The Morris tribunal investigating corruption among Donegal gardaí will hear evidence in the next module in private, chairman Justice Frederick Morris ruled today.
Lawyers for suspended Det Sgt John White argued on Tuesday that matters covered by the Burnfoot module should be held in public as normal.
But Mr Morris decided that, in accordance with a 2002 amendment to the Tribunal of Inquiry Act, the module should be held in camera to prevent the possibility of a criminal trial being prejudiced.
Det Sgt White is facing allegations that he planted a shotgun at a north Donegal Traveller site in 1998, as part of an investigation into the murder of shopkeeper Eddie Fitzmaurice in Charlestown Co Mayo. Seven residents at the site were arrested as a result of the find and later released.
Det Sgt White was charged in relation to the allegations in June 2001 and earlier this year, his lawyers sought a High Court review of the case because evidence had gone missing. But the High Court's ruling could be appealed to the Supreme Court which could mean that a trial may not take place until 2007.
On Tuesday, lawyers for the Director of Public Prosecutions said that if the evidence relating to the case were heard at a public hearing of the tribunal then any subsequent trial could be prejudiced.
Counsel for Det Sgt White, John Whelan SC, argued the case should only proceed after the situation surrounding his client's trial had been resolved.
He also said his client wanted the tribunal to hear the evidence in public so Det Sgt White could "vindicate his good name in public". He further argued that holding the tribunal in camera would damage his defence and would be contrary to his constitutional right to silence.
But in an 11-page ruling, Justice Morris said there was an onus on Det Sgt White to establish "a real and substantial risk of prejudice to his obtaining a fair trial".
"In my view, it is not sufficient for him to postulate that a 'dry run' may give rise to such a prejudice as a general proposition. This is important, when one has regard to the delays that have already taken place in the hearing of this criminal trial and the realistic danger that it may be some years before it comes to a hearing, if ever, and my obligation to report on this matter at the earliest possible date."
He said he was not satisfied that the interests of justice would be served to grant an adjournment.