Mr Michael Bailey has "made inconsistent statements" and contradicted himself in the course of his evidence to the Flood tribunal, his own counsel said yesterday.
Mr Colm Allen SC, counsel for Mr Bailey and Bovale Developments, told him: "Much comment has been made during the course of your examination over the last 10 days about your ability to contradict yourself, to trip yourself up, to make inconsistent statements."
Mr Bailey replied: "That is what has been said."
Mr Allen said this was precisely what Mr Bailey "had done in relation to a number of matters".
Mr Bailey replied: "That is correct."
Mr Allen then asked Mr Bailey if that "in any way impinges upon what this tribunal is supposed to be about, your allegedly having attempted to corrupt Mr Ray Burke for the rezoning of lands which have not been rezoned." Mr Justice Flood then intervened to tell Mr Allen this was "not a subject matter for the witness" but was rather a matter for the chairman to decide "in due course" on "the balance of probabilities".
Earlier Mr Allen said Mr Bailey was "improperly treated . . . in the legal sense" by the Flood tribunal and had been forced "to vindicate his rights in the Supreme Court".
Mr Allen said he was making the point as "an answer to the suggestion" that Mr Bailey "did not co-operate with the tribunal . . . He has done so at all times, with the single reservation that he has acted on legal advice and that he has stood on his rights."
Mr Allen said 77 of the 78 councillors in office in 1989 had come forward voluntarily to the tribunal and made statements. He asked Mr Bailey whether anybody on behalf of this tribunal had suggested to him that any of those councillors or any planning officials had made "any allegation of impropriety of any kind" against him.
Mr Bailey replied "No".
He agreed with Mr Allen that he had never "acted corruptly" in relation to his lands or sought to bribe Mr Ray Burke or any other public official for the purposes of obtaining or procuring planning permission.
Mr Allen then asked Mr Bailey: "Has anyone in this room ever produced the tiniest piece of evidence which would support the contention you did?"
Following an intervention from counsel for the tribunal, Mr Justice Flood said the witness "can't be judging his own case, however much I would like to give the job to him".
Mr Bailey responded: "Thank you, chairman. I must admit I wouldn't accept it."
Counsel for Mr James Gogarty, Mr Brian O'Moore, said he wished to make it "quite clear that Mr Gogarty felt that Mr Bailey had participated in the bribery of Mr Burke . . . Mr Bailey either paid £40,000 or gave the impression that he paid £40,000".
The chairman responded: "Somewhere down the line that is a matter which I am either going to find or not find as a matter of probability. The discussion, the chucking around of views about it at this time . . . is not really going to advance it anywhere."
