The Mahon (formerly Flood) Tribunal: The Mahon (formerly Flood) Tribunal is due back this week. Paul Cullen examines what the tribunal has to show for its six years' work
If the Mahon Tribunal ever felt the need to advertise, it could do worse than borrow Fianna Fáil's slogan from the last election: "A lot done, a lot more to do." After six years, the tribunal has a number of solid achievements to its credit, notably last year's interim report and its "cracking" of lobbyist Frank Dunlop.
However, now that the can of worms has been opened, it is unclear just how effectively the tribunal will deal with the mess and how long it will take.
The Taoiseach and ministers originally scoffed at suggestions that the tribunal might have another 15 years to run. This is now regarded as a conservative estimate, unless reforms are introduced or some inquiries are abandoned.
The cynical observer might see this as aopportunity to shelve awkward investigations into allegations of low standards in high places. Already, the passage of time has ensured that most of those under investigation have disappeared from public life and the collective consciousness. It is six years since Ray Burke held office and four years since Pádraig Flynn retired to Co Mayo.
Others are too old to give evidence and some have died. Property developer Phil Monahan, for example, who died during the summer, would certainly have been called as a witness when the tribunal investigates the rezoning of Cherrywood in south Dublin.
Now, because of the inefficiencies of the tribunal system and the failure of so many of those under investigation to co-operate, there is little prospect of justice being delivered promptly.
How long, for example, is it since we heard property developer Tom Gilmartin's allegation about a £50,000 payment to Mr Flynn? When is Mr Gilmartin going to have the chance to give evidence? Will he ever get the opportunity?
Although Ray Burke has spent five years, on and off, at the tribunal, he still hasn't been questioned about the third of the three major payments he received in 1989 - £30,000 from Fitzwilton, the investment vehicle of its former chairman, Sir Anthony O'Reilly.
In leaving his post so abruptly last June, Mr Justice Flood has left the tribunal with another millstone around its neck. The issue of legal costs initially seemed a simple one: pay the standard rate to most people, except those who didn't co-operate.
But fears of lengthy hearings over the issue helped Mr Justice Flood decide to leave and now his successor, Judge Alan Mahon, is forced to adjudicate on issues relating to evidence he never heard. The result: more legal argument, litigation and fees for the barristers.
Somehow Judge Mahon will have to run the tribunal as well as dealing with this issue. The current module investigating the rezoning of the Jackson Way land at Carrickmines has set the template for other modules on Dublin planning.
In this respect, the writing is on the wall, with tribunal lawyers questioning the politicians' denials that the brown envelopes they took had anything to do with their voting records. The individual sums Frank Dunlop doled out to eager councillors might have been small but it is the intent that counts.
It may be at late as the New Year before the tribunal starts its next investigation, which will probably be its mammoth trawl through the Quarryvale affair, with other investigations into planning in Dublin continuing for some years to come.
Some 25,000 people purchased a copy of Mr Justice Flood's interim report last September.
The report and its trenchant findings have disappeared into the DPP's office, from which no signal has emerged in the intervening year. Those implicated in the report have gone about their business, often in public, largely unimpeded or burdened by legal proceedings. The rich among them have got richer.
Meanwhile, the tribunal has trundled on. In the year since the report was published, it has sat just 77 days in public and has yet to complete a further module of investigation.
Last year's report identified 15 people who had hindered and obstructed the tribunal in its work and, therefore, would be liable for prosecution under tribunals legislation. A further three people failed to co-operate with the inquiry and could also face sanctions, albeit to a lesser degree.
Mr Justice Flood ruled that most of the main payments under investigation - such as the £30,000 paid by James Gogarty to Ray Burke, or the £30,000 Burke got from Oliver Barry - were corrupt. He also outlined a multiplicity of lies told to the tribunal by the main players.
However, the tribunal never had the power to do anything more than make findings. The Director of Public Prosecutions has exclusive responsibility for deciding whether to take prosecutions. It is the job of the Garda Síochána to collect the evidence for any such prosecution, and they cannot rely on the tribunal chairman's findings.
The Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) has been active in the background, but we have few details of its work. At least three of those who figured in the tribunal have been investigated by the CAB.
The silence from the DPP in relation to the tribunal's findings of corruption does not surprise many lawyers. Privately, they say that, for all the popular acclaim heaped on Mr Justice Flood, his findings will never "hold up" in a criminal court. Where the tribunal decided many matters "on the balance of probabilities", the standard of proof in a criminal trial would - and, indeed, should - be much higher.
Take the case of Joseph Murphy junior, the millionaire chairman of JMSE, which paid £30,000 to Mr Burke in 1989. Mr Murphy says he wasn't at the meeting at which the money was paid over. He says he was elsewhere, and has served up a substantial alibi to support his version. Everyone else who was at the meeting also says he wasn't there, with the exception of Mr Gogarty.
However, the tribunal determined that he was present and, therefore, that he was complicit in corruption. There is no documentary evidence that can decide the issue one way or another, but the tribunal ruled that he was, because it chose to believe all of Mr Gogarty's story.
If five years of a tribunal couldn't get any closer to the truth, what chance has an investigating Garda, at least under current legislation?