THE HIGH Court has begun hearing an action by the widow of the late TD Liam Lawlor aimed at preventing the Mahon tribunal from making any findings of serious misconduct against herself or her husband unless proven to "the highest level".
Mr Lawlor died in a car crash in Moscow in October 2005. His widow Hazel Lawlor, Somerton House, Lucan, Co Dublin, has brought judicial review proceeding in which she is seeking several declarations, including that the Mahon tribunal may not make findings of serious misconduct against her late husband or herself unless supported by evidence proven beyond any reasonable doubt, and not on the balance of probabilities.
Ms Lawlor also wants the court to order the tribunal to make all necessary financial arrangements to enable her to engage effective legal representation for herself during tribunal proceedings.
She is further seeking declarations that failure to provide such financial arrangements is a violation of her right to fair proceedings and a breach of her constitutional right to protect and vindicate the good names of herself, her husband and family.
Opening the case before Mr Justice Roderick Murphy yesterday, Eoin McGonigal SC, for Ms Lawlor, argued that, given the grave allegations being made against Mr Lawlor and the circumstances of the case, the tribunal "must be certain" before it makes any findings against him.
Although the Irish courts have never been asked to consider what is the appropriate standard of proof before a tribunal, it was his case that the appropriate standard was "beyond doubt" or alternatively "beyond any reasonable doubt" rather than the "balance of probabilities".
When allegations of a serious kind are made, the standard of proof in relation to any findings of fact made by a tribunal must be at "the highest level" before that tribunal "interferes with the reputation of a person", counsel said.
The Mahon tribunal was set up to inquire into corruption in the planning process, he added. Mr Lawlor was a member of the Dáil and suggestions of activities such as corruption and bribery were not something one would expect of politicians in Ireland, he said.
The strongest standard of proof must therefore be applied "to avoid an injustice", Mr McGonigal said. It was also important to note that a person cannot appeal against the findings of a tribunal, except to bring judicial review proceedings.
Since the late Mr Lawlor first became involved with the tribunal in 1998, it had made no findings against him, nor was he ever prosecuted for obstructing or hindering it, counsel said.
Ms Lawlor, who is a witness in the Quarryvale II module of the tribunal, applied for and was granted limited representation by Judge Alan Mahon in November 2005.
Her involvement is limited to providing evidence to the tribunal about lodgements made to her accounts between 1991 and 1995.
In an affidavit, Ms Lawlor said the tribunal had destroyed the life of her husband, herself, and their family, and had displayed a "vindictive and vengeful" attitude towards her husband.
She was in personal fear of the powers of the tribunal and how they might be used against her, she added. She said her late husband had found the tribunal proceedings to be interminable, and that the failure to start and finish lines of inquiry was a matter of great frustration, confusion and exhaustion to him.
"The task of defending his reputation was too big for my husband alone without legal representation.
"He ultimately failed and allegations were made against him which were unfounded and probably unlawful because of the unfairness of procedure involved and the failure of the tribunal to give my husband a fair opportunity to challenge his accusers," she said.
The case continues today.