Law not there for parallel hearings

WHEN JUDGE Alan Mahon and Judge Mary Faherty were appointed to join Mr Justice Feargus Flood at the planning tribunal in February 2002, there was a widespread expectation they would proceed with three parallel inquiries.

Mr Justice Flood had appealed to the Government the year before for help in dealing with the volume of work coming his way. It was assumed that Judge Mahon and Judge Faherty, with Judge Gerald Keys (who replaced Mr Justice Flood on his retirement), would run concurrent sessions in order to accelerate the tribunal’s work.

This didn’t happen. The legislation to allow for parallel inquiries wasn’t in place in 2002 when the new members were appointed.

By 2004, when the legislation was passed, the three judges had embarked on their work, most of it centring on the allegations made by former government press secretary Frank Dunlop who had admitted his involvement in corruption at the tribunal in 2000.

At Mr Dunlop’s suggestion, or so he says, the tribunal conducted a series of modular investigations into his allegations. Each one followed the same pattern, in which Mr Dunlop alleged he paid Dublin county councillors specific sums in return for their support on rezoning motions at the council.

Because the person making the allegation, and often the councillors involved, were the same in many of the different investigations, the tribunal regarded them as “interlocking” or related and the three judges felt they had to continue sitting in collective session.

The same principle was applied to a separate set of “interlocking” modules which were to have investigated various land deals involving businessman Jim Kennedy and the late Liam Lawlor TD. (Only one of these investigations has been completed.)

This meant that only one set of highly paid tribunal barristers could take to the floor at any one time, while their colleagues stuck to background research back in the office.

Other matters were held up and/or closed off by litigation.