RETIRED FINE Gael politician Liam Cosgrave was shocked when he learned he was to be charged with receiving corrupt payments for rezoning of lands in Carrickmines in Dublin in the 1990s, the High Court was told yesterday.
Mr Cosgrave has in judicial review proceedings sought an order to prevent his trial on that charge proceeding.
He claims the trial is an abuse of process because the charge arises out of the same factual matrix, allegations by former government press secretary and lobbyist Frank Dunlop, as another charge to which he pleaded guilty in 2006.
Brendan Grehan SC, for Mr Cosgrave, told Mr Justice John Hedigan yesterday his client had a legitimate expectation, having admitted an earlier charge under the Electoral Act, that that would be the end of the matter. Mr Cosgrave and his family were suffering from stress and anxiety as a result of Mr Cosgrave being charged late last year, he said.
In opposing his proceedings, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the State deny the prosecution amounts to an abuse of process.
Mr Cosgrave (55), a former TD, senator and councillor, Merrion Park, Blackrock, Co Dublin, is charged with receiving sums between June 12th and June 29th, 1992; on December 23rd, 1997, in Dublin; and on October 30th, 1997, in Dublin.
He and businessman Jim Kennedy are charged in connection with the attempted rezoning of land owned by Jackson Way Properties at Carrickmines in 1992 and the successful rezoning of part of these lands in 1997. Both men deny the charges and are separately seeking, via judicial review, to prevent their trials, listed for October.
Mr Grehan said Mr Cosgrave’s prosecution was an “abuse of process”, “oppressive” and “unfair.”
Mr Cosgrave was previously prosecuted and convicted in 2005, following an allegation by Mr Dunlop, for failing to disclose a political donation. That offence arose out of same circumstance grounding the charges he now faced.
He had pleaded guilty in 2006 to failing to disclose a political donation over €500 and received a 75-hour community sentence order, Mr Grehan added. He had a legitimate expectation the matter was over.
The information upon which Mr Cosgrave was now being prosecuted was available in 2004 to the State and could have been brought then. The State had not furnished Mr Cosgrave’s legal team with a statement by Mr Dunlop to gardaí then alleging the payments given to Mr Cosgrave were corrupt and no reason for the failure to discover that statement had been given, Mr Grehan said.
Anthony Collins SC, for the State, rejected the argument Mr Cosgrave had a legitimate expectation he would not face any more charges after he pleaded guilty in 2006. Mr Cosgrave was aware there was an ongoing investigation by the Criminal Assets Bureau.
Neither Mr Cosgrave nor his legal representatives had asked if any further charges were to be brought following his 2006 plea.
The hearing continues today.