Legal counsel for Dublin West TD Liam Lawlor told the High Court this afternoon that some of the lines of questioning followed by the Flood Tribunal with Mr Lawlor were "intrusive and heavy-handed".
In his closing statements on the third day of Mr Lawlor's contempt case this afternoon, Mr John Rogers SC for Mr Lawlor said the Tribunal did not have the right to give certain directions he described as "oppressive" to Mr Lawlor.
Mr Rogers was referring to an incident on the third day of Mr Lawlor's evidence to the Flood Tribunal before Christmas 2000 in which he was instructed by Mr Justice Flood to sign a letter to his bank in Liechtenstein requesting details about his bank account.
Mr Rogers told the High Court that that "the effect that had on him [Mr Lawlor] as a citizen was to make him look incredible."
Mr Lawlor was, according to Mr Rogers, quite the contrary, and had been as helpful as he could be to the Tribunal.
However, added Mr Rogers, the Tribunal had made "unreasonable" requests to Mr Lawlor and it was for that reason he appeared to be in contempt of the High Court order instructing him to disclose details of his financial affairs since the early 1970s.
This afternoon's hearing in Mr Lawlor's contempt case was devoted entirely to the closing statements of Mr Rogers.
Mr Rogers, argued that it was factually wrong to suggest, as counsel for the Tribunal had done, that there was a "complete refusal to comply with the order [of October 24]."
He argued, in a detailed analysis of the transcripts of Mr Lawlor's evidence to the Tribunal, that his client had consistently offered to obtain any documentation the Tribunal required and that inadequacies in his discovery of documents was a result of a misinterpretation of the order.
"The Tribunal Chairman," added Mr Rogers, "concluded and made judgements as to my client's credibility in circumstances where Mr Lawlor had produced considerable material and continues to do so.
"Having regard to the bulk of the evidence, there is evidence to imply that Mr Lawlor was seeking to comply with the order.
". . . He did make excuses . . . like a kid in school, but that was because of a misunderstanding of what was required," Mr Rogers said.
He concluded that in order to convict in an alleged contempt hearing, there is the same onus, as with other criminal charges, that the case be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
That, said Mr Rogers, had not been shown to be the case.
A person who is trying to comply, he said, should not suffer contempt "as to do so would send out the wrong message about the administration of justice."