A three-judge High Court will hear on April 1st the challenge by Taoiseach Bertie Ahern to the conduct by the Mahon tribunal of its inquiries into certain banking transactions conducted through Mr Ahern's account in 1993 and 1994.
Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill said yesterday that he had discussed the matter with the president of the High Court as the case raised issues of constitutional privilege and it had been decided the action would be heard by three judges.
After being told by Brian Murray, counsel for Mr Ahern, that both sides were anxious to have the case heard quickly, the judge said the court would accommodate that and he fixed a hearing date for April 1st.
Mr Murray said the case would take three days. He also said he had agreed with Michael Collins, counsel for the tribunal, on a schedule for the exchange of legal documents between the sides.
The tribunal has agreed to the continuation of a stay - granted to Mr Ahern by the court last Monday - on its order requiring Mr Ahern to produce by 4.30pm that day documents relating to financial advice given to him by Paddy Stronge, a financial consultant and former chief operating officer of Bank of Ireland Corporate Banking. Mr Ahern claims the 150 documents in question are legally privileged and the stay will continue in force pending the outcome of the action.
The High Court will have to determine three issues in the April 1st hearing of the judicial review proceedings initiated last Monday by Mr Ahern. When securing leave to bring the case, Mr Murray said the proceedings are not intended to interfere with Mr Ahern's appearances before the tribunal, the next of which is scheduled for next Thursday.
A crucial issue in the case is the claim by Mr Ahern that, under Article 15.13 of the Constitution relating to privilege attaching to statements made in the Dáil, the tribunal is not entitled to cross-examine him about statements made by him in the Dáil about his financial affairs.
Mr Ahern made the statements in the Dáil in September and October 2006 following publication of an Irish Times article of September 21st, 2006, about payments made to him when he was minister for finance. He claims such statements are covered by Dáil privilege and the fact they were repeated outside the chamber does not remove that privilege.
The second aspect of the challenge relates to the advice received by him from Mr Stronge, an expert retained by him to assist him in preparing for the tribunal's examination of him about his financial affairs. Mr Ahern claims a report prepared by Mr Stronge has already been given to the tribunal but that discussions between Mr Ahern's lawyers and Mr Stronge and advice from Mr Stronge constitute litigation privilege or privileged legal advice and that the tribunal is not entitled to such material.
The third issue concerns Mr Ahern's claim he is entitled to all material and calculations relied upon by the tribunal when putting hypotheses to him, which he denied, concerning certain payments into his accounts when he was minister for finance.
Mr Ahern is seeking material related to what was described as the "dollar hypothesis" - a claim by the tribunal that a sum lodged to the account of Celia Larkin, Mr Ahern's then partner, of £28,772.90 at the AIB branch at O'Connell Street, Dublin, on December 5th, 1994, was equivalent to an exchange of $45,000.
The second hypothesis was described as the "sterling hypothesis" - a claim that an amount lodged into Mr Ahern's account on October 11th, 1994, was equivalent to £25,000 sterling. Mr Ahern had said the lodgement was for £16,500 plus £8,000 sterling given to him by friends following a dinner in Manchester and was adamant it was not £25,000 sterling.
