Leading businessman Joe Moran has told the tribunal he only reluctantly agreed to pay £25,000 in fees to Frank Dunlop to lobby for the rezoning of his land in north County Dublin.
Mr Moran said his brother, Colm, and a business partner, Michael Hughes, agreed the fees with Mr Dunlop at a meeting in 1992 and he was informed several days later.
“I said there was no way we should have agreed that.” However, his colleagues told him this was “the going rate”.
At that stage, they had spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on “architects and advisers and everybody else” in trying to develop the lands at Lissenhall, near Swords.
He eventually agreed to pay half upfront and half when Mr Dunlop delivered. “If you want it done, you have to pay it.”
Asked about his contact with Mr Dunlop, Mr Moran replied: “Never met him, never spoke to him, never saw him.”He denied an intervention by former minister Ray Burke was pivotal to a decision by him to apply for industrial zoning on the land. He had already decided to seek industrial zoning when Mr Burke, at a meeting in the Burlington Hotel in December 1989, advised him to follow this course.
Month: April 2006
FG councillor got €20,000 for helping with land problem
What troubles me is that they know there is a potential conflict of interest, they just don’t seem to want to admit it.
A Fine Gael county councillor was paid €20,000 for her help in solving a road access problem for a landowner in north County Dublin, the tribunal has heard.
Cllr Anne Devitt received the fee in 2002 for negotiating access to the land across property owned by the Eastern Health Board. At the time, she was a member of the EHB, the tribunal heard.
Details of the payment to Ms Devitt emerged yesterday during evidence given by businessman Joe Moran, whose company Rayband Ltd owned the land at Lissenhall near Swords. In 1993, Ms Devitt signed a motion while on Dublin County Council to rezone Rayband’s land for industry.
Paul Cullen of the Irish Times continues:
Yesterday, the inquiry heard that Mr Moran sought to gain access to the road through the EHB land because his property was landlocked. The company paid Ms Devitt the money in June 2002, after it agreed access through the EHB land in return for building ambulance and day-patient facilities.
Mr Moran said Ms Devitt had provided professional advice and legal services. She had portrayed herself as someone who could solve the problem. She had a reputation for solving problems.
Judge Gerald Keys said Ms Devitt was a politician and there was a potential conflict of interest.
Mr Moran replied that Ms Devitt didn’t do anything wrong.
Judge Keys: “Did it not cross your mind there was something questionable about being prepared to pay a substantial sum of money to a politician who was a member of the council, who would be close to the planning department, who was already instrumental in voting on zoning motions and also a member of the health board, which could come to your assistance?” Mr Moran: “No.”
Judge Keys: “Did it not dawn on you there could be a serious conflict of interest and that the public perception could be that what you were trying to do was to buy her?” Mr Moran: “Absolutely not.” Everything was above board and there were no under the counter payments.
He agreed that Ms Devitt, who is due to give evidence to the inquiry tomorrow, never provided him with written advice.
DWL ordered to hand over aquatic centre
After all the controversy, Dublin Waterworld are being forced out of the National Aquatic Centre.
Dublin Waterworld Ltd must hand over possession of the €62 million National Aquatic Centre on April 28th next to the State company which owns it, the High Court has directed.
Mr Justice Paul Gilligan yesterday deferred to April 25th his decision on any application by DWL for a stay on the possession order. He also adjourned to the same date the issue of liability for the costs of the legal proceedings brought against DWL, which are expected to be more than €2 million.
Costs were sought by Campus and Stadium Ireland Development Ltd, the State company which owns the centre, against DWL, a shelf company with no assets and registered offices at Ballyvard, Tralee. DWL contends it is entitled to costs of various aspects of the proceedings.
Following an application yesterday by Denis McDonald SC, for CSID, DWL undertook to continue operating the centre to April 28th. It also undertook not to remove any equipment from the centre and to retain membership and other relevant records.
Claims of mistreatment at interview denied by garda
Joan Gallager is the only Garda left who has stuck to her original story in relation to the questioning of Katrina Brolly.
Garda Joan Gallagher denied there was mistreatment of Katrina Brolly during an interview at Letterkenny Garda station in 1996 in connection with the death of cattle-dealer Richie Barron.
She denied she pulled Ms Brolly’s hair, that there was abusive language by gardaa or that post-mortem photographs of Mr Barron had been shown. These allegations were made by Ms Brolly and by Det Garda John Dooley in a dramatic change to his earlier statement denying all claims.
Det Garda Dooley is on sick leave and is recovering from a severe bout of depression.
Det Sgt John White also issued a statement last week changing his evidence and admitting his part in mistreating the suspects. He could not remember a hair-pulling incident, but had no reason to doubt Det Garda Dooley. He could not identify at which interview the photos were shown.
Garda Gallagher said she was in at the second of three interviews with Ms Brolly. She said the events alleged did not take place. Det Garda Dooley was a friend of hers. She had known him for 13 years and he was an upright and honest man.
“I believe John Dooley believes what he is saying and doesn’t believe he is telling lies, but it didn’t happen. I believe John Dooley believes 100 per cent what he’s saying, it’s not out of malice or out to get anybody,” she said.
Tribunal counsel Anthony Barr SC asked about Det Garda Dooley’s statement that he held up postmortem photographs to Ms Brolly. Garda Gallagher said it did not happen.
Mr Barr asked why three people – Ms Brolly, Det Garda Dooley and Det Sgt White – all said it happened. Garda Gallagher replied: “I have no idea.”
She agreed there was probably bad language as it happened every day. Another claim that lights were switched on and off were also denied by Garda Gallagher. She also did not recall any remarks about Ms Brolly being told her children would be taken away from her.
“What I said was the truth,” she said. “While I was there, there was no mistreatment.”
The tribunal chairman, Mr Justice Frederick Morris, asked: “Why do you think Det Garda Dooley is imagining all this?” Garda Gallagher replied that she did not know.
She was not suggesting that his recent illness had anything to do with it, but maybe it did.
The chairman asked if she had any theory of her own.
“My honest feeling is it happened at another interview as I know it didn’t happen in the one I was in,” she said.
Developer challenges Mahon inquiry
Yet another legal challenge, worth quoting in full because of its signifcance to the workings of the Plannin Tribunal:
The High Court has begun hearing a bid by Cork property developer Owen O’Callaghan to prevent the Mahon tribunal from further inquiring into, or making any findings on allegations against him, by developer Tom Gilmartin.
The tribunal proposes to continue those inquiries in its Quarryvale Two module.
The case has been brought by Mr O’Callaghan; John Deane, a solicitor and partner in O’Callaghan Properties; Riga Ltd of Lavitts Quay, Cork, and Barkhill Ltd, which developed the Liffey Valley shopping centre in Dublin.
The tribunal is opposing the application and has denied the allegations of bias. It also denies it gave Mr Gilmartin a special or privileged status. The case before Mr Justice Thomas Smyth is expected to last two weeks.
Mr O’Callaghan claims Mr Gilmartin made “entirely untrue” allegations in private which were never mentioned in evidence by Mr Gilmartin at the tribunal’s public sessions and were concealed by the tribunal.
It had ignored “glaring” inconsistencies between Mr Gilmartin’s private statements to its lawyers and his evidence on oath, Mr O’Callaghan claims.
The tribunal denies that it offered immunity to Mr Gilmartin as an inducement to get him to testify against Mr O’Callaghan. It contends such a claim indicates a misunderstanding of the nature of the tribunal.
The tribunal says it had been openly stated by its counsel that Mr Gilmartin had been granted immunity from the DPP, on foot of a request from the tribunal, which was subject to his giving truthful testimony.
Mr O’Callaghan claims the alleged bias against him is evident from the tribunal’s failure to disclose statements made by Mr Gilmartin to tribunal lawyers which were inconsistent with Mr Gilmartin’s evidence to the tribunal.
The existence of those statements became known during cross-examination of Mr Gilmartin but the tribunal had refused to disclose them. Last July the High Court ordered the tribunal to disclose the documents, later upheld by the Supreme Court.
In the Supreme Court last November, tribunal counsel conceded that the documents had been wrongly withheld from Mr O’Callaghan and that had they been made available to him in March 2004 when Mr Gilmartin was giving his evidence, they could have been used to ground a judicial review application.
Senior counsel Paul Gallagher read a number of documents outlining the background to the action. Among the claims is that the tribunal was protecting Mr Gilmartin by withholding material which was inconsistent with Mr Gilmartin’s testimony.
It is also claimed that the documents disclosed to Mr O’Callaghan as a result of the High Court order made against the tribunal showed “glaring” and “significant” inconsistencies between Mr Gilmartin’s private statements to tribunal lawyers and his evidence to the tribunal.
Payment was to 'ensure' planning permission
The allegations of Frank Dunlop continue:
The owners of rezoned land at Swords, Co Dublin, made a £12,000 payment to lobbyist Frank Dunlop to “ensure” planning permission was obtained on the land, the tribunal has heard.
This reference to Mr Dunlop’s role is contained in the financial records of Rayband Ltd, the company which owned the land at Lissenhall. Businessman Joe Moran and his family largely owned Rayband.
Yesterday, Donal Lynch, the company secretary of Rayband, who prepared the company’s books for auditing, said that the choice of words used to describe Mr Dunlop’s role was probably his.
He understood that Mr Dunlop had provided professional services for the company and he, in preparing the books, was describing what the lobbyist was doing.
Mr Dunlop alleges that he bribed three councillors to have the Lissenhall land rezoned for industry in 1992. He also claims that the owners of the land were aware that money would have to be paid to councillors to achieve this objective. The owners of Rayband deny any knowledge of the payments allegedly made by Mr Dunlop.