The Supreme Court has reserved judgment on an appeal by Dublin West TD Liam Lawlor against a seven-day jail sentence imposed on him for failing to comply with orders to provide the Flood tribunal with financial documents.
Following a day-long hearing by the five-judge court, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, said the court was conscious of the importance to both the tribunal and Mr Lawlor of the matters at issue and would give its judgment as soon as possible.
Earlier, Mr John Trainor SC, for Mr Lawlor, said the sentence, imposed last July by the High Court, was inappropriate. Mr Frank Clarke SC, for the tribunal, said it was entirely reasonable because of Mr Lawlor's attitude towards the tribunal.
The sentence was the second such penalty imposed on Mr Lawlor for failing to comply with orders to provide the tribunal with financial documentation.
Last January he spent seven days in prison and was fined £10,000 by the High Court, with costs estimated at £200,000. The second seven-day sentence, as well as a £5,000 fine, was imposed on July 31st. The Supreme Court granted a stay on the order pending the appeal.
Mr Lawlor sat at the rear of the courtroom yesterday as lawyers made submissions.
In his July 31st judgment, Mr Justice Smyth said the conditions laid down for compliance with the court order had not been met and "the rot has got to stop".
In the appeal, it was submitted that in all the circumstances Mr Lawlor had complied with his discovery obligation. To the extent that it might be contended he had not complied, such deficiencies were of a technical and minor nature and could have been remedied by the swearing of a supplemental affidavit of discovery.
Mr Trainor said the imprisonment and fine were harsh and unreasonable penalties which should be set aside. The judge had identified the "non-compliance" by Mr Lawlor as being of "a serious character" but had failed in general to explain what the particular non-compliance was or why he considered it to be of a serious character.
He said the judge also failed to distinguish adequately between the attitude of Mr Lawlor when he was before the court last January and his attitude before the court in July. On the former occasion he had a "restricted" view of his discovery obligations. By July he and his advisers had worked incessantly to comply with the court's order and Mr Lawlor had sworn 66 further affidavits of discovery.
He had made copious efforts to obtain documentation from third parties he believed might have had documentation referable to his affairs and had expressed a willingness to comply with any further directions which the court might consider necessary.
Opposing the appeal, Mr Clarke said the initial order was for discovery and was made by the tribunal on June 8th, 2000. The first failure of Mr Lawlor was non-compliance with that order. That was before the matter ever came before the courts. In October 2001 there had been an application by the tribunal to the court in aid of the earlier order.
There had been a failure to comply with that order, which was followed by the sentence imposed last January. On that occasion the court had been considering not only a breach of its own order but a breach of the tribunal order. In July it was entirely reasonable for the High Court to have come to the view it did, given that this was the third formal opportunity Mr Lawlor had been given to comply.
Mr Clarke said the prime objective of the proceedings was to secure compliance by Mr Lawlor, but they were also to mark a significant failure to comply with his obligations. It was important that the tribunal be permitted by go about its business of inquiring into matters of urgent public importance. Where there was persistent failure to comply, it was appropriate to mark that. There could not be delay and prevarication which would defeat the purpose of a tribunal.