedule hereto. On 9th July his counsel read a further statement, being that set out in the eighth schedule to this report. In this statement Mr Charles Haughey acknowledged that he had personally received the three bank drafts from Mr Ben Dunne. When he gave evidence on 15th July he read yet another statement to the tribunal, a copy of which is set out in the ninth schedule hereto. In his evidence on 15th July the question was put to Mr Charles Haughey by counsel for the tribunal:
"And would you accept now, Mr Haughey, that you sat outside the tribunal in Abbeville waiting to see whether or not the tribunal would gather sufficient evidence to make it incumbent upon you to make a statement. Would that be a fair summation?"
His reply was:
"Well, it could be, but I suppose basically I was looking at the fact of the inevitable disclosure."
He further conceded that it was not until the tribunal had presented the evidence to him prior to 30th June, 1997, that he decided to make a statement. It is not for the tribunal to determine whether Mr Charles Haughey should be prosecuted pursuant to the section quoted above as this is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions.
However, the tribunal considers that the circumstances warrant the papers in the matter being sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for his consideration as to whether there ought to be a prosecution, and the tribunal intends to do so.