ON the resumption of the second day of his cross examination, the former Taoiseach, Mr Albert Reynolds, repeatedly denied defence suggestions that he had been involved in a "political plot" by forcing the President of the High Court, Mr Harry Whelehan, to resign in order to save his government.
Mr James Price QC, for Times, Newspapers, accused Mr Reynolds of "gently twisting the arm"
the Attorney General, Mr Eoghan Fitzsimons, on the night of November 15th, 1994, to help draft a speech suggesting that Mr Whelehan's explanation for the Duggan case delays was incorrect.
Mr Price suggested that Mr Reynolds knew that Mr Whelehan's explanation was, in fact, technically correct. He submitted that Mr Reynolds had decided that Mr Whelehan should resin to appease the Labour Party and save his government.
Shaking his head vigorously, Mr Reynolds repeatedly told the court that such a scenario was entirely "illogical" and that "under no circumstances" would Mr Fitzsimons be a party to such a situation. "I say quite clearly and unequivocally there was no political plot. I would not have raised Eoghan Fitzsimons from his bed to draft a speech . . . there is no question of anyone being involved in a political plot. It didn't happen, it is illogical, it doesn't make any sense and it isn't true."
Mr Price submitted that, because Mr Fitzsimons was a "very scrupulous man", he may have believed that, although Mr Whelehan's explanation for the delays in the Brendan Smyth case was technically correct, as the necessary legal research had never been done before, he should still resign over his mistaken assertion that the priest's case was the first to be considered under the 1987 Extradition Act.
Mr Price pointed out to the jury that Mr Fitzsimons had admitted to Mr Reynolds that he would have had to resign as Attorney General if the former Taoiseach had read his letter out lining the implications of the Duggan case to the Dail on November 15th, 1994, because there was a technical error. "It is not surprising that he thought Mr Whelehan should resign because of a technical mistake. It is not hard to understand, even for a prime minister," Mr Price said.
Mr Reynolds repeatedly rejected the suggestion that it was accepted that Mr Whelehan had "only made a technical mistake" in his report, arguing that, if such had been the case, he would "never" have asked Mr Whelehan to resign as President of the High Court, since the "penalty would not have fitted the crime".
"I will never accept that theory, even if you keep at it until the cows come home, as they say in Ireland," he told Mr Price.
Mr Reynolds continued. "If that was the case, why was Mr Fitzsimons saying to me what the implications for the government were, there should not have been a fall out the following day, and Mr Fitzsimons would not have spent three hours with me trying to address the constitutional crisis."
When Mr Price suggested that Mr Fitzsimons, Mr Whelehan and Mr Matthew Russell, the senior legal adviser in the Attorney General's Office, had all basically agreed on the implications of the Duggan file, Mr Reynolds laughed.
"I would dearly have loved to see that situation. Mr Whelehan would still be president (of the High Court) and the government may still be in power . . . I read what Mr Fitzsimons said in his letter. There was violent disagreement between them... To say all three agreed it just doesn't stand up. Who manufactured the whole of this crisis? It didn't happen, and I wished it had," he said.
After agreeing with Mr Price that it had since emerged that Mr Whelehan's legal advice was correct and that the Duggan case was irrelevant, Mr Reynolds said. "That is the tragedy of what "happened."
Mr Reynolds dismissed suggestions that he had spent the whole of the Tuesday night trying to work out a deal with Labour. His colleagues had only kept him informed about their talks "occasionally" and his main focus had been to "address the national crisis" by drafting a speech about the Duggan case for the Dail.
He said that the sentences which the Labour Party wanted inserted into his speech had only been put to him at 7.45 a.m. on Wednesday, November 16th. "I was not involved in any political plot whatsoever to save my skin. My priority was the peace process. I could have chosen a different option, but I didn't," he added.
The hearing resumes on Monday.