Liam Lawlor, Ordered to attend Tribunal in public sitting
Liam Lawlor has confirmed that he will attend the Flood Tribunal on a date to be fixed in accordance with the judgement of Mr Justice Smyth. Earlier today, the High Court ordered the West Dublin TD to appear before the Tribunal in public within the next two weeks. In a ruling that upheld orders and summons issued by the Tribunal, the Court also gave Mr Lawlor between one and four weeks to produce all the documents the Tribunal had requested.
The Tribunal took the matter to the Court earlier this month after Mr Lawlor failed to obey the summons. The positions of the parties to last week's hearing could not be any more different. The Tribunal wanted Liam Lawlor to give evidence in public about a range of allegations involving planning corruption and other matters. They said that there are no allegations against Liam Lawlor, just suggestions. They also want the TD to produce detailed documents about his finances.
This morning, in a detailed ruling, Mr Justice Thomas Smyth fully supported the Tribunal's stance. He rejected arguments made by Liam Lawlor's legal team which argued that there were allegations against their client and so any investigation should be conducted in private. They said that many of the documents the Tribunal has requested have nothing to do with planning matters and should not form part of that investigation. Mr Lawlor now has between one and four weeks to hand over documents dealing with his financial and business affairs over the past 36 years. The most recent of those documents must be handed over within a week. The court also ordered that Mr Lawlor pay the costs of this case.
This evening Deputy Lawlor confirmed that he received two political contributions from the National Toll Roads Company totalling £74,000. Mr Lawlor said that the company supported him in the early 1990s and that his father and the late Tom Roche were had been friends for 30 years. He said that he never did anything for them in return and they were political donations.
However, Mr Lawlor denied receiving money from Frank Dunlop, on behalf of anyone. He said that when Mr Dunlop was starting out in the 1980s, he had given Mr Dunlop financial support and assisted him in setting up his PR practice. Asked if he would deal with the issue of Jackson Way and Cherrywood, he said he would deal with that matter and the Sunday Tribune in the High Court.
