As long as there is life in Ms Beverley Cooper-Flynn's legal action there is still some hope of her rescuing her threatened political career. Last night the Taoiseach's line was that she might yet appeal, and while this prospect remained he would take no further action.
However, it became clear that a decision not to appeal would likely have grave and swift political consequences. Fianna Fail sources said privately that a move to expel her from the parliamentary party could be expected if she simply accepted the jury finding of a fortnight ago that she had encouraged or advised people not to pay tax.
In the Dail on March 27th Mr Ahern asserted her right to due process but also laid down a marker for his future action. "Tax evasion is wrong," the Taoiseach declared, "and encouraging others to engage in tax evasion is equally wrong."
In the light of his comment, Government and Opposition TDs believe she will have to leave the party or be forced out if the jury decision that she engaged in such "wrong" behaviour is allowed to stand.
As the Opposition parties clamoured over the past fortnight for the Taoiseach to move to expel Ms Cooper-Flynn, the beleaguered Mayo TD had three lines of defence: that she had not really "lost" her libel action; that she deserved time as she might yet appeal; and that she had imposed a political sanction on herself through rapid resignation from the Dail Public Accounts Committee.
Yesterday's High Court decision removes the first suggestion. As Labour's Brendan Howlin said, Mr Justice Morris's decision "simply confirms what everyone, other than the Taoiseach and Deputy Cooper-Flynn herself, has recognised since the original judgement: that she lost her case".
However, last night the Taoiseach's spokesman made it clear that in Mr Ahern's mind the second line of defence still applied. "It is still inappropriate for the Taoiseach to comment on the outcome of the proceedings given that it could be the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court," he said.
This was the position Mr Ahern outlined in the Dail on March 27th. However, his comments that day were double-edged. On the one hand he would allow her to exhaust all legal options before he would state his position in detail. On the other he expected her to be quick about it, and left open the implication that if she decided not to appeal, or lost an appeal, there could be political consequences.
"I have been informed that once costs are determined a decision on the appeal will be made . . . She has informed me and others in my party that she will make a fairly quick decision," Mr Ahern said.
However, it appeared last night that this decision might not be so quick after all. Ms Cooper-Flynn is out of the country at the moment. With the legal term ending today, several members of her legal team are going away next week. According to one source they are unlikely to meet Ms Cooper-Flynn for almost a fortnight to make a formal decision. She could, of course, make a decision without such a consultation, but this appears unlikely.
While a decision not to appeal could bring swift political sanctions, a decision to appeal would put political action against her on a very long finger. The most optimistic estimate available last night was that an appeal could be heard in the autumn. However, it was seen as more likely that it would not be until 2002.
This would also postpone Ms Cooper-Flynn's having to face the gargantuan legal bill, estimated at up to £2 million. Inability to pay this opens up the prospect of bankruptcy proceedings. Should she be declared bankrupt she automatically forfeits her Dail seat.
However, this prospect is seen as both distant and uncertain. When the legal bills from RTE and Mr James Howard are sent to Ms Cooper-Flynn it would not be surprising if they were challenged as too high and referred to the Taxing Master for adjudication. This process would take more time, following which either the original or adjusted bills would be presented to her.
Should she plead inability to pay, the normal practice would be for negotiations with a view to striking a deal. In the absence of a deal, those seeking payment could apply to the High Court for a judgment against her for a certain sum.
Once this takes place, a number of options are still open to those seeking their money. It is not certain that they would ever seek a bankruptcy order, as it might not be considered the best way of getting the money. RTE, a State organisation, would also have to consider whether it wanted to take action that would end in a Dail deputy losing her seat.
Compared to the decision she has to make in coming days, these are long-term considerations. An appeal against the High Court decision of two weeks ago may be the only way to prevent her political prospects being devastated long before any bankruptcy proceedings. And a successful appeal, of course, would lift all the dark clouds hanging over her.