The latest round in the legal battle between the tribunal and the Criminal Assets Bureau is to be decided on Friday, when Mr Justice Flood will rule on whether the CAB should have privilege over the documents it seized from Mr George Redmond.
On a day when the tribunal was active on three separate fronts, the legal arguments of the CAB and the tribunal were played out once more behind closed doors in Dublin Castle.
Lawyers for the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions made submissions to decide who should have access to Mr Redmond's files. The CAB is resisting providing the tribunal with copies of the documentation, which were seized from the former assistant Dublin city and county manager last February.
Meanwhile, in the Supreme Court, the tribunal started its appeal in the case involving Fianna Fail TD Mr Liam Lawlor. In the afternoon, the tribunal resumed public hearings and continued with the evidence of the developer, Mr Michael Bailey.
Mr Bailey told the tribunal Mr James Gogarty said he was prepared to forgive his former employers in the Murphy group if he received £100,000 and an apology from them. Mr Bailey denied suggesting to Mr Joseph Murphy jnr that Mr Gogarty should be paid £100,000 to "buy his silence".
This was the allegation relayed by the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Mr Dermot Ahern, who told the tribunal in May that Mr Murphy jnr said he was told this by Mr Bailey.
Yesterday Mr Bailey admitted that if he had "an opportunity of solving the case by paying £100,000 to Mr Gogarty, I probably would have paid it".
In the Lawlor case, both sides are due to conclude their submissions to the Supreme Court today. It was wrongly stated here yesterday that a ruling was imminent, but this will not be made until after the submissions. The tribunal's appeal results from the decision of the High Court to quash two of its orders against Mr Lawlor. One of these directed him to appear before tribunal lawyers in private to answer questions. The second compelled him to swear an affidavit detailing any companies in which he had an interest between 1987 and 1994.
The Chief Justice, Mr Hamilton, said yesterday the case revolved on the interpretation of a section of the Tribunals of Inquiry Evidence Act 1979, which states: "A tribunal may make such orders as it considers necessary for the purposes of its functions and it shall have, in relation to their making, all such powers, rights and privileges as are vested in the High Court or a judge of that court in respect of the making of orders".
The question was where the tribunal chairman got the power to delegate his functions to one of his barristers, Mr Justice Hamilton said.
However, Mr Pat Hanratty SC, for the tribunal, argued that no delegation of the chairman's powers was involved. It was true a tribunal lawyer was acting on behalf of the chairman when he conducted interviews, but he was merely gathering information, not evidence. This could not be used as the basis for any findings.
Any person attending for interview was entitled to have their lawyers present, Mr Hanratty said. A stenographer would also be present to record the interview. An order compelling people to attend did not mean they were compelled to answer questions.
However, under questioning by the judges, he conceded that if a person refused to answer questions this information would be given to the chairman. In certain situations, the chairman could decide the person was obstructing the work of the tribunal.
Mr Hanratty said 77 out of 78 Dublin County Council members agreed voluntarily to be interviewed by tribunal lawyers. A number had made allegations against Mr Lawlor, which the tribunal wanted to investigate. After Mr Lawlor declined to attend for interview, the tribunal sent a letter outlining the information it had concerning him. Mr Justice Flood made an order compelling him to attend, which resulted in the current litigation.
Mr Adrian Hardiman SC, for Mr Lawlor, said there was "everything wrong" with the way the tribunal carried out its interviews. People had been canvassed on the basis of "pure rumour". Mr Hanratty said the tribunal "strenuously disputed" this allegation.
According to Mr Hardiman, the Oireachtas decided to confer no greater power on a tribunal than the High Court. It was never intended that the powers of a tribunal gathering information would be carried out by a barrister acting as an investigator.
With the legal term due to end this Friday, the tribunal is expected to try to conclude Mr Bailey's evidence this week. It is thought likely that Mr Justice Flood will resume public hearings before the next legal term, probably in mid-September.