On September 30th 1998 the then sole member of the planning tribunal, Feargus Flood, and three barristers from the tribunal, John Gallagher, Pat Hanratty and Des O'Neill, travelled to Luton, England, to meet the property developer Tom Gilmartin, writes Vincent Browne
It appears that Gilmartin accompanied the contingent back to the train station, on their return journey, and at the station he said to one of the barristers, Hanratty: "Don't forget the matter we talked about." From a note of their conversations, Hanratty inquired which matter that was, to which Gilmartin replied: "Immunity."
Hanratty's note records: "I said that we did not think that he needed immunity, but if he wanted it, we would get it."
The tribunal had no power to grant immunity to anybody, but Hanratty's presumption was vindicated, on the following day, October 1st 1998, when the then director of public prosecutions granted Gilmartin immunity from prosecution. It is astonishing that such immunity could have been obtained in such a short time, given the seriousness of the issues involved.
I am not suggesting for a moment that Gilmartin himself did anything wrong, let alone did anything criminal or corrupt, in relation to Quarryvale/Liffey Valley, nor indeed that anyone else did. But it seems to me that Gilmartin was at the centre of one of the central issues in that affair, namely the decision to abandon the town centre at Neilstown in favour of a vast shopping centre at Quarryvale/Liffey Valley.
It was always my understanding since this became a public issue that, almost uniquely among the planning issues being inquired into, significant social harm was caused in this instance to a large deprived community by a decision of local councillors to abandon the town centre in favour of a massive money-spinning operation at Liffey Valley. And the instigator of that initiative was Gilmartin.
So how could it have been that the DPP, encouraged by counsel acting for the planning tribunal, would grant immunity from prosecution to Gilmartin in double-quick time on October 1st 1998?
Again, let me emphasise, I am not insinuating any wrongdoing on the part of Gilmartin. But since he was at the centre of the original decision to have the town centre abandoned and the interests of the citizens of Neilstown-Balgaddy subordinated to the financial interests of developers, and since this was/is the central issue involved in all this, why grant immunity to the person who was the instigator of all this, or at least why do so in double-quick time?
Again, I am not saying he did anything wrong and, arguably, any entrepreneur has entitlement to pursue his/her own financial interests irrespective of social consequences and it is those responsible for the public interests to ensure this does not happen. But that does not remove the reality that Gilmartin was a central player.
There is a further curiosity. One assumes that the DPP would agree to grant immunity in a case such as this only on the basis of evidence, evidence in the form of an affidavit.
And, right enough, there is a reference to an affidavit, albeit just a "draft" affidavit, in the DPP's letter of October 1st 1998 granting immunity. But the only draft affidavit relevant to this letter is one dated the day after - October 2nd 1998. So either there was another draft affidavit dated on or before October 1st 1998, which is now not available for some reason, or there was no affidavit, not even a draft affidavit, when the letter was written.
All this gives rise to a suspicion that there was an urgent determination on the part of the tribunal team to "get" somebody in connection with the Quarryvale issue, someone other than the developer who inspired the major social harm.
Let's go back to what Hanratty says in his own notes about what he said to Gilmartin at the station in Luton on September 30th 1998: "I said that we did not think that he needed immunity, but if he wanted it, we would get it."
The advice offered by counsel for the tribunal, Hanratty, to one of the people to be investigated by the tribunal, Gilmartin, that he (the latter) did not need immunity is interesting.
First, why would counsel for the tribunal be offering any legal advice at all to any of the parties whose record was to be investigated by that same tribunal?
And, secondly, why would a prejudgment be made of the actions of one of these parties before any or at least certainly all the evidence was in?
I was and remain a fan of the tribunals, for only when an investigative agency is vested with the kinds of powers tribunals enjoy can we get to the bottom of corruption in Irish public life. But one must be concerned now by the evidence that has emerged recently about how the planning tribunal has conducted itself. I will be returning to this matter next week.