Mr James Gogarty's cross-examination began with the expected sparring and acrimony with counsel for his former employers, leavened by some of the funniest moments seen in an Irish legal forum.
Mr Gogarty's virtuoso performance in the witness box brought tears of laughter to a capacity attendance in Dublin Castle, but did little to shed light on the issues under investigation at the tribunal. Worse, his cross-examination shows all the signs of becoming a lengthy affair. Questions were posed repeatedly, and parried almost as often. The matter at issue - whether the witness accused gardai of bribery and corruption over their alleged failure to investigate his complaint of intimidation - had nothing to do with planning. Will they still be laughing in a month's time?
Mr Gogarty made the most of the opportunities offered him by Mr Garrett Cooney SC, for Joseph Murphy Structural Engineering. In particular, Mr Cooney must be ruing his reference to Mr Gogarty being in the "dock", a pejorative term that was seized upon gleefully by the 81-year-old witness.
But Mr Cooney had his own successes to look back on. On several occasions, the witness appeared to contradict himself under the effect of sustained questioning, and his evidence seemed unconvincing when it appeared to run counter to the accounts of three gardai and his own solicitor at the time.
From the beginning, Mr Cooney's approach was clear. His mission is to portray Mr Gogarty as a wrecker of reputations, a man who will destroy others for selfish, personal reasons. And, it follows, not someone to believe in relation to the serious allegations he has made.
"When you don't get your own way, no one's reputation is safe from a savage verbal assault from you," Mr Cooney told the witness at one point.
Mr Gogarty admits he was "obsessed" about the incident in June 1994, when Mr Joseph Murphy jnr allegedly threatened him in two late-night phone-calls. He called the gardai, and when they decided not to prosecute Mr Murphy, he took his case to a solicitor, Mr Michael Hegarty, and two TDs, Mr Tommy Broughan and Mr Michael McDowell.
But what did he say at that time? According to Mr Cooney, the evidence of three gardai is that he alleged the investigating garda, Det Sgt Bernard Sherry, had been bribed and was corrupt.
In his affidavit, Mr Gogarty says he came to the conclusion that "improper influence" had come to bear on the gardai for the decision not to prosecute Mr Murphy.
Yesterday, though, he said only that there had been an "error of judgment" by the gardai. Asked whether he had used the word "corrupt" at the time, he first gave a qualified denial, then conceded that he had used the word.
Mr Cooney concluded that the witness was trying to avoid the embarrassment of making a allegation of bribery against gardai at the tribunal.
But he was less successful in trying to establish that at the time, Mr Gogarty was fully aware of the reasons why the prosecution did not go ahead. Mr Gogarty maintains that it is only in the past few weeks, since he saw the Garda statements, that he has had this decision explained. A hand-written note he sent to his solicitor in 1994 appeared to reinforce his story that he was told little about the decision.
When Mr Cooney referred to a Garda document which listed five reasons for the decision not to prosecute, Mr Gogarty quickly pointed out that it was undated. The document, it emerged, had been written in 1996, rather than being a contemporaneous account of what happened in 1994.
The collateral damage caused by this tribunal spread to Fine Gael for the first time yesterday, when Mr Gogarty expressed dissatisfaction with the replies he got in the Dail from the then minister for justice, Mrs Nora Owen. This prompted an intervention by lawyers for the party, and delayed the full explanation of this matter until today.
Book-ending Mr Gogarty's cross-examination were the by now traditional skirmishes between Mr Gogarty's lawyer and those representing JMSE and the Baileys. In the morning, Mr Frank Callanan complained about the "selective and self-serving" choice of documents provided by the latter two parties, comparing this unfavourably with the "full and exhaustive" set furnished by Mr Gogarty.
He called on the chairman to ban the JMSE/Baileys from putting any surprise documents to Mr Gogarty during cross-examination. However, Mr Justice Flood turned down the request, saying he would decide as he went along.
In the afternoon, Mr Michael O'Donoghue SC, for the former managing director of JMSE, Mr Marcus Sweeney, made an impassioned plea to be released from the proceedings. Mr Gogarty had made "only the vaguest of allegations" about his client, who could ill-afford the cost of having a legal team permanently installed in Dublin Castle.
However, as Mr O'Donoghue quickly learned, it is easier to get into this tribunal than to get out again. The chairman, on the urging of the tribunal lawyers, refused his request, pointing out that Mr Sweeney would be required to give evidence anyway.
Noting that Mr O'Donoghue was not required to be in daily attendance, he offered to send him a copy of the daily transcript to keep abreast of developments. At about £40 a copy, this comes considerably cheaper than senior counsel and should save Mr Sweeney a few shillings.
