Yesterday's Supreme Court judgment sentencing Liam Lawlor to another week in prison raises questions for politicians, the judiciary and Lawlor himself.
First, when is Lawlor going to be treated like any other person before the courts? Normally, a person begins a sentence once his appeal fails. Yet the West Dublin TD has had his spell in Mountjoy deferred until January.
A sentence can be deferred where there are exceptional circumstances, but what was "exceptional" about Lawlor's plans to spend Christmas with his son in New York?
Lawlor could have gone to Mountjoy yesterday or today, served his time and still have made his flight to the US as planned on December 20th. No one is suggesting that he be locked up for Christmas; only that defendants with white collars be treated like everyone else.
In any case, why did Lawlor book the holiday two months ago, when he knew that his appeal to the Supreme Court was scheduled for this time? Unusually, he didn't appear in court yesterday.
It all sounded so familiar from his earlier spell in Mountjoy last January, when we were assured that the TD would receive no special treatment. Yet he spent that week as the sole occupant of a four-bunk room in the medical unit, by far the most comfortable section of the prison. No wonder he described his incarceration afterwards as "no big deal".
Second, what has the Oireachtas done in the face of Lawlor's repeated two-fingering of the tribunal, which was after all set up by the politicians themselves?
Mr Justice Fennelly of the Supreme Court yesterday spoke of Lawlor's "deliberate deception" and effectively accused him of lying about the purchase of lands with Mr Larry Goodman. Earlier this year Mr Justice Smyth, when imposing a second sentence on the TD, declared that "the rot has got to stop". When imposing the first sentence in January, the same judge spoke of the TD's "blatant defiance" of the tribunal.
But while one of their number repeatedly cocked a snook at the tribunal, the politicians have done nothing. Lawlor's statement in the register of TDs' interests is seriously out of line with the details emerging at the tribunal and the courts, notwithstanding information he was allowed to provide retrospectively. Yet the Dβil, including the Opposition which bayed yesterday for his blood, has done nothing to deal with these inaccuracies.
When The Irish Times inquired last week why the accuracy of Lawlor's entry had not been investigated, a Dβil spokeswoman explained that no complaint had been made. It is obvious that the obligations on TDs to declare their interests are weak, and the monitoring of these rules non-existent.
The person with the most questions to answer is, of course, Lawlor. The fact is that it is difficult to believe anything that comes out of his mouth.
Personable and voluble though he is, the version of events he gives seems to change with each new telling.
Last week, for example, he told The Irish Times he got seven or eight £3,500 payments from developer Mr Tom Gilmartin and Arlington Securities; up to now, he has always claimed to have received only two or three.
He always denied having any business dealings with the businessman Mr Jim Kennedy, yet Mr Goodman produced to the tribunal a document written by Mr Lawlor which showed that the TD was working with Mr Kennedy.
Ironically, it was Mr Goodman, not hitherto known for his cordial relations with tribunals, who provided the ammunition which dispatched Lawlor this time.
The beef baron provided Mr Justice Flood's team with documents conclusively proving that Lawlor was involved in buying 55 acres at Coolamber in Lucan, near his home.
Lawlor had earlier denied he held any interest in the 1987 deal, which was financed by the beef baron. However, Mr Goodman gave the tribunal a document prepared by Lawlor himself, in which he summarised his involvement.
This recounted meetings with Mr Kennedy and another figure familiar to the tribunal, the solicitor Mr John Caldwell.
With this document on the table, Lawlor was forced to admit that his earlier statement was "relatively concise". But as Mr Justice Fennelly noted in his judgment yesterday, it "was more than concise. It was untrue."
And, finally, one last question: Where on earth does Lawlor get the money for his constant legal challenges?
Only two weeks ago he lost another Supreme Court appeal against a builder, Mr SΘamus Ross. Yesterday was his third Supreme Court tussle with the tribunal, and he has been through the High Court at least half-a-dozen times. Having lost nearly every time, his legal costs stand at well over £1 million.