The general belief before yesterday's High Court hearing involving Mr Liam Lawlor was that the West Dublin TD had two options to avoid going to jail: either he could offer the Flood tribunal more information, or he could launch a legal attack on the procedures adopted by the tribunal and the court.
In the event, and after considerable delay, Mr Lawlor embarked upon both strategies. In an astonishingly bold gamble, he sought to have Mr Justice Smyth removed from the case, while at the same time promising to deliver - not for the first time - everything the tribunal wants.
Questioning the suitability of a High Court judge is clearly a high-risk strategy, but at this stage Mr Lawlor may feel he has nothing to lose. For yesterday's hearing, he even drafted in veteran criminal lawyer Mr Patrick MacEntee SC, to complement the skills of former attorney general Mr John Rogers SC.
The strategy, which saw proceedings delayed by over two hours before Mr Lawlor's new affidavit was produced, produced some short-term results. The challenge to Mr Justice Smyth caused shock waves in the Four Courts, where senior legal figures scurried to huddled consultations.
Just as Hitchcock used to produce a "Macguffin", a device to move the plot along, Mr Lawlor dug deep to find a three-page document that has turned this case on its head. With some drama, Mr Rogers related how his client was in his office late last Thursday evening when he chanced upon a 10-year old legal opinion written by Mr T.C. Smyth, then a senior counsel.
Was this the same man who was presiding over his case, Mr Lawlor asked his staff. He was told it was.
Mr Rogers argued that Mr Smyth - now Mr Justice Smyth - should step aside from the case because of the opinion he wrote for Green Property, which was campaigning against the rezoning of land for a shopping centre at Quarryvale in West Dublin.
Green Property was developing a rival shopping centre at Blanchardstown and fought vigorously against any proposal that would allow development at Quarryvale. Mr Lawlor worked on the other side with the developer of Quarryvale and the lobbyist Mr Frank Dunlop.
Mr Lawlor appears to have placed the judge in an awkward position. The legal precedents are divided. In some cases where judges were found to have had a previous involvement with a party, their judgments were overruled. In other cases, superior courts confirmed the original decisions.
If Mr Justice Smyth opts to stay on the case, Mr Lawlor's legal team will almost certainly appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. If the judge decides to step aside, another judge will be appointed to hear the case. But where does this leave Mr Justice Smyth's judgment of last October, when he ordered the TD to co-operate with the tribunal? Could this also be challenged? And would this mean that Mr Lawlor's evidence to the tribunal before Christmas was also invalid?
It could be argued that the Supreme Court confirmed Mr Justice Smyth's decision last November. But it did this without the knowledge that he had an involvement, however minor, with one of the parties due to figure in Mr Lawlor's evidence. The case continues today.