The accountant in charge of auditing Anglo Irish Bank between 2002 and 2004 has admitted giving misleading evidence to the previous trial of the bank's chairman Sean FitzPatrick.

But Kieran Kelly of auditing firm EY agreed it was a lack of recollection that had led him into making mistakes.

Mr FitzPatrick has pleaded not guilty to misleading Anglo's auditors and furnishing false information about loans to him and to people connected with him between 2002 and 2007.

Mr Kelly is being cross examined by Mr FitzPatrick's Senior Counsel Bernard Condon who put it to him that at Mr FitzPatrick's previous trial, he did not seem to remember the entirety of the process by which his statement was taken.

Mr FitzPatrick's lawyers allege solicitors were overly involved in the taking of statements from Mr Kelly and his fellow auditor, Vincent Bergin.

They claim the witnesses were coached and were able to read each other's statements.

Mr Kelly told the first trial, which had to be adjourned, that he had not seen Mr Bergin's statement in advance of making his own but agreed today that he had in fact seen it.

He also told the first trial that his statement was filled entirely with his own words.

The court heard that Mr Kelly had been sent a file by EY's solicitors after the first trial. 

He said he had had an opportunity to reflect on his answers and review the file.  And he had made a short additional statement in January last year.

Mr Kelly agreed that he had given misleading evidence in the first trial and when the opportunity arose, he had corrected it.

Mr Condon said he was not for a moment suggesting that Mr Kelly had committed perjury or wilfully misled the court.

Mr Kelly agreed that it seemed to be a lack of recollection that had led him into making mistakes.

He also said he would have been happy to give a statement to the gardaí and the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement without EY's solicitors being present, if he had been asked.

He said he was "surprised" that the ODCE's main investigator Kevin O'Connell had told the jury that he did not believe this to be true.

Mr Kelly said he could not characterise his memory of events between 2002 and 2004 as being anywhere near perfect.

He was asked about handwritten notes of a meeting with EY's solicitors in November 2011.

He said he rejected Mr Condon's interpretation of comments he made during that meeting as accepting that there was something lacking in the way the audit of Anglo had been carried out between 2002 and 2004.  

Mr Kelly said he had a concern someone might make those allegations but he said he did not believe he was accepting there something deficient in the audit.

Mr Kelly said he did not recall being in a meeting where his statement was on a screen and people were making observations and comments.  Although he said it may well have happened.

He was asked about notes of a meeting where EY's solicitor, advised Mr Kelly that if he was shown documents by the ODCE, he should "be seen to look at a few, then say you have to think on it and reflect on it."

Mr Kelly denied he was being asked to engage in a piece of performance theatre. 

He said he did not take it to be an empty act or theatrical action. 

Mr FitzPatrick's lawyers put it to him that when he was previously asked about this, he did not seem to recall it at all.

Mr Condon asked him if there was a question mark about the accuracy of his recall. Mr Kelly said he always tried to give his answers as best as he could recall them.

He denied that he was "filling in the blanks".

Mr Kelly agreed that EY was being sued by the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation for €50 million and that if EY lost, it would affect the firm and its reputation.