Mahon Tribunal Transcripts June 2006

1
09:54:25 1 THE TRIBUNAL RESUMED AS FOLLOWS ON FRIDAY,
2 2ND JUNE, 2006, AT 10:30 A.M.:
10:36:13 5
6 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Ms. Dillon.
8 MS. DILLON: Good morning, Sir.
10:36:17 10 Mr. Sean Haughey, please.
11
12
13
14 MR. SEAN HAUGHEY, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS EXAMINED
10:36:22 15 AS FOLLOWS BY MS DILLON.:
16
17
18 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Mr. Haughey.
19
10:36:46 20 Q. 1 MS. DILLON: Good morning Mr. Haughey, you are presently a member of the
21 current Dail; isn't that correct?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. 2 And you were previously a member of Dublin County Council and indeed were Lord
24 Mayor at one stage; isn't that the position?
10:36:55 25 A. Well, I would say Dublin City Council and I was Lord Mayor of Dublin yes.
26 Q. 3 You were never a member of Dublin County Council and therefore had no
27 involvement in the planning decisions made in connection with the Cherrywood
28 lands; isn't that the position?
29 A. That's the position.
10:37:07 30 Q. 4 Now, I think the Tribunal wrote to you on 7th of March 2006. At page 1068,
Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

www.pcr.ie Day 647
2
10:37:13 1 please. And the Tribunal asked you a number of questions and sought a
2 narrative statement from you. And at 1068, please. You will see that the
3 matters that you were asked to address included at paragraph 1, any contacts or
4 meetings you had had with any servants or agents of Monarch Properties Limited
10:37:35 5 Monarch Properties Services Limited, or any company in the Monarch group. 2,
6 any contacts or meetings you had with the late Mr. Phil Monahan, Mr. Richard
7 Lynn, Mr. Eddie Sweeny, Mr. Dominic Linane, Mr. Philip Reilly Mr. Frank Dunlop,
8 or any individual or company associated with Monaghan or the Monarch Group,
9 whether a servant, agent, or otherwise. 3, any payment or benefit you may
10:37:54 10 have received from, or on behalf of, listed at 1 or 2. And also any payment
11 or benefit you may have received from Frank Dunlop & Associates or Shefran
12 Limited, when such payments or benefits were made and the reasons therefore.
13 And then you were asked some further questions.
14
10:38:07 15 And I think you provided a reply to the Tribunal. At page 1070.
16
17 Through your solicitors Frank Ward & Co. You advised the Tribunal that you
18 had never had any involvement with lands at Cherrywood, County Dublin and
19 therefore I'm not in a position to assist you or provide a statement in the
10:38:25 20 manner as sought. Isn't that right?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. 5 Now, if we go back to the questions you were asked, Mr. Haughey. At 1068.
23 And can I ask you, was there any part of that request from the Tribunal that
24 you didn't understand?
10:38:37 25 A. No, I understood the letter.
26 Q. 6 Yes. And you note that you were asked to provide details of any payments or
27 benefits you had received from the Monarch Group, or anybody associated with
28 the Monarch Group; isn't that right?
29 A. That's right. I did consult with my solicitors and the letter that I sent,
10:38:55 30 dated March 10th, arose out of that. I understood that any payments made to

www.pcr.ie Day 647
3
10:39:00 1 me were sought in the context of rezoning at Cherrywood. Maybe that was a
2 misunderstanding.
3 Q. 7 Certainly the letter on its face, Mr. Haughey, is quite clear. You are asked
4 to provide to the Tribunal information in relation to your contacts with
10:39:11 5 certain named people, certain companies and any payments or political donations
6 you might have received from them. Isn't that what's stated in the letter?
7 A. That's what's stated in the letter. To be honest with you, I relied very much
8 on the first paragraph of the letter, where it states, arising out of same the
9 Tribunal now requests you to provide a detailed narrative statement regarding
10:39:30 10 any involvement that you had with the lands at Cherrywood, County Dublin.
11 Once I answered no to that I didn't think that the rest of the letter was
12 relevant to me.
13 Q. 8 You didn't consider then the balance of the request, which stated your
14 statement should include but not be limited to, any contacts you had had with
10:39:45 15 certain people and then in a separate category, any payments or benefits you
16 might have received from companies and parties identified. Is that the
17 position?
18 A. That's the position, yes.
19 Q. 9 So that in fact, if the Tribunal had relied upon the letter that you had sent
10:39:58 20 it, at 1070, the Tribunal would have understood from that, that you had no
21 contact with anybody associated with the Monarch Group and that you hadn't
22 received any payments from it them. Isn't that the position?
23 A. Well I regret that very much. But as I said, having consulted with my
24 solicitors and taken legal advice on it, on the basis that I never heard of
10:40:21 25 Cherrywood, I didn't believe the letter in relation to payments by the -- by
26 the Monarch Properties, was relevant to me. And I regret that and I apologise
27 for that to the Tribunal.
28 Q. 10 Because the position isn't I think, Mr. Haughey, and you now accept and I
29 believe this morning you have provided supporting documentation, that you did
10:40:45 30 receive payments from the Monarch Group; isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 647
4
10:40:47 1 A. Yes, I have very careful records of all payments received. So there was
2 never --
3 Q. 11 I'm going to come to talk to you it about your careful records in a moment.
4 The Tribunal received a letter on 29th of May 2006 from your solicitor, at
10:41:10 5 8496.
7 And you will note here, in the second paragraph, where the Tribunal is recorded
8 as outlining through its solicitor to Mr. Liam Guiera, yesterday, three
9 donations which Monarch Properties made to you, namely, June 1989 1,000 pounds.
10:41:21 10 May 1991, 300 pounds. And November 1992, 750 pounds. My client has checked
11 his own records and can confirm the same.
12
13 So the sequence of events then Mr. Haughey is as follows. You were asked for
14 information from the Tribunal. You provided no information; isn't that the
10:41:38 15 position
16 A. No, that's not the position. I provided information to the effect that I
17 never had any dealings with Cherrywood.
18 Q. 12 Yes. But you --
19 A. I misunderstood the second part of your letter.
10:41:48 20 Q. 13 Yes. But you did not disclose any payments you received from Monarch
21 Properties or anybody associated with it isn't that the position?
22 A. That's the position. But I understood that that was an order. Obviously, it
23 was not.
24
10:42:00 25 CHAIRMAN: Sorry, could you put back up the letter that went to Mr. Haughey.
26
27 MS. DILLON: Certainly, Sir. It's at page 1068.
28
29
10:42:30 30

www.pcr.ie Day 647
5
10:42:30 1 CHAIRMAN: I just want to read, I think possibly the second paragraph is
2 capable of an interpretation. I know this has arisen before. I know the
3 intention was to get information in relation to payments. And I think most
4 people who have received a letter in these terms have responded in that way.
10:42:52 5
6 But it is possible, I suppose, to interpret the letter as meaning only payments
7 relating to Cherrywood.
9 I mean, it's just -- I know that wasn't the intention but it's certainly
10:43:10 10 capable of that interpretation.
11
12 MS. DILLON: May it please you, Sir.
13
14 In any event, at 8496, Mr. Haughey. Your solicitor is informed of the
10:43:20 15 payments that are contained in the documentation, which with which you've been
16 supplied; isn't that right
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 14 And your solicitor then confirms on your behalf of the receipt of those
19 payments by you?
10:43:30 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 15 And you indicate in that documentation that you have records isn't that right?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. 16 Now, you have this morning provided records and these are not yet on the
24 system, but they will be in the system. But the 1989 document is headed, list
10:43:43 25 of subscribers to Sean's election campaign, 1989; isn't that the position?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 17 And identified on that as one of the donaes, is Mr. Philip Monaghan of Monarch
28 Properties Services Limited.
29 A. Yes.
10:43:55 30 Q. 18 Now, I'll hand to the Tribunal a copy of this documentation, because it's not

www.pcr.ie Day 647
6
10:43:59 1 yet in the system. (document circulated).
3 So you would have had this documentation freely available to you, Mr. Haughey,
4 when you got the original request from the Tribunal; isn't that right?
10:44:12 5 A. Well if it was in my office certainly yes, it would have taken a bit of rooting
6 out. I always have them on hand in this Tribunal era.
7 Q. 19 And in -- certainly for the second payment then in the Local Elections of 1991,
8 you attribute a sum of 300 pounds to Mr. Philip Reilly?
9 A. Yes.
10:44:29 10 Q. 20 He was one of the people, I think that was listed on the original letter that
11 you received. Yes. From the Tribunal.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 21 Isn't that right? And I think then also in relation to the third payment which
14 is the election fund in 1992. Again, it's Mr. Philip Monaghan, a sum of 750
10:44:49 15 pounds.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 22 So you had available to you, when you received the information, the request for
18 information from the Tribunal, documentation that would have confirmed to you
19 that you had been in receipt of payments from named individuals within the
10:45:03 20 Monarch Group; isn't that right?
21 A. I had it available to me, but I didn't consult it on the basis that I never had
22 any involvement in Cherrywood. It was only when it subsequently became clear
23 that you -- arising out of subsequent correspondence that you needed further
24 clarification, then I consulted my records.
10:45:20 25 Q. 23 Yes. And certainly the documentation that you've been supplied with by the
26 Tribunal. And indeed, from your own records, record that you did receive
27 1,000 pounds in June of 1989; isn't that right?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 24 And that that was sent to your brother I think, Mr. Ciaran Haughey. 286 5,
10:45:41 30 Mr. From Mr. Philip Monaghan?

www.pcr.ie Day 647
7
10:45:42 1 A. No, I'm not sure where you got that from.
2 Q. 25 2865?
3 A. I never saw that document.
4 Q. 26 You have been circulated in the brief of documents which you have been
10:45:52 5 circulated?
6 A. Unfortunately it's not going to me. It's going to a relative in error. Sean
7 Haughey, of a similar name, I only discovered that this week.
8 Q. 27 That's to be regretted. This letter would have been included in that
9 documentation. If you want to take a moment to consider it. That was
10:46:14 10 supplied to the Tribunal by Monarch Properties Services Limited and again
11 confirms from the Monarch Properties side, that a sum of 1,000 pounds was paid
12 to you in June of 1989, which mirrors your own records isn't that right?
13 A. Yes, yes, I hadn't realised my brother was involved in the collection of that
14 subscription. But now I accept that, yes.
10:46:27 15 Q. 28 That would appear to be the position, if this is an accurate record isn't that
16 right?
17 A. Yes, yes.
18 Q. 29 I think in relation to the payment in May of 1991. At 3251. Again, you
19 don't dispute this. It's mirrored in your own records at 3251. The fifth
10:46:45 20 name down on that list, which is an extract from the cheque payments book from
21 Monarch Properties. Sean Haughey 300 pounds. And I think again in 1992 at
22 3944. On 19th of November at page -- sorry. 3923. Just slightly
23 beneath -- sorry. 3923. Just slightly beneath half way under the name Jack
24 Whelan. And then beneath that the Barkly Court Senator, Sean Haughey.
10:47:19 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 30 And I think in fact a copy of that cheque is available at 3946. And that's a
27 cheque drawn on the account of Monarch Properties Services Limited?
28 A. Yes, so all of the records coincide.
29 Q. 31 Yes. And there is a note. An internal note that you will probably not have
10:47:40 30 seen, Mr. Haughey, at 3943. And this appears to be the request for 750

www.pcr.ie Day 647
8
10:47:48 1 pounds. And it's I think it's sanctioned, Sean Haughey, 750 pounds. Mr.
2 Lynn signs that and it appears he is authorising the payment of 750 pounds.
3 Did you know Mr. Richard Lynn?
4 A. No, but I am at a disadvantage here. In that the documentation never came to
10:48:06 5 me. All of this documentation never came to me. It went to the solicitors
6 acting for another Sean Haughey. So I'm really, sort of, doing this on spec
7 here. No, I never heard of a Mr. Lynn.
8 Q. 32 You didn't deal with Mr. Lynn?
9 A. No.
10:48:21 10
11 CHAIRMAN: Sorry, Ms. Dillon. Mr. Haughey, if you want time to. I know you
12 are under pressure and the other TDs are under pressure here today. But if
13 you want time to consider the documentation, that it was intended that you get,
14 that you should get and didn't apparently get.
10:48:39 15
16 You can certainly either stand down briefly and look at it and we'll deal with
17 another short witness. Or alternatively, you can look at it over the weekend
18 and come back some day next week if that suits you.
19 No, I think it's straight forward enough, I'd like to continue.
10:48:58 20
21 CHAIRMAN: If you do have a problem we can facilitate you
22 Thank you.
23
24 MS. DILLON: Would you have met Mr. Philip Reilly?
10:49:07 25 A. Not to my knowledge, no.
26 Q. 33 Would you have known or met Mr. Phil Monahan, that's the late Mr. Monahan?
27 A. I have no recollection of ever meeting him.
28 Q. 34 Do you know in what circumstances Mr. Philip Monaghan became a political
29 supporter of your's, Mr. Haughey?
10:49:22 30 A. I certainly never sought a donation from him personally. It's possible that a

www.pcr.ie Day 647
9
10:49:30 1 family member may have. So the donations were either unsolicited, or else a
2 brother or a sister wrote to him seeking a contribution, in the context of
3 three specific election campaigns.
4 Q. 35 So you yourself have never had any contact with anybody from Monarch
10:49:50 5 Properties. Is that the position?
7 Q. 36 And you were therefore never asked by anybody in Monarch Properties to support,
8 or seek support in respect of the Cherrywood lands. That would also follow
9 wouldn't it?
10:50:00 10 A. Absolutely.
11 Q. 37 And just to drew to your attention. Again, you won't have seen this. But
12 Mr. Eddie Sweeney in his statement to the Tribunal, at 2191. And 2192.
13 Identifies a list of political representatives with whom he had contact. On
14 the second page at 2192, he identifies you, councillor Sean Haughey Dublin
10:50:26 15 Corporation Mayor. You will see that. It's the longest entry across the
16 page on that page. Do you see that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 38 As having met you. Is it your position that you haven't met Mr. Edward
19 Sweeney?
10:50:39 20 A. I can't say that I know Mr. Edward Sweeney. I have no recollection of ever
21 meeting him. It maybe in the context of me being Lord Mayor of Dublin?
22 Perhaps I bumped into him at a reception or something. I have no recollection
23 of ever meeting with him to discuss any business or anything like that.
24 Q. 39 And it's your position, is it, Mr. Haughey, that you regret the
10:51:02 25 misinterpretation of the letter that the Tribunal sent to you seeking
26 information. You have now provided all information that you have in
27 connection to you by Monarch Properties?
28 A. Absolutely.
29 Q. 40 Thank you very much, Mr. Haughey. If you answer any questions that anybody
10:51:14 30 else may have.

www.pcr.ie Day 647
10
10:51:15 1
2 CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
3 A. Thank you.
10:51:20 5 THE WITNESS THEN WITHDREW.
8 MS. DILLON: From Frank Fahy, please.
10:51:25 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 647
11
10:51:25 1 MR. FRANK FAHY, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS EXAMINED
2 AS FOLLOWS BY MS. DILLON.:
10:51:52 5 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Mr. Fahy.
7 Q. 41 MS. DILLON: Mr. Fahy, you were never a member of any local authority for
8 Dublin; isn't that the position
9 A. Yes.
10:51:59 10 Q. 42 And I think you, similarly to Mr. Sean Haughey, received a letter from the
11 Tribunal in connection with the lands at Cherrywood and you were asked the same
12 questions, at page 611 as the last witness, Mr. Haughey?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 43 And you I think similarly to Mr. Haughey at page 615, provided information to
10:52:18 15 the Tribunal, that you, from your best recollection, that you could not say
16 that you had any involvement with the contacts or companies named in the
17 letter?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 44 Is that factually correct Mr. Fahy?
10:52:27 20 A. That is correct. That was the response I gave at the time and it's only when
21 I had a communication from the Tribunal last week, that I became aware that I
22 may have received a cheque for 250 pounds.
23 Q. 45 At 8340, Mr. Haughey. It might assist you in deciding whether in fact you did
24 or did not receive the cheque. This is a copy of a cheque, made out to Frank
10:52:56 25 Fahy TD. I think at 8341.
26
27 From Monarch Properties Services Limited. The reverse of the cheque shows
28 that it was lodged to Bank of Ireland. Does that assist you?
29 A. Yes. Well, as I say, when I responded to the letter I received I had no
10:53:18 30 recollection of any communication with any of the people involved, or I didn't

www.pcr.ie Day 647
12
10:53:24 1 even know where Cherrywood was. I had no recollection of receiving a cheque
2 from Monarch Properties. And it was only last week when I talked with the
3 solicitor for the Tribunal and he mentioned that I had received a cheque for
4 250 pounds, that I can vaguely remember following a meeting socially with
10:53:49 5 Philip Monahan, that I did receive a cheque. But I just vaguely remember
6 that.
7 Q. 46 And you don't dispute, therefore, now that you've seen the documentation. At
8 8340, please. That you did in fact receive this cheque?
9 A. No, I don't dispute that.
10:54:06 10 Q. 47 And you say that that was following a social meeting with Mr. Philip Monaghan,
11 the late Mr. Philip Monaghan, is that the position?
12 A. That's my recollection, it's a hazy recollection.
13 Q. 48 Did you ever have any contact or communication with Mr. Richard Lynn, or Eddie
14 Sweeney?
10:54:20 15 A. No.
16 Q. 49 Mr. Dominic Linane?
17 A. No.
18 Q. 50 Mr. Frank Dunlop?
19 A. No.
10:54:25 20 Q. 51 Have you never met Frank Dunlop?
21 A. Oh I've met Frank Dunlop, but never in the context of this planning or zoning
22 in Dublin.
23 Q. 52 Would you have met Mr. Frank Dunlop in 1993?
24 A. I may have done, but I never had is any involvement with him, in regard to
10:54:38 25 Cherrywood or anything else.
26 Q. 53 There are a number of entries in Mr. Dunlop's diaries that appear to relate for
27 completeness, Mr. Fahey, I will show them to you and ask you to comment on
28 them.
29
10:54:49 30 At 4045. This is the 11th of March 1993. And if we could increase the entry

www.pcr.ie Day 647
13
10:54:57 1 at three o'clock on the 11th of March 1993, please. That appears to be an
2 entry for F Fahy, at the show house. Do you think that that's likely to be
3 you?
4 A. No, that's not me.
10:55:12 5 Q. 54 All right. At 4117 on the 31st of March 1993. There is an entry for senator
6 Frank Fahy. Were you a senator in 1993, Mr. Fahy?
7 A. I was, yes.
8 Q. 55 And do you see the telephone number that's there? Is that your telephone
9 number at 11.25?
10:55:29 10 A. I wouldn't be able to recall, but it must be if I was senator Frank Fahey at
11 the time, yes.
12 Q. 56 Can you recollect what business you would have had with Mr. Frank Dunlop in
13 March of 1993?
14 A. No, I can't recall any communication with him.
10:55:44 15 Q. 57 And again in March of 1996. At 5773, on the 24th of March 1996. There is an
16 entry at 9:30 LL with Frank Fahy and F D. And it's understood that that
17 reference to LL is a reference to the Late Mr. Liam Lawlor. Can you recollect
18 any business that you would have had with Mr. Dunlop and Mr. Lawlor, in March
19 of 1996?
10:56:13 20 A. Absolutely not. And that doesn't refer to me. That's not my -- that's not
21 me.
22 Q. 58 It's not you?
23 A. No.
24 Q. 59 Are you aware of another Frank Fahy, whom it could be?
10:56:28 25 A. No, I'm not.
26 Q. 60 Did you ever have occasion to meet Mr. Willie Murray or any of the planners in
27 Dun Laoghaire County Council?
28 A. Never.
29 Q. 61 Never. Thank you very much, Mr. Fahy. Would you answer any questions that
10:56:41 30 anybody else might have.

www.pcr.ie Day 647
14
10:56:44 1
2 CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Fahy.
10:56:48 5
6 THE WITNESS THEN WITHDREW.
10:56:50 10
11 MS. DILLON: Mr. David Andrews, please.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 647
15
10:57:05 1 MR. DAVID ANDREWS, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS EXAMINED
2 AS FOLLOWS BY MR. DOYLE:.
4 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Mr. Andrews.
10:57:21 5 MR. McCABE: Chairman, if I may apply for limited representation for
6 Mr. Andrews. I am with Mr. Quigley, instructed by Kent Carty & Co.
7 Solicitors.
9 CHAIRMAN: All right. Granted.
10:57:35 10
11 RORY McCABE: Good morning Mr. Andrews, I believe you're a former Government
12 Minister and member of the Dail, isn't that correct?
13 That is correct.
14 Member of the Dail for Dun Laoghaire as well; isn't that correct?
10:57:41 15 A. Yes, I was there for some 38 years.
16 Q. 62 Mr. Andrews, I think on the 1st of February 2006 a letter was written to you
17 requesting any information that you might have regarding the Cherrywood lands
18 And I think on 12th of January 2006 you have written to us and -- advising us
19 that you weren't aware of any details regarding Cherrywood?
10:58:02 20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. 63 I think that on May 30th 2006 at 8489, please.
22
23 I think you wrote a statement, a letter to us by way of statement, in relation
24 to your recollection of certain events regarding the Cherrywood lands?
10:58:17 25 A. Yes. I do beg your pardon. What happened there was that having studied the
26 files and -- received in the boxes and the various bundles of papers, my legal
27 team and myself, discovered a number of references to myself, arising from the
28 receipt of two cheques. One was when I was Minister for Foreign Affairs in
29 1992. I visited Somalia, on my own for the first occasion and the President
10:58:47 30 of Ireland accompanied me. Or I should say that I accompanied her to Somalia

www.pcr.ie Day 647
16
10:58:51 1 on the second occasion, in the same year. And there was a feeling in the
2 country that contribution should be made to Somalia and clearly I received a
3 number of these contributions which I passed on to non-governmental
4 organisations. But again, I have no recollections of receiving a particular
10:59:10 5 cheque, in the sum of 2,000. But you can be certain it went to an N G O.
6 Q. 64 All right. I'll be very brief. I'll Just to take you through those
7 payments, vis-a-vis your statement to the Tribunal?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 65 30th of May last?
10:59:23 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 66 I think in your statement as I says at 8489 you say that you received two
12 cheques one in '93 I think you say, was for 276 pounds and as you've stated
13 that was as a result of the Somalia...
14 A. Yes.
10:59:42 15 Q. 67 And I think...
16 A. Looking for support for Somalia at that time.
17 Q. 68 Page 1048. That appears in Monarch Properties Services Limited in one of
18 their ledgers?
19 A. Yes.
10:59:55 20 Q. 69 You can see there that its David Andrews Somalia appeal?
21 A. Yes, I didn't look for that cheque of course it was sent to me as a donation
22 purely as a Minister and probably my private secretary handled the situation.
23 Q. 70 Did you acknowledge the payment?
24 A. I can't recall.
11:00:09 25 Q. 71 All right.
26 A. But you can be certain that the cheque went to an N G O, I would have thought
27 probably GOAL. I have great respect for to John O'Shea and still have.
28 Q. 72 I think that at 4354. Cherrywood development report, at appendix H, Monarch
29 Properties services Limited, have attributed this payment and it's stated there
11:00:35 30 D C Andrews Somalia appeal 23rd 1993?

www.pcr.ie Day 647
17
11:00:41 1 A. Yeah.
2 Q. 73 They attributed that cost to sponsorship regarding Dun Laoghaire mixed use
3 development costs. Have you any idea why they might have attributed... ?
4 A. I have no idea.
11:00:51 5 Q. 74 There was, there seems to be a payment of either ten pounds or 100 pounds.
6 And if we could have page 3835. There was a cheese and wine night. Again,
7 for Somalia, on 30th of September 1992. There's a payment. You can see
8 there in that document there's a number of documents there. In particular
9 there was a fundraiser, as you've said again, you were obviously raising funds
11:01:19 10 at the time for Somalia. At 3836 there's a signed memo, Richard M Lynn. And
11 it states the following you can see that, I shall be obliged to receive a
12 cheque for 100 made payable to David Andrews TD Dail Eireann, payment for
13 tickets received for cheese and wine night. Have you any recollection of
14 that?
11:01:40 15 A. Well I don't no.
16 Q. 75 Very good. And then I think just going back to your statement again. I
17 think you say it's in or around 1996 you received 1,000 pounds; isn't that
18 correct?
19 A. Yes.
11:01:58 20 Q. 76 And I think in your statement, you attribute it to monies towards funding for a
21 researcher for the...
22 A. That's correct, yes.
23 Q. 77 Isn't that correct? And I think at page 6109 we have record of that payment
24 there. You can see just second from the bottom there October 25th Andrews TD
11:02:20 25 1, 000, in relation to that. And there is a cheque at 6112. And that is
26 made out to yourself, in the sum of 1,000 pounds.
27 A. That's correct.
28 Q. 78 And again, were you ever approached in relation to the Cherrywood lands by Mr.
29 Lynn, Mr. Monaghan, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Glennane or any of the parties associated?
11:02:41 30 A. No, I was never on a local authority. Absolutely nothing to do with the

www.pcr.ie Day 647
18
11:02:46 1 Cherrywood lands, nothing what ever.
2 Q. 79 And I think in fairness to you, you weren't County Councillor at any stage?
3 A. I was never a County Councillors, no.
4 Q. 80 Thank you very much, Mr. Andrews, you might answer any questions.
11:02:56 5
6 CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Andrews
7 A. Thank you:
11:02:59 10
11
12
13
14 MS. DILLON: Mr. Sean Ardagh ah, please.
11:03:21 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 647
19
11:03:43 1 MR. SEAN ARDAGH, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS EXAMINED
2 AS FOLLOWS BY BY MS. FOLEY.:
4 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Mr. Ardagh.
11:03:50 5
6 MS. FOLEY: Good morning, Mr. Ardagh.
8 Q. 81 Mr. Ardagh, I think you were first elected to Dublin County Council in 1985; is
9 that correct?
11 Q. 82 And again in 1991?
13 Q. 83 And then from January 1994 you were with South Dublin County Council; is that
14 correct?
16 Q. 84 And at that point you would have had no further involvement with Dun
17 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council; is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 85 And you were a member of are you a member of the Fianna Fail party?
11:04:25 20 A. I am.
21 Q. 86 Mr. Ardagh, I think the Tribunal wrote to you. Could I have page 40, please,
22 on the 1st of February, 2006.
23
24 And at the second paragraph there asking you to provide a detailed narrative
11:04:39 25 statement regarding any involvement that you had with the lands at Cherrywood
26 County Dublin from January '90 to 31st of December '94. Your statement
27 should be limited to but include but not limited to any context, or meetings
28 you had with agents of Monarch.
29
11:04:54 30 And then at the third paragraph, any payment or benefit you may have received

www.pcr.ie Day 647
20
11:04:57 1 from, or on behalf of, agents of Monarch listed above.
3 I think at page 42 your letter of reply indicates I am not aware of having any
4 involvement in the lands at Cherrywood, County Dublin from the 1st of January
11:05:11 5 1990 to 31st of December '94 or at any other time.
7 Is that still your position, Mr. Ardagh?
8 A. That is still my answer to the letter that was sent on the 1st of February.
9 Q. 87 Is it -- would it be correct to say that you had no involvement with these
11:05:27 10 lands?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 88 Were you not a member of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council at the time of
13 the voting on these lands took place?
14 A. No.
11:05:35 15 Q. 89 Or Dublin County Council, sorry Mr. Ardagh.?
16 A. I understand from the records that were presented that I was.
17 Q. 90 So in fact you would have been voting on motions that effect the these lands?
18 A. The evidence appears to be to so.
19 Q. 91 Is that -- do you not recollect?
11:05:59 20 A. No.
21 Q. 92 On the 7th of March 2006 the Tribunal wrote to you a further letter asking for
22 a statement and details of any payments from the 1st of January 1989 to date.
23 And the Tribunal received your reply, dated 8th of March 2006. Could I have
24 page 44, please.
11:06:30 25
26 You will see in this letter, Mr. Ardagh, you listed a number of donations
27 received from the parties post, December 1994?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 93 The first payment being in April 1996 in the amount of 250 pounds.
11:06:56 30

www.pcr.ie Day 647
21
11:06:56 1 Could I please have page 1581.
3 This is a list of donations from Monarch's records. And you will see about
4 maybe 15 or so from the end, 13th of June 1991 S Ardagh, F F local elections
11:07:16 5 expenses, 300 pounds?
6 A. Right.
7 Q. 94 And it appears from their records that their cheque journal that, at 3197, on
8 13th of June was written to you, Sean Ardagh FF. cheque No 3691, which then
9 cleared on 19th of June 1991. Do you believe you may have received this
11:07:38 10 cheque?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 95 But you have no recollection of it?
13 A. No.
14 Q. 96 Is that the reason it wasn't included then in the letter?
16 Q. 97 Monarch have told the Tribunal that all of the contributions are believed to
17 have arisen on foot of requests for assistance. Would you believe that you
18 would have requested assistance from an agent of Monarch for this donation?
19 A. Which donation?
11:08:04 20 Q. 98 The 300 pounds in 1991.
21 A. No, I would not because -- no.
22 Q. 99 At that point Mr. Ardagh, did you have contact with any of the agents of
23 Monarch, Mr. Lynn, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Gillane, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Murray,
24 Mr. Monaghan?
11:08:18 25 A. I'd have to be informed when The Square in Tallaght was actually built and when
26 it was opened. Because around that time there was, at numerous social
27 functions and they were turning the sod and there was the foundation stone and
28 the roof was put on and every possible occasion I think that there was some
29 form of is ceremony to mark it. And I would have been invited to those so
11:08:46 30 that's ...

www.pcr.ie Day 647
22
11:08:47 1 Q. 100 I think those events did take place before the June '91 elections, Mr. Ardagh?
2 A. Then I would be I would acknowledge I would have met some of the people
3 involved.
4 Q. 101 Mr. Sean Gilbride has given evidence to the Tribunal that around the time
11:09:02 5 shortly after the Local Elections when the new council was formed. That it
6 came up at a meeting, at a council meeting, that a number of councillors had
7 received donations from Monarch. Do you recollect any such conversation or
8 meeting, discussing donations from Monarch?
9 A. No.
11:09:25 10 Q. 102 I think the next payment, as per your own statement, is of April 1996, is 250
11 pounds.
12
13 Could I have page 5803, please.
14
11:09:35 15
16 A. Sorry, I'm lost. I don't know your name.
17 Q. 103 Annette Foley.
18 A. Thank you very much, Ms. Foley.
19 Q. 104 Sorry. The 12th of April 1996. Monarch's records also indicate 250 pounds
11:09:48 20 payment for a lunch fundraiser in respect of yourself, Mr. Ardagh. Do you
21 have also disclosed that to the Tribunal. At 5800, please.
22
23 This is a letter -- I see that it's signed Sean, but I believe that may not be
24 yourself, I believe that may be a member of the committee
11:10:11 25 A. That looks like my signature.
26 Q. 105 The letter is addressed to Mr. Richard Lynn. And reads.
27
28 A letter seeking assistance for your general election campaign, which is coming
29 up the following year
11:10:22 30 A. Yes. This was a mail merge letter, that was sent to a number of people so...

www.pcr.ie Day 647
23
11:10:30 1 Q. 106 And how would Mr. Lynne have gotten on the list for the mail merge Mr. Ardagh?
2 A. What date was that?
3 Q. 107 April 1996.?
4 A. There were a number of people on -- friends of Sean Ardagh, who actually
11:10:49 5 organised the fundraiser. And there would have been a trawl through people's
6 minds and records of all of the potential contributors to a fundraising lunch
7 and who might attend. Mr. Lynn was included on that, along with many of my
8 relatives, friends, business acquaintances, professional colleagues, of all
9 descriptions. Any person that I may have met, anybody who I felt that would
11:11:20 10 be likely to contribute to the democratic process. It was just a general
11 trawl of er...
12 Q. 108 But the list would have been confirmed or approved by yourself?
13 A. Well.
14 Q. 109 So it's your friends and people that you know and the final list would be
11:11:38 15 approved by yourself?
16 A. The list would have been approved by me, yes. Insofar as I wouldn't have sent
17 a request to somebody that I didn't want to get a request.
18 Q. 110 Yes.
19 A. That would be very few and far between, now.
11:11:52 20 Q. 111 If I could just look at the top of that page there, there's a handwritten note?
21 A. Uh-huh. You'll have to read it to me. Oh, yeah two tickets.
22 Yes, sorry it says I think, recommend that we take two tickets S Ardagh is (and
23 was) first to vote. This seems to be a note by the agent of Monarch, possibly
24 Mr. Lynn.
11:12:17 25 A. Yeah.
26 Q. 112 Can you say what significance that would have?
27 A. Well, first of all, obviously it was a lunch. And I don't know how much the
28 tickets were. You'd have to go back to the letter, probably 125 if it was
29 250. So there were two tickets and the cost of the lunch and that would
11:12:38 30 probably be about 50 or 60. So the net amount of the contribution would be

www.pcr.ie Day 647
24
11:12:44 1 about 130 pounds. Sean Ardagh, is and was, the first to vote. All votes in
2 Dublin County Council, at the time, were done on an alphabetical basis. I was
3 the first person to vote at all times, if I was present. And because my
4 surname started with A, I think I was the only -- I was the first at all times,
11:13:07 5 yeah.
6 Q. 113 And why would that do you think -- that would have been notable by the author
7 of the note?
8 A. No idea.
9 Q. 114 Mr. Dunlop has told the Tribunal that the list, being alphabetical, the person
11:13:20 10 who was called first called a vote that his wording was that the domino effect
11 would begin, that people would, he was suggesting I think that people might
12 have a tendency to follow the first person to vote. Would this comment have
13 ever been made to you before, or would you have been aware of any such
14 tendency?
11:13:42 15 A. Not particularly. But I can see where if there was a tendency for people to,
16 as has been suggested, that if I voted in one way. Well then people would
17 have said in some way that if it was a political vote that they would have
18 followed me. If it was a Fianna Fail political vote. But on a general
19 purposes, I don't see any reason. I mean, it would be a lazy way of voting
11:14:22 20 for others. I don't know how other people voted in relation to it or what
21 their reasons for voting were. I was first to vote always.
22 Q. 115 And do you think that --
23 A. The domino effect, I can't really make any comment on it. I really can't.
24 Q. 116 Do you think people of your own party would have been inclined to follow you?
11:14:40 25 A. Well, in politics generally, if it is a political question then the first
26 person has got to be more aware of what way the party, as such, is voting on
27 it. And I am a Fianna Fail, I was Fianna Fail councillor, I am a Fianna Fail
28 TD. And the people would have -- I'm not saying that they would have
29 confidence to some extent, that if I voted in a particular way that it was the
11:15:19 30 way that people that might be of a like mind would vote. And they might feel

www.pcr.ie Day 647
25
11:15:24 1 safe in voting that way. You know, that's the way it happens. If somebody
2 votes in the County Councils and the Dail and every where else.
3 Q. 117 When you say the political vote. The council meetings, the special meetings
4 would have been on zonings and maps and those kind of things. Would that
11:15:46 5 deal -- would that still follow?
6 A. I don't know whether it would follow with. As you say, I was the first to
7 vote. So I could speak for myself, I could only speak for myself. The only
8 other people that voted had a vote. I can't speak for them.
9 Q. 118 The Tribunal has heard evidence that before council meetings there would be
11:16:09 10 more informal meetings, conducted among the different political parties,
11 perhaps, in the council chamber, perhaps in Conways. And they have heard
12 evidence that from councillor Geraghty that everybody would vote as a block and
13 the decision was already made before?
14 A. Yeah.
11:16:25 15 Q. 119 The members went into the council chamber?
16 A. Yeah.
17 Q. 120 What is your view on that?
18 A. Um.
19 Q. 121 Would that be your recollection?
11:16:33 20 A. I wasn't able to attend a lot of those meetings, because at that time I was
21 very busy in my business and I wasn't a frequent attender at those meetings pre
22 council meetings. So I couldn't confirm that.
23 Q. 122 So in instance where you hadn't attended the meeting beforehand.
24 A. Uh-huh.
11:17:08 25 Q. 123 And it was in an area that you weren't familiar with.
26 A. Yeah.
27 Q. 124 As you say yourself, you were the first to vote.
28 A. That's right.
29 Q. 125 How would you form a view on how to vote?
11:17:17 30 A. Well, it was always a little more difficult for me, than it would be for others

www.pcr.ie Day 647
26
11:17:23 1 because I'd have to form a view, Ms. Foley. It would be basically I would --
2 it would be on a sort of a consensus basis. You would have to get a feeling
3 for how the councillors, in the area generally, thought about it. Listening
4 to what the Manager might have to say in relation to it. Whether the -- I
11:17:49 5 think that, certainly in the early '80s when I started in the council, there
6 was a lot of investment going over to London at the time and that it wasn't
7 fashionable to put money into Ireland. So there was a need always for
8 investment, for job creation, for houses and for that. And that type of --
9 that-- that ethos, sort of, played a role in the way that I voted. And I
11:18:27 10 consistently voted over the period a of time that I was in the council. So,
11 taking all of those things together, I made up my mind which way that I wanted
12 to vote and I voted on it. That would be -- I certainly would have -- I would
13 say that I would have been informed of the discussion in the pre council
14 discussion. I would be aware of the general thrust of how the majority of the
11:19:01 15 councillors and Fianna Fail would be -- would have -- whether they were in
16 favour of, or opposed to, the development.
17 Q. 126 Would you be more inclined to listen to your colleagues within the Fianna Fail
18 party?
19 A. No. It would be a combination of all of those matters that I have mentioned
11:19:29 20 to you. I think that I would have been bound to take everything into account.
21 Q. 127 I think also one of the people that were named in the statement, the request
22 for a statement and the request for details of any benefits received, was Frank
23 Dunlop and Frank Dunlop & Associates.
24 A. Yes.
11:19:39 25 Q. 128 And I think that you informed the Fianna Fail Inquiry that in 1996 you received
26 a donation for a fundraising lunch from Frank Dunlop & Associates. But you
27 omitted that from the letter that you sent to the Tribunal.?
28 A. I didn't. I think that I've already said in the letter to the Tribunal that
29 I've already informed the Tribunal of contributions from Mr. Dunlop.
11:20:08 30 Q. 129 Could I have page 6177, please.

www.pcr.ie Day 647
27
11:20:13 1
2 The next payment you received as per your own statement, was in February 1997.
3 In the amount of 250 pounds. That again was a fundraising lunch. And could
4 I have page 6179, please.
11:20:26 5
6 And it appears not to dissimilar to the previous year in that
7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. 130 Is that the same letter, same style of letter?
9 A. That's right. I don't know how the committee were deleted from the previous
11:20:46 10 letter. But obviously the way it was copied.
11 Q. 131 Uh-huh. And then the next donation is in February 1998, as to the sum of 250
12 pounds which you disclosed to the Tribunal. That was from Dunloe management
13 services. The 1997, the Monarch lands and Monarch, were taken over by Dunloe
14 Ewart. At that point you seem to have been aware to address your requests to
11:21:15 15 Dunloe Ewart. Is this because Mr. Richard Lynn would have been your contact?
16 A. Yes, Richard Lynn was my contact. And it's probable, that as a result of the,
17 this February '97 letter, it may have been that the response came on a Dunloe
18 Ewart slip or something, so I'm not ....
19 Q. 132 And can you recall Mr. Lynn ever speaking to you about the Cherrywood lands
11:21:40 20 during the period before you joined Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council?
21 A. No, I can't.
22 Q. 133 Could I have page 6752, please.
23
24 Item No. 9 there is further payment 25th of February 1999 of 400 pounds. This
11:22:02 25 payment wasn't disclosed in your statement to the Tribunal Mr. Ardagh.
26 A. Sorry, where is that now?
27 Q. 134 It's No. 9.
28 A. No. 9. And ...
29 Q. 135 Do you believe that may be an error on behalf of Mr. Lynn that you received
11:22:20 30 this payment, or do you believe that it may have been an oversight on your

www.pcr.ie Day 647
28
11:22:24 1 part?
2 A. Well, any cheque that came from or that arrived in The Friends of Sean Ardagh
3 would have been lodged to the account that is listed on my -- so I can't
4 confirm or deny. But, you know, there is a trail that is possible there that
11:22:47 5 you can sort out. I can't confirm it or I can't deny it. But I don't think
6 that it's material anyway.
7 Q. 136 And then a further payment in the 10th of March of 2000, of 250 pounds.
8 Again, The Friends of Sean Ardagh committee a fundraising dinner. This is
9 also disclosed in your own letter.?
11:23:08 10 A. It's likely that No. 9 was February. It's the same time of the year that I
11 had these fundraisers.
12 Q. 137 And then in March 2001 another fundraising dinner payment of 500 pounds.
13 Mr. Sweeney who worked with Monarch?
14 A. Uh-huh.
11:23:27 15 Q. 138 Up until 1996. Has told the Tribunal that it would have been a general policy
16 in Monarch to give donations to those politicians or parties that made
17 representations. Would it have been your experience that when you sought
18 assistance, you weren't ever refused?
19 A. From Richard Lynn or Monarch and...
11:23:48 20 Q. 139 Yes.
21 A. Yes, that's right.
22 Q. 140 Moving on to the planning now, Mr. Ardagh. Page 7021, please. This is the
23 first public display, which took place in September to December 1991.
24
11:24:12 25 So this is the first -- your first involvement, with the Cherrywood lands, if I
26 might use that word.
27 A. Okay.
28 Q. 141 And the history is that in 1983 the lands were zoned agriculture and A,
29 residential. AS 1, one house to the acre per septic tank?
11:24:31 30 A. Okay.

www.pcr.ie Day 647
29
11:24:32 1 Q. 142 And the line, I think if you can see a line through the lands there a sort of a
2 blue line, dividing the yellow from the white. Do you see that?
3 A. I don't know which line.
4 Q. 143 The Monarch lands are outlined in red?
11:24:44 5 A. Oh, in red, okay.
6 Q. 144 And then there's the line that divides the yellow from the white. That was
7 the old line of the south eastern Motorway?
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. 145 But at the time of the first public display was a decision to move the line of
11:24:57 10 the South eastern Motorway, but it was not yet fixed as to where it was going
11 to be. In 1990 there had been a motion limiting development to the east of
12 the south eastern Motorway?
13 A. I see.
14 Q. 146 Which meant that the line at the south eastern Motorway had a purpose.
11:25:14 15 A. Oh I see. Okay.
16 Q. 147 There was a council meeting on 13th of May 1992, at which you weren't present.
17 Where the Manager introduced a further map, map No. 92/44. DP92/44. It's at
18 page 7203, please.
19
11:25:37 20 The map was discussed at this meeting of the 13th and then voted upon at a
21 meeting subsequently, at which you were present. The Manager is proposing
22 after the first public display. What he was indicating was an area Action
23 Plan for the residential zoning, which would mean that there wouldn't be a
24 limit on the density at this point. The agricultural land to be turned to
11:25:59 25 residential and a retail element, to be included, but not specifically located.
26 So this was completely different as you can see to the map on the first public
27 display.
28
29 And then in May 1992, this is the first council meeting. Voting on these
11:26:16 30 maps. And you were present at this meeting. The first vote that came up was

www.pcr.ie Day 647
30
11:26:21 1 a vote proposed by Councillors Lydon and McGrath. Recommending that this map
2 be approved. This vote was unsuccessful but you voted for it. There was a
3 number of other votes to reduce density on the lands from the Manager's map.
4 And these you voted consistently against any reduction in density. At the end
11:26:42 5 there was a motion proposed by Councillor Barrett which was successful to
6 reduce the density to one house per acre. You voted against this motion.
8 Would it be correct to say that it was your view that these lands should be
9 developed?
11:26:57 10 A. It would -- I was always in favour of development and it would have followed
11 through to these lands as well, yeah.
12 Q. 148 At this point, it has been indicated by Mr. Dunlop, that this was prior to his
13 own involvement with the lands, that Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly were often around
14 the premises of Dublin County Council. But you say you don't --
11:27:24 15
16 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lynn.
17
18 MS. FOLEY: Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly, sorry, Mr. Ardagh, were often in the
19 environs of Dublin County Council talking to councillors. Do you recall
11:27:35 20 meeting either of them at this time?
21 A. Yes, I remember them being around that -- well I'm not saying at this time.
22 But in the period that I was in Dublin County Council, I do remember Mr. Lynn
23 and now that you mention Mr. Reilly, I have a vague recollection of his face
24 being around at some stage.
11:27:55 25 Q. 149 Mr. Dunlop has also told the Tribunal that senator Don Lydon was considered by
26 Mr. Lynn as the main access to the Fianna Fail support for the Cherrywood
27 proposal. Would you have any recollection of Senator Lydon speaking to you
28 about these lands?
29 A. No, no.
11:28:19 30 Q. 150 The next important meeting at which the lands were discussed was on the 11th of

www.pcr.ie Day 647
31
11:28:24 1 November 1993, again, Mr. Ardagh, you were present. Again, any motions to
2 reduce the density, you were consistently against.
4 There is one particular motion I would like to draw your particular attention
11:28:34 5 to. Page 7226, please. And 7227 side by side.
7 This is a motion proposed by councillors Marren and Coffey and signed by
8 councillors Marren, Lohan, Coffey, Cosgrave and Ormonde. And at this point in
9 the meeting the vote to confirm change three, in other words to reduce the
11:28:54 10 lands to one to the acre, had not succeeded and other votes to reduce the
11 density to one per acre had not succeeded.
12
13 At this point the motion that is proposed is a motion, as you can see there, to
14 delete the 1993 amendment i.e. this would have been the vote proposed by
11:29:13 15 Councillor Barrett which reduced them to one to the acre, in respect of the
16 lands outlined in red. The lands outlined in red are in fact the Cherrywood
17 lands, the Monarch lands. Can you explain to the Tribunal why these
18 particular lands would have been singled out for an increase in density and the
19 remaining lands to remain at one per acre, as is indicated on the motion?
11:29:36 20 A. No.
21 Q. 151 I have no further questions, Mr. Ardagh. If anybody else would like to ask
22 you questions.
23
24 Q. 152 CHAIRMAN: So could I just ask you, Mr. Ardagh. You said that Mr. Lynn, you
11:29:53 25 couldn't recall him ever talking to you about Cherrywood?
26 A. Yes.
27
28 Q. 153 CHAIRMAN: Clearly, you knew him over the years and he occasionally gave you
29 donations, for -- or at least political donations. Do you recall him ever
11:30:19 30 talking to you about any other development, any other Monarch development or

www.pcr.ie Day 647
32
11:30:19 1 lands?
2 A. Can I first of all say, Chairman, that the question of political donations. I
3 think that it is important that the actual donations are recognised as the net
4 amount after the costs of the...
11:30:36 5
6 Q. 154 CHAIRMAN: Oh, yes.
7 A. Of the lunch. Because there has been a tendency for the amounts to be added
8 up without taking into account the costs involved. So it is the net amount
9 that is the actual donation.
11:30:49 10
11 Q. 155 CHAIRMAN: All right.
12 A. Which reduces the 250 or the 300 to 100 and something. Okay. So I just want
13 to make that point.
14
11:30:59 15 Q. 156 CHAIRMAN: Given that Mr. Lynn did occasionally over the years make
16 contributions to you. So clearly you'd have known him, to see and possibly to
17 talk to. Can you recall -- you say he didn't mention. You have no
18 recollection of him talking to you about Cherrywood. But Monarch had other
19 developments going through the system during these years. Can you recall if
11:31:29 20 he ever mentioned those to you, or lobbied you, or asked you for support?
21 A. Mr. Lynn I know very well.
22
23 Q. 157 CHAIRMAN: Uh-huh.
24 A. I always operated with any person lobbying in a very professional manner. And
11:31:52 25 Mr. Lynn, I always felt, I know that other people have different comments.
26 But I always felt that he operated in a very professional way.
27
28 As regards specific developments. I cannot remember any specific developments
29 that he lobbied me on. We would have been very cordial in our relationships,
11:32:14 30 in our relationship to each other. And I am sure that most of the time that I

www.pcr.ie Day 647
33
11:32:21 1 talked to him was on a social how are you? How is the weather? And that type
2 of arrangement.
4 I never got involved in signing motions or seconding motions throughout my
11:32:35 5 period of -- in the County Council. So -- and I was always, I think, regarded
6 as being of great professional humble and, you know, would under no
7 circumstances do anything that was untoward.
9 Q. 158 CHAIRMAN: But, I mean, we know from many witnesses that there was a lot of
11:33:00 10 lobbying going on by...
11 A. Uh-huh.
12
13 Q. 159 CHAIRMAN: A number of people.
14 A. Yeah.
11:33:04 15
16 Q. 160 CHAIRMAN: Which is in itself a perfectly legitimate exercise.
17 A. Uh-huh.
18
19 Q. 161 CHAIRMAN: And it was just, I mean -- do you recall Mr. Lynn lobbying you
11:33:15 20 legitimately for support in -- of any other lands besides Cherrywood? Before
21 votes?
22 A. Could I just suggest an analogy, Chairman. It's like District Court matters
23 and Supreme Court matters. Planning was -- there were so many different
24 Section 4s and motions and rezonings. That it was done like a District Court.
11:33:41 25 It was summarily just dealt with in the Supreme Court there would be written
26 judgements and reasons and explanations. So I certainly do not -- I do not
27 remember any specific lobbying in relation to Cherrywood or any other
28 specific -- any other lobbying. Any other area that I was specifically
29 lobbied on by Mr. Lynn. I don't.
11:34:09 30

www.pcr.ie Day 647
34
11:34:09 1 Q. 162 CHAIRMAN: But you would you remember him as a lobbiest?
2 A. Yes. Yes. Yes.
4 Q. 163 JUDGE FAHERTY: Just on that point, Mr. Ardagh. Would you be surprised now?
11:34:20 5 I mean obviously you have been here this morning, I can understand that. But
6 the records would show. The documentation from Monarch, that Mr. Lynn seemed
7 to have been rather meticulous in how he documented things and how he went
8 throughout his job as lobbiest for Monarch. Indeed some witnesses, some
9 councillors, who encountered Mr. Lynn. We have yet to hear from Mr. Lynn.
11:34:46 10 So I'm only if you like summarising what some councillors have said. And he
11 has been variously described as being aggressive in his approach as to lobbying
12 down to being consistently around the County Council chambers.
13 A. Uh-huh.
14
11:35:00 15 Q. 164 JUDGE FAHERTY: I just want to ask you. In retrospect, I mean, that was Mr.
16 Lynn's job
17 A. Yes.
18
19 Q. 165 JUDGE FAHERTY: Would it not seem strange that he wouldn't lobby every single
11:35:14 20 councillor because he is documenting down to, it seems to me, the cost of
21 either phoning people or meeting people down in the County Council chambers and
22 elsewhere. His time for the benefit of Monarch. That -- because nobody
23 seems to have any specific recollection, save in vague terms, as to -- nobody
24 has told us yet. I suppose it may be long-winded, that Mr. Lynn sat them down
11:35:44 25 and said look, this is -- I want a good proposal.
26 A. Yeah. First of all, the question of Mr. Lynn's aggression. I didn't --
27
28 Q. 166 JUDGE FAHERTY: I'm not calling it aggression.
29 A. I found that he operated in a very professional manner at times.
11:36:03 30

www.pcr.ie Day 647
35
11:36:03 1 Q. 167 JUDGE FAHERTY: I said variously people described him at various times, one
2 councillor, that he was certainly forth right in his approach.
3 A. Yeah. I felt that I would take the opportunity to take the contrary point of
4 view.
11:36:15 5
6 Q. 168 JUDGE FAHERTY: Absolutely.
7 A. With regard to -- I think that I've already told Ms. Foley, that I was very
8 much in favour of development generally, on the basis of investment, the jobs,
9 providing houses. And I wasn't -- I'm not a professional planner. I'm
11:36:40 10 not -- I felt that it was very much, as I said earlier, like a District Court
11 matter. Just come in, you do it, that's it. You go ahead on the route that
12 you want to go. I think that, whether it was right or wrong, I didn't go into
13 the type of detail that a judge would go into in a particular case.
14
11:37:05 15 Q. 169 JUDGE FAHERTY: Uh-huh.
16 A. So I didn't need to. Or I didn't want to get the full details of -- and all
17 of the environmental and physical infrastructural reasons why and wherefore.
18 That wasn't my -- I wasn't a professional in that way. I was a politician.
19 I was a County Councillor. I was there to vote for to push forward development
11:37:29 20 to try and improve the economic well-being of the country. And that was the
21 way that I looked at it. And I think that people recognised that that was the
22 approach that I adopted. And it may be that people felt well, you know, we
23 understand that Sean Ardagh has a particular point of view and that there isn't
24 the need to lobby him in the way that there may be, that other people may be...
11:37:57 25
26 Q. 170 JUDGE FAHERTY: That's fair enough. Can I just ask you on that point,
27 Mr. Ardagh. Back in '92 I think. We know that the plan went out the first
28 display for these lands. And these were the, I think it was described here as
29 the largest tract of undeveloped land. These lands were all zoned or most of
11:38:15 30 them, the Cherrywood area within the Carrickmines Valley.

www.pcr.ie Day 647
36
11:38:17 1 A. Uh-huh.
3 Q. 171 JUDGE FAHERTY: And that the Carrickmines Valley certainly in South County
4 Dublin as I understand it was what was going to be proposed to be developed.
11:38:27 5 A. Right.
7 Q. 172 JUDGE FAHERTY: We heard of the various proposals by the Manager in 1990 that
8 were shot down. But in 1992 certainly -- when they went out on the first
9 displays first and the Manager had been saying and it was agreed because it
11:38:41 10 happened. That these should be low density, four houses to the acre. And
11 that went out on the first plan
12 A. Uh-huh.
13
14 Q. 173 JUDGE FAHERTY: We know that when it comes back in to the council again in
11:38:51 15 1992, there's is if you like, what happens is that the Manager in fact has a
16 slightly more ambitious proposals than in fact what went out on the first
17 display
18 A. Yeah.
19
11:39:05 20 Q. 174 JUDGE FAHERTY: That he still wanted the four houses to the acre on piped
21 sewage, but with an area Action Plan. He was still described that as low
22 density. He wanted to extend the area, in fact, of what would be zoned
23 residential he wanted to put further south. And then you had obviously -- and
24 that map you put up on the day. I think the record shows that you voted for
11:39:26 25 that
26 A. Uh-huh.
27
28 Q. 175 JUDGE FAHERTY: That you thought obviously -- you said there earlier that you
29 weren't a planner indeed wouldn't be going into it in the ins and outs. The
11:39:36 30 Manager as was his job and being paid to do presumably, was to put in proposal

www.pcr.ie Day 647
37
11:39:43 1 form the certain pros and cons of -- that was the job of the planners and you
2 would listen to the planners presumably.
3 A. Judge Faherty you certainly have become an expert on it the way you are
4 explaining things.
11:39:56 5
6 Q. 176 JUDGE FAHERTY: I don't know about that.
7 A. What you are saying has gone over my head already. That's speaking honestly.
9 Q. 177 JUDGE FAHERTY: That's fair enough. Maybe I'm not making myself terribly
11:40:08 10 clear. I'm just talking about your voting record, Mr. Ardagh
11 A. Yeah.
12
13 Q. 178 JUDGE FAHERTY: In 1992 You support the Manager's proposal. He says still
14 four houses to the acre on piped sewage area Action Plan but extend the
11:40:19 15 residential zoning. And you vote for that. That motion is lost.
16 A. That motion is lost?
17
18 Q. 179 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes, indeed, by a majority.
19 A. Yeah.
11:40:27 20
21 Q. 180 JUDGE FAHERTY: That was the first motion on the day
22 A. Okay.
23
24 Q. 181 JUDGE FAHERTY: And then Mr. Sean Barrett and some other councillor. They
11:40:42 25 propose -- there was a series of other motions for it to go back to one acre,
26 one house to the acre. And that happens. That actually...
27 A. Okay.
28
29 Q. 182 JUDGE FAHERTY: Is the result of the May '92 meeting.
11:40:46 30 A. So it was one house to the acre?

www.pcr.ie Day 647
38
11:40:48 1
2 Q. 183 JUDGE FAHERTY: It goes out on the second display I am coming to this question
3 in a very long-winded way. As you said, it's a long time ago.
4 A. Okay.
11:40:59 5
6 Q. 184 JUDGE FAHERTY: I just want to put it into context for you, it goes out on
7 second display then and it's one house to the acre. We have then -- When it
8 finally comes around for consideration again. It's November 1993.
9 A. Uh-huh.
11:41:11 10
11 Q. 185 JUDGE FAHERTY: And the Manager comes back. He is recommending that it goes
12 back to what more or less, what the position had been in 1992 or 1991. He
13 wants to go back basically, four houses to the acre, in a nutshell
14 A. Uh-huh.
11:41:25 15
16 Q. 186 JUDGE FAHERTY: And he wants to delete the change, that was made on the map.
17 A. Okay.
18
19 Q. 187 JUDGE FAHERTY: And Ms -- Ms. Coffey and Mr. Marren propose a motion that's
11:41:37 20 before the council, that you vote on.
21 A. Right.
22
23 Q. 188 JUDGE FAHERTY: And they were also in agreement that the lands should go back
24 to four houses to the acre.
11:41:45 25 A. Okay.
26
27 Q. 189 JUDGE FAHERTY: But they are limiting, if you like, the lands to go back to
28 actually, to the Monarch lands.
29 A. Okay.
11:41:52 30

www.pcr.ie Day 647
39
11:41:52 1 Q. 190 JUDGE FAHERTY: Not the lands that had been zoned four houses to the acre in
2 the '91.
3 A. Okay.
11:41:57 5 Q. 191 JUDGE FAHERTY: The tranche of lands that had already been zoned since '83.
6 Indeed, I'm just about to ask you, when you were pro investment and pro
7 development and wanted houses...
8 A. Uh-huh.
11:42:11 10 Q. 192 JUDGE FAHERTY: Why there wasn't, if you can recall, maybe you can't, any
11 debate as to why it should just be this tract of lands as opposed to the area
12 that had been ear marked as far back as 1983, for zoning in this particular
13 area?
14 A. I don't know. What I voted on and what came before the council were those
11:42:39 15 motions that were proposed and seconded. So I was thinking about this and it
16 probably shows to some extent now, the value of having a lobbiest. Because if
17 the owners or the people who owned the other land, wished to have it rezoned,
18 then I'm sure that if they went through the process, that Monarch went through,
19 that there would have been no difficulty in their land also being rezoned.
11:43:16 20 But it depends on who takes the action and if the action is taken. So if the
21 action isn't taken, you can't do anything about it if there's no motion there
22 if --
23
24 Q. 193 JUDGE FAHERTY: You see this wasn't a motion for zoning this was a a motion
11:43:29 25 about density, housing density. And there already had been proposals and
26 expert recommendations by the Manager, as to why it could be four houses to the
27 acre, which was still I think considered low density zoning.
28 A. Yeah.
29
11:43:42 30 Q. 194 JUDGE FAHERTY: I'm just wondering why it would have to fall to -- the

www.pcr.ie Day 647
40
11:43:47 1 planners have told us in other modules, maybe as well in this Module. That
2 the council didn't approach the question of what was best for the county in
3 terms of who owned what tract of land.
4 A. Yeah.
11:43:57 5
6 Q. 195 JUDGE FAHERTY: You understand?
7 A. Yeah.
9 Q. 196 JUDGE FAHERTY: I'm just wondering why, within the council, there wasn't
11:44:05 10 debate as to with -- why this tract should not -- only this tract should go
11 back to four houses to the acre.
12 A. I would also suggest that if Councillor Coffey and Councillor Marren signed a
13 motion, two people that we would have great respect for, that we would support
14 the proposal on a political basis.
11:44:27 15
16 Q. 197 JUDGE FAHERTY: I see. And what was your ward, just as a matter of interest
17 in South Dublin County Council?
18 A. My ward was Terenure. Where there wasn't a blade of grass to be rezoned.
19
11:44:37 20 JUDGE FAHERTY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Ardagh.
21
23
24 MS. DILLON: Thank you, Sir.
11:44:42 25
26 There is one small correction to the transcript if you permit me to do it now.
27
28 And I think then there is one further witness.
29
11:44:49 30 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ardagh is finished.

www.pcr.ie Day 647
41
11:44:51 1
2 MS. DILLON: Thank you, Mr. Ardagh.
11:44:54 5
11:44:55 10
11 MS. DILLON: There is an error on one transcript. The Tribunal has received
12 a letter from the estate of Mr. Larkin. The Late Mr. Larkin. The day is day
13 641. The page is 94 and it's line 2. And the date recorded should be 13th
14 of June 1 3. And what is recorded is the 30th. 3 0. And it's important from
11:45:14 15 their point of view that it's accurately recorded. If that correction could
16 be made to that transcript.
17
18 There is one witness left, Mr. Helen Keogh. Would you like to take the?
19
11:45:29 20 CHAIRMAN: Well maybe.
21
22 MS. DILLON: I would anticipate really if you were to sit straight through
23 that you should be finished just before lunch, or very shortly into the lunch.
24
11:45:34 25 CHAIRMAN: We might just take a very short break and then sit to finish
26 Ms. Keogh.
27
28 MS. DILLON: All right.
29
11:45:47 30 CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

www.pcr.ie Day 647
42
11:45:48 1
4 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED FOR A SHORT BREAK
11:46:02 5 AND RESUMED AS FOLLOWS:
7 Doyle: Ms. Helen Keogh, please.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 647
43
11:57:14 1 MS. HELEN KEOGH, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS EXAMINED
2 AS FOLLOWS BY MR. DOYLE.:
4 CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon Ms. Keogh.
11:57:42 5 Q. 198 MR. DOYLE: Miss Keogh, I believe you were a County Councillor for Dublin
6 County Council and latterly from '94 for Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council
7 ;isn't that right?
8 A. That's right, yeah.
9 Q. 199 And that was I think you are presently a County Councillor is that right?
11:57:57 10 A. No.
11 Q. 200 You're not. I think you were previously a TD for Dun Laoghaire?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 201 For the Progressive Democrats?
14 A. Yeah.
11:58:05 15 Q. 202 What I plan to do is just take you through your statements and thereafter
16 dealing with one or two matters arising. And then deal with the planning and
17 any aspects regarding payments as well?
18 A. Okay.
19 Q. 203 Now, there is a screen in front of you and the documents will be coming up on
11:58:20 20 that screen.
21
22 Now, I believe the Tribunal wrote you a letter requesting, in 2002, by way of
23 request for details regarding lands in Carrickmines and other related lands.
24 And you replied on the 26th of August 2002 by way of letter.
11:58:36 25
26 Could we have page 1133, please.
27
28 This is your replying letter to the letter sent by the Tribunal. And in
29 fairness to you, I believe that you dealt largely in the first part of the
11:59:01 30 letter in relation to the Jackson Way lands, the Carrickmines Jackson Way

www.pcr.ie Day 647
44
11:59:05 1 lands?
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. 204 And the second part of the letter, that's at 1135. You deal with general
4 matters regarding the development and strategies and lobbying etc...
11:59:17 5 A. Uh-huh.
6 Q. 205 In relation to planning. And I think that you say, you'll see 3 A. This is
7 in reply to the Tribunal's letter. As you may be called to give evidence to
8 the Tribunal furnishing written statements Tribunal in relation to all requests
9 for representations in relation to any Development Plan or planning matter.
11:59:40 10
11 And I think you responded as saying, 3 A, B and C. If you will see half way
12 down there you state that some representations were made to me personally in
13 relation to various matters. You met representatives of Monarch Properties.
14 And you say that this was not in relation to the Carrickmines lands, or the
11:59:58 15 Jackson Way lands. I was not approached by any person in relation to those
16 lands and made no requests or representations. And you finish off by saying
17 that you have no knowledge of who the owners of the lands were.
18
19 On the 7th of March 2006, more recently, you were written to specifically in
12:00:16 20 relation to the subject lands Cherrywood. And you were asked in relation to
21 any contacts with Monarch Properties Limited, Monarch Properties Services
22 Limited or companies in the Monarch Group and whether or not you had any
23 meetings with various persons associated with the Monarch lands.
24
12:00:32 25 You replied at page 1138. 10th of March 2006. And you say that I met from
26 time to time, Mr. Richard Lynn, Mr. Philip Reilly during the course of the
27 discussion with the Development Plan. And you say you knew of their
28 involvement with Monarch Properties. Your developers and their agents and
29 landowners sometimes lobbied in relation to their specific projects. And you
12:00:57 30 say that they provided some documentation in relation to same.

www.pcr.ie Day 647
45
12:01:01 1
2 If I could just in relation to that. And Mr. Lynn in particular. Were you
3 ever lobbied by Mr. Lynn or in any way advised in relation to any vote or how a
4 vote might best proceed?
12:01:18 5 A. I would have been lobbied on a number of times by Mr. Lynn during the course of
6 the Development Plan. And certainly that would include, asking to vote for
7 their particular project. It wouldn't be unusual.
8 Q. 206 If I could have page 1414. This is statement of Mr. Richard Lynn.
12:01:45 10 At one there you will see that he states having met most members of Dublin and
11 latterly Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown. And he provides an extract from a meeting
12 on, 6th of October 1992 which he has placed a tick against those members that
13 I recall having met in the context of Cherrywood, the reasons for the various
14 meetings was to inform the respective member of and elicit support for the
12:02:07 15 Cherrywood project.
16
17 You can see that at page 1416. That's a copy of the meeting and there is a
18 tick beside your name. Do you recall having been elicited -- Mr. Lynn
19 eliciting support from you for this and other occasions?
12:02:28 20 A. I wouldn't remember the actual date. I can certainly confirm that he would
21 have been looking for support for the project on a number of occasions.
22 Q. 207 I think further going back to your statement at 1138. You refer to a meeting
23 with Mr. Richard Lynn and Mr. Philip Reilly. And there is no mention of
24 Mr. Eddie Sweeney. Do you remember meeting Eddie Sweeney?
12:02:49 25 A. I don't remember meeting him. I mean, it's possible that he was in the
26 company. But I don't remember meeting him particularly.
27 Q. 208 Mr. Eddie Sweeney. In his statement to the Tribunal. If we could have,
28 please, page 2191, please.
29
12:03:07 30 He states there in the second paragraph I specifically recall having had

www.pcr.ie Day 647
46
12:03:11 1 contact sometime or other with the following political representatives, at the
2 bottom of the page you will see yourself, senator Helen Keogh.
3 A. That's possible. I don't remember an individual appointment or anything. He
4 may have been in the company of others and I just don't recollect him.
12:03:27 5 Q. 209 You say, you go on to say that you never had any discussions with Frank Dunlop?
6 A. No.
7 Q. 210 Your second last paragraph, you say, on page 1138. I received no payments
8 from any of the individuals companies you have listed. And you say that you
9 did receive in 1992 a cheque for 500, which I believe you cancelled.
12:03:47 10 A. I returned it.
11 Q. 211 It was cancelled. You returned it.
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. 212 And I think that payment. If we could have page 3866, please.
14
12:04:17 15 In the note there about half way down that page there's reference on the 17th
16 of November '92 reference to 500 pounds. And that's a Monarch generated
17 document. Monarch Properties document.
18
19 Again, at 3865. 3865 half way down again there's a line through it 500. In
12:04:46 20 fairness to you
21 A. Okay.
22 Q. 213 At 3868 there is top November 13th it says at top a bank reconciliation
23 statement 13th of March 1993 Monarch Properties Services Limited document and
24 500 pounds cancelled. You see that at the top of the page there you'll see
12:05:05 25 it?
26 A. Yes, I see it.
27 Q. 214 Now, you say that was the only one as far as you can recollect, that you
28 received from Monarch Properties. The only personal donation that I ever
29 received.
12:05:14 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 647
47
12:05:14 1 Q. 215 Would you have elicited, would you have sought or solicited that donation?
2 A. No, I never sought any personal donations.
3 Q. 216 There was a statement in to the Tribunal from Mr. Phil Monahan. And page
4 1579. In which he refers to payments and contributions that arise on foot of
12:05:43 5 request for assistance to defray Local Election expenses. And he refers to a
6 number of lists in that. You are saying that you never sought any payment
7 from him?
8 A. No, I don't believe I did.
9 Q. 217 Very good. Now, Ms. Keogh, could I just going to -- your election was in June
12:06:12 10 1991. You were elected on 27th of June?
11 A. County Council elections.
12 Q. 218 To the County Council elections?
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. 219 And I think prior to that I think you received a payment of 300 pounds from
12:06:25 15 Monarch. Do you recall that?
16 A. I don't recall receiving a payment directly to me. I know that from time to
17 time Monarch would have contributed towards events in the constituency. But I
18 don't recall a direct payment to me. Maybe --
19 Q. 220 Page 3241, please.
12:06:49 20
21 And you can see there, again it's about half way down the page. 11th of June
22 H Keogh Local Elections expenses 300
23 A. I'm afraid I just didn't. I have no recollection of that at all.
24 Q. 221 And could you have sought that payment?
12:07:11 25 A. I didn't think so. I don't remember us seeking donations.
26 Q. 222 You weren't --
27 A. Individually. I mean, things may have been done on behalf of the constituency
28 at that time. I wouldn't have directly been involved in that perhaps. I
29 have no recollection of it anyway.
12:07:32 30 Q. 223 All right. And have you any recollection of speaking -- have you any

www.pcr.ie Day 647
48
12:07:36 1 recollection of speaking with anybody in relation to this prior to -- in
2 relation to Cherrywood Monarch Properties or any of the individuals prior to
3 the election in June?
4 A. No, I don't.
12:07:48 5 Q. 224 1991?
6 A. No, I don't, no.
7 Q. 225 Now, in relation to the 500 pounds that you say is the only donation that you
8 can recollect and you returned that. Could you tell the Tribunal why you
9 might have returned that?
12:08:03 10 A. Well the whole process of the Development Plan was ongoing. And I just was a
11 bit uneasy about accepting a personal donation. I mean, I know that over a
12 period of time I would have sought, on behalf of the party, to have donations.
13 But this was addressed specifically to me. And I just was a bit uneasy about
14 accepting a personal donation knowing that, you know, that there would be a lot
12:08:29 15 of debate about the ongoing planning issues and so on.
16 Q. 226 This was the cheque of course for 500 was in '92. Going back to' 91, page
17 3181. This is an AIB bank statement for Monarch Properties Services Limited.
18 This shows the payment of 300 pounds, the debiting of 300 pounds from the
19 account of Monarch. On cheque 3646. And if we could have document 3180,
12:08:58 20 please.
21
22 And about 12 from the top there it has H K PD, 11.6.91 cheque No. 3646, 300
23 pounds. That cheque is the cheque made out to you. And that cheque was
24 lodged. Do you recall or would you have any idea why you would not have sent
12:09:28 25 that payment back?
26 A. Well all I can imagine is that went to defray local expenses and it wasn't
27 personally to me. I don't remember one way or the other. But that's, I
28 mean, that's only an assumption I'm making at this stage.
29 Q. 227 Yes?
12:09:44 30 A. And also perhaps because -- I suppose really that knowing that there was

www.pcr.ie Day 647
49
12:09:51 1 ongoing payments, that one wouldn't like to feel personally beholden to people.
2 But, no, I couldn't tell you now at this stage.
3 Q. 228 Now, and you are aware that it doesn't say Progressive Democrats. It's H K,
4 it's attributed to you and not the Progressive Democrats?
12:10:10 5 A. It has PD after it.
6 Q. 229 It does, indeed. You have no recollection in any event?
7 A. No, I don't. I didn't tend to handle the finances within the constituency.
8 And I tried to ensure that they were all separate. So I either got it and
9 don't remember it or got it and immediately passed it on, which would be the
12:10:30 10 normal circumstance within the constituency. But I couldn't ...
11 Q. 230 All right.
12 A. Remember accurately on that I'm afraid.
13 Q. 231 All right. Now, just moving back to the planning. Now, when you were
14 elected in June 1991. There had been agreement for the first public display
12:10:49 15 of map 27, effecting the subject lands.
16
17 If we could have page 7020, please.
18
19 Now, you can see from that map there that the Monarch lands were outlined in
12:11:04 20 red, as you can see.
21 A. Yeah.
22 Q. 232 And the subject lands there Cherrywood in yellow. Now, this was map 7021.
23 It was the first public display from September '91 to December '91. Do you
24 recall that map and the matter of the public display?
12:11:21 25 A. Well I can just about recall it at this stage, yes.
26 Q. 233 And you will see that from that map that there was a number of discussions and
27 in May '91 before you were elected of course to the council. And as a result
28 of those discussions this map shows residential development east of the South
29 eastern Motorway. You will see the line going through?
12:11:42 30 A. Yeah.

www.pcr.ie Day 647
50
12:11:43 1 Q. 234 Residential zoning was changed from AS 1 to AP, that is from one house per acre
2 on septic tank to four houses on piped sewage.
3 A. Piped drainage, yeah.
4 Q. 235 And you can see that there is a slight potential revising of the line of the
12:12:01 5 South eastern Motorway and that's the black dotted line?
6 A. Yeah. I think there was some discussion about the line of the motorway that
7 the time.
8 Q. 236 Now, I believe that if we could look at page 3337, please.
12:12:13 10 Now, this is a note of a meeting and present at the meeting you can see from
11 the top there it's dated 11th of September. I can sell you from the following
12 page. We'll deal with that in a moment. It's a meeting which Mr. Sweeney,
13 Lafferty, Reilly, Murray and Cassidy were in attendance. And the note is
14 written by Michael Cassidy. And in, you can see in the top there progress is
12:12:45 15 good. Notes on meeting held in Monarch House. One, progress is good. Public
16 relations aspects to be explored as soon as possible, as soon as a deposit is
17 paid. And then there is a number of people's names with the initials it would
18 seem beside them with the initials of members of Monarch Group. And your name
19 Helen Keogh and beside that is PR, possibly Phil Reilly
12:13:09 20 A. Yeah.
21 Q. 237 And have you any explanation as to why your name would appear on such a
22 document?
23 A. I'm not exactly sure what the purpose of this document is, sorry.
24 Q. 238 Public relations aspects to be explored. It seems that there is a list of
12:13:28 25 people on this, on this documentation. And underneath the heading which is
26 public relations aspects to be explored. Have you any reason to understand
27 why your name might appear on the document such as that?
28 A. No, except it seems to be quite a number of the members of the council.
29 Q. 239 Yes. I think in total about 18 members of the council on that. All right.
12:13:54 30 I think in November 1991 a number of representations were received by the

www.pcr.ie Day 647
51
12:14:00 1 council in relation to the map No. 27. And in particular representation 1117
2 from Monarch. And that sought change in the zoning densities of the land.
3 As well as certain other matters regarding density. And by the 10th of April
4 '92 you are aware that hearings had concluded and a number of representations
12:14:29 5 and objections of representations regarding the first public display on map No.
6 27?
7 A. Yeah, I'm quite sure I did. I don't have a very vivid recollection at this
8 stage of it.
9 Q. 240 I think there was a meeting at which you were at on the 13th of May. And
12:14:44 10 that's 7192. That was at this meeting. 7192. That the Manager reported to
11 the council regarding the various reports and objections, representations
12 received. And he also proposed certain amendments to map 27. Arising out of
13 that is DP92/44. And that's at 7203, please.
14
12:15:10 15 Now, do you recall seeing this map and having this map circulated to you?
16 A. I'm sure that that map was circulated. As I say, at this stage my
17 recollection isn't very vivid but I do remember maps being circulated that the
18 time, yeah.
19 Q. 241 And you can see that there's a number of changes to the map in relation to the
12:15:39 20 subject lands. And that change in density. You can see there in the map
21 from A to A1?
22 A. Yeah.
23 Q. 242 It's four houses per hectare. And that's on the subject lands. And also a
24 rezoning of B, that is agricultural lands to A1P. And they are on lands west
12:15:55 25 of the South eastern Motorway. You can see that just below the large black
26 line that goes through the subject lands?
27 A. Yeah.
28 Q. 243 And there is also again, you see a possible re alignment of the Southeastern
29 Motorway and a number of other proposed changes. Now, the important meeting.
12:16:13 30 Nothing turns on that. The meeting didn't make any decision. No vote taken.

www.pcr.ie Day 647
52
12:16:17 1 On 27th of May 1992. At 7205, please.
3 Now, at this meeting there was a number of motions had been received, as I've
4 stated, in relation to, as you would be aware, the public display. And a
12:16:40 5 number of these motions were dealt with, 11 in all, at this meeting.
7 And in particular, DP 90/44 was considered. And there was a motion in
8 relation to same 7207, please. From Mr. Lydon and Mr. McGrath.
12:17:00 10 And that was, this motion sought to adopt the changes, that is in the zoning
11 densities re alignment of Southeastern Motorway etc.. And that motion was put
12 and lost. Do you remember that motion? Do you remember voting on that
13 motion? I can tell you that you voted against.
14 A. Yeah, I would imagine that I would have voted against it yeah. Actually, I
12:17:23 15 mean, I should say that I remember that occurring.
16 Q. 244 And I think then there was a motion, 7211, please.
17
18 And that's as you can see there's -- this is in relation to your own motion,
19 Mr. Lohan and yourself were responsible for putting in a motion. That's
12:17:56 20 motion 3 1 A 5. That's at page 7155, if we could have that, please.
21
22
23
24
12:18:07 25 And 7156. And at 7157. 7157. Now, on that you can see the subject lands
26 and your name is written in there. Do you recall having signed your name to
27 that motion?
28 A. I must have, yeah. I'm not exactly sure what the motion was. Can you ...?
29 Q. 245 And I think your motion was seeking to have two houses per acre on the subject
12:18:40 30 lands.

www.pcr.ie Day 647
53
12:18:41 1 A. Oh, I think, yeah, it was a, designed as a sort of a compromise or whatever
2 suggested but I don't think it received any support.
3 Q. 246 You lost that motion was lost and there were two subsequent motions. One by
4 Mr. Eamonn Gilmore and O'Callaghan. And that's at 7214, please.
12:19:10 5
6 And that was motion 3189. That was seeking a district centre, or what's known
7 as objective C, district centre, on the lands.
8 A. Uh-huh.
9 Q. 247 Now, you abstained in that vote. You weren't ...?
12:19:22 10 A. I wasn't convinced that that was the right way to go but I didn't particularly
11 want to vote against it.
12 Q. 248 Page 7216. This was the motion by Barrett and Dockrell. 3 1 A 11. This
13 motion was sought to reduce the residential density to one house an acre?
14 A. Yeah.
12:19:41 15 Q. 249 And you voted for this?
16 A. Yeah.
17 Q. 250 You voted to have the lands not as DP92/44 would have had with a higher
18 density. But you voted for Mr. Barrett's motion seeking to have one house per
19 acre?
12:19:53 20 A. Yeah, I think following discussion we decided that we would support that.
21 Q. 251 Why did you vote for that as opposed to the motion for Lydon and McGrath; which
22 was the higher density?
23 A. I think it was on the recommendation of the hang Manager at the time.
24 Q. 252 No, the Manager's recommendation was for DP 90/44 which would have allowed for
12:20:17 25 o four houses per acre?
26 A. I'd say it was then on foot of the debate that occurred there. Because that's
27 what I usually based my decisions upon was mostly the advice of the Manager
28 and/or the advice and discussions that took place. Now, I don't remember the
29 exact content of that. But that would have been my general approach. So ...
12:20:37 30 Q. 253 You see your own motion sought for a higher density?

www.pcr.ie Day 647
54
12:20:40 1 A. Yeah. But it lost. We weren't looking for a high density. It was only two
2 to the acre. So this is one to the acre. So I suppose we thought that that
3 was -- I thought that that was a better solution.
4 Q. 254 The lower density was a better solution?
12:20:58 5 A. Yeah.
6 Q. 255 All right.?
7 A. I don't know that the services were available at the time. I can't recollect
8 now. But that may have been one of the reasons.
9 Q. 256 Well I believe as a result of the Manager's representations on the 30th of May.
12:21:12 10 He recommended in fact a higher density as a result of the area Action Plan and
11 piped sewage?
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. 257 So I think he was envisaging?
14 A. That that would be viable. We thought that wouldn't be there in time. I
12:21:24 15 think there was also a little bit of debate about progress and so on. I mean,
16 I don't remember exactly. I wouldn't have seen a huge difference between the
17 one and the two per acre. I think we were trying to arrive at some kind of
18 compromise, which wasn't very successful.
19 Q. 258 All right. Now, again, on the 17th of November '92. This is the payment for
12:21:45 20 500 pounds. This is the cheque you say you sent back. Indeed it seems to
21 have been cancelled by Monarch Properties. And you say that your reasons for
22 saying was because you were uncomfortable with the cheque being sent to you
23 directly. Is that correct?
24 A. Yeah.
12:22:03 25 Q. 259 Okay. And on the 23rd of June 1993. At page 4018, please. Do you see
26 there, Ms. Keogh, 23rd of June ticket fundraiser 100 pounds?
27 A. That would have gone directly to the party. It wouldn't have gone to me.
28 Q. 260 Do you remember receiving that?
29 A. I know that certainly when we were doing fundraising for the party that we
12:22:32 30 would have sent out letters to, you know, all and sundry really. Unless they

www.pcr.ie Day 647
55
12:22:37 1 were people that we really didn't want to deal with. But so I would say that
2 that's -- tickets fundraiser. That might have been something like a dream
3 auction or something like that. I'm not exactly sure now.
4 Q. 261 8398, please. This is the cheque it's cheque No. 8269. And it's not the
12:23:03 5 clearest but it's dated 23rd of June '93. It's written to you. Helen Keogh.
6 You'll see that PD?
7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. 262 Made out for 100 pounds. And I think you've endorsed it on the back. Your
9 signature. At 8399, please.?
12:23:21 10 A. Yeah, that would mean that I endorsed it for the party.
11 Q. 263 For the party?
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. 264 I think that was cashed. If we could have 4262. That's an AIB account for
14 Monarch Properties services limited bank statement. And you'll see one-third
12:23:35 15 down the page 8269, 100 pounds debited. 4262. You will see there 26 of July
16 93 and under that third down 100 pounds. You didn't feel it necessary to
17 return that cheque?
18 A. It wasn't to me. I mean.
19 Q. 265 Well it was written out. You'll see the cheque?
12:24:06 20 A. I've noted that a few times. I didn't have the opportunity to trawl through
21 all of the documentation. But I was quite surprised to see that things were
22 actually -- that maybe cheques were written out to me. But I would have
23 endorsed them immediately and passed them on. And I really don't recall --
24 Q. 266 But you will accept that this cheque was written out to you?
12:24:26 25 A. Oh, absolutely.
26 Q. 267 And cashed. Now, I think the second public display was July to August 1993.
27 And that was map 27. 7217, please.
28
29 And you can see that the change No. 3 and No. 4. And this would reflect the
12:24:51 30 motions the previous May. The Barrett motion and the O'Callaghan Gilmore

www.pcr.ie Day 647
56
12:25:01 1 motions. If you can see the map there. You'll see that again the Monarch
2 lands are outlined in red. You can see that there's change No. 3 written on
3 the map. That's density one house per acre. And also there's change No. 4.
4 That is the agricultural land to C and some of the residential land to C, town
12:25:21 5 centre also. And in other words, this map is reflecting the views of the
6 council that there below density on the subject lands and that there be a town
7 centre. Can you follow that? You can see it on the map
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. 268 Again, I have to ask you do you remember this map?
12:25:39 10 A. I remember the process, you know, I may not remember each individual map
11 because there were many of them but yeah, I certainly remember the process.
12 Q. 269 On the 11th of November 1993, 7258, please. There's another meeting of the
13 council. Again, you were present at this meeting. And this meeting was the
14 meeting which came to discuss the changes on the map 27. And at this meeting
12:26:22 15 the Manager proposed deletion of change No. 3. And it was Mr. Barrett's. So
16 to delete the very low density of one house per acre. And there were two
17 motions at this meeting. 7224, please.
18
19 Now, this motion sought to confirm the change No. 3. That is to confirm that
12:26:45 20 there would be very low density on these lands. The one house per acre to
21 confirm Mr. Barrett's motion from May of '92. Now, you voted against that
22 motion.
23
24 At 7262, please.
12:27:01 25
26 If you will see the motion proposed by Councillor Gilmore and a O'Callaghan
27 resulted in for 26 and the motion was lost and against 44.
28
29 At 7263, please.
12:27:20 30

www.pcr.ie Day 647
57
12:27:20 1 You will see there against and your name is recorded as having voted against,
2 confirming the low density on the lands.
3 A. Right.
4 Q. 270 Now, there was a subsequent motion. That was the motion of Marren and Coffey.
12:27:38 5 And that was to delete change No. 3. On the subject lands only. This has
6 been dealt with this morning, you would have heard evidence.
8 At 7226, please. And 27. That motion seeks to delete that change three.
9 And at 7263 you will see that you voted for. Again, you can see that
12:28:19 10 following the motion proposed by Councillor Marren and seconded by councillor
11 motion. For the motion was won and you voted for that?
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. 271 If we could go back, please, to 7226, please.
14
12:28:34 15 And you can see, if we could highlight please what the top of the motion what
16 it seeks. You can see that Dublin County Council hereby resolves to accept
17 the County Manager's recommendation and delete the 1993 amendment in respect of
18 the lands outlined in red and attached map.
19
12:28:58 20 And also there's an amendment to that. And that seeks to have the remaining
21 lands that is the non-monarch lands at two houses per hectare.
22 A. Right.
23 Q. 272 Now, the 18 months, Ms. Keogh, from May '92 to November '93 there seems to have
24 been a significant change. Could you advise the Tribunal as to why you would
12:29:25 25 have voted against keeping the change that you had previously voted for, 18
26 months before. And voted for a change in the density that you had voted
27 against 18 months before.?
28 A. Yeah. I think that's down to the fact that sometimes we sought compromise
29 that didn't work. And then time went on and generally speaking we would have
12:29:49 30 tried to follow the Manager's advice. And then if we thought that perhaps

www.pcr.ie Day 647
58
12:29:53 1 with amendment the manager's advice would be taken.
3 I don't remember the exact. I'm just saying that's a general approach. So
4 that's, you know, probably what I would do. Trying to be, I suppose,
12:30:06 5 reasonable and achieving the best results that we could at the time. That
6 would have been my general approach. I don't specifically remember each
7 individual motion at this stage obviously but that would have been my general
8 approach
9 Q. 273 And this, you would accept, the approach was completely in contract to your
12:30:21 10 earlier view in regards to low density?
11 A. Well, you know, the densities aren't hugely different, you know. In fact.
12 Q. 274 Well one house per acre versus four would be significant if you were attempting
13 to develop the lands; wouldn't you agree?
14 A. Well I think there was a view at the time. That was, I don't want to go into
12:30:42 15 sort of some of the kind of speculation that there was. But, you know,
16 terribly wealthy people would have an acre a ground and this sort of stuff.
17 There was a lot of speculation and discussion. Generally speaking what I
18 would have done is try to get the best result possible at that time.
19 Q. 275 Were you approached by any?
12:31:02 20 A. No.
21 Q. 276 Parties?
22 A. No.
23 Q. 277 Anybody at all in relation to these votes?
24 A. No, definitely not.
12:31:09 25 Q. 278 Or advised any way in relation to these votes?
26 A. No, no.
27 Q. 279 The change then resulted in the Monarch lands having a zoning of four to the
28 acre and ten to the hectare. Now, have you any understanding why you would
29 have voted specifically for the Monarch lands only having this zoning density
12:31:38 30 and not the other lands? In other words, if I might put it to you. The

www.pcr.ie Day 647
59
12:31:43 1 Monarch lands were to have this significantly, I would suggest to you, zoning
2 advantage of four houses to the acre with the balance of the lands as a result
3 of this motion having only two houses per hectare. Now...
4 A. Well, I would imagine, as I say, I don't remember each and every motion that
12:32:03 5 was put forward, because goodness knows there were very many. But I think, I
6 would imagine, and I'm speculating now because I don't recall exactly, that I
7 would have, in all circumstances, tried to get the best result on the advice of
8 the Manager and following the discussion that took place. And I didn't -- I
9 was not concerned who owned what land. And I didn't like that approach in
12:32:28 10 relation to the planning. I would have rather not even know who owned the
11 land. Because I thought that that --
12 Q. 280 Were you aware who owned the land?
13 A. Oh, I probably was aware.
14 Q. 281 That would suggest that you?
12:32:39 15 A. Yeah, I mean, but that wasn't of major concern to me. My concern would have
16 been to try to get the best result possible within the county.
17 Q. 282 Now, you say you would have followed the Manager's --
18 A. Insofar as possible.
19 Q. 283 You hadn't in '92. You had gone against the Manager's recommendation?
12:32:59 20 A. I would say that was following the debate at the time.
21 Q. 284 All right. You say that you weren't -- a few moments ago you said that you
22 wouldn't have been happy with notion of very wealthy people on one house per
23 acre?
24 A. That's part of the kind of stuff that was being talked about at the time. I
12:33:15 25 wouldn't take that fairly seriously. But I think, you know, there would have
26 been some talk about that.
27 Q. 285 Could we have 7217, please.
28
29 Now, you can see these again. The subject lands. There is the balance of
12:33:37 30 the lands now, which you can see from the map, is a significant portion of land

www.pcr.ie Day 647
60
12:33:45 1 is and remains as a result of this motion, which you voted for, remains this
2 two houses per hectare. Was that not -- did that not strike you as unusual in
3 any way? Did you discuss it with anybody that it might have struck you as
4 unusual?
12:34:04 5 A. I don't remember particularly discussing it. I think generally speaking I
6 don't know that we would have been focussing on that. We would have been
7 focussing on, you know, the authority of the proposals and so on. I don't
8 particularly remember discussing it.
9 Q. 286 Now, returning to the meeting. There were a number of other motions in
12:34:26 10 particular a motion by Mr. Smith and that sought to change the zoning that
11 change four A back to B. That is the change that part of the agricultural
12 lands back to agriculture be changed for the town centre. As will see in the
13 map there. Four A is at the bottom of that map where there is a square of
14 sorts from the subject lands. That's the town centre. The proposed town
12:34:53 15 centre lands. This motion sought to have that part of the zoned town centre
16 lands put back as agricultural. And do you remember that motion?
17 A. Not particularly.
18 Q. 287 Would you remember that you voted against changing that land back to
19 agricultural?
12:35:14 20 A. Well I wouldn't be surprised if I had.
21 Q. 288 All right. Now, I think that there was again a motion to affirm the changes,
22 that is the changes regarding town centre on those lands again in that box you
23 can see. And that was from Counselor Marren and your colleague councillor
24 Lohan. And that vote was taken. That's 7267, please. That vote was taken
12:35:42 25 on a show of hands. So, in other words, this was a vote to affirm the changes
26 4 A and 4 B notwithstanding that on foot of the Manager's recommendation the re
27 tailed space was to be limited to enable retail size. Do you remember that?
28 A. I don't specifically remember that.
29 Q. 289 And do you remember how you might have voted? It say as show of hands. So
12:36:10 30 there's no record of the vote.?

www.pcr.ie Day 647
61
12:36:12 1 A. I don't particularly. I don't specifically remember. I may have voted for
2 it but I couldn't be definite about that.
3 Q. 290 All right. Now, arising out of that. On 10th of December 1993 the County
4 Development Plan was adapted. That's 7278. And that's 7278. If we can
12:36:34 5 highlight the subject lands.
7 The map now shows that on the subject of Monarch lands, and they are in green.
8 They should be, it's not a very good coloured map. But in any event, the
9 zoning on part of the subject lands is ten houses per hectare. There is also
12:36:55 10 town district centre. You can see the purple box there. And below or west
11 of the Southeastern Motorway you can see what is blue, of sorts. If you can,
12 can you follow the map there? The town centre is the squarish area, that's the
13 town centre area.
14 A. Yeah.
12:37:16 15 Q. 291 And then you can see that. And then just north of that is blue agricultural
16 lands. You can see that?
17 A. Yeah.
18 Q. 292 Anyway. Arising out of that. This was the situation in 1993. And I think
19 in 1994 the council's or the County Council in Dublin was split up; isn't that
12:37:39 20 correct?
21 A. That's correct, yeah.
22 Q. 293 And I think the new Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council of which you were a
23 member?
24 A. Yeah.
12:37:44 25 Q. 294 And if I could just page 4941, please. Now, this is February 1st 1994. And
26 this is now indeed it says Progressive Democrats PDs 2,000. You see that says
27 fund raiser interest free loan hello Keogh?
28 A. Yeah.
29 Q. 295 Do you recall having received this money?
12:38:14 30 A. Not at all! I saw this and I was quite surprised. I think at the time the

www.pcr.ie Day 647
62
12:38:22 1 Progressive Democrats had a system of fundraising by seeking interest free
2 loans of a period of time. And that's what that must have. Certainly it's
3 nothing to do with me personally.
4 Q. 296 Did you seek this funding from Monarch?
12:38:39 5 A. I don't know that I actually did myself because I think it may have been done
6 through the party. But I don't specifically remember now whether we were
7 asked to, sort of, do this through the constituencies or whether it came
8 through headquarters. I don't remember. But it certainly very definitely
9 was note for me.
12:39:01 10 Q. 297 All right. And then at 4961. We can see there's there outlined is the
11 cheque. Again, in the sum of 2,000 pounds. And interest free. Just in
12 relation to that. What was -- why would they be described it as interest
13 free?
14 A. Well I think at the time the party was badly in need of funds and this was seen
12:39:22 15 as a way of ...
16
17 CHAIRMAN: The cheque -- the name of that cheque is Progressive Democrats.
18 MR. DOYLE: That's right
19 It's definitely not me. The name on the cheque is Progressive Democrats.
12:39:39 20 Q. 298 5065, please. And again, this is a -- an expenses claim form of Richard
21 Lynn's. And you can see it's dated April '94. 22nd of April '94. You
22 can see the bottom of the writing there you have your name is written there
23 Helen Keogh 82 pounds.?
24 A. There's something in front of that I can't quite make it out.
12:40:11 25 Q. 299 It's something review. Development review or something. Development Plan
26 review it would seem. And it has H Keogh.?
27 A. I have no idea what that is. I can't he can't seen spell my name right I
28 notice.
29 Q. 300 H Larkin. Have you any recollection of meeting Mr. Lynn around this time for
12:40:35 30 a lunch or for a dinner in relation to the Development Plan?

www.pcr.ie Day 647
63
12:40:42 1 A. No. No. I mean, unless there was some sort of function on or something like
2 that.
3 Q. 301 Because it would be --
4 A. It seems to be something else there as well.
12:41:08 5 Q. 302 Larkin I think?
6 A. I certainly didn't have. I don't know anybody called Larkin.
7 Q. 303 All right. But you have no recollection of that meeting. You see, in May
8 '94 I think the council came to seek a variation of the 1993 plan. By way of
9 a draft area Action Plan. 7294, please. That's map P L 94/39. You can see
12:41:24 10 that. And there was a meeting on 23rd of May '94 of the planning development
11 and tourism committee to discuss this area Action Plan. I think Mr. Eamonn
12 Gilmore sought agreement from the County Council that they would review zoning
13 for the '93 plan for a science and technology park?
14 A. Yeah.
12:41:43 15 Q. 304 Do you remember discussions in relation to that?
16 A. I remember there were discussions, yeah.
17 Q. 305 And if we could see page 83156, please.
18
19 Now, this is a document, a memo of sorts, from Richard Lynn. And you can see
12:42:10 20 Cherrywood political strategy. The next planning meeting at which Cherrywood
21 may be debated is on Wednesday 29th June 1994, at which meeting Eamonn
22 Gilmore's motion is to be clarified as regards the siting of science and
23 technology park. 29th of June 1994 meeting may offer an opportunity for
24 members to move a motion from the floor in the context of the area Action Plan.
12:42:30 25
26 And at the bottom it says action specific members should be approached on the
27 basis of moving and supporting such a motion from the floor.
28
29 8316, please.
12:42:41 30

www.pcr.ie Day 647
64
12:42:41 1 Support of the following members must be obtained. And you can see your name
2 there second from the bottom, Helen Keogh
3 A. Yeah.
4 Q. 306 Now, do you remember being approached by Mr. Lynn?
12:42:54 5 A. I don't specifically remember being approached by Mr. Lynn. But obviously I
6 knew of their involvement in that so it wouldn't be a surprise, surprising if
7 he had. I would be very surprised if he hadn't actually. But I don't really
8 remember it.
9 Q. 307 And he -- so you have no recollection of him approaching you in relation to
12:43:15 10 this?
11 A. No but I wouldn't be surprised if he had.
12 Q. 308 Do you accept that -- all right. Now, I think the meeting on the 29th of June
13 1994. 2363, please.
14
12:43:24 15 This is a meeting of the planning development and tourism committee. And they
16 were reporting on the Cherrywood Action Plan. Now, I believe you were absent
17 at this meeting. And it was at this meeting that certain matters were agreed
18 in relation to the Action Plan.
19
12:43:47 20 There was a subsequent meeting on the 14th of November 1994. I believe you
21 were present at that meeting.
22
23 And it was at that meeting that on the 14th of November 1994 that management
24 presented to the councillors proposed variation to the 93 Development Plan to
12:44:10 25 provide for a science and technology park. And he also advised regarding
26 certain agreements had been entered into between Monarch GRE and Dun
27 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council. Do you recall that meeting. were present
28 at it?
29 A. Well, I know that I was present at meetings where those things were discussed.
12:44:34 30 But as to the precise dates and meetings, I don't have, as I said before, a

www.pcr.ie Day 647
65
12:44:39 1 vivid recollection. But I can remember these being discussed at various
2 meetings.
3 Q. 309 And do you remember the Manager proposing the science and technology park and
4 reciting the town centre north of the relief road?
12:44:53 5 A. Yeah.
6 Q. 310 You remember that?
7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. 311 And also rezoning part of the agriculture lands?
9 A. Yeah.
12:44:58 10 Q. 312 You remember that?
11 A. Yeah.
13
14 Again, you can see from this map here that what is proposed is a science and
12:45:12 15 technology park south of the district town centre.
16 A. Uh-huh.
17 Q. 314 The proposed link road being moved, if you can see, northwards, with the town
18 centre moving proportionately as well. And lands north of that, in blue on
19 the subject lands, being rezoned 16 houses to the hectare. Now, in relation
12:45:37 20 to the science and technology park and the proposed variation to the plan.
21 Both proposed changes were proposed by councillors Coffey and Butler by way of
22 a show of hands. Both were passed. Do you recall how you voted?
23 A. I don't actually, no.
24 Q. 315 And would you have any idea in relation to the changes -- you have no idea how
12:46:06 25 you voted on this or what your views would have been or any discussions you
26 would have had?
27 A. I think if the Manager was in favour of it I know that we had a lot of
28 discussion about this. And, you know, there was a lot of discussion about
29 having the science and technology park and how good that would be for Dun
12:46:23 30 Laoghaire/Rathdown and so on and so forth. I would imagine if the Manager was

www.pcr.ie Day 647
66
12:46:27 1 in favour of it that it was good proposal, that I would have supported it.
2 Q. 316 And again, we have the subject lands in relation to the rezoning of
3 agricultural land on the subject lands from agricultural to 16 houses per
4 hectare. The area Action Plan you might remember was put on display from 13th
12:46:50 5 of November '94 to 10th of March '95. Do you remember -- at 7563, please.
7 Again, this is almost a duplicate of the map that's just been on the screen and
8 the relevant proposed amendments or changes are there.
12:47:11 10 Now, on the 26th of January 1995. If I could have page 5529, please.
11
12 You write a letter to Mr. Richard Lynn regarding a national draw for the
13 Progressive Democrats. And that's dated 19th of January 1995. Written on
14 that, this document came as a result of discovery from Monarch Properties that
12:47:44 15 the writing on the bottom of this is seeking to have a cheque for 200 made out
16 for the Progressive Democrats. Do you remember writing this letter and
17 seeking?
18 A. I'm sure that I would have written to Monarch looking for, asking them to buy
19 tickets in the Progressive Democrats.
12:48:05 20 Q. 317 All right.
21
22 Now, on foot of that, back to the planning and public changes to the map. On
23 24th of April 1995 there was another meeting. You were absent again at this
24 meeting in fact. And I was at this meeting that the Manager discussed various
12:48:29 25 representations and objections that had been received on foot of the public
26 display.
27
28 And there was a change in relation to this. The changes, all of the changes
29 were confirmed in the lands. 2428, please.
12:48:43 30

www.pcr.ie Day 647
67
12:48:43 1 Sorry. That's the wrong page. 7284, please.
3 7281.
12:49:05 5 Now, again, you can see this is a map of the lands where the zoning earlier
6 zoning had been ten house per acre. Part agriculture and part town centre.
7 At map 7283. This was the final map that was confirmed in April '95. Where
8 the lands are now zoned agricultural -- all residential either ten to the
9 hectare or 16 to the hectare. E1 science and technology park and town centre.
12:49:33 10 All Monarch lands as are outlined in this map. You will see all Monarch lands
11 are now zoned some form of development there's no agricultural lands left in
12 the Monarch lands.
13
14 Do you remember this map at the time? You weren't at the meeting I accept.
12:49:48 15 Did you have discussions with anybody regarding this?
16 A. I'm sure there would have been a lot of discussion obviously at council about
17 this, yeah.
18 Q. 318 Do you remember any specific -- do you remember being approached from anybody
19 from Monarch or being approached by any interested party?
12:50:06 20 A. Oh, I'm sure that myself along with other councillors were approached by
21 representatives of Monarch in relation to this. I remember that they were
22 present in the public gallery and so on from time to time.
23 Q. 319 Very well. Now, the review of the 1993 Development Plan. Ultimately took
24 place from 1996. However, in April 1996, 6027, please.
12:50:37 25
26 Now, this is a note generated by Richard Lynn. And you will see that it is
27 dated it seems 12th of April. It could be 12th of March it's not very clear.
28 Again, it states in writing please let me have a cheque for 100 pounds in
29 favour of Helen Keogh. Do you remember receiving this 100 pounds
12:51:06 30 A. I think it's for a ticket. Or a lunch or something. As I said, any monies

www.pcr.ie Day 647
68
12:51:13 1 like that, if they were made out to me personally I endorsed them. My usual
2 practice would be to, well I hope my constant practice would have been to
3 endorse them for the constituency.
4 Q. 320 Do you remember soliciting these funds or ...?
12:51:32 5 A. Oh, I'm sure, that like, in general fund-raising terms, you know, we would have
6 sent out considerable number of letters and so on.
7 Q. 321 5815, please.
9 Again, this is now a letter written by you to Mr. Lynn. And you are again in
12:51:54 10 this letter, indeed you are seeking monies for. We are organising a business
11 lunch on Friday 3rd of May 1996 at the Doyle Tara Hotel. At the bottom this
12 is a letter generated by Monarch. Again, at the bottom of this similar could
13 I have a cheque in the sum of 500 pounds. Do you remember writing this letter
14 A. Yeah, I remember that we were fundraising and as you can see, the personal
12:52:25 15 contact is actually the people who are the treasurers in the constituency.
16 Although I wrote the letter that was on behalf of the party obviously.
17 Q. 322 And the figure written by Mr. Lynn on the bottom says 500 pounds. Do you
18 remember receiving 500 pounds?
19 A. Well I don't think I would have received it myself. Or if I, you know, if it
12:52:45 20 was received by one of the people mentioned there in my name they would have
21 asked me to endorse it.
22 Q. 323 And you don't recall receiving it?
23 A. No.
24 Q. 324 Could I have page -- sorry. I think the May '96, the review of the '93
12:53:06 25 Development Plan was put by way of position papers prepared by the council
26 officials and presented to members?
27 A. Uh-huh.
28 Q. 325 Do you remember being presented with these and circulated with these documents?
29 A. Yeah.
12:53:19 30 Q. 326 And I think on 27th of May '96 there was a report by the Manager in relation to

www.pcr.ie Day 647
69
12:53:23 1 the proposed changes?
2 A. There would have been, yes.
3 Q. 327 And 6023, please.
12:53:30 5 This is a letter again from you. 24th of June 1996. To Richard Lynn. Now,
6 this is again seeking national fund-raising draws and making this personal
7 appeal to you. Again, at the bottom of the letter is written in hand and you
8 will see by Mr. Lynn it would seem, please let me have a cheque for 200. Do
9 you see that?
12:53:57 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 328 Again, do you remember writing this?
12 A. Yes, it was a fundraiser for the party.
13 Q. 329 And could I have page 5803, please.
14
12:54:07 15 And you will see thereabout a third from the bottom up 27th of June Helen Keogh
16 PD lunch 200.
17 A. Yeah, a fundraising lunch.
18 Q. 330 If we could have 8320, please. And this is a cheque writ earn on 27th of the
19 6th 96 in the sum of 200 pounds. This is made out to yourself personally.?
12:54:35 20 A. Progressive Democrat on it as well.
21 Q. 331 That's right but it's Helen Keogh Progressive Democrat?
22 A. I assume that that's endorsed and given to the treasurers of the fundraiser.
23 Q. 332 Right. Well there's no copy of the reverse side of this cheque.
24 Unfortunately, I'm not able to assist you either on that.?
12:54:59 25 A. Well I can tell you, you know, I would be very surprised -- it should be
26 certainly.
27 Q. 333 All right. At 7659. We can see that the said cheque was debited on 20th of
28 August 1996.
29
12:55:15 30

www.pcr.ie Day 647
70
12:55:22 1 Q. 334 Now, in December 1996 the draft map and statement were prepared and furnished,
2 as I said, in advance of January '97 meeting. And this was to certainly to
3 the members proposed review of the '93 Development Plan. At 2549, please.
4 2545, please. Again, you were absent for this. Again, on 4th of February
12:55:51 5 1997 was a further meeting discussing the proposed changes. 2549. At 2728.
6 This is map 10. And this is 2728, please. This is map 10. And this map
7 provides no density limits in relation to the subject lands. Do you remember
8 receiving this map? I accept you weren't at either the meeting on the 29th of
9 January or 4th of February '97.
12:56:29 10 A. I'm quite sure that I would have received all of those, all of that
11 documentation.
12 Q. 335 Would you have made any representation to your party colleague or other
13 councillors in relation to same?
14 A. I don't believe so, no. I may have discussed it but I wouldn't have made any
12:56:44 15 representations.
16 Q. 336 I think that on this there was no vote taken on this occasion on 4th of
17 February. The matter was put back. If we could have 6186, please.
18
19 This is a letter from you to Mr. Richard Lynn. And it's dated February 1997.
12:57:13 20 National need to finance our upcoming campaign. Generously supported us in
21 the past and I would be very grateful if you would attend. A fundraising
22 dinner Michael McDoole spokesperson on finance would be attending. 60 per
23 head or 500 per table. At the bottom again there is a note written you will
24 see by Mr. Lynn and dated February '97. Please let me have a cheque for 500.
12:57:39 25 Do you remember sending that letter
26 A. Yeah, as part of our fundraising drive, I did.
27 Q. 337 And did you acknowledge this payment do you remember by way of letter or
28 otherwise?
29 A. I'd imagine that we would have.
12:57:58 30 Q. 338 All right. 6184, please. This again is a Monarch generated document. It

www.pcr.ie Day 647
71
12:58:06 1 shows February 28th Helen Keogh PD 500 for lunch draw.
2 A. The same applies.
3 Q. 339 And the same applies?
4 A. Yeah.
12:58:17 5 Q. 340 And the same was cash 6214 AIB bank statement. The same sum was cashed in
6 March '97. 6190. There's a cheque made out to you Helen Keogh 500.
7 Indeed, you endorsed it on the back we can see there?
8 A. Uh-huh.
9 Q. 341 Now, can I have 6322, please. This is the 14th of March. And again, it's to
12:58:57 10 councillor Helen Keogh sum of 100 pounds PDs. You can see that. That's six
11 from the top.?
12 A. More party fundraising, I'm afraid.
13 Q. 342 More party fundraising. And again you can see that at 6213, sixth from the
14 bottom there H Keogh Helen Keogh 100 pounds. And this is a document that is
12:59:25 15 generated by Dunloe management services limited. And I think that this is in
16 relation to the -- I think Dunloe Ewart or one of their other companies at this
17 stage had taken over the development of the subject lands?
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. 343 All right. Now, you accept that these sums were either sought or not sought
12:59:53 20 but were received by you and/or the party?
21 A. Yeah, by me on behalf of the party.
22 Q. 344 All right, Ms. Keogh. On 2nd of April '97 again there was another meeting of
23 the County Council regarding the proposed changes to the -- you weren't, again,
24 you weren't at this map -- at this meeting. But at this meeting indeed the
13:00:17 25 proposed changes to the lands. That is changes 1, 13 and 14 and 4 and 5 were
26 confirmed. 7465, please.
27
28 And this map here shows that the -- there is no residential density on the
29 subject lands at 1, 13 and 14. And you can see the numbers 13 and 14, there
13:00:44 30 on the map. If we could enlarge that, please

www.pcr.ie Day 647
72
13:00:46 1 A. I see that, yeah.
2 Q. 345 And 13 and 14 are Monarch lands. And then change 4 and, 5 is an extension
3 south of the science and technology park. And you can see that. That's the
4 purple and grey striped area moving south?
13:01:01 5 A. Yeah.
6 Q. 346 Again, we can see the motorway south of that?
7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. 347 Now, do you recall notwithstanding your absence, do you recall discussing this
9 or in any way advising anybody or discussing how people might vote, your
13:01:13 10 colleague or other councillors, in relation to this meeting?
11 A. I'm sure I discussed it. But I don't remember giving advice to anybody or
12 making representations.
13 Q. 348 On the -- this map then. 7470, please. Was put on public display. The 31
14 statutory display period to August 1997. Again, you can see that there's now,
13:01:41 15 to enlarge the area, please. Now zoning E1, D, C and residential. Science
16 and technology park, town centre and no density residential. Do you remember
17 seeing this map? Do you remember?
18 A. Yes, I do.
19 Q. 349 Yes. All right. Now, on the 21st of January 1998. This is a meeting you
13:02:08 20 were present at. That is 2617, please.
21
22 It was at this meeting that there was a number of motions. A large number of
23 motions discussed in relation to the subject lands. And the said map.
24
13:02:32 25 The Manager recommended no change in density in relation to these. And there
26 were a number of motions. You weren't involved in any of the motions and I
27 accept that. However, you were present in relation to same. And the votes
28 in relation to the changes on the lands were by way of show of hands. Do you
29 remember how you might have voted at this meeting on 21 of January 19 #- 8. I
13:03:00 30 don't specifically remember but I think I would have voted with the

www.pcr.ie Day 647
73
13:03:05 1 recommendation of the Manager at the time. But I don't remember the specific
2 meeting.
3 Q. 350 All right. And I think you will see the -- page 2730, please. This was the
4 second public display of the maps. Arising out of the various motion that is
13:03:27 5 were passed in January '98 there are now a number of changes on the lands.
6 And that is at page 2730. Can we enlarge the subject lands there, please.
7 Now, this proposal shows an increase at change 5 of the district centre albeit
8 with a cap on the size of retail development. You can see that in the orange
9 area. 5 is marked out in black. Below that, that is west of that, southwest
13:04:00 10 of that, is the increased science and technology park. We can see that as
11 well?
12 A. Uh-huh.
13 Q. 351 And again, the science and technology bark has moved also south of the subject
14 lands. Encompassing a very large area. Now, again, there was a meeting on
13:04:29 15 the 16th of June 1998. 2643, please. And you were at this meeting which
16 there was a motion seeking to change or rescind change No. 4, that is to
17 rescind the densities on residential -- the lateral residential density on
18 these lands. Do you remember that motion?
19 A. Not specifically.
13:05:00 20 Q. 352 You were present at the meeting. I can tell you that you voted against
21 rescinding the change to the map. Do you remember that?
22 A. I don't. (laughter) I think I'm getting confused at this stage.
23 Q. 353 All right. Basically, at the end of this process, there are the subject lands
24 are now -- there are no agricultural lands, as previously said. The science
13:05:23 25 and technology park has been increased. The town centre, albeit with a cap on
26 retail, has been almost doubled in size. There is, as I say, there is no
27 residential density restrictions in relation to the lands?
28 A. Uh-huh.
29 Q. 354 Could we have a look at 1374, please.
13:05:45 30

www.pcr.ie Day 647
74
13:05:45 1 Now, this is document generated on foot of statements received.
2 A. Christmas card list.
3 Q. 355 Yes. From Mr. Lynn I believe. And in 1998. You can see there on the
4 document it's about. Sorry it's small. But it's about 15 from the bottom
13:06:17 5 centre Helen Keogh. This is donations unspecified provided by Mr. Lynn.?
6 A. Sorry, what's the date of this?
7 Q. 356 It's a Christmas list, yes. Yes, it's not donations. I'm incorrect in
8 saying donations?
9 A. Christmas cards or something like that.
13:06:38 10 Q. 357 Do you remember seeking anything?
11 A. I got a Christmas card, yeah. I did, yeah. I don't think I sent one back
12 but maybe I did.
13 Q. 358 All right. And there was something similar in 1999 as well. Do you remember
14 that?
13:06:50 15 A. Oh, I'm sure I did.
16 Q. 359 At page 137 5, please.
17
18 This is a document also generated by Mr. Lynn. At No. 13. National
19 fundraising draw tickets for Progressive Democrats. Donated 15th of March
13:07:07 20 1999, following request from Mary Harney TD, senator, Helen Keogh.
21
22 Do you remember seeking... ?
23 A. More fundraising, yeah, I'm afraid so.
24 Q. 360 All right. And again at 1377, please. At 47 there. Again, this is the
13:07:29 25 document generated by Mr. Richard Lynn. Organised through senator Helen
26 Keogh. 600 contributed in October '99. Do you have any recollection of
27 that?
28 A. Oh, yeah, yes.
29 Q. 361 Did you seek that support?
13:07:42 30 A. Oh, yeah we sent out the letters, we did.

www.pcr.ie Day 647
75
13:07:44 1 Q. 362 All right. Okay. If I might, Ms. Keogh, bring you back to your statement
2 where we started off. Very briefly, you say at the second last paragraph I
3 received no payments from any of the individuals, or companies you have
4 listed. I did receive, during the course of 1992 General Election an
13:08:05 5 unsolicited personal donation by cheque from Monarch Properties for 500, which
6 I returned.
8 Do you wish to change your statement in relation to what has just been added?
9 A. No, I think it's obvious that any monies that I received were for party
13:08:17 10 fundraising. I'm sorry. I assume that any monies received for the '91 Local
11 Elections, that would have just been passed on. And I had no recollection of
12 that. Certainly, I didn't seek any contribution. And when I see it there, I
13 don't know that it was a personal contribution or not.
14
13:08:40 15 Generally speaking, if I got a contribution like that, I would just endorse it.
16 But I couldn't be absolutely definite about that.
17 Q. 363 Yes. Now, again, in relation to your earlier evidence. And I believe an
18 interview that you gave to the Tribunal. You believed you were easy accepting
19 personal cheques. That is cheques with your name written on them?
13:09:05 20 A. During the election campaign, yes.
21 Q. 364 That is the reason you gave both in your statement and here today. The reason
22 you sent back the 500 cheque?
23 A. It was to me personally.
24 Q. 365 We have dealt with 12, possibly 13 or 14 payments that would seem to indicate
13:09:22 25 that monies were provided to you. And in certain circumstances cheques were
26 written out to you personally?
27 A. Yeah well they -- I think it's a little different to receive a cheque that's,
28 you know, unsolicited to you personally as opposed to a fundraising campaign
29 for the party, which all of those were. And I sincerely hope and believe that
13:09:45 30 all of those payments by cheque would have been endorsed by me and given

www.pcr.ie Day 647
76
13:09:49 1 straight over to the party. I believe that they all were.
2 Q. 366 Right. And I think that you clarified that by saying certainly not during
3 Development Plan process. Now, during this whole period, as has been outlined
4 here today, there was Development Plans were continually being reviewed or
13:10:09 5 revised right up to 1998?
6 A. Uh-huh.
7 Q. 367 During the whole of this process?
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. 368 There are some solicited and some unsolicited?
13:10:19 10 A. Payments for the party.
11 Q. 369 To you?
12 A. For the party.
13 Q. 370 To the party?
14 A. Yeah.
13:10:22 15 Q. 371 Indeed, some of which are written out by way of cheque personally to yourself?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 372 One of which you returned.?
18 A. No, no. Let's be clear about this. The cheque that I returned was an
19 unsolicited cheque that came during the election campaign. We hadn't looked
13:10:41 20 for contributions. It came and as it wasn't part of a sort of fundraising
21 drive or anything like that, and because I was a little bit uneasy knowing that
22 I didn't in any sense want to be compromised. Not that I believe that I ever
23 would have been compromised. But that I just felt uneasy about it so I
24 returned it. Like any other politician, you know, we were involved in party
13:11:07 25 fundraising. And I think that's a very different issue.
26 Q. 373 Yes. Following from that, I think that if your stance is that notwithstanding
27 the practicalities as you've outlined in relation to fundraising and election
28 expenses. If your view as advised in writing to the Tribunal and again in
29 your direct evidence here today. Was that you didn't or you felt uneasy
13:11:39 30 accepting monies personally made out to yourself, cheques personally made tout

www.pcr.ie Day 647
77
13:11:46 1 yourself from a developer during a Development Plan. The logic of that I
2 would suggest at no stage should you receive or seek monies at any time from
3 any developer involved in lands for which you as a councillor were going to be
4 voting on?
13:12:05 5 A. Well, I mean, I just felt uneasy at the time about getting a personal donation.
6 And I hadn't solicited anything specific for myself soy sent it back.
7 Q. 374 But isn't -- again, if the principle is set out initially regarding the 500
8 pounds that you sent back. If that was your view at the time and presently
9 advised view, that should have been consistent throughout. And I suggest to
13:12:31 10 you it wasn't.
11 A. No, because they were two different things. That was a personal donation to
12 me, I believed. And so I sent it back. And the others were, you know,
13 campaigns that were organised through the constituency or through national head
14 office. And I could -- you may not see a difference but I did at the time.
13:13:01 15 Q. 375 Thank you, Ms. Keogh.?
16 A. Thank you very much.
17 Q. 376 You might answer any questions anybody might have.?
18 A. Of course.
19
13:13:08 20 Q. 377 JUDGE FAHERTY: Just one small thing. Obviously, could I ask you -- was
21 there ever within the party a discussion as to who would, if you like, look for
22 fundraising. Obviously in Dun Laoghaire County Council, when you became a
23 member of that in '94, it was a much smaller body than the County Council?
24 A. Yes.
13:13:29 25
26 Q. 378 JUDGE FAHERTY: And I know you've answered the questions put to you by Counsel
27 for the Tribunal. Did you ever have any qualms about being the person I
28 suppose given that you were in Dun Laoghaire County Council. That you were
29 putting your name to letters seeking, albeit for the party -- I'm just asking
13:13:52 30 this in the context that in this fund raiding drive for various things,

www.pcr.ie Day 647
78
13:13:58 1 obviously over a number of years especially '94 '95. Obviously Monarch who
2 would be obviously keen to have development on their lands. They would have
3 obviously and I know you can't speak for them. But I've seen your voting
4 pattern if you like. Particularly the vote on the confirmation back in '93
13:14:21 5 where the four houses to the acre. You know, they got the increased density.
6 I'm just wondering. Obviously you were selected or asked to do a fundraising
7 drive. Within the PDs was there any ever any discussion about councillors
8 being asked to do this at a time when, indeed, they may have to make decisions
9 about, in respect of lands, owned by people to whom the party was targeting as
13:14:52 10 businesses?
11 A. Well, I think, first of all.
12
13 Q. 379 JUDGE FAHERTY: That's a very long-winded question.
14 A. No, I understand exactly what you're getting at. I don't think any of us
13:15:02 15 liked -- none of us would like as we say going around with a begging bowl. We
16 knew, you know, in order to run political campaign it is had to be done. And
17 I didn't particularly like doing it. Now, I would say that there was
18 certainly within the party and certainly my own view was that I would take
19 decisions based on the best evidence put in front of me. And I don't believe
13:15:31 20 I ever deviated from that.
21
22 Q. 380 CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you very much.
23 A. Thank you.
24
13:15:40 25 THE WITNESS THEN WITHDREW.
26
27
28 MS. DILLON: That concludes the business of the Tribunal today.
29
13:15:43 30 I understand that we are sitting at eleven o'clock on Tuesday next.

www.pcr.ie Day 647
79
13:15:48 1
2 CHAIRMAN: Eleven o'clock.
4 MS. DILLON: May it please you.
13:15:51 5
13:40:55 10 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING DAY,
11 TUESDAY, 6TH JUNE, 2006, AT 11:00 A.M.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 647
1
09:27:57 1 THE TRIBUNAL RESUMED AS FOLLOWS ON WEDNESDAY,
2 7TH JUNE 2006, AT 10 AM:
4 CHAIRMAN: Good morning Ms. Dillon.
10:05:51 5
6 MS. DILLON: Morning sir. Mr. Finbarr Hanrahan please.
8 FINBARR HANRAHAN, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS EXAMINED
9 AS FOLLOWS BY MS. DILLON:
10:06:04 10
11 CHAIRMAN: Good morning Mr. Hanrahan
12 Morning Chairman.
13 Q. 1 Good morning Mr. Hanrahan.
14 A. Morning.
10:06:38 15 Q. 2 You were elected to Dublin County Council in 1985 and in 1994 you became a
16 member of South Dublin County Council, is that correct?
18 Q. 3 Therefore your involvement with the Cherrywood lands, insofar as you had an
19 input into the zoning or planning of those lands, occurred between the years
10:06:54 20 1990 and ended in the end of 1993, December 1993, is that correct?
21 A. I guess so, I wouldn't remember it in detail but I guess so, yes.
22 Q. 4 I will show you the documents. I believe you were elected as member of Fianna
23 Fail, is that right?
10:07:09 25 Q. 5 Can I ask you first of all whether or not you recollect the members of Fianna
26 Fail having pre council meetings upstairs in Conway's pub?
27 A. Yes we had pre council meetings, yes.
28 Q. 6 And the Tribunal has been told that in general the party tended to go through
29 the matters that were on the agenda for the meeting, do you agree with that?
10:07:28 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
2
10:07:29 1 Q. 7 Would the local councillors concerned with the lands that were on the agenda
2 give their opinion on what should happen with the lands?
3 A. Sometimes, yes, sometimes no. Sometimes it wouldn't necessarily be a local
4 councillor, but we'd generally debate the agenda, it was considered to be good
10:07:48 5 practice to have the agenda looked at and considered by ourselves before we go
6 into the Council. Because the Council was a very big Council, 77 members, and
7 it was a bit chaotic at general Council meetings so that as our party was the
8 biggest party, we always found it a good idea to have a look at the agenda
9 before we go inside.
10:08:10 10 Q. 8 And the Tribunal has been told that, by some members of your party,
11 Mr. Geraghty and Mr. Madigan in particular, that effectively a decision was
12 made by the Fianna Fail party at that meeting before you you went into the
13 Council Chamber, do you agree with that?
14 A. I do not agree with that.
10:08:27 15 Q. 9 The Tribunal has also been told that in general the Fianna Fail party tended to
16 present a united front at the Council meetings, would you agree with that?
17 A. No I never considered myself voting in terms of a united front with the Fianna
18 Fail party. If I felt that something should be voted on and if my party voted
19 in the same way, then you can call it that we all voted the same way, but there
10:08:50 20 were times when councillors voted freely and according to their own decision.
21 And there was never a situation where the party actually decided inside of the
22 meetings in Conway's, that we'd all vote in a particular way outside.
23 Q. 10 Do you remember the late Mr. Pat Dunne?
24 A. I do.
10:09:07 25 Q. 11 And Mr. Dunne has been described to the Tribunal as the whip of the Fianna Fail
26 party during a particular period of time in Dublin County Council, do you agree
27 with that?
28 A. He was the whip, yes.
29 Q. 12 And the Tribunal has also been told that it was, it appeared to be, part of
10:09:20 30 Mr. Dunne's function to get numbers into the chamber for particular votes, do

www.pcr.ie Day 649
3
10:09:24 1 you agree with that?
2 A. Well I believe its the function of all whips, in all organisations, to get
3 people into the chamber, people of their own party, into a particular chamber
4 in order to do the business of the, in our case the business of the County
10:09:40 5 Council.
6 Q. 13 The Tribunal has also been told that on occasion Mr. Dunne would give the nod
7 to the Chairman and matters would be moved up or down the agenda depending on
8 the numbers that were in the chamber, do you ever recollect anything like that
9 happening?
10:09:53 10 A. No, I do not, no.
11 Q. 14 Now I think the Tribunal wrote to you in connection with the lands at
12 Cherrywood and you replied, I think by letter, of the 16 March 2006, at 984
13 please and you provided a narrative statement to the Tribunal, in which you
14 said the only involvement you had with the lands at Cherrywood was when you
10:10:12 15 voted in support of the Cherrywood Development when it came before Dublin
16 County Council in the early 1990s. You said the only interaction you had with
17 either the servants or agents of Monarch Properties, or any of the individuals
18 listed in part 2 or part 4 of your correspondence, was with Mr. Richard Lynn.
19
10:10:27 20 And you said that you believe that had in relation to part 3 of the inquiry you
21 received a cheque in the post from Monarch Properties for 300 or 400 Punts as a
22 donation towards the local election in 1991. And a similar contribution was
23 also made in the general election of the 1992. And those monies were used in
24 the general day to day expenditure of the election campaigns. Is that your
10:10:47 25 statement?
26 A. That is correct yes.
27 Q. 15 Do you confirm the contents of that Mr. Hanrahan to be true?
28 A. Well in the meantime you have sent me documentation which suggests that in fact
29 my figures were wrong.
10:10:58 30 Q. 16 Yes. From the documentation that you have been provided with Mr. Hanrahan, by

www.pcr.ie Day 649
4
10:11:04 1 the Tribunal, it would appear that you received three political payments, isn't
2 that right, from Monarch Properties?
3 A. It would appear to be so yes, I presume the figures Monarch Properties gave you
4 are correct, but I wouldn't have -- my memory is this, the statement that I
10:11:18 5 gave.
6 Q. 17 Yes your memory in relation to the 1991 payment was 300 or 400 punts and
7 according to Monarch Properties, at 3241 please, and you will see just slightly
8 above halfway down on that, that you were recorded as receiving 600 pounds on
9 the 6th June 1991 and at 3252, seven from the bottom, a cheque payments book of
10:11:47 10 Monarch records you as receiving 600 pounds. Do you see that?
11 A. Yes I do.
12 Q. 18 Do you dispute that record Mr. Hanrahan?
13 A. Well I have no records of my own, so I can't dispute their records if I have no
14 records of my own. So I am accepting it as, I presume that the Tribunal has
10:12:06 15 well and truly checked their details already and I believe it may be true all
16 right, yes.
17 Q. 19 I mean your own recollection was that you had received money in 1991?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 20 But you put it at 300 or 400 pounds an not 600, is that right?
10:12:23 20 A. That's true.
21 Q. 21 The records you have also been provided with by the Tribunal at page 3809,
22 record a contribution in November 1992 of 1,000 pounds, and that's just
23 slightly above halfway down on that document, do you see, F Hanrahan, Fianna
24 Fail, general election expenses?
10:12:41 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 22 13th November 1992. And you had no recollection or sorry, you did not in your
27 statement to the Tribunal provide any information in relation to that payment,
28 isn't that correct?
29 A. Oh I do. I did tell the Tribunal that I got a similar amount, I couldn't
10:12:58 30 remember the actual amount, so in my letter that you had on the screen just a

www.pcr.ie Day 649
5
10:13:02 1 moment ago, I actually said in '92 I got a similar amount, but because I
2 couldn't remember the amount, I called it a similar amount. I trusted that you
3 would probably find the correct amount from Monarch Properties as in fact they
4 did send out cheques anyway.
10:13:18 5 Q. 23 Sorry, I obviously didn't make myself clear, what I had said to you
6 Mr. Hanrahan was you didn't tell the Tribunal in your letter to the Tribunal of
7 the 16th March 2006 that you had received a thousand pounds, in November of
8 1992, isn't that the position?
9 A. Sorry, I didn't tell the Tribunal -- when?
10:13:39 10 Q. 24 In your letter, what you said to the Tribunal was a similar contribution of 300
11 or 400 pounds was received for the general election in 1992, isn't that right?
12 A. No its not. I said a similar contribution, but I didn't say a similar
13 contribution of 300 or 400 pounds.
14 Q. 25 Very well, we'll just look at the letter, 984 please. Do you agree first of
10:14:01 15 all that in your letter you disclose two donations?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 26 The first is a payment of 300 or 400 pounds in 1991?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 27 The second is described as "A similar contribution was made for the general
10:14:15 20 election of 1992", by the words a similar contribution, was the Tribunal to
21 understand that you were saying you had received 300 or 400 pounds in 1992?
22 A. No, the reason I actually said a similar contribution was, that I couldn't
23 recall what the contribution was. But I did recall that I got a contribution
24 and since I couldn't actually put a figure on it I called a similar
10:14:39 25 contribution.
26 Q. 28 Similar to what?
27 A. Similar to the contribution that I received in '91.
28 Q. 29 Which was 300 or 400 pounds.
29 A. But I didn't mean it to be the same.
10:14:52 30 Q. 30 I see. In any event...

www.pcr.ie Day 649
6
10:14:53 1 A. If I actually wanted to say it was the same, I would have said the same
2 contribution was made in '92.
3 Q. 31 But you weren't aware of the precise amount you received in 1991 either, isn't
4 that the position?
10:15:03 5 A. No, in fact that's true.
6 Q. 32 I think you were provided with a cheque, at 8346, this is a copy of a cheque in
7 the sum of 1,000 pounds in favour of yourself dated 13th of November 1992,
9 A. Yes, I see it.
10:15:19 10 Q. 33 Now can you recollect having any contact with anybody in Monarch Properties
11 leading up to the receipt of that cheque?
12 A. No.
13 Q. 34 Can I show you a document of 4655 Mr. Hanrahan. And you will have seen this in
14 the brief of documents, with which you were furnished and these are expenses
10:15:42 15 sheets provided to the Tribunal by Monarch Properties and this one is made out
16 in the name of Mr. Richard Lynn and its for the weekend of the 12th November
17 1993, and you will see there that you -- sorry I beg your pardon its 1993 so
18 its not relevant to the point that I was making, I beg your pardon.
19
10:16:02 20 The next payment I think Mr. Hanrahan is 1997, is that right?
21 A. So you tell me, I had no memory of it myself, but I accept if its in the
22 records that in fact it was made.
23 Q. 35 At 6322 you will note some seven or eight from the bottom of the 3rd of June
24 1997, an election contribution of 495 pounds, do you accept that that's a
10:16:28 25 payment that was made to you?
26 A. I accept that that's what's in the records. I don't have any memory of getting
27 it at all, but obviously if it was sent out, if its recorded properly and if
28 you have checked it out properly, I will accept that I must have received it.
29 Q. 36 Well according to the cheque payments book of Monarch Properties which records
10:16:46 30 the cheques that are written by Monarch properties, at 6335, you will see on

www.pcr.ie Day 649
7
10:16:58 1 that page, in the top half of that page, there are a series of payments that
2 are political payments, commencing with Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, Labour Party,
3 Democratic Left, Fine Gael Dun Laoghaire, Fine Gael -- and then Finbarr
4 Hanrahan, Fianna Fail and beneath that Michael Joe Cosgrave?
10:17:13 5 A. Yes, I see that, yeah.
6 Q. 37 That is a record of payments made by Monarch Properties in 1997. And would you
7 accept that it is likely that you received a sum of 495 pounds in 1997?
8 A. It is quite likely, but I have no memory of it at all.
9 Q. 38 Yes. Who did you deal within Monarch Properties, or did you deal with anybody
10:17:36 10 in Monarch Properties Mr. Hanrahan, in connection with those payments?
11 A. Well, I wouldn't really call it dealing with anybody. I met Mr. Richard Lynn
12 who was actually, a person who was actually promoting their proposals,
13 generally, and I met him probably on a number of occasions actually. I don't
14 recall meeting others, but I may have.
10:18:05 15 Q. 39 Were you aware that Mr. Lynn was lobbying for support for the development at
16 Cherrywood?
17 A. Absolutely, yes.
18 Q. 40 And would Mr. Lynn and did Mr. Lynn seek your support in connection with the
19 Cherrywood Development?
10:18:17 20 A. Oh he would have, yes. I mean we wouldn't have been -- we wouldn't have been
21 talking about yesterday's race meeting, obviously if Mr. Lynn sought me out it
22 would be to discuss Cherrywood, I expect.
23 Q. 41 And Cherrywood wouldn't have been situate in your constituency, isn't that
24 right Mr. Hanrahan?
26 Q. 42 You are the other side of the county, you are west Dublin, isn't that the
27 position?
28 A. That's correct yeah.
29 Q. 43 Would you have had any experience or knowledge of these lands yourself?
10:18:45 30 A. No personal knowledge, no.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
8
10:18:47 1 Q. 44 And did you discuss with any of your colleagues on Dublin County Council, the
2 zoning of these lands, or changes that were proposed to be made to these lands
3 in the review of the Development Plan?
4 A. Well, it may have been discussed at one of our Fianna Fail meetings for
10:19:03 5 instance and I may very well have heard discussions or been involved in
6 discussions but, I can't remember them now.
7 Q. 45 The record records Mr. Hanrahan, that you voted in favour of the Manager's
8 report in May of 1992, at 7207, if I can show you first a map at 7203, now the
9 lands outlined in red are the Cherrywood lands that were owned by Monarch
10:19:34 10 Properties, would you have been shown any maps or documents by Mr. Lynn?
11 A. I probably would, but I can't recall at this stage.
12 Q. 46 And the Manager was proposing in May of 1992, that the residential density
13 would be changed to Action Area Plan and that the extent of the residential
14 lands owned by Monarch would increased, and that was reflected on the map
10:19:58 15 that's on screen, do you see that?
16 A. I see the map on the screen.
17 Q. 47 Well do you see where it says A to A1?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 48 And the first A with the P is, residential zoning on piped sewerage, isn't that
10:20:14 20 right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 49 And the second, A1P, is residential zoning on Action Area Plan, isn't that
23 right?
24 A. Correct.
10:20:21 25 Q. 50 So what the Manager is suggesting insofar as the words A to A1, is a change in
26 the density, from residential on piped sewerage, to Action Area Plan, isn't
27 that right?
28 A. Correct yes.
29 Q. 51 And included in an Action Area Plan would be provision for schools and
10:20:45 30 provision for retail, isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 649
9
10:20:45 1 A. That's correct yeah.
2 Q. 52 And the Manager is also showing on that map a change in zoning from B to A1P,
3 do you see that?
4 A. I do, yes.
10:20:53 5 Q. 53 And that's a change from agriculture to residential Action Area Plan?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 54 So now having considered the map, do you agree that the Manager was proposing a
8 change in the residential density on the lands, together with an increase in
9 the residentially zoned area?
10:21:10 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 55 Now that map came before the meeting of the Dublin County Council on the 27th
12 of May, 1992 and it was proposed by Councillor Lydon and seconded by Councillor
13 McGrath, at 7207 please. Now Councillor Lydon and Councillor McGrath proposed
14 that the Manager's report, DP 92/44 be adopted and approved by the Council, do
10:21:38 15 you see that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 56 And you voted in favour of that, isn't that right?
19 Q. 57 Now would you outline to the Tribunal having looked at the map, the reasons why
10:21:48 20 you would have voted in favour of that?
21 A. Well, we are going back a very long time now. Any vote I made in the County
22 Council was as a result of listening to arguments in favour of, or against a
23 particular proposal, over a period of time. Not necessarily in a short few
24 moments inside at that particular council meeting. I would have listened to
10:22:11 25 the various arguments and I would have come to the conclusion that that was the
26 correct way for me to vote.
27 Q. 58 Yes and that was a very close meeting in May of 1992, 35 against and 33 for,
28 with no abstentions, isn't that right?
29 A. Yeah I see that now, I would have no memory of that, but I can see it now, yes.
10:22:31 30 Q. 59 Is it likely that these, this map and these lands were discussed by the Fianna

www.pcr.ie Day 649
10
10:22:34 1 Fail party at their meeting in Conway's pub in advance of the full Council
2 meeting?
3 A. It is probably likely, yes, we may have discussed it, I am not sure, we didn't
4 always have meeting before every meeting of the County Council by the way, so I
10:22:50 5 have no memory of the meeting I couldn't say, we mightn't have a meeting at
6 all. By the way you keep saying in Conway's, we did have meetings in other
7 venues besides Conways, it just happens I might stress about the Conway's
8 situation, we had very small office in the County Council offices in O'Connell
9 Street, to accommodate our very large numbers, it was a room that would be very
10:23:14 10 small for ten councillors and we were a membership of, I think we were 37
11 members, Fianna Fail members, who had to use that room and normally you'd have
12 your group meetings in your own -- in your actual party room, but it was so
13 small that we had to repair to other places to have our meetings. And that's
14 why one of the venues we attended frequently was Conways, because there was
10:23:39 15 enough space for us and it was convenient to the County Council as well, I just
16 thought I might point that out because you keep mentioning meetings in Conways
17 all the time, I feel that's its important to perhaps people should know why we
18 were meeting in Conway's and not the County Council itself, we just didn't have
19 the accommodation.
10:23:59 20 Q. 60 I think the Tribunal has heard evidence from your other of your colleagues also
21 as to the lack of accommodation in Dublin County Council?
22 A. Well I wasn't aware of that.
23 Q. 61 I think in fact Mr. Kitt described the Council facilities as being inadequate.
24 And I think other members, not limited to Fianna Fail, have given similar
10:24:18 25 evidence to the Tribunal?
26 A. Yes I agree totally with Minister Kitt.
27 Q. 62 On the 27th of May 1992 there was a second vote at which you voted, which was
28 the one to put a town centre zoning on the lands at 7215, and this was a motion
29 by Councillor Gilmore, seconded by Councillor O'Callaghan, to provide a C
10:24:46 30 zoning on a portion of the lands and the land in question are the Monarch

www.pcr.ie Day 649
11
10:24:50 1 Property lands at Cherrywood -- sorry 7214, I beg your pardon. 7214, you will
2 see there there is a motion by Councillor Gilmore, seconded by councillor
3 O'Callaghan, to put a C zoning on a portion of the lands?
4 A. Yes.
10:25:14 5 Q. 63 And you will see that you vote in favour of that motion?
6 A. Yes, I see that.
7 Q. 64 Right. And again can you outline to the Tribunal the reasons why you would
8 have voted in favour of that motion?
9 A. I wouldn't remember the actual detail again, but in fact I would have listened
10:25:33 10 to the various arguments for and against and I would have come to the
11 conclusion, obviously, in that particular case, to vote for.
12 Q. 65 There were also a number of motions, you will have seen in the records
13 Mr. Hanrahan, that took place on that date, including a motion by councillor
14 Sean Barrett, which had the effect of reducing the residential density to one
10:25:53 15 per acre, do you remember that happening?
16 A. No.
17 Q. 66 You voted against all of the low density motions, including voting against
18 Councillor Barrett's motion at 7216, but Councillor Barrett's motion was in
19 fact passed.
10:26:11 20 A. Okay.
21 Q. 67 Now the effect of that at 7217. 7217 please, this is the map that went out on
22 the second public display and the yellow lands are the residentially zoned
23 lands in the Carrickmines Valley and the lands within the red outline are the
24 Monarch lands. And the cut out portion at the centre of the Monarch lands is
10:26:41 25 the new town centre zoning?
26 A. Right.
27 Q. 68 It should have been coloured pink, the effect of Councillor Barrett's motion,
28 was to change the density from four per acre, to one per acre for all of the
29 yellow lands, which are the residential lands, including Monarch's lands. You
10:27:01 30 will have seen that in the documentation Mr. Hanrahan, isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 649
12
10:27:04 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 69 And the effect of that was to reduce the density for Monarch from four per acre
3 to one per acre, isn't that right?
4 A. Yes.
10:27:14 5 Q. 70 Now the matter came back before the Council in December, in November of 1993
6 for the confirming meeting, and the Manager had recommended that that change be
7 deleted, in other words that the density go back to four per acre and a motion
8 was brought, on the 11th of December 1993, seeking to confirm the change at one
9 per acre, at 7262 please. And this is the vote, on seeking to confirm
10:27:53 10 Councillor Barrett's motion and you vote against that, in other words you vote
11 against low density, isn't that right?
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. 71 Now what happened after that -- can I ask you Mr. Hanrahan when that happened
14 and the Council voted against confirming change 3 or against Councillor
10:28:11 15 Barrett's proposed change, did it automatically revert to the previous map, the
16 map that had gone out on the first public display?
17 A. I'm not sure, it may have.
18 Q. 72 Well you were the councillor Mr. Hanrahan, you were there?
19 A. Yes but we are talking about a long time ago, I'm afraid.
10:28:27 20 Q. 73 You are still a councillor?
21 A. No I am not.
22 Q. 74 When did you retire?
23 A. 99.
24 Q. 75 Now let's go to - take it up to recent times, if a motion was brought to, in a
10:28:39 25 Development Plan, seeking to confirm a change, and it was lost, what was the
26 effect of that?
27 A. Yeah, you go back to the original.
28 Q. 76 The map that had been displayed previously?
29 A. Yes.
10:28:50 30 Q. 77 So that if the map that had been displayed previously was four to the acre and

www.pcr.ie Day 649
13
10:28:55 1 the change was one to the acre and the motion sought to confirm one to the acre
2 and was lost, automatically would it have reverted to four to the acre?
3 A. It would yes, I should imagine, yes.
4 Q. 78 The next motion that was brought, on the same date, was a motion by Councillor
10:29:09 5 Marren and Coffey at 7263. Now this motion is in connection with the Monarch
6 lands, I am going to get you to the map attached to the motion, but the map
7 attached to the motion is at 7227, and this relates only to the Monarch lands,
8 it's the same outline Mr. Hanrahan, you can see that?
9 A. All right yes.
10:29:40 10 Q. 79 If you go back to 7263 and the record of the meeting, Councillor Marren and
11 Coffey propose a motion that, to accept the Manager's report, insofar as it
12 relates to the Monarch lands, do you see the motion that's on screen straight
13 in front of you?
14 A. Yes.
10:30:02 15 Q. 80 So what Councillor Marren and Coffey were proposing, was delete the amendment,
16 insofar as the Monarch lands are concerned and confirm it in relation to the
17 balance of the lands?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 81 The effect of that if it was passed was that Monarch's density would be four
10:30:18 20 houses to the acre and the balance of the residentially zoned lands in the
21 Carrickmines Valley would be one house to the acre, isn't that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 82 That motion was passed by 44 to 27 and you voted in favour of it?
24 A. Yes.
10:30:33 25 Q. 83 Now can I ask you Mr. Hanrahan, if that motion hadn't been brought, in view of
26 the fact that the previous motion was lost, if that motion hadn't been
27 proceeded with, the effect would have been that all of the residentially zoned
28 lands would have reverted to four to the acre?
29 A. I'm not absolutely certain but --
10:30:54 30 Q. 84 Well subject to anything --

www.pcr.ie Day 649
14
10:30:55 1 A. I can't definitively say that, I would need some advice on that myself.
2 Q. 85 It would seem --
3 A. I'd need professional advice on it.
4 Q. 86 Yes. But it would seem logical, that if the change was defeated, the
10:31:09 5 confirming change was defeated as happened here, the density on the lands had
6 to be some density, it had to revert to something isn't that right? It would
7 have had to have gone back to what was on the previous map?
8 A. I'm afraid I would have had to have -- I would have had to have the advice of
9 management in the County Council, or the advice of a town planner, to help me
10:31:29 10 in my deliberations on that particular issue.
11 Q. 87 How long were you a councillor Mr. Hanrahan?
12 A. 14 years.
13 Q. 88 In that 14 years you are not in a position to assist the Tribunal and tell the
14 Tribunal what would happen to a Development Plan map or a zoning on a
10:31:43 15 Development Plan map, in the event that the confirming motion was unsuccessful?
16 A. It would normally revert to the original motion.
17 Q. 89 Isn't that the point. That's what would normally happen?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 90 In those circumstances, can you think of any reason as to why anybody would
10:31:58 20 have proceeded with the motion, that would have had the effect of giving four
21 houses to the acre to the Monarch lands only and leaving the balance at one to
22 the acre.
23 A. The motion in question, only refers to the Monarch lands, it doesn't refer to
24 the other lands at all.
10:32:17 25 Q. 91 Well with respect, it does, because it says that the balance of the lands will
26 remain at two per hectare, isn't that right?
27 A. It does yes.
28 Q. 92 Isn't that right, so that this motion is dealing with all of the residentially
29 zoned lands in the Carrickmines Valley isn't that the position?
10:32:32 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
15
10:32:32 1 Q. 93 As a result of the defeat of the prefers motion these lands would automatically
2 have reverted to four to the acre, isn't that likely?
3 A. Likely, but I am not absolutely certain.
4 Q. 94 The effect of this motion was to ensure, four to the acre for the Monarch lands
10:32:46 5 and one to the acre for the balance of the lands, isn't that right?
6 A. It would appear to be the case, yes.
7 Q. 95 Can you give any reason to the Tribunal as to why that would be so?
8 A. No its quite a long time ago now at this stage, all I can imagine is that the
9 lands immediately around the town centre, you know to make the town centre more
10:33:07 10 viable, the immediate lands around it would probably, would probably give a
11 better service to the town centre, if the zoning was higher, but I can't recall
12 it myself now at this stage, I don't know if that was the reason why I voted
13 for, I would have taken all the various arguments into consideration, I would
14 have listened to everybody speaking, local councillors and councillors from
10:33:26 15 outside as well, because everybody was entitled to their opinion and at the end
16 of the day I was entitled to vote for, against, or abstain and I ended up
17 voting in this particular case, I voted for.
18 Q. 96 And looking back at it now Mr. Hanrahan and looking back at the map, at 7217.
19 Can you see any reason as to why the decision was made to zone the Monarch
10:33:57 20 lands at four to the acre and the balance of the Carrickmines residentially
21 zoned lands at one to the acre?
22 A. I am sure the proposers at the time and the others who spoke in favour of it
23 would have outlined very good reasons why they proposed that particular
24 proposal in that particular end result and I voted in favour of that particular
10:34:18 25 end result.
26 Q. 97 Yes obviously I didn't make myself clear Mr. Hanrahan, looking at the map can
27 you give the Tribunal any reason as to why the Monarch lands would have been
28 zoned at four to the acre and the balance of the residentially zoned lands at
29 one to the acre?
10:34:35 30 A. Are you asking me to give an opinion, 15 or 16 years later, I have no opinion

www.pcr.ie Day 649
16
10:34:41 1 to give on that.
2 Q. 98 I'm asking to you give the Tribunal a reason as to why you voted the way you
3 did Mr. Hanrahan?
4 A. I already told you. I listened to all the arguments in favour of that
10:34:51 5 particular motion and would have paid very strict attention to what people said
6 at the time and at the end of the debate, when the vote was called, my duty was
7 to vote for, or against, or abstain. And I voted for the motion having
8 listened attentively to all the various arguments and I am sure I may have
9 heard arguments about the other lands as well at the time, but I can't recall
10:35:17 10 it at this stage, and I wouldn't be in a position to give an opinion now, just
11 looking at a map that's come up from many years ago. I'm not in a position to
12 give it, I just wouldn't be able to.
13 Q. 99 Yes.
14 A. To suggest anything --
10:35:29 15 Q. 100 Just to confirm, did you receive all the documents from the Tribunal is that
16 right?
17 A. Oh I did yes.
18 Q. 101 Thank you very much Mr. Hanrahan would you answer any question that is anybody
19 else might have?
10:35:38 20 A. Thank you.
21
22 CHAIRMAN: Anybody here who wishes to ask Mr. Hanrahan questions?
23 Mr. Hanrahan, could I just ask you, in 1992 approximately what was the biggest
24 or political payment or political donation you received outside of your family?
10:35:57 25 A. Chairman, I -- 1992 was the one where the cheque for Monarch was for a thousand
26 pounds?
27
28 Q. 102 CHAIRMAN: For a thousand, yes.
29 A. That was the biggest, I didn't even recall that, but that --
10:36:09 30

www.pcr.ie Day 649
17
10:36:09 1 Q. 103 CHAIRMAN: Would it have been the biggest by far? Can you recollect?
2 A. I don't know, but the biggest anyway.
4 Q. 104 CHAIRMAN: And surely that would have helped you to recall it when you were
10:36:21 5 providing the information to the Tribunal.
6 A. Honestly Chairman I couldn't remember that. I thought, I didn't have legal
7 advice now when I was writing my letter, I wrote the letter in all serious --
8 you know, gave it full consideration and tried to recall as best I could. I
9 gave you the answer that I was capable of and only that, otherwise if I had
10:36:47 10 remembered that I received a thousand pounds, I would have no problem actually
11 informing the Tribunal.
12
13 Q. 105 CHAIRMAN: And up to 1999 when you left the council would that have remained
14 the single largest donation?
10:37:04 15 A. It would yeah.
16
17 Q. 106 JUDGE FAHERTY: Just one thing Mr. Hanrahan, on the 11th November, the first
18 substantive motion that's put, that was a motion I think, I have forgotten who
19 brought it now, but it was to confirm change 3 simplisitor, change 3 was where
10:37:22 20 the zoning had gone back from four houses to the acre, to one to the acre.
21 A. Yes.
22
23 Q. 107 JUDGE FAHERTY: The first motion, substantive motion put to the floor on the
24 11th November is to confirm that, and you vote against that?
26
27 Q. 108 JUDGE FAHERTY: And that would appear consistent with your earlier vote back
28 in 1992 where you were voting for the Manager's proposals, because he wanted
29 four to the acre, low density four to the acre, on an Action Plan?
10:37:51 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
18
10:37:52 1
2 Q. 109 JUDGE FAHERTY: That would appear, certainly your vote against the confirming
3 of the one house to the acre, would appear consistent.
4 A. Yes. That's correct yeah.
10:38:05 5
6 Q. 110 JUDGE FAHERTY: And from what you have said to the Tribunal, you would have
7 considered, you say, not just what would happen on the day, but all matters,
8 and presumably including all documents you would have received as a councillor,
9 in advance of the votes?
10:38:21 10 A. Absolutely, yes, yes Chair moon, yes.
11
12 Q. 111 JUDGE FAHERTY: And can I just ask you, I'm taking it from that, that when you
13 voted against confirming change 3, you didn't agree with change 3?
14 A. Yes, I mustn't have.
10:38:38 15
16 Q. 112 JUDGE FAHERTY: And it would appear you didn't agree with change 3 regarding
17 all of the yellow lands that's on the map that's before you there, I think
18 that's the same map, 7217?
19 A. I think it is yeah.
10:38:49 20
21 Q. 113 JUDGE FAHERTY: But leaving aside the issue of what would happen or what
22 happened legally if you like, because you say you can't answer that, but a
23 little while later, there is a motion brought for the Monarch lands and you
24 vote in favour of that -- and for four houses to the acre for Monarch, but for
10:39:13 25 only one house to the acre for the balance of the lands?
26 A. Yes.
27
28 Q. 114 JUDGE FAHERTY: And can you explain at all, why you would have taken, taken
29 that stance, having, if you like, voted against a motion to confirm change 3 at
10:39:37 30 the same meeting?

www.pcr.ie Day 649
19
10:39:40 1 A. Well, as I said, its a long time ago now, and I guess there would have been
2 various arguments for and against a particular motion at the time and
3 notwithstanding whether there was another motion earlier or not, the arguments
4 on that particular one -- I can't actually recall why people would have argued
10:40:03 5 against four to the acre for the other lands but this was the motion that was
6 before us, and if the owners of the other lands had a proposal for four to the
7 acre later on I might very well have voted for or I might not have voted for
8 it. I would have listened again how they put their case and what I felt was
9 good planning for the area. But at the time the motion in question, I believed
10:40:28 10 it was in the interests of good planning for the county, to have actually
11 supported that particular motion.
12
13 Q. 115 JUDGE FAHERTY: And did you, when you were voting on that the words of the
14 motion, I think they are on page 7263, it mentions the lands outlined in red
10:40:45 15 on the map and the balance then, at one to the acre, did you know that they
16 were the Monarch lands Mr. Hanrahan?
17 A. I might have, I probably did actually but --
18
19 Q. 116 JUDGE FAHERTY: And how would you have known they were the Monarch lands?
10:41:03 20 A. Well there was quite a considerable amount of lobbying, of course, going on and
21 these maps were actually posted to us, if not handed to councillors and to
22 officials as well of course and to other interested parties. So I would have
23 known at that stage I'm sure, but at this stage I don't recall it so well, but
24 I would have known at the time, yes.
10:41:25 25
26 JUDGE FAHERTY: Right. Thanks very much.
27
28 CHAIRMAN: Right thank you very much Mr. Hanrahan.
29
10:41:29 30 THE WITNESS THEN WITHDREW

www.pcr.ie Day 649
20
10:41:38 1
2 MS. DILLON: Mr. Bill O'Herlihy please.
4 MR. O'HIGGINS: I should say sir I appear for Mr. O'Herlihy, instructed by
10:41:57 5 Martin E Marren solicitors.
7 CHAIRMAN: Okay we grant representation.
9 MR. O'HIGGINS: I think representation was granted last week, or the week
10:42:05 10 before.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 649
21
10:42:05 1 BILL O'HERLIHY, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS EXAMINED
4 CHAIRMAN: Good morning Mr. O'Herlihy.
10:42:19 5 A. Good morning.
6 Q. 117 Good morning Mr. O'Herlihy, I think that at some date, probably towards the
7 late, latter part of 1991 you were retained by Monarch Properties as a public
8 relations consultant, is that right?
10:42:34 10 Q. 118 Can you outline to the Tribunal first of all who you met in Monarch Properties
11 and the brief as you understood it?
12 A. The person who worked most closely with was Richard Lynn, and the brief that I
13 was -- there were quite a few, the very first meeting had quite a few Monarch
14 executives, I can't remember who they were offhand at this stage to be
10:42:59 15 truthful. The name escapes me, but the principle person was a Scots man.
16 Q. 119 Mr. Sweeney?
17 A. Exactly. Eddie Sweeney, exactly. Eddie Sweeney and Richard Lynn were the two
18 people I worked most closely with. My brief essentially was to create a
19 climate of opinion where the Cherrywood project would be appealing, first of
10:43:25 20 all to the community, secondly to the -- that there would be positive media
21 response to it and thirdly that the councillors, particularly the councillors
22 of the area, but generally speaking, the councillors of Dublin County Council
23 would be supportive of the project. That was the brief.
24
10:43:43 25 My function then was to actually develop a strategy and to actually talk to and
26 bring the Monarch people on board in the context of how they themselves would
27 fully represent that strategy, rather than me, because the function of public
28 relations, is to stay in the background.
29 Q. 120 And can I ask you Mr. O'Herlihy, prior to your involvement with the Monarch
10:44:03 30 Group, did you have any experience in any particular aspect of lobbying that

www.pcr.ie Day 649
22
10:44:08 1 would be associated with the Development Plan, or making of a Development Plan
2 in Dublin County Council?
3 A. Oh not at all. But lobbying with respect is a bit of an emotive word, because
4 what I was involved in, was asking the members of Dublin County Council to view
10:44:23 5 the plans and to view the model that had been made, I wasn't lobbying in the
6 sense of asking them to vote for it or anything like that, that was not my
7 function.
8 Q. 121 But insofar as the making of a Development Plan was concerned, or as the
9 Tribunal is concerned, with the changes that happened to these lands in the
10:44:42 10 making of the Development Plan, prior to being engaged by Monarch had you
11 engaged in any other similar exercise?
12 A. Oh no.
13 Q. 122 So was this your first introduction?
14 A. This was my first and only association ever with the construction industry.
10:44:55 15 Q. 123 Was there any particular reason why you were sought out by Monarch to bring
16 your expertise to bear on this particular project?
17 A. I would like to think talent came into it for a start, I'd say principally
18 let's be honest about it was I had an association in those days, a fairly
19 strong association, with the Fine Gael parliamentary party and with Garrett
10:45:14 20 Fitzgerald and people at that level and presumably the thinking of Monarch was
21 that I was a person that could make contact with, positively, with the Fine
22 Gael councillors particularly, I'd say that's the primary reason I was taken on
23 board.
24 Q. 124 Was there any particular Fine Gael councillor who would be seen of particular
10:45:30 25 importance, in that area?
26 A. Oh yeah.
27 Q. 125 Who was that?
28 A. Absolutely. The most important person emphasised to me in the course of my
29 dealings with Monarch was Sean Barrett. Now they put a huge weight on Sean
10:45:44 30 Barrett's opinion, because Sean Barrett was highly influential, he had been in

www.pcr.ie Day 649
23
10:45:47 1 the previous Fine Gael coalition administration and presumably was ear marked
2 again for office, if they ever got back into power, which they did and he
3 became a Government Minister, he was considered to immensely influential and I
4 was asked specifically to get him to view the plans and to meet with the
10:46:07 5 Monarch people, which he agreed to do in their headquarters in Harcourt Street.
7 He made it very clear to me from the word go that he was opposed to it, he felt
8 it wasn't right environmentally and felt it wasn't right commercially, as far
9 as the area was concerned.
10:46:22 10
11 He told me that we not be voting for it, but because I was a friend of his he
12 certainly come along and view the plans.
13
14 He came along, viewed the plans, thought they were extremely good, but
10:46:34 15 indicated at that meeting, which would have been attended by Richard Lynn and
16 by Eddie Sweeney and maybe Noel was there as well, I'm not quite certain who
17 else, there would have been more than two anyway and he indicated he was not
18 going to vote for it and he was consistent all the way.
19 Q. 126 And when you were retained by Monarch initially, Mr. O'Herlihy, did they
10:46:56 20 discuss with you, or did they tell you, what the zoning was on the lands at
21 that time and what they hoped to achieve?
22 A. I don't have any recollection of such a conversation. I think its important to
23 make the point that I thought Monarch were a highly professional operation, I
24 thought they were extremely good, they knew exactly what they were going up to
10:47:15 25 do, what they wanted to achieve. They had been involved of course as well in
26 Tallaght, the team was a very strong powerful team, who knew exactly what they
27 wanted to get.
28
29 My role I suppose if I was to define forensically was almost a bit tangental to
10:47:33 30 the whole thing, it was a media role as much as anything else, it was

www.pcr.ie Day 649
24
10:47:39 1 essentially to deal with communications, I wasn't ever involved in the planning
2 side of it or anything like that.
3 Q. 127 But you would --
4 A. Because there was a series of people within the company who were experts in
10:47:48 5 that area.
6 Q. 128 But would you have known in general terms, Mr. O'Herlihy, that they were
7 anxious to put a lot of houses on the lands?
8 A. I suppose the answer is yes. I can't be specific, but I mean I thought
9 personally, I was enthusiastic about the project, because I thought it was a
10:48:05 10 terrific project all the way through, so presumably I was told that, I can't
11 remember it, but I am sure I was.
12 Q. 129 And did you bring out a free sheet edition called The Valley News, on behalf of
13 Monarch property?
14 A. Cherrywood News, yeah we did, which was distributed locally.
10:48:22 15 Q. 130 Can I just show you a page of that document I don't seem to have a Tribunal
16 reference for it, at 7765. Is this part of the document that you put out?
17 A. I can't remember honestly.
18 Q. 131 And on the document that you prepared, Mr. O'Herlihy, would you have included
19 maps, or sorry, drawings of what they wanted to achieve?
10:48:53 20 A. Again I can't remember, but I would certainly say that if we were putting out a
21 free sheet that was being dropped into all the homes in the area, you certainly
22 would want to give them a fair idea of what was happening, but specifically I
23 can't remember.
24 Q. 132 But certainly if Monarch wanted to put 950 houses, or thereabouts, on a portion
10:49:12 25 of the lands that's something that you would have informed or they would, the
26 local people community would have been informed about?
27 A. I would imagine so, yeah.
28 Q. 133 And if I can take you through some documents then Mr. O'Herlihy, that might be
29 relevant, and ask you to comment on them, at 3375, this is an extract from
10:49:29 30 Mr. Sean Barrett's diary and on Monday the 18th of November, 1991 he records a

www.pcr.ie Day 649
25
10:49:36 1 meeting with you.
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. 134 And I just want to draw to your attention that on the 22nd November 1991 you
4 also had a meeting with Monarch Properties, so can I ask you do you think its
10:49:49 5 likely that that meeting might have been in connection with the Cherrywood
6 Development?
7 A. Sorry I am a bit confused would you go back on that again please.
8 Q. 135 This is 3375?
9 A. Yeah the meeting with Sean Barrett.
10:50:00 10 Q. 136 This is Mr. Barrett's diary.
11 A. Yeah and what does it say?
12 Q. 137 It records on the 18th Bill O'Herlihy 3 pm.
13 A. Yeah. In his office is it?
14 Q. 138 I can't tell you that because I don't -- it just records in his diary.
10:50:12 15 A. Well my recollection, for what its worth, after so many years, is that I only
16 met him once and that was, that my conversation with him was by telephone and
17 that I met him, that I met him then in the Monarch offices, but if I had a
18 previous meeting and its so recorded, I can't deny it obviously.
19 Q. 139 No I don't suggest that that meeting is in connection with Cherrywood
10:50:36 20 Mr. O'Herlihy, I am asking you do you think in view of the fact that on, within
21 two or three days of that on the 22nd, you had a meeting with Monarch people,
22 that it may have had something to do with Cherrywood?
23 A. It may have had yeah. Could I have been reflecting the views that he expressed
24 to me, its possible. But I don't recall that, there was such a meeting but I'm
10:51:05 25 not going to contradict you.
26 Q. 140 Certainly there are other documents Mr. O'Herlihy that we will come to look at
27 that indicate a longer meeting with Mr. Barrett at the offices of Monarch?
28 A. Yeah.
29 Q. 141 At 3383 this is an extract from a diary of Mr. Dominic Glennane, who was one of
10:51:16 30 the people in Monarch, and it records on the 22nd of November Bill O'Herlihy at

www.pcr.ie Day 649
26
10:51:23 1 Monarch re Cabinteely?
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. 142 That's the first recorded document in the Monarch documentation that records a
4 contact with you?
10:51:34 5 A. Yeah.
6 Q. 143 And based on that is it likely that it was around November 1991 that you were
7 retained?
8 A. Probably, I would imagine so, yeah. I mean there were, there was a whole
9 series of meetings. I mean the normal public relations practice would be that
10:51:48 10 if you were dealing with a client on a short-term basis, as I was, over a
11 period of about eight months, you would have extremely regular meetings. They
12 to be kept up to date, they to look at how the strategy was unfolding whether
13 it was successful or unsuccessful. I would imagine I had a meeting at least
14 once a week probably twice a week with Monarch.
10:52:07 15 Q. 144 Certainly the records seem to indicate that you did have a number of meetings
16 with Monarch on an ongoing basis?
17 A. Did I absolutely.
18 Q. 145 When you were retained was there also another public relations company retained
19 at the same time?
10:52:19 20 A. I don't know.
21 Q. 146 Pembroke PR?
22 A. Oh yeah, I saw that in the papers that I was sent, but I had no contact with
23 them at all. I don't know whether they were employed before me and were just
24 being phased out, or whether they continued to be employed on a different
10:52:33 25 basis, do I not know, or for a different project.
26 Q. 147 If I could have page 3521, I think in fact they were in connection with the
27 same project, this is another extract from Mr. Sean Barrett's diary, you will
28 see on 2nd of December 1991, it records a meeting at 12 o'clock with Bill
29 O'Herlihy?
10:52:52 30 A. Mm.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
27
10:52:53 1 Q. 148 And if we go to 7768 Mr. O'Herlihy and this is part of an invoice submitted by
2 you to Monarch Properties, you will see that you record meeting Mr. Sean
3 Barrett for one and a half hours on the second of December, do you see that?
4 A. Yeah.
10:53:12 5 Q. 149 Is that the meeting that you were thinking about earlier on, when you mentioned
6 that you had met with Mr. Barrett?
7 A. Well I mean if its there in black and white and I'm billing them for it, I
8 obviously had the meeting.
9 Q. 150 Yes the actual invoice is 7767 and you will have seen that in the documentation
10:53:30 10 and attached to that doc -- that invoice was the document at 7768 where you set
11 out the meetings that you had had?
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. 151 And on that --
14 A. Well John Butterly now was Pembroke PR, I see there on December 3rd, so
10:53:46 15 presumably they were still involved, in what role I do not know.
16 Q. 152 And you will note also there that you had a meeting with Mr. Alan shatter and a
17 meeting with Mr. Michael Keating?
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. 153 And would they have been members of Fine Gael at that time?
10:53:58 20 A. Yes they were indeed, yeah. They were both TDs I think at the time.
21 Q. 154 And Mr. Keating has told the Tribunal that he remembers you speaking to him in
22 connection with the Cherrywood Development. Now what was the purpose of these
23 meetings Mr. O'Herlihy, was it to seek the support of these people for the
24 project?
10:54:14 25 A. It would have been, yeah, yeah.
26 Q. 155 And again I think in January of 1992. At 7770. You also put in another
27 invoice, in respect of the fee -- work that you had done in the intervening
28 period, so you were working throughout December and into January for Monarch,
29 is that right?
10:54:40 30 A. I'm sure it is yeah. If it's billed it's right.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
28
10:54:43 1 Q. 156 Now did you meet Mr. Frank Dunlop at any stage in connection...
2 A. No, he was not involved at all.
3 Q. 157 Well I want to show you 7771. Which is a document that's attached to this
4 invoice Mr. O'Herlihy and I want to draw to your attention the entry 7/18
10:55:02 5 January, phone calls, briefing discussions, meeting Frank Dunlop, do you see
6 that?
7 A. I do indeed yeah.
8 Q. 158 That's your document as provided to Monarch Properties as I understand it?
9 A. Mm-hmm.
10:55:13 10 Q. 159 Can you assist the Tribunal at all as to why you would have been meeting
11 Mr. Dunlop sometime in early January of 1991?
12 A. Haven't a notion. It may have followed out of some discussions that had taken
13 place or something like that, it may have been a follow-up call, do I not know
14 honestly. I can't remember. Because to my honest recollection he was never
10:55:33 15 involved at all in the period I was involved.
16 Q. 160 But did you know Mr. Dunlop, as a lobbyist in Dublin County Council?
17 A. I knew Frank Dunlop very well from working in RTE in the first instance, he was
18 a northern correspondent and then I knew him when he was the special advisor to
19 John Boland, when he was Minister for Public Service and I knew Frank very
10:55:55 20 well.
21 Q. 161 But did you know that he was a lobbyist to councillors in Dublin County
22 Council, did you know that Mr. Dunlop had a business that involved seeking the
23 changes of zoning of lands?
24 A. I suppose it would be naive of me to say I didn't, but I can't remember to be
10:56:14 25 honest, I don't know.
26 Q. 162 What I'm asking is it possible you might have gone, in view of the fact this
27 was your first job in connection with the Development Plan?
28 A. And asked for his advice is it?
29 Q. 163 Exactly.
10:56:23 30 A. I don't know.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
29
10:56:24 1 Q. 164 Do you think its possible you might have met him about that?
2 A. I honestly can't remember.
3 Q. 165 Again on that document at 7771 Mr. O'Herlihy, you set out there certain phone
4 discussions with East Coast Radio, organising a newspaper and certain meetings
10:56:39 5 with Monarch, isn't that right?
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. 166 And was the newspaper you were organising this free sheet?
8 A. That would be the Cherrywood News.
9 Q. 167 That was going to be sent out to the all of the houses in the area?
10:56:50 10 A. Correct, correct.
11 Q. 168 Now I think that again in February of 1992, at 7772, you furnished an invoice
12 in connection with the provision of a copy of the special edition of The Valley
13 News, you gave a break down of that at 7773?
14 A. Yes.
10:57:13 15 Q. 169 Again I think you would accept that its likely that you would have put in
16 information in relation to what Monarch wanted in that document, that was the
17 whole purpose that have isn't that right?
18 A. O, yeah, yeah.
19 Q. 170 So it was to provide information about the development, to the local community?
10:57:24 20 A. Mm-hmm.
21 Q. 171 And that would have been given to everybody, is that right?
22 A. Sorry what would have been given to everybody?
23 Q. 172 To the local community -- the free sheet.
24 A. Oh, yes, dropped into the houses, yeah.
10:57:35 25 Q. 173 Now obviously what Monarch were seeking had to be different to what they
26 already had in the Development Plan, isn't that right Mr. O'Herlihy, they were
27 seeking to change the status of their lands?
28 A. Yeah, they were more than anything else they were seeking from my perspective
29 to change the climate of opinion towards it.
10:57:52 30 Q. 174 And that was based in the community and also with councillors?

www.pcr.ie Day 649
30
10:57:56 1 A. Well Monarch had the belief that this was a very very good project and that it
2 was a project that was going to materially benefit the area and they wanted to
3 convey that information by The Cherrywood News and they wanted to convey it
4 through the media generally and we also developed a television documentary as
10:58:16 5 it were, which was used for community meetings.
6 Q. 175 But in order for Monarch to put 950 houses on that land Mr. O'Herlihy, they had
7 to change the zoning density on their lands in the Development Plan?
8 A. Mm-hmm.
9 Q. 176 Isn't that right?
10:58:30 10 A. Yeah well obviously yeah.
11 Q. 177 In your meetings with Mr. Lynn and Mr. Sweeney, you would have been made aware,
12 I assume, that they made a submission to Dublin County Council seeking to
13 change the density on their lands?
14 A. I'm sure I was, yeah.
10:58:45 15 Q. 178 Because you became aware of the fact that, there would be a vote in Dublin
16 County Council, which was regarded by Monarch as important, isn't that right?
17 A. Absolutely, sure that was the whole point in it yeah.
18 Q. 179 Wasn't the entire exercise in which you were engaged with Mr. Lynn and
19 Mr. Sweeney and the other Monarch personnel geared towards changing the climate
10:59:03 20 so that there would be support for the changes Monarch wanted?
21 A. That's correct, that's correct.
22 Q. 180 So the whole thrust of the PR campaign and submissions that were made by the
23 professional people on behalf of Monarch, was to change the status of the
24 lands?
10:59:14 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 181 Because Monarch couldn't built on what they wanted to build on it, with the
27 zoning that they had on the lands isn't that right?
28 A. Yeah.
29 Q. 182 So everything was going to end up on the floor of Dublin County Council?

www.pcr.ie Day 649
31
10:59:26 1 Q. 183 And you would have known, as did everybody else involved in the exercise, that
2 at the end of the day the people who were going to make the decision on this
3 were the councillors?
4 A. Yeah and there was a belief also that politicians were influenced by climate
10:59:39 5 and if the climate of opinion was very supportive towards it, that that in turn
6 would actually be something that would support Monarch.
7 Q. 184 And the -- you had gone and you had spoken to Mr. Barrett but Mr. Barrett had
8 made his position absolutely clear that he was not going to support what
9 Monarch wanted?
10:59:57 10 A. Correct, that's right.
11 Q. 185 Did he in anyway resile, or change from that, from the time that you were
12 involved in the exercise?
13 A. Not at all, not at all. Even at the meeting with Monarch when we viewed the
14 plans and viewed the model he said he wasn't going to vote for it, he thought
11:00:11 15 it was wrong for the area.
16 Q. 186 And therefore whatever influence was perceived with in Monarch rested with
17 Mr. Barrett, it could not be brought to the assistance of the project, isn't
18 that right, because he never supported the project as far as you were aware.
19 A. No no.
11:00:24 20 Q. 187 So that created an added urgency to the get the balance of support elsewhere,
21 isn't that right?
22 A. I presume so, yeah.
23 Q. 188 Because what you were told the Tribunal earlier is Mr. Barrett was regarded as
24 influential.
11:00:35 25 A. Oh yeah, yeah.
26 Q. 189 When you couldn't bring Mr. Barrett to the table, as it were, to support this
27 project you had to get that support elsewhere?
28 A. When you say you now, you mean Monarch.
29 Q. 190 Mean Monarch Properties and yourself as part of the team.
11:00:48 30 A. Yeah but I wasn't canvassing support in the sense that you are implying it.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
32
11:00:53 1 Q. 191 Well were you meeting with councillors?
2 A. I had very -- obviously from some of the documentation you have provided I had
3 some meetings with them, but it was very few. My essential contact was by
4 telephone and what I -- what I did primarily was to set up meetings for
11:01:09 5 Monarch, so that I would ring whatever councillor was involved and I'd say look
6 we'd like to you look at the plans, this is a very good development or whatever
7 I'd say something to that effect and the plans will be on view in the Royal
8 Dublin Hotel or in the Monarch headquarters and we'd like to you come along and
9 see them, and they'd come along and view them, I had practically no
11:01:31 10 relationship with them at all, in fact I wasn't at most of those meetings
11 because it wasn't my function to make the presentation to them.
12 Q. 192 Certainly in February of 1992, at 7776 Mr. O'Herlihy, you provide another
13 invoice and again you provide back up details at, 7777 and on the 11th February
14 you record a meeting with Monarch or meeting Monarch and Senator Lydon two
11:01:59 15 hours, do you see that?
16 A. Do I yeah.
17 Q. 193 Do you have any recollection of that meeting and what it involved?
18 A. I have no recollection whatever of it. I'm just wondering though whether or
19 not, they were meetings that I attended, or if that could well be a meeting I
11:02:18 20 set up as it were, but didn't necessarily attend.
21 Q. 194 If you just look at the top of the document Mr. O'Herlihy it says executive
22 time Mr. O'Herlihy isn't that right?
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. 195 And then it details set out, under meetings that took place and the duration of
11:02:33 25 the meetings, isn't that right?
27 Q. 196 And that would suggest that what you are itemising there, if you go to 7778
28 please, it says total executive time Bill O'Herlihy 18 hours?
29 A. Mm-hmm.
11:02:45 30 Q. 197 That would suggest if you go back to 7777 subject to anything you have to say

www.pcr.ie Day 649
33
11:02:50 1 yourself Mr. O'Herlihy, that the meeting of two hours involving Mr. Lydon
2 involved yourself?
3 A. That's a reasonable interpretation, I don't remember it but that's a reasonable
4 interpretation.
11:03:00 5 Q. 198 And can you recollect anything that would have brought you to meet with
6 Mr. Lydon, in connection with Monarch Properties?
7 A. Nothing specific, I would have thought that as far as I was concerned that
8 Senator Lydon would have been just, one of the senior members of Fianna Fail
9 and he would have been viewing the plans and that would be it, I would imagine
11:03:25 10 that the meeting with Monarch would have been to go through the plans and go
11 through the model, same as other people as well.
12 Q. 199 And I think again at 7779, I think this document is part of the other document,
13 this details the involvement of Mr. Ian Sherwin who I think worked with you?
14 A. He did yeah that's correct.
11:03:45 15 Q. 200 And what's set out on this document is what Mr. Sherwin was doing and he was
16 setting up meetings in local community schools and matters such as that sort?
18 Q. 201 I think part of the PR campaign involved what has been described as road show?
11:04:01 20 Q. 202 Where you would have had drawings and a scale model of the development and you
21 brought it around to the community?
23 Q. 203 And that appeared to have been Mr. Sherwin's function?
11:04:10 25 Q. 204 Your function seems to have been a more senior dealing with senior Monarch
26 personnel and indeed on occasion some councillors?
27 A. Yeah.
28 Q. 205 Now were you made aware of the when the vote was coming up in the were
29 important vote in Dublin could County Council?
11:04:25 30 A. Was I made aware of it?

www.pcr.ie Day 649
34
11:04:27 1 Q. 206 Yeah.
2 A. Oh indeed I was. I was actually I went for the very first time in my life into
3 the Dublin County Council Chamber, prior to the meeting starting, because I had
4 never been at a Dublin County Council meeting of any sort I said my myself as
11:04:41 5 the vote is coming up today I'd like to see what the setup is, I spent about
6 three or four minutes in there and that was it.
7 Q. 207 I suggest to you Mr. O'Herlihy that that meeting is likely to have been a
8 meeting on the 27th May 1992 which, where Monarch lost --
9 A. Yeah that's correct.
11:04:57 10 Q. 208 They lost by two votes in fact, what they sought and they ended up with their
11 lands zoned at one house to the acre as a result of a motion by Councillor
12 Barrett?
13 A. Mm-hmm.
14 Q. 209 Now was that your first and only time in the offices of Dublin County Council?
11:05:09 15 A. First and only time, yeah. Never since.
16 Q. 210 And were you going that meeting because you were made aware of the importance
17 of that meeting from the zoning point of view of Monarch?
18 A. No, I was going -- I went to the meeting first of all because professionally I
19 was interested in seeing whether or not the campaign was going to be successful
11:05:28 20 and the ultimate determination of success was whether we got the motion through
21 or not. So I was extremely interested because I had worked very closely with
22 Richard Lynn and worked very closely with Monarch I was very impressed by
23 Richard Lynn, I thought he was a really good professional operator and I was
24 impressed by the whole Monarch set up, so it would have been completely I think
11:05:51 25 illogical for me to actually miss out on something like that, so -- but I was
26 there for as I said about three or four minutes before it started and I spent
27 the rest of the time in the Royal Dublin Hotel.
28 Q. 211 Who was in the Royal Dublin Hotel with you Mr. O'Herlihy?
29 A. Well definitively I can say Richard Lynn was with me, others may have come and
11:06:11 30 gone, Noel Murray may have come and gone, I am not certain.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
35
11:06:14 1 Q. 212 Now as far as you were aware who was dealing with the matters on behalf of
2 Monarch in the chamber, did you know?
4 Q. 213 And who was handling that part of the exercise, the motions and matters such as
11:06:26 5 that sort?
6 A. I don't know.
7 Q. 214 Did you ever see any motion on behalf of Monarch, a motion that would be
8 brought before the Council in order to change the zoning on the lands?
9 A. I have no recollection, honestly.
11:06:40 10 Q. 215 But you did know that the meeting of the 27th of May 1992 was regarded by
11 Monarch as a critical?
12 A. Absolutely, of course I did yeah.
13 Q. 216 Everything you had been engaged on up to this point in time, was leading to
14 that position?
11:06:52 15 A. Correct.
16 Q. 217 Right. When you were -- did you go to the hotel in order to await the results?
17 A. Oh yes.
18 Q. 218 Who was going to bring the results to yourself and to Mr. Lynn?
19 A. I can't remember, I can't remember. It was felt that would take about two
11:07:11 20 hours before the decision would come through, that could be because they were
21 other motions on the agenda, but we were anticipating a delay of about two
22 hours and we were there from whatever time the Council started, which was
23 around 11 o'clock I think and then I think we got the result sometime and 12.30
24 am -- p.m. I mean.
11:07:29 25 Q. 219 In the course of your meeting with Mr. Lynn did you have a conversation with
26 Mr. Lynn about how to achieve zoning changes in Dublin?
27 A. I did.
28 Q. 220 Can you outline to the Tribunal the content of that conversation as you
29 recollect it now Mr. O'Herlihy?
11:07:44 30 A. I will. We were waiting for the result, I'd say fairly late into the day, in

www.pcr.ie Day 649
36
11:07:51 1 The sense that the result would have been coming maybe within half an hour or
2 thereabouts, and I said to him, I said to Richard, well I said, I hope the
3 Council will see the merits of this and recognise the quality of the
4 development that's proposed and he said to me are you joking me? I said what
11:08:12 5 do you mean? He said the councillors never recognise quality and merit, it has
6 nothing whatever to do with it, he said if you want to get a planning change or
7 a material contravention through, you have to buy it and he said that planning
8 changes and material contraventions were worth, in his judgement, about 50,000
9 a year into the back pocket of the councillors, if they cooperated with the
11:08:36 10 developers.
11
12 So frankly, because I had never been involved, with any building company or any
13 development like this in my life, I was absolutely staggered at this, to be
14 truthful and I said well how does it work? And I was told that you -- he told
11:08:56 15 me that you develop a lead councillor and you deal with him and he deals with
16 all the other councillors and he determines what exactly is required to
17 actually get the votes required to pass a particular planning approval or
18 motion.
19
11:09:17 20 So I said did you, did Monarch pay money for this? And he said yes. And again
21 I was, to be honest I was staggered and he said -- I said how much? And he
22 said, to the best of my knowledge he said a hundred thousand. Now I don't know
23 whether he was talking about generally, or whether, on that particular project,
24 but my question related to the project.
11:09:43 25
26 Now I want to say and its very important that I say this, in all my dealings
27 with Monarch money never came up, there was never any question of anything
28 untoward whatsoever in my dealings with Monarch. I found them a company of
29 extreme probity, all the way through. Therefore what was said to me was
11:10:01 30 completely out of character with the whole development and programme that I was

www.pcr.ie Day 649
37
11:10:04 1 involved in and the whole campaign.
3 I have no idea and its very important that I make this point, I have no idea
4 whether what he said to me was true or not, or the context in which he said. I
11:10:17 5 have no idea of the no evidence whatsoever to back up the claim he made,
6 because money never ever came into any discussion that I was part of in, with
7 Monarch.
9 And it was extremely, as I said a company of great probity all the way through
11:10:35 10 and they were highly professional in the approach to the campaign. I was not
11 involved in providing financial inducements or bribes, I was never asked to
12 offer them, I was never -- there was never any discussion on that, it never
13 came up whatsoever. Therefore when that point was made to me, I was to be
14 honest about it, I was gob smacked.
11:10:57 15
16 Now I don't know whether he was talking about, he might have been talking, to
17 be honest, in fairness to him, he could have been talking about the way things
18 happened generally. But unquestionably I asked the question very specifically.
19 Q. 221 You asked him had Monarch paid monies?
11:11:11 20 A. I think I may have said have you paid monies, like I was talking -- it was
21 clearly understood it was Monarch I was talking about yeah.
22 Q. 222 And he said yes?
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. 223 And did you ask him did they have a lead councillor, did Monarch have a lead
11:11:25 25 councillor?
26 A. Yes I did.
27 Q. 224 And did Mr. Lynn indicate to you who the lead councillor was?
28 A. Yes he did.
29 Q. 225 Who did he tell you who the lead councillor was?
11:11:33 30 A. I have a problem with that now Chairman because the evidence I am offering here

www.pcr.ie Day 649
38
11:11:36 1 is entirely anecdotal and completely out of character with the whole campaign.
3 CHAIRMAN: We appreciate that and we take that into account when we are
4 assessing evidence?
11:11:45 5 Yeah but sorry excuse me, my difficulty is I don't want to be naming a person
6 who might be completely innocent of the allegation, let me put it that way, if
7 I am being asked to actually name publicly a person without any evidence
8 whatsoever to back up that claim I think its very unfair, so the best -- sorry
9 what I'd like to do is give it to you privately write down the name and you can
11:12:07 10 do whatever you want thereafter.
11
12 CHAIRMAN: Yes we can --
13 The Councillor in question is on notice first of all and is here and is
14 represented and this is part of this Module, it wasn't mentioned in the opening
11:12:18 15 out of deference --
16
17 CHAIRMAN: Is that person aware that --
18 Yes.
19
11:12:22 20 CHAIRMAN: That this evidence is going to be given.
21 Yes.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: Well from those circumstances we must ask you to name the name, but
24 we take it on the basis that its not, if you like, direct evidence on your
11:12:34 25 part, that this person did anything wrong?
26 Absolutely.
27
28 CHAIRMAN: Simply evidence of what you were told by another individual?
29 That's right. Completely hearsay, it could be entirely untrue, so may I give
11:12:46 30 it to you then under protest.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
39
11:12:47 1
2 CHAIRMAN: Absolutely?
3 Okay. Senator Lydon.
4 Q. 226 You asked the question, who was the lead councillor? Is that right
11:12:56 5 Mr. Herlihy?
6 A. That's right.
7 Q. 227 And the answer you got to the best of your recollection from Mr. Lynn, is that
8 it was Senator Don Lydon?
9 A. Yeah.
11:13:03 10 Q. 228 Were you shocked by that?
11 A. Of course I was shocked, because I was one of the people at the time who
12 believed in the, that things were decided on merit. I had no idea that there
13 was corruption in the planning system at all, or that money came into it, or
14 financial inducements, I had no idea in the wide world, as I said I had never
11:13:22 15 ever been involved in any of that, that aspect of Irish life at all, so of
16 course I was shocked.
17 Q. 229 If I understand you correctly Mr. O'Herlihy, you had an absolutely professional
18 relationship with Monarch and its employees and personnel up to this point in
19 time?
11:13:40 20 A. Absolutely they were terrific.
21 Q. 230 You had never heard any suggestion of money for votes, or matters such as that
22 sort, up to this particular time?
23 A. Not at all and if I had I wouldn't have stayed with the campaign let me tell
24 you.
11:13:53 25 Q. 231 And on the of May 1992 the date of the critical vote for Monarch you are having
26 a conversation with Mr. Lynn and Mr. Lynn volunteers this information to you,
27 is that what happened?
28 A. Yeah, yeah. Well it was, it follows directly on the first question I asked him
29 about -- it flowed out of his response to my question of a decision being
11:14:15 30 taken, both on the merits and quality of the proposition.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
40
11:14:17 1 Q. 232 And you were impressed if I understand you correctly and taken with both the
2 merits and quality of the project that Monarch were proposing?
3 A. I was yeah I thought it was very good.
4 Q. 233 You were an enthusiastic supporter of it, on its merits?
11:14:31 5 A. I would have been.
6 Q. 234 It was in that context you raised with Mr. Lynn the question it should get by
7 on merit, as I understand it?
8 A. Absolutely.
9 Q. 235 It was in that context Mr. Lynn made the response you have outlined to the
11:14:45 10 Tribunal?
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. 236 Which as I understand it and correct me if I'm wrong, which is that, merit had
13 nothing whatsoever to do with it, did had all to do with the purchase of votes,
14 is that right?
11:14:51 15 A. That was my understanding of it yeah.
16 Q. 237 Were you taken aback, blown away by this Mr. O'Herlihy?
17 A. Well I had no -- I had no experience of how the planning system worked at all,
18 I had no idea how the council system responded to the planning motions, so I
19 was completely surprised and shocked, and to be honest about it I was disgusted
11:15:15 20 as well.
21 Q. 238 And you then asked him how the system worked effectively and Mr. Lynn explained
22 to you about the lead councillor?
24 Q. 239 To that point in time had you ever heard anything that have nature before?
11:15:27 25 A. No, nothing, nothing.
26 Q. 240 By lead councillor did you understand Mr. Lynn mean you needed a lead
27 councillor in each party?
28 A. That I'm not sure, I couldn't tell you, because for some reason or other which
29 is I suppose as I think I made the point to John Gallagher against my
11:15:42 30 inquisitive nature, I never pursued the discussion and the reason I may not

www.pcr.ie Day 649
41
11:15:47 1 have was because we could have been interrupted, I can't remember, but I'm not
2 sure whether or not he would have been the -- there was a lead councillor would
3 have been somebody who represented the company in relation to all parties, or a
4 specific party, I do not know.
11:16:03 5 Q. 241 But you then proceeded to ask the question about who effectively was Monarch's
6 lead councillor?
7 A. I did.
8 Q. 242 You were given the name, you recollect, of Senator Lydon?
9 A. Yeah.
11:16:12 10 Q. 243 Was any amount of money mentioned in connection with any payment that was made
11 to the lead councillor, that you can recollect?
12 A. A figure was mentioned of a hundred thousand but that wasn't necessarily money
13 that went to him now necessarily, that was money, as I understood it, was to be
14 distributed, if its true and it may not be true at all.
11:16:30 15 Q. 244 And in your explanation that was provided to you by Mr. Lynn, of what the lead
16 councillor did, did you understand it that the lead councillor would make
17 disbursements to other councillors?
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. 245 So if you just outline in your own words how Mr. Lynn explained to you how this
11:16:47 20 system of the lead councillor worked?
21 A. Well my recollection going back these 15 years would be that what he said to
22 me -- I can still visualise the scene, inside in the bar of the Royal Dublin
23 Hotel, we were drinking coffee if I remember correctly, because it was only
24 about quarter past 12, and when he mention it had, he said what happened was
11:17:11 25 that you would appoint a councillor, a lead councillor he called him, who would
26 be your point man as it were, in the, in terms of the councillors at large, and
27 that he would determine, you know, how money would be distributed to buy the
28 votes on the basis of whatever the requirement would be to get the motion
29 through. Now that was my understanding of it.
11:17:36 30 Q. 246 And this was volunteered to you by Mr. Lynn?

www.pcr.ie Day 649
42
11:17:38 1 A. It was yeah, yeah.
2 Q. 247 And that followed on your initial question about the councillors approaching
3 this matter on merit?
4 A. Oh, yes, that was the -- I mean if I had never mentioned that there would never
11:17:50 5 have been any discussion about it at all.
6 Q. 248 And was this your last involvement with Monarch Mr. O'Herlihy?
7 A. Oh yeah it was. Now its important to recognise that my -- my appointment was
8 not in indeterminate one, it was a finite one for a specific project and the
9 project was over once the vote came through, they said thank you and good bye.
11:18:14 10 And that was the end of me.
11 Q. 249 Monarch lost the vote?
12 A. They did by two votes if I remember correctly.
13 Q. 250 On that date and that was the meeting of the 27th of May 1992 and I think that
14 after that, I think you put in a final fee note of the 29th of May, at 3731.
11:18:33 15 And this covers the period 13 of April to 29 of May 1992 and that is your last
16 fee note?
17 A. Yeah, yeah.
18 Q. 251 So that would indicate that you concluded your business with Monarch in or
19 around the 29 of May of 1992?
21 Q. 252 So that would appear to agree with the documents that we have looked at, you
22 were retained to change public opinion coming up to the important vote in May
23 of 1992?
24 A. Correct.
11:18:55 25 Q. 253 That vote was lost?
26 A. Yeah.
27 Q. 254 And they didn't continue with you thereafter?
28 A. No, nor did I expect them to either.
29 Q. 255 Yeah. And in that meeting you had with Mr. Lynn would he have seen from your
11:19:09 30 demeanour that you were shocked by what you were hearing?

www.pcr.ie Day 649
43
11:19:11 1 A. I don't know. He may have thought me a complete innocent, I don't know or
2 he -- I can't remember, I certainly was shocked whether he recognised it is
3 another matter, I don't know.
4 Q. 256 Do you remember ever discussing any, leaving aside what happened with Mr. Lynn
11:19:32 5 at the meeting of the 27th of May, did you ever have any discussion with
6 Mr. Lynn about the importance of individual councillors, or maybe councillors
7 changing their attitude in relation to Monarch?
8 A. No. Now you see Mr. Lynn was the person who -- Mr. Lynn was a highly
9 professional operator in my judgement and he had years of experience in
11:19:53 10 operating the Monarch what would you call it, or in developing the Monarch
11 Properties and indeed going about achieving what was to be achieved, both with
12 the Council and people like that, he also made a point I think that he didn't
13 necessarily see the value of public relations, because he was a very very good
14 operator.
11:20:15 15
16 Having said all that now I have forgotten what you asked me.
17 Q. 257 Did Mr. Lynn ever mention the importance of any other particular individual
18 councillor, or changing their position in relation to Monarch?
19 A. No, because sorry to go back to the point I was about to make or that I should
11:20:29 20 have made, Mr. Lynn was dealing with, dealt with, the Council pretty well all
21 the time, the councillors themselves all the time, he had loads of experience
22 it have, my involvement was kind of marshalling them into meetings but I had
23 very little part in the meetings myself, that wasn't my function.
24 Q. 258 Insofar as presentations were made to councillors or matters such as that sort
11:20:49 25 that was dealt with by the Monarch people?
26 A. Yes correct.
27 Q. 259 And were you surprised when he identified Senator Lydon as being the person who
28 he said was the lead person for Monarch?
29 A. I'd have to say yes, but I don't honestly remember. But I would have been
11:21:08 30 surprised all right.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
44
11:21:11 1 Q. 260 Was there any discussion before the meeting took place in Dublin County Council
2 of the numbers, of how many votes they had or how many numbers were in place or
3 anything such as that sort?
4 A. There probably would have been a discussion, like a casual discussion as to how
11:21:24 5 many votes we need.
6 Q. 261 Yes.
7 A. Whether or not they weren't through it in a forensic sense and said we had X
8 number against Y, I can't remember.
9 Q. 262 In the PR strategy committee or the unit that was in place to get this job
11:21:39 10 done, who was the person who was dealing with getting the numbers?
11 A. Well Richard Lynn would have been the project man basically, Eddie Sweeney and
12 himself, but Richard was the guy, as it were, who was on the road and who was
13 dealing with most aspects of it.
14 Q. 263 And when the result came through and you were told that Monarch had lost
11:21:58 15 effectively, was there a post mortem, did anybody sit down and analyse where it
16 had gone wrong?
17 A. I don't recall it to be honest, I don't recall that that there was a post
18 mortem. I think there was a general recognition, if there was a post mortem
19 there might have been a casual discussion in the Royal Dublin Hotel afterwards,
11:22:17 20 which would indicate that they would have to go back to the drawing board, but
21 that's as far as I can recall it, the most that would have happened.
22 Q. 264 And would it be fair to say that Monarch wouldn't have regarded that setback as
23 the end of the road, as far as they were concerned?
24 A. Probably not, they knew the system better than I did so probably not.
11:22:37 25 Q. 265 Did any of the councillors come into the Royal Dublin afterwards, can you
26 remember?
27 A. I can't remember.
28 Q. 266 When Mr. Lynn told you about the lead councillor and about the fact that the
29 matters had to be paid for, material contraventions or zoning, was it your
11:22:56 30 understanding from what you were hearing, that Monarch had themselves paid in

www.pcr.ie Day 649
45
11:22:59 1 order to achieve rezoning?
2 A. In this particular instance.
3 Q. 267 Yes?
4 A. Yeah, that was my understanding.
11:23:05 5 Q. 268 Thank you very much --
6 A. But again, with no evidence whatsoever. No evidence, purely based on anecdotal
7 information given to me, no evidence whatsoever to back it out and everything
8 that I had -- I think its hugely important to say, all the dealings I had with
9 Monarch were contradicted by that particular statement that was made, so
11:23:26 10 whether it was factual or not I do not know.
11 Q. 269 I understand that Mr. Lynn will say that no such conversation took place, I
12 assume that you would disagree with that?
13 A. Yeah, the conversation took place.
14 Q. 270 And you are absolutely satisfied the conversation took place?
11:23:39 15 A. Absolutely. What is in it for me to come in and here and make up a
16 conversation?
17 Q. 271 Thank you very much Mr. O'Herlihy, would you answer any questions that anybody
18 else might have.
19
11:23:48 20 CHAIRMAN: Just before that happens I think we'll take a ten minute break now
21 and you might return then after ten minutes and hopefully you won't be here too
22 long.
23
24 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED FOR A SHORT BREAK,
26
27
28
29
11:41:27 30

www.pcr.ie Day 649
46
11:41:27 1 CHAIRMAN: Now.
3 MS. DILLON: I don't know whether the order has been agreed.
11:41:31 5 CHAIRMAN: Well who would like to start the.
7 MR SANFEY: Chairman I'm Mark Sanfey, I am senior counsel and I represent among
8 others Mr. Lynn, my other clients are Monarch Properties Limited, Paul Monahan,
9 Dominic Glennane, Noel Murray, Philip Reilly and estate of Philip Monahan. I
11:41:53 10 think you were told previously Mr. Mohan would be here, but in fact it's myself
11 Chairman.
12
13 CHAIRMAN: All right we can live with that. Would you like to cross examine?
14
11:42:03 15 MR SANFEY: Yes.
16
17 THE WITNESS WAS EXAMINED AS FOLLOWS BY MR SANFEY:
18
19 Q. 272 MR SANFEY: Mr. O'Herlihy, as I said, my name is Mark Sanfey I'm senior counsel
11:42:08 20 and for today's purposes I represent Richard Lynn. I should say Chairman
21 before I commence questioning Mr. O'Herlihy, that I did wish to refer to the
22 notes of the private session that Mr. O'Herlihy had and I take it that there is
23 no objection to that, my solicitor wrote in formally during the week...
24
11:42:27 25 CHAIRMAN: No you can do that certainly, if you have the page number.
26
27 COUNSEL: My difficulty is that our copy of the private session doesn't have
28 the usual four digit number at the top, so I may require some assistance, I do
29 obviously have the internal pagination, which I hope to refer to.
11:42:44 30

www.pcr.ie Day 649
47
11:42:44 1 CHAIRMAN: If you use that then we can see that it goes up on the screen.
2 Q. 273 Very good. Thank you.
4 Mr. O'Herlihy, leaving the conversation with Mr. Lynn aside for a moment, in
11:43:02 5 your private interview, which took place on the 6th July 2000 and in fact today
6 I think its fair to say, you have nothing but praise for Monarch Properties and
7 its operatives in general is that right?
8 A. Oh that's absolutely correct I thought they were a very very professional
9 company. I thought Richard Lynn was a highly professional operator, I was
11:43:22 10 delighted to be working with him, because he was apart from being professional
11 he was good humoured, he was a pleasure to work with.
12 Q. 274 In fact I am instructed that my clients will say equally that you were also a
13 pleasure to work with and extremely professional and they had no difficulties
14 and while they didn't achieve the result they wanted, they had no problem with
11:43:41 15 your work.
16 A. That's nice to know, thank you.
17 Q. 275 Just given the seriousness of what you have said about the conversation with
18 Mr. Lynn, I would like to go back through your notes and just see exactly what
19 you said about Monarch or Mr. Lynn in those notes, I wonder if those could be
11:43:58 20 put up on the screen, this is an interview you did with Mr. Gallagher Senior
21 Counsel for the Tribunal on the 6th July 2000, I understand that they are part
22 of the brief.
23
24 CHAIRMAN: is there a page number.
11:44:11 25
26 MR SANFEY: We don't have a page number on our copy unfortunately.
27
28 CHAIRMAN: Is there any page number on it?
29 Q. 276 MR SANFEY: There are two sets of pagination, I am going to refer to the one of
11:44:27 30 the top right hand corner and I'd like to begin with page 18.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
48
11:44:38 1
2 MS. DILLON: 7996.
3 Q. 277 Thank you. The first answer there, in fact we don't see the first part of that
4 answer, but just the last sentence that was, the Monarch people that made the
11:44:55 5 presentation and the people who did it were professional. And I think you were
6 referring to the presentation that this taken place in the Royal Dublin Hotel
7 in that?
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. 278 All right. Page 22.
11:45:08 10
11 MS. DILLON: 8000.
12 Q. 279 The question is "Had you been asked by anybody for money or had it been
13 suggested to you that money should be offered? Answer: Oh not at all. There
14 was never any discussion that the entire relationship between Monarch and me
11:45:25 15 was entirely kosher, there was no suggestion of money there was no suggestion
16 of anything other than a campaign, that was of the highest integrity, there was
17 no question of anything untoward ever mentioned, money was never mentioned in
18 terms of buying votes and there was never any suggestion that I should actually
19 make contact with councillors by any means to achieve anything like that, there
11:45:42 20 was never any question of anything like that." I take you stand over that?
21 A. Absolutely.
22 Q. 280 Would you have a look at page 24 please.
23
11:45:53 25 Q. 281 You were asked about the possibility of money changing hands and as you will
26 see at the very top of the page you said the standards were the very highest in
27 the dealings that I had between Monarch and myself. There was never any
28 question.
29
11:46:07 30 And if you move on to page 32.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
49
11:46:11 1
2 MS. DILLON: 8010.
3 Q. 282 Now once again you are being asked about the conversation with Mr. Lynn here
4 and at the end of the page you say "It was entirely, the conversation was
11:46:23 5 entirely anecdotal in the sense that it could have been a fellow boasting in a
6 bar for all I know. There was no evidence whatsoever in my dealings with
7 Monarch at any stage that suggested that this was part and parcel of the way
8 that they did business" and I take it you stand over that as well?
9 A. Oh absolutely yeah.
11:46:39 10 Q. 283 On page 34.
11
13 Q. 284 In the second paragraph you say, the whole question of money as a means of
14 getting planning permission was raised you say "There was no sign of it any
11:46:55 15 dealings that I had or it was never mentioned. Nobody ever asked me for money
16 and the councillors never asked me for money, there was no suggestion by
17 Monarch that I should consider offering money." you go on to say that if that
18 had been said, you would have left the project immediately, because that's not
19 the way I do business, I would have been shocked if anybody did business that
11:47:12 20 way, which makes me very innocent. Then you say but their entire dealings with
21 me at all stages were entirely of the highest standards. I take it you stand
22 over that?
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. 285 On the next page, page 35, its a short page but you say simply "There was never
11:47:30 25 any evidence shown to me or employed in anyway that suggested that that was the
26 way to do business, that was the one and only example."
27
28 And at page 42.
29
11:47:41 30 MS. DILLON: 8020.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
50
11:47:49 1 Q. 286 You refer to your finishing your involvement with the project and Mr. Gallagher
2 asked you when they lost and you said "Yes when they lost and I never had any
3 contact with Monarch thereafter. I mean I found Monarch very good to deal
4 with, they were very nice guys, very decent people I thought". Do you have
11:48:08 5 any --
6 A. No I agree with that.
7 Q. 287 Any reason to resile from that?
8 A. No.
9 Q. 288 And finally, if we look at page 46.
11:48:16 10
12 Q. 289 You were asked a general question by Mr. Gallagher in relation to having
13 anything else to say about the project, in the second paragraph of your answer
14 you said "At no stage in any conversations at that took place involving Phil, I
11:48:30 15 assume that should be Monahan, or any of his executives, or right up to the
16 conversation that I told about there in the bar in the hotel, there was never
17 ever, ever, ever any suggestion that their normal practice was to buy anything,
18 there was never any snide comments, or there was never any kind of subtextual
19 comments that is gave you the impression that this was only all a charade and
11:48:51 20 that the work was really going on underneath the surface. There was never
21 anything like that.
22
23 I got the impression all the time that that was a campaign that was what it
24 looked like, that it was entirely an up front campaign and I got that
11:49:02 25 impression all the way through" do you stand over that?
26 A. I stand over that.
27 Q. 290 In that answer you seem to be suggesting that not only was it not said that
28 there was any question of giving money to politicians, but that there was no
29 means to infer. That...
11:49:15 30 A. No.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
51
11:49:17 1 Q. 291 That there was --
2 A. If somebody had dropped in from Mars and sat at any of the Monarch strategy
3 meetings, not for one minute would they imagine that it was anything other than
4 the campaign that was being mounted and presented.
11:49:31 5 Q. 292 Right. I think you intimated in your evidence this morning that the
6 conversation with Mr. Lynn was out of character, in the sense of going against
7 all of that, all of your dealings with Monarch?
8 A. That's what shocked me the most, because it was completely out of character.
9 As I said I haven't the slightest idea whether it was accurate or inaccurate,
11:49:49 10 whether he was reflecting on my naivete or whatever it was, but it certainly
11 was not in character in any sense what ever with what had gone before for the
12 six or eight months.
13 Q. 293 All right. Would you agree that if the conversation did take place, that it
14 has very serious implications for Mr. Lynn's honesty and integrity?
11:50:10 15 A. I'd have to say first of all the conversation did take place it, wouldn't
16 profit me for a minute to come here and as I said, make up a conversation,
17 there is no gain in it for me, its the last thing I need to be in front of a
18 Tribunal. So I wouldn't dream of making up something like that its too
19 serious, I understand precisely what you are saying, it is a very very serious
11:50:30 20 allegation, but what I am really reporting is simply a conversation, I am not
21 saying that its a factual conversation, or that the conversation represents a
22 fact. I'm not saying that for one minute because I have no evidence to that
23 effect, I am simply saying the conversation took part, if he was taking -- he
24 could have been taking the Mickey out of me, I don't know whether he was or he
11:50:52 25 wasn't, there was no evidence or subsequently that I saw to justify what was
26 said, but nonetheless, I am saying and I have sworn before God for this, it
27 took place.
28 Q. 294 There is no possibility that you could be mistaken?
29 A. No, I'm sorry, there isn't.
11:51:07 30 Q. 295 Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
52
11:51:08 1 A. I say that with a heavy heart because I have an awful lot of time for Richard
2 Lynn, he was a very good guy to work with. But it was said.
3 Q. 296 You are aware from what Ms. Dillon said that Mr. Lynn utterly denies that the
4 conversation took place?
11:51:22 5 A. I'm aware of that.
6 Q. 297 In fact he will go further, not only does he deny the conversation took place,
7 but it was an impossibility for it to have taken place, because he wasn't in
8 the Royal Dublin Hotel that day?
9 A. Of course he was. He was there with me.
11:51:35 10 Q. 298 He will say that he was not?
11 A. We were waiting for the result of the vote.
12 Q. 299 All right. I will come back to that Mr. O'Herlihy, can I ask you a couple of
13 questions about your general involvement, could we look at page 14 of your
14 private session interview? That's 8005 apparently.
11:51:57 15
16 MS. DILLON: Page 14 is 7992.
17
18 MR SANFEY: I'd just like to ask you one or two questions about your
19 involvement, prior to the 27 of May 1992, you say on the third paragraph down
11:52:15 20 on that page "Thereafter I was asked to set up a series of meetings in the
21 Royal Dublin Hotel with various councillors, who would have included Greens,
22 who would have included Fine Gael councillors. I don't know if they included
23 Fianna Fail or Labour, I just don't know, I can't remember" would you stand
24 over that statement now that you were asked to set up a series of meetings in
11:52:35 25 the Royal Dublin Hotel?
26 A. I would in the sense that -- I don't understand why you are asking me that
27 question in the first place, so maybe you might like to tell me why you are
28 asking the question.
29 Q. 300 I'd like an answer to the question Mr. O'Herlihy, you said in the statement you
11:52:53 30 were asked to set up a series of the meetings in the Royal Dublin Hotel, did

www.pcr.ie Day 649
53
11:52:56 1 you or did you not?
2 A. Oh I did, the series of meetings was set up by telephone, it was a question of
3 ringing councillors, saying the plans and the model would be available in the
4 Royal Dublin Hotel, which was adjacent to the Council offices and presumably
11:53:12 5 the councillors would have been going in and out for different reasons and I
6 was asked to set up the meetings and I set up the meetings.
7 Q. 301 Well did you attend any of those meetings?
8 A. I would have attended a couple, but not all.
9 Q. 302 Do you recall the dates of those meetings?
11:53:25 10 A. Oh no I don't.
11 Q. 303 So you have just a general recollection of having gone to a couple of these
12 meetings which you set up?
13 A. Yeah, yeah.
14 Q. 304 My clients can only recall one meeting, they recall one meeting which was taken
11:53:35 15 in a break in the Council activities and they refer to it colloquially as the
16 goulash meeting, because they recall that the hotel served Hungarian goulash to
17 the councillors, when they came in to see the project, but they can't trace any
18 reference in their records to any more than one meeting. I'm just wondering do
19 you have any more detail...
11:53:56 20 A. Well, a series of meetings doesn't imply they all took place on different days,
21 it means a as series of meetings with various councillors, that could have
22 taken place and probably did take place on one day, but that I cannot remember.
23 Q. 305 Which are we talking about, a lot of meetings on the one day?
24 A. Well certainly, what I have in my mind would be a series of, a series of
11:54:17 25 meetings with different councillors on the one day, but whether there was more
26 than one day I can't remember. You see there were meetings that took place in
27 Monarch and there were meetings that took place in the Royal Dublin and as I
28 said, my function was to actually make sure that, or to work with Richard to
29 make sure that people saw the plans and saw the model, so they saw the scale
11:54:39 30 and quality of the project.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
54
11:54:41 1 Q. 306 All right. A page 21 of the private session interview there is an answer to a
2 question --
4 MS. DILLON: 7999.
11:54:51 5 Can you remember the vote in Dublin County Council and the circumstances
6 surrounding it and you say "Yes. Well as I said, we were working quite a lot
7 in the Royal Dublin Hotel which was next to the Council chambers and we had,
8 obviously there were full meetings in the council or committee meetings of the
9 council which made the hotel a very convenient place next door to the Council
11:55:10 10 offices to have these presentations. But I had never been to the Council
11 offices I had never been to the Council chamber in my life." would you agree
12 with me Mr. O'Herlihy that that would tend to suggest that you were of the view
13 when you gave this interview that there were presentations on different days
14 and that you had been there on a number of occasions?
11:55:26 15 A. Yeah that is a reasonable assumption yeah.
16 Q. 307 Which is it then were there a lot of meetings on the one day?
17 A. I can't remember. I would have thought if I had to be definitive about it I
18 would have thought there were a series of meetings.
19 Q. 308 On the same day?
11:55:40 20 A. No, that there was more than one, but I am open to being corrected on that.
21 Q. 309 Well my clients can only recall one meeting on one day, you have no reason to
22 gain say that have you?
23 A. No but I have no reason to say that there were meetings that didn't take place
24 either, you know.
11:55:57 25 Q. 310 Okay. All right. At page 14.
26
28 Q. 311 Just the very last question on that page, can you remember any of the
29 councillors who actually attended? You said I can't. The question was you
11:56:17 30 genuinely can't? No. And you went on to say that you weren't involved in the

www.pcr.ie Day 649
55
11:56:23 1 construction industry and you were never involved in planning before or since.
2 You can't remember any of the councillors you met?
3 A. Well from the documentation that's been presented, I obviously met Sean Barrett
4 and I met Alan Shatter and I met Michael Keating, that's obvious from the
11:56:39 5 documentation I presented to Monarch, I remember there was a Green councillor
6 but I can't remember -- I think it was a woman if I recall and I can't remember
7 her name. I honestly don't know, I would be -- I just don't know, I can't
8 remember.
9 Q. 312 Why didn't you give those names to Mr. Gallagher when he asked you?
11:56:58 10 A. Because I couldn't remember then either.
11 Q. 313 But you have just given us a few names there, why didn't you give those names
12 to Mr. Gallagher?
13 A. To be honest about it, well Barrett's name I certainly gave, because that's
14 very obvious in the course of the documentation, as far as the Michael Keating
11:57:15 15 and Alan Shatter, my memory has been jogged by the invoices I sent up -- that
16 have been shown this morning.
17 Q. 314 All right. Obviously in preparing for today you have had a chance to look at
18 some of the documentation and so on, would you have had the chance to look at
19 the documentation prior to this interview with Mr. Gallagher?
11:57:33 20 A. No, not at all. You see, you must -- you must take into account that I am
21 nearly 35 years in the business of public relations, that was a period of about
22 six or search or eight months I don't have the files. I got rid of the files,
23 I don't have any diaries, I have no information whatever. As far as I was
24 concerned that was only a short-term project, that I never figured out at the
11:57:55 25 end of the day was going to end up in a Tribunal.
26 Q. 315 Yes?
27 A. So I didn't keep anything. So there was nothing to, nothing to jog my memory,
28 as it were.
29 Q. 316 I am just trying to get a feel for the state of your recollection
11:58:07 30 Mr. O'Herlihy, obviously the famous meeting of May 27th 1992, was some eight

www.pcr.ie Day 649
56
11:58:12 1 years prior to this interview and some 14 yours prior to today?
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. 317 So I just want to get a feel for...
4 A. That's the conversation with Richard Lynn, is that what you are saying?
11:58:23 5 Q. 318 Which took place in May 1992.
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. 319 And your interview with Mr. Gallagher took place on July 6, 2000.
9 Q. 320 I am just trying to get a feel for what your recall of your involvement was in
11:58:36 10 July, which was some eight years after the events you have described.
11 A. I think if you read the documentation of Mr. Gallagher's interview you see
12 there are a lot of things I don't remember, but the interview with Mr. Lynn or
13 the discussion with Mr. Lynn I do remember because it was so, as you said out
14 of character. It was as far as I was concerned, so extraordinary.
11:58:55 15 Q. 321 Are all right. Would you look at page 20 of your interview please.
16
18 Q. 322 You will see down towards the end of that page, question 28 "Did you have local
19 presentations in the area, in the Dun Laoghaire area?" and your answer was "I
11:59:19 20 can't remember. I really genuinely can't remember. I would be surprised if we
21 hadn't but it wouldn't have necessarily followed that had I would have been
22 present at them at all?"
23 A. At them all.
24 Q. 323 Sorry I beg your pardon "At them all", now I am just wondering why, given that
11:59:38 25 you would have been very involved with the local presentations at that time
26 your memory of what did you wasn't a bit better?
27 A. Well you will recall from the documentation presented this morning, that there
28 were three people working on the account and in the context of presentations
29 two other names were mentioned, so I wouldn't necessarily have been present at
12:00:00 30 that, at those presentations, but other members of my staff would have been.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
57
12:00:04 1 Q. 324 But you have described this morning to the Tribunal, that what you were trying
2 to do was to create a climate.
3 A. Yeah.
4 Q. 325 Whereby this development would become acceptable to the local people?
12:00:14 5 A. Correct.
6 Q. 326 Am I right in thinking that the main component of that campaign as regards the
7 people, as opposed to councillors, was a road show, which took place on 14
8 weekends, I am instructed on a Friday night from 6 o'clock to 10 o'clock and
9 Saturday from 10 o'clock to 6 o'clock in the evening, in local schools and
12:00:37 10 halls, over that 14 week period, throughout the area, and in addition there
11 were radio and TV adds, newspapers, leaflet drops, a video and so on, do you
12 not recall that road show?
13 A. Do I of course, but I wasn't necessarily present at all of them, which is a
14 different question.
12:00:55 15 Q. 327 You were asked did you have local presentation in the area, local Dun Laoghaire
16 area and you said, I can't remember.
17 A. Well if I said I can't remember at the time, I couldn't remember at the time,
18 and obviously let's be Frank about it, my memory has been jogged between then
19 and now.
12:01:14 20 Q. 328 But you worked on this project from November 91 until the end of May '92 a
21 period of some 7 months is that right? And this would have been fairly intense
22 high profile project for you during that time would it?
23 A. I it would be, but the nature of my business wouldn't have meant that, and if
24 you look at the fees that I was charging, it wouldn't have meant that I was
12:01:40 25 working exclusively on the Monarch project, I would be working on many other
26 projects, which would have been on a retainer basis, over a period of a lot
27 longer than six or seven months, so for that reason I would have been diverted
28 into other things and other people on the staff -- you see my function at the
29 start was to actually create a strategy, the implementation of the strategy
12:02:01 30 could have been done by other people within my company and primarily, let's be

www.pcr.ie Day 649
58
12:02:05 1 Frank about it, was done by Richard Lynn who was an outstanding operator.
2 Q. 329 But if you remembered anything at all about this campaign, Mr. O'Herlihy,
3 surely you would have remembered the local presentations?
4 A. Even Homer nods.
12:02:21 5 Q. 330 Okay. Now can I just ask you about your involvement on the 27th of May, which
6 you have described for the Tribunal this morning, if you want to refresh your
7 memory of what you said in 2000 you can look at page 26 and you will see that,
8 you say that you went to see the council chamber --
12:02:47 10 MS. DILLON: 8004.
11 Q. 331 And you described yourself as an open mouthed observer, somebody who had never
12 been there before, was wandering around to see how it worked and so on. I take
13 it from what you said here as well, that you went to the hotel around 11
14 o'clock?
12:03:04 15 A. Well obviously once it started, I don't know whether or not the public goes
16 into these meetings, but I didn't go into the meeting, nor did anybody with me
17 go into the meeting, so we went into the hotel and waited. We had a couple of
18 cups of coffee.
19 Q. 332 Yes I am just looking at your paragraph just over halfway "And I remember we
12:03:23 20 were in there not longer than a maximum would have been around, roughly would
21 have been 11 o'clock and we stayed in the hotel and that have wouldn't about I
22 would imagine roughly around 11 o'clock and we stayed in the hotel until we got
23 the results, which would put us after the vote, which was I would say maybe
24 between half 12 and 1 o'clock" I take it you stand over that, you went to the
12:03:45 25 hotel around 11 and got the result sometime around half 12?
26 A. That's very approximate.
27 Q. 333 Did I understand you putting the vote earlier this morning?
28 A. I don't know I can't remember.
29
12:03:56 30 CHAIRMAN: Half 12 he said this morning. Approximately.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
59
12:03:58 1 A. I don't know precisely when the vote came in.
2 Q. 334 Well it's of some importance Mr. O'Herlihy, my solicitor has a note of 12.15,
3 my own recollection was the same as the Chairman, would you like to plump for
4 a time?
12:04:11 5 A. If I was to plump for a time, I would say around 12.30, but I am open to
6 contradiction.
7 Q. 335 All right. Now can you remember who was with you between 11 o'clock and 12.30?
8 A. Richard Lynn was certainly with me, I would suspect but I can't -- you see I
9 don't want to be definitive about these things, I just don't remember, but I
12:04:32 10 would be surprised if Noel Murray didn't come in and out as well you know
11 because he was the marketing man, but I don't know that for an absolute fact.
12 I remember Richard Lynn because there was so much riding on it from Monarch's
13 point of view, he was there.
14 Q. 336 Right. And at page 32.
12:04:52 15
16 MS. DILLON: sorry, page 2?
17 Q. 337 32.
18
19 MS. DILLON: 8010 -- Sorry we have handed a copy containing the page numbers
12:05:05 20 to my friend Mr. Sanfey if he could use that, it would probably speed the
21 process up.
22
23 Mr. O'Herlihy you will see the second paragraph there "As it transpired they
24 were beaten by one vote and I remember it was a desperate disappointment and
12:05:20 25 when the vote came through we drowned our sorrows for a while", who was with
26 you when you were, when the vote came through?
27 A. Richard Lynn was with me.
28 Q. 338 He is the only one you remember?
29 A. He is the only one I remember.
12:05:32 30 Q. 339 When you say we drowned or sore owes?

www.pcr.ie Day 649
60
12:05:34 1 A. That's figurative, it probably was a cup of coffee, I don't think which were
2 drinking at that hour of the day.
3 Q. 340 I think drowning our sorrows would normally refer to having a few drinks.
4 A. Yeah.
12:05:46 5 Q. 341 But you think it was coffee?
6 A. I think so, it was too early to take a jar, I am not a heavy drinker anyway.
7 Q. 342 But when you say drowning sorrows, how long did it go on for?
8 A. I don't know, I couldn't tell you. When I say drowning sorrows I'm referring
9 to the fact it was acutely disappointing to Monarch, they put a lot of work,
12:06:07 10 very professionally, into the campaign and they lost the vote, therefore we in
11 a figurative sense we drowned or sorrows in the sense that we expressed a huge
12 level of disappointment and we probably had another cup of coffee and looked
13 forward to the future, but the future didn't include me.
14 Q. 343 If the vote came through at half 12 and a certain amount of time was spent
12:06:29 15 drinking coffee after that, how long would you say, would you put it at an
16 hour, an hour and a half less?
17 A. I don't know. I honestly can't remember, but I would imagine the very maximum
18 would be an hour, but I don't know.
19 Q. 344 So there wasn't a long coffee drinking session?
12:06:42 20 A. It wasn't a long session no.
21 Q. 345 Now Mr. Lynn, as you are aware, was effectively the project leader in relation
22 to this?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 346 He was the one coordinating the entire project in terms of getting rezoning and
12:07:04 25 liaising with councillor, liaising with you, liaising with the professions so
26 on, you agree with that?
27 A. Oh absolutely.
28 Q. 347 Now Mr. Lynn will say that in relation to every single meeting that Dublin
29 County Council had in relation to the Cherrywood Development, he entered the
12:07:24 30 chamber and remained in the gallery, adjacent to the chamber, watching every

www.pcr.ie Day 649
61
12:07:29 1 minute of the meeting and that in none of those meetings did he step outside
2 the chamber, or leave the gallery and that that invariable practice also
3 applied on May 27th 1992.
12:07:41 5 MS. DILLON: I thought my friend had said that Mr. Lynn wasn't present on the
6 27th of May 1992.
8 CHAIRMAN: Wasn't present -- well at the meeting or --
12:07:50 10 MS. DILLON: That's my understanding maybe my friend will clarify that.
11
12 CHAIRMAN: We understood you to say that he wasn't present, now whether you
13 mean simply at the meeting, in the hotel, or in the chamber.
14 Q. 348 Well I'm glad to have the chance to clarify that Chairman. I haven't begun to
12:08:11 15 spoke about Mr. Lynn's involvement with the County Council, if I said that he
16 wasn't present at the meting I refer purely to the meeting at which the
17 conversation is alleged by Mr. O'Herlihy to take place, he wasn't in the Royal
18 Dublin Hotel, for that conversation.
19
12:08:27 20 CHAIRMAN: But you said he was in the chamber that day?
21 Q. 349 Yes. You are clear on that Mr. O'Herlihy? That what I am saying is that
22 Mr. Lynn will say that he was present in the gallery, which is adjacent to the
23 chamber, because non councillors are not allowed into the chamber itself and
24 was there attending on the meeting from the time it started, in fact before
12:08:55 25 that until, five past ten two when the minutes say that it ended and that he
26 did not go to the Royal Dublin Hotel at any time between those times?
27 A. That's not my recollection.
28 Q. 350 You see, Mr. Lynn has gone back over his movements as closely as he could, and
29 what he will say is this, he will say that he arrived in the County Council
12:09:14 30 hall, between 10.15 and 10.30 and the reason he did this was because the

www.pcr.ie Day 649
62
12:09:20 1 meeting was scheduled to start at 10.30 am, you have to get a member to sign
2 you into the public gallery, which is behind the chamber and there is limited
3 seating, so if you don't get there early, you don't get a seat. And he says
4 that the meeting would have commenced at 11 am at the latest, he will say that
12:09:42 5 he stayed with the meeting for the entire time. The Manager's report was the
6 first matter voted on and I wonder if we can have page 3720?
8 Now that is a page of the minutes of the meeting produced by the council,
9 Mr. O'Herlihy, and on the previous page it says that it was agreed that the
12:10:27 10 Manager's report and the amendments to the draft plan and the motions were to
11 be discussed together, but voted on separately. And then at page 490, there,
12 you see it says "Following discussion to which Councillors Lydon, Hand, Gordon,
13 Fitzgerald, Dillon-Byrne, Breathnach, Smith, Lohan, Gilmore, O'Callaghan, C
14 Breathnach, Barrett, Dockrell, Coffey, Mitchell, Butler, Cass, Marren, Higgins,
12:10:54 15 contributed, the Manager replied to queries raised by the members" so I'm not
16 sure quite how many that is, but its perhaps about 15 different councillors got
17 up and spoke to the motion on one side or the other, and it was then proposed
18 by Councillor Lydon and seconded by Councillor McGrath that the Manager's
19 report recommended and shown therein be adopted, it was put to a vote and the
12:11:19 20 motion was lost.
21
22 And Mr. Lynn will say that he was present for all of that. And Mr. Lynn will
23 say that he had to be present for all of that, because as the point man, as it
24 were, for Monarch Properties there was no question of anybody else being at
12:11:40 25 that meeting and that he could co not leave the meeting and if anybody had a
26 point they wanted to ask him about the development, he had to be there to
27 answer it and he had to be there to monitor developments and he says that he
28 did not leave that meeting at all until the entire meeting ended. Do you have
29 any comment to make on that?
12:12:00 30 A. That's not my recollection. I'm not suggesting that he wouldn't have been

www.pcr.ie Day 649
63
12:12:04 1 there for part of the meeting, but he was certainly in the Royal Dublin Hotel
2 with me.
3 Q. 351 Now I wonder could we refer to page 588? I want to refer you to something
4 Mr. Dunlop has said, now this relates to Mr. Lynn's involvement, so I would
12:12:43 5 just like you to have a look at this Mr. O'Herlihy, at question 58 there, there
6 was talk of a motion and they are trying to fish for the date that that motion
7 took place --
9 CHAIRMAN: Is this Mr. Dunlop's evidence?
12:12:54 10 Q. 352 It's Mr. Dunlop. The answer to 58 he says, three lines down "Remember that a
11 lot of the motions fell, or were withdrawn on the basis that the case could not
12 be made, or that people did the figures in the room and said, withdraw that
13 immediately because its not going to run" and Mr. Dunlop was asked were you
14 present on those occasions he said I would have been present, yes. Was
12:13:18 15 Mr. Lynn present and the answer is "Always, always present. Not Phil Reilly,
16 not always, but Richard Lynn, always" he is then asked who would make a
17 decision that a particular motion should be withdrawn? And the answer is "I
18 remember on one particular occasion Richard Lynn signalling Don Lydon to come
19 out of the chamber after he had made a disastrous speech in relation to why you
12:13:41 20 this was required, and not required and he came back in and withdrew.
21 Question: Withdrew the motion? Answer: The motion." and then there is some
22 debate as to when that motion actually took place, but if you go forward to
23 page 596, now you see just below short discussion off the record Mr. O'Herlihy?
24 A. Mm-hmm.
12:14:07 25 Q. 353 Mr. Gallagher for the Tribunal said "What year is that, it looks like December
26 is it? It is the special meeting of 27 May 1992? Answer: Yes, that could be
27 one of them. A special meeting of the councillors, in other words a
28 Development Plan meeting. Question: It was a Development Plan meeting.
29 Question yes. Answer: Yes. Question: Councillor Mitchell it say here, she
12:14:32 30 had no interest in the lands. The Manager reading to the words, to propose

www.pcr.ie Day 649
64
12:14:33 1 amendments where in etcetera: Then question 100 "Lydon withdrew the motion
2 Answer: That motion Question: Having spoken outside the chamber with Richard
3 Lynn having been called out of the chamber by Richard Lynn, is that correct
4 Answer: Yes."
12:14:51 5
6 CHAIRMAN: What page is that?
7 Q. 354 Page 600 Chairman. Sorry Chairman I didn't go consecutively there, question
8 100 on page 600 up on the screen.
12:15:04 10 And at question -- in question 102 Mr. Dunlop says "I have to admit that's its
11 earlier than I would have anticipated, it is earlier in 1992 than I would have
12 anticipated it, but I do vividly recollect and I have on a number occasions
13 mentioned the fact that a compromise motion was proposed by Sean Barrett, so
14 that if that was the day that the motion was proposed that is it. Question:
12:15:32 15 The motion that was withdrawn was one proposed by Councillor Lydon, seconded by
16 Councillor Hand and it proposed that the lands at Cherrywood be rezoned
17 residential within a density not exceeding an average of 12 houses per hectare
18 with the parks taken into account, or in any event to be provided for, not more
19 than 956 housing units. It is a lengthy motion. Is that the motion that you
12:15:53 20 were referring? It is referred to at page 492 of the minutes of Dublin County
21 Council, of 27 May of 1992".
22
23 So we see there Mr. O'Herlihy, that Mr. Dunlop is identifying the motion which
24 was withdrawn by Mr. Lydon as the one that occurred on the 27th of May of 1992
12:16:24 25 and he refers to a confab held between Mr. Lydon and Mr. Lynn, in relation to
26 that, I think Mr. Lynn might take some issue with the characterisation of that
27 by Mr. Dunlop, but that shows that Mr. Lynn was available to the councillors at
28 the time when that motion was withdrawn.
29
12:16:46 30 MR. O'HIGGINS: Just to interject for a moment on behalf of the witness, this

www.pcr.ie Day 649
65
12:16:49 1 is of course potentially legitimate material to put to Mr. O'Herlihy, but
2 Mr. O'Herlihy has been circulated with none of the material which is now being
3 put to him, nor has it ever been suggested, in any of the material circulated
4 to Mr. O'Herlihy that Mr. Lynn would say of the things which are now being put
12:17:09 5 by Mr. Sanfey so Mr. O'Herlihy, so that to the extent that he is being asked to
6 comment on evidence given it appears several years ago, by Mr. Dunlop, which he
7 hasn't had an opportunity to consider or address, he may have very reasonable
8 difficulties in recalling this, on the hoof, so to speak, I'd just like to make
9 it clear, as I say none of this material has been circulated nor has any
12:17:35 10 statement suggesting that this approach would be taken by Mr. Lynn being
11 circulated to him either.
12
13 CHAIRMAN: Well I suppose Mr. Sanfey all you can really put to O'Herlihy is
14 whether, having heard your account as read from the transcript, does he in
12:17:53 15 anyway change the evidence or wish to change the evidence or consider the
16 evidence, that he has given, in relation to the fact that the conversation he
17 says the fact that the conversation took place. This is Mr -- this, at the end
18 of the day this is Mr. Dunlop's account as to what he recalls, I mean its not
19 something that Mr, that Mr. O'Herlihy has any direct knowledge of.
12:18:25 20 Q. 355 Precisely Chairman, you are absolutely right, I wasn't expecting Mr. O'Herlihy
21 to have a view on whether what Mr. Dunlop said was true or untrue, I didn't
22 want to be subject to the criticism that I didn't put to Mr. O'Herlihy that
23 there is evidence to suggest, from other parties, that Mr. Lynn was in the
24 chamber until after the vote took place, because as we know from the minutes
12:18:47 25 Mr. Lydon's motion was withdrawn after the vote on the Manager's report.
26
27 So I literally wanted to just put that to him, you are quite right, all I
28 really wanted to say to Mr. O'Herlihy was not to comment on what Mr. Dunlop
29 said, but just to say does that give him any reason to suspect his recollection
12:19:07 30 may not be correct?

www.pcr.ie Day 649
66
12:19:08 1 A. My recollection of the conversation is absolutely correct. The only thing at
2 issue from what you have raised would be the timing, the time, my time and the,
3 that I have put forward at around 12.30 might be wrong, that's all I can say,
4 but the conversation took place.
12:19:28 5 Q. 356 Well Mr. O'Herlihy, isn't it true that the conversation with Mr. Lynn in the
6 way that you described it in your interview took place while you were waiting
7 for the vote?
8 A. Yeah, that's my recollection.
9 Q. 357 Now if Mr. Dunlop is correct, and once again you can't have a view on this, but
12:19:47 10 let's say assume for a moment he is correct, Mr. Lynn is put in the gallery of
11 the chamber, after the vote has been taken and in fact when Mr. Lydon, Senator
12 Lydon was considering whether or not to persevere with his motion?
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. 358 So the time something fairly crucial from Mr. Lynn's point of view isn't it?
12:20:05 15 A. Well I think its a red herring to be honest. Because it seems to me that the
16 point at issue is, did the conversation take place? That's far more important
17 than the time in which the conversation took place. If I am completely wrong
18 in my timing, that doesn't mean the conversation didn't take place, it simply
19 took place at a later time than I have indicated at 12.30, but the conversation
12:20:30 20 took place.
21 Q. 359 But Mr. O'Herlihy you have said and you have had a chance to think about it,
22 that the conversation took place at 12.30 while you were waiting for the vote
23 to come through?
24 A. That's right that's my understanding.
12:20:41 25 Q. 360 And in fact it was asked in a that context, how do you think the vote is going
26 to go?
27 A. That's right.
28 Q. 361 So its not just a matter of timing is it, if this evidence from other people
29 tends to suggest that Mr. Lynn, was in fact in the chamber until long after the
12:20:53 30 vote was taken, in fact when Senator Lydon's motion was considering then you

www.pcr.ie Day 649
67
12:20:59 1 are quite wrong aren't you?
2 A. I'm not wrong in what I am saying, I am wrong in my timing if everybody else
3 can say he was there until 2 o'clock, then the conversation took place after 2
4 o'clock, but it took place. And I'm not going to yield on that, it took place.
12:21:13 5 Q. 362 I appreciate that Mr. O'Herlihy, but you would be wrong in saying that it took
6 place at 12.30. You would be wrong in placing it in the context of a
7 discussion of waiting the vote?
8 A. Yeah that's right.
9 Q. 363 And wondering how it was going to go, isn't that right?
12:21:26 10 A. Obviously if the other indication of time is correct, I'm wrong in that.
11 Q. 364 Right, right.
12 A. Yeah but I'm not wrong, you see the material point is the conversation took
13 place.
14 Q. 365 Yes but I mean you have couched that conversation in a context where you were
12:21:43 15 waiting for the vote to come through?
16 A. Yeah.
17 Q. 366 And you are asking Richard Lynn, how do you think its going go? And you get
18 this very cynical response from Mr. Lynn.
19 A. Yeah and that's my understanding.
12:21:53 20 Q. 367 But if that conversation took place at 2 o'clock, when you knew the vote, it
21 couldn't have happened in that way is that right?
22 A. That's true, yeah.
23 Q. 368 Now just to finish this, Mr. Lynn will say that he remained, for all of the
24 motions, as you know there were a number of motions and all of them were voted
12:22:13 25 on and so on, and that Mr. Lynn, as is his normal practice, waited in the hall
26 way, thanking members for their support, in fact he specifically remembers
27 shaking hands with Mr. Sean Barrett, on the footpath outside, because Mr. Lynn
28 and Mr. Barrett were then approached by RTE to do an interview and they agreed
29 do the interview and it was switched to the Fine Gael room, because the noise
12:22:44 30 outside made interviewing impossible. And Mr. Lynn duly did that interview and

www.pcr.ie Day 649
68
12:22:49 1 in fact we have a tape of it, if you want to see it --
3 MS. DILLON: Sorry before question is finally put to Mr. O'Herlihy, we are
4 heading back into the territory of people producing evidence or documentation
12:23:01 5 or information to the Tribunal which has not been provided before today so we
6 haven't been in a position to circulate it to Mr. O'Herlihy, or indeed to
7 anybody else, we are unaware of any suggestion of an interview with anybody for
8 any purpose, at any particular date or time and in fairness to Mr. O'Herlihy
9 and indeed anybody else, including Mr. Lydon who might be affected by this
12:23:23 10 before any further reference can be made the matter will have to be circulated.
11
12 CHAIRMAN: If you want the Tribunal to consider permitting the content of the
13 tape, or viewing of the tape, to go into evidence and to be referred to in
14 cross-examination of witnesses you will have to submit it to the Tribunal and
12:23:44 15 if the Tribunal believe it appropriate to do so, it will then be circulated.
16 If necessary Mr. O'Herlihy can be recalled to deal with anything that might
17 arise as a result of the tape, but what you can't do is refer to a tape which
18 nobody has seen but yourself.
19 Q. 369 Well Chairman, I will be glad to turnover the tape, but absolutely nothing
12:24:08 20 turns on it.
21
22 CHAIRMAN: Well that's fine.
23 Q. 370 I am not going to refer to the content of the tape or anything like that, I
24 simply want to establish that an interview did take place, I have no reason to
12:24:19 25 believe that Mr. O'Herlihy will gain say that, or have any opinion on it in
26 anyway, if he did or wanted to see the tape there is no difficulty in
27 circulating the tape.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: We would be anxious to see the tape, if its going to be referred to
12:24:32 30 in evidence because its been, if you like opened by you on the basis that it in

www.pcr.ie Day 649
69
12:24:40 1 some way supports your client's case, that he was in attendance until a certain
2 time or until the conclusion of the meeting or whatever, so whatever --
3 whatever evidential value it has, obviously we would have to have it, if its
4 appropriate to do so, to have it circulated.
12:25:04 5 Q. 371 Chairman we have no difficulty what so ever in making the tape available, I
6 think you may well conclude that it doesn't have much evidential --
8 CHAIRMAN: All right well then its of no relevance to your cross-examination
9 of Mr. O'Herlihy.
12:25:20 10
11 MR. O'HIGGINS: Chairman on behalf of Mr. O'Herlihy here could I just say for a
12 moment while Mr. O'Herlihy is quite happy I think to answer any of the
13 questions which are put to him now, I am slightly concerned that there may be
14 material which I was meant to have received and haven't. Now I am not sure
12:25:34 15 because certainly I am in position possession of many statements by Mr. Lynn,
16 but none which even makes reference to the question of a meeting, or the
17 absence of a meeting, between Mr. Lynn and Mr. O'Herlihy, I am just somewhat
18 concerned before I go on, whether through my inadvertence or anyone else's,
19 that there has been a failure to provide me with documents in which Mr. Lynn
12:26:04 20 gives some alternative account of what was meant to have happened on the 27th
21 of May.
22
23 MS. DILLON: No my friend Mr. O'Higgins has all of the documentation from
24 Mr. Lynn, we do not have any further statement from Mr. Lynn detailing,
12:26:19 25 following his receipt of Mr. O'Herlihy's statement, detailing any further
26 material or information in relation to that matter.
27
28 MR. O'HIGGINS: I am grateful sir, because what does concern me is and I note
29 this and I don't make any criticism in doing so, that it was indicated in the
12:26:36 30 opening of the Module, at which time I hadn't looked at all the documents that

www.pcr.ie Day 649
70
12:26:43 1 Mr. Lynn denied the conversation with Mr. O'Herlihy, but I have to say that
2 none of the materials with which I have been circulated, even includes a denial
3 of the fact of the conversation, and I ask there for no reason other than if
4 there is some document I don't have I would be anxious to have it and if there
12:27:03 5 isn't then I don't press the matter any further.
7 CHAIRMAN: Where did we get the information.
9 MS. DILLON: I understand it was indicated in telephone conversation by the
12:27:12 10 solicitors, with solicitor for the Tribunal, that Mr. Lynn would be denying
11 that the conversation took place, but the Tribunal has no statement from
12 Mr. Lynn detailing his version of the meeting, or any of the other material
13 that Mr. Sanfey had indicated, or mentioned earlier.
14
12:27:30 15 MR. O'HIGGINS: I am grateful for that, it puts matters in context, I was just
16 somewhat concerned that I was, that these matters are coming out of the blue
17 then from everyone's point of view.
18 Q. 372 Chairman can I just say too there appears to have been one private session
19 interview with Mr. Lynn, after 27 of May 1992, as I understand it no reference
12:27:50 20 was made to Mr. O'Herlihy's reference to that conversation to Mr. Lynn, in that
21 private interview.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: I know that yes.
24 Q. 373 So if Mr. Lynn didn't refer to it in that interview he can't be criticised.
12:28:02 25
26 CHAIRMAN: There is no criticism of him not dealing with it in a formal
27 statement, we now know that it was said by your solicitor to the Tribunal's
28 solicitor, that's how it was stated in that way in the opening time opening by
29 Ms. Dillon, but there is no mystery now, there is no mystery as to why Mr. Lynn
12:28:21 30 didn't make a further statement.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
71
12:28:25 1 Q. 374 Mr. O'Herlihy, to wrap it all up, you will understand that Mr. Lynn will say
2 that he was at the County Council meeting for the whole of it, that he didn't
3 leave the gallery, or the chamber and that in fact he didn't go to the Royal
4 Dublin Hotel until after he had done the interview and that only for a sandwich
12:28:45 5 on his own. I take it you say that that cannot be the case?
6 A. That is not my recollection.
7 Q. 375 Can I ask you something about the conversation itself, just a few questions I
8 want to ask you about it, Mr. Dominic Glennane and Mr. Noel Murray are both
9 also my clients and each of them will say that they remember you being in the
12:29:14 10 Royal Dublin Hotel, but that they don't remember Mr. Lynn being there and in
11 fact would have been, wouldn't have expected him to be there because his place
12 was down in the chamber, do you recall Mr. Glennane Mr. Murray being there?
13 A. I recall Mr. Murray, in a coming and going situation, but I don't remember Mr.
14 Glennane.
12:29:36 15 Q. 376 Yes. Could we have a look at page 36, 8014? Mr. O'Herlihy you were asked at
16 the top of the page there, was anybody else present when you were having this
17 conversation the answer was "I would have thought, I don't know. I mean its
18 possible that Noel Murray was present but the conversation if I remember
19 correctly we were standing at the bar, and it was probably a private
12:30:07 20 conversation and I would think that -- I can't, I don't know. We were not the
21 only people there, but I think the conversation was maybe Noel Murray was
22 there, I don't know honestly. I suspect not. But I don't know, I mean we
23 would have been in a little island talking to each other" do you have any
24 position today as to whether Noel Murray was there?
12:30:27 25 A. In terms of the conversation, the conversation would have been a private
26 conversation. Noel Murray was certainly in the hotel.
27 Q. 377 But you seem unsure during the course of that answer as to whether Noel Murray
28 was party to the conversation with Mr. Lynn?
29 A. No to my knowledge he wouldn't have been party to the conversation but he would
12:30:46 30 have been thereabouts, you know.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
72
12:30:48 1 Q. 378 But you were less sure in 2000, you said we were not the only people there but
2 I think the conversation was, maybe Noel Murray was there, I don't know
3 honestly.
4 A. I'll have to stick to that then won't I. I don't know honestly but my
12:31:02 5 recollection, such as it is now is that he was certainly not part of the
6 conversation but he was there.
7 Q. 379 Would you not remember him being part of such a momentous conversation as such
8 as this?
9 A. That's exactly the point. The fact that I don't remember him being part of the
12:31:19 10 conversation suggests to me that he wasn't part of the conversation.
11 Q. 380 But you seemed less sure when you were in private interview with the Tribunal
12 in July 2000?
13 A. Well I don't know. I can't answer that.
14 Q. 381 I mean wouldn't it, when you were told this by Mr. Lynn, if Mr. Murray was
12:31:39 15 present, one assumes you would turn to Mr. Murray and say, Noel did you --
16 A. I think the difficulty I have in a situation like that is I am attempting to be
17 as honest as I can and you know to make declamitary comments, about people
18 being there, or not being there, is not my normal style for a start, certainly
19 in terms of trying to be careful you can actually do yourself a certain amount
12:32:03 20 of damage by suggesting that you are unsure. I am sure of only the basic fact.
21 Q. 382 All right. Could I ask you to have a look at page 8006, you see that
22 Mr. O'Herlihy?
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. 383 Now this is when you asked Mr. Lynn about the project and he said "merit
12:32:33 25 doesn't come into it, the quality of the project has nothing to do with it", he
26 then said "you cannot get through a planning application or material
27 contravention in Dublin County Council unless you buy it" and you said "what do
28 you mean buy" it he said "planning permissions and material contraventions were
29 worth 50,000 a year in the back pocket of councillors in the Dublin County
12:32:54 30 Councillors who play ball with developers". Is that your best recollection of

www.pcr.ie Day 649
73
12:32:57 1 what he said?
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. 384 Do you stand over that today as your recollection?
4 A. I, absolutely -- because as I said to the Tribunal earlier, I had no
12:33:06 5 involvement whatever with planning applications or construction industry or
6 whatever, and that to me was such an extraordinary comment that it just stuck
7 in my mind.
8 Q. 385 You know that what was afoot that day was neither an application for planning
9 permission nor a material contravention?
12:33:25 10 A. I'm not aware of that.
11 Q. 386 Well you must be aware, Mr. O'Herlihy, what was happening was a review of the
12 development plan, it wasn't an application for planning permission?
13 A. Well I can't remember that either, but I will tell you this much, it was
14 material as far as the go ahead for Cherrywood was concerned, it was important
12:33:44 15 from that point of view for Monarch. The technical detail, I can't answer at
16 this stage.
17 Q. 387 But you mentioned twice planning application, material contravention?
18 A. That is what was said to me. I am not saying that this was a planning
19 application or material contravention. What was said to me is that, that a
12:34:04 20 material contravention or a planning application could not go through on its
21 merits, it had to be bought, and that 50,000 a year was the calculation that
22 was made by the councillors if they played ball with the developers. Now how
23 would I make up a statement like that, would you ask me? How could I possibly
24 make up a statement like that when I have no idea in the wide world what the
12:34:28 25 dynamics of the industry was, or the whole question of getting planning
26 permission.
27 Q. 388 Well I suppose what I am trying to find out Mr. O'Herlihy, is whether those
28 were the exact words said or whether it's a paraphrase? Because my client, who
29 is intimately familiar with the mechanics of planning applications and
12:34:46 30 development plans and so on, can't understand why it's alleged he would have

www.pcr.ie Day 649
74
12:34:51 1 referred to a planning applications at all in the context of a review of the
2 development plan. Why talk about oranges when he was concerned with apples?
3 A. I don't know.
4 Q. 389 You may well be aware from your own public knowledge that planning permissions
12:35:07 5 are not decided by councillors, they are decided by the officials of the low
6 authority, and that therefore the question of paying money to councillors in
7 respect of planning permissions doesn't arise; so why would Mr. Lynn who would
8 know that, even if you didn't, refer to planning applications, putting 50,000 a
9 year in councillors pockets.
12:35:30 10
11 CHAIRMAN: But isn't that -- obviously that's something that Mr. O'Herlihy
12 can't really comment on.
13 A. Yeah.
14
12:35:38 15 CHAIRMAN: It's a matter which obviously your client can give in evidence in
16 support of his contention that he couldn't have said anything of this nature.
17 Q. 390 Can I ask you this then Mr. O'Herlihy, in that context Mr. Lynn will say that
18 he, even if it were true he wouldn't have said that; so are you standing over
19 the exact words that you have used here?
12:35:59 20 A. I am standing over these words, yeah.
21 Q. 391 Planning applications and material contraventions?
22 A. That's what I was told. You see, going back to the point that I made earlier,
23 he could have been talking at that particular point about planning applications
24 and material contraventions in a much broader context than the Monarch property
12:36:21 25 context, I don't know, you will have to ask him that.
26 Q. 392 At page 8008, you see that middle paragraph there, and a note of caution
27 entered what you were telling Mr. Gallagher at this point and you said, you
28 were being asked Mr. Lydon you said "I have to be very careful here now because
29 everything I am talking about anecdotal, there is no material or tangible
12:36:55 30 evidence of anything like this in my relation with Monarch. This was a

www.pcr.ie Day 649
75
12:36:58 1 conversation in a bar, in a bar of a hotel and it is entirely anecdotal. I
2 don't have any evidence of any sort to back it up" and you return to that topic
3 two pages later, at 8010.
12:37:13 5 You see at the bottom of the page there you are talking about the conversation
6 and you say the "The conversation was entirely anecdotal in the sense that it
7 could have been a fellow boasting in a bar, for all I know. There was no
8 evidence what so ever in my dealings with Monarch at any stage that suggested
9 that this was part and parcel of the way that they did business." Now your
12:37:36 10 reference there to "it could have been a fellow boasting in a bar", can I ask
11 you Mr. O'Herlihy, did you take this conversation seriously?
12 A. I did. You see, as I said to you earlier, I have no experience, I have had
13 since no experience and up to then no experience what so ever of that
14 particular industry. If a person says that to me and he says it with authority
12:37:58 15 I take it to be a fact, or I take it to be, you know, but I did make the point
16 that it could have been a reaction to the fact that I was naive, it could have
17 been an exaggeration. I have no evidence and this wasn't caution, this was
18 realism. I have no evidence whatsoever to indicate that this was a fact, and
19 therefore I entered that as caveat on the basis of being fair and being honest.
12:38:23 20 Q. 393 All right, well it's very fair of to you say that, but did you ever afterwards,
21 immediately afterwards or in the week afterwards, write down the contents of
22 your conversation?
23 A. No.
24 Q. 394 You didn't take a note of it?
12:38:38 25 A. No.
26 Q. 395 Even to fix it in your own mind for your own purposes not to show to anyone
27 else, you didn't write it down?
28 A. No, it fixed in my own mind because it was such an extraordinary conversation,
29 but I didn't write it down.
12:38:50 30 Q. 396 Did you ever discuss it with anyone?

www.pcr.ie Day 649
76
12:38:52 1 A. I may have, I probably did make a reference to it along the lines somewhere,
2 you know, about the council and that.
3 Q. 397 To whom?
4 A. I don't know, I can't remember.
12:39:03 5 Q. 398 Well when Mr. Lynn said it to you, did you say it to Dominic Glennane or Noel
6 Murray, "can this be true, you will never guess what Richard has just told me",
7 something of that nature?
8 A. I have no recollection of that.
9 Q. 399 By your own time line and given that you may have reservations about your own
12:39:25 10 time line, this conversation would have taken place waiting for the vote of
11 which you have informed at half 12?
12 A. That's what I thought.
13 Q. 400 You think you may have had a cup of coffee for about another hour after that.
14 In the hour that you spent, did you discuss it any further with Mr. Lynn or
12:39:39 15 Mr. Murray or Mr. Glennane or anyone else, you had just been told something
16 that according to your evidence this morning was staggering, you were gob
17 smacked by it, and you were disgusted by it, now given that you were disgusted
18 by it, did you not mention it to Mr. Glennane or Mr. Murray?
19 A. No, because my interpretation of the conversation was that it was a private
12:40:02 20 conversation, at that time and I didn't discuss it with anyone, I wasn't going
21 to start raising a hair at that particular point in time. It didn't occur to
22 me to say to anybody else at that time.
23 Q. 401 At that stage is it not fair to say that you weren't aware that that your
24 involvement with Monarch was at an end, you could have been retained on an
12:40:25 25 ongoing basis?
26 A. I'd say there wasn't a slightest prospect of that, I would be a realist about
27 these things.
28 Q. 402 You thought from that day on you wouldn't have any more association with
29 Monarch?
12:40:35 30 A. Yeah, I mean I was specifically appointed for a particular project and the

www.pcr.ie Day 649
77
12:40:41 1 project finished with that vote, that was the end of my involvement, it was
2 never understood by me, nor never implied by Monarch that I was to continue or
3 anything like that, so I assumed that was the end it, and I was right, it was
4 the end of it.
12:40:57 5 Q. 403 You then, up to that day had been associated with the PR for a project, which
6 if what Mr. Lynn told you was true, involved whole sale bribery and corruption,
7 did that concern you from the point of view of your own personal reputation?
8 A. I think you're ignoring one fact, or one point I made, I have no idea whether
9 it was true or not. And if I was to exercise my judgement on the basis of the
12:41:26 10 eight months I spent with Monarch as I said it was entirely out of character, I
11 would not have been party to something that was, if there was a sniff of
12 corruption in it, I wouldn't have been part it have under any circumstances,
13 there was no such sniff, it was a very legitimate campaign. So when that was
14 said to me, I said to myself okay, as I said in the thing that was somebody
12:41:50 15 boasting, was it somebody taking the Mickey out of me, was it somebody
16 reflecting on the fact that I was such an innocent, I don't know, I never knew
17 whether it was true or not and certainly, like the whole campaign as far as I
18 was concerned, was over at that stage anyway.
19 Q. 404 You didn't know whether it was true, but I asked you a few minutes ago did you
12:42:07 20 take the conversation seriously and you said, absolutely?
21 A. I did because I would have assumed that this was a person talking from the
22 basis of understanding the dynamics of the industry, which I did not and
23 therefore in that sense I took it to be true.
24 Q. 405 You took it to be true. So you have the project leader, the person with whom
12:42:28 25 you have worked most closely, telling you that this is true, telling you this
26 and you take it that it is true and yet you never mention it to Mr. Glennane,
27 you never mention to Mr. Murray, you don't discuss with anybody else, you don't
28 write it down, can I ask you did you raise it with Monarch, with the board of
29 directors?
12:42:46 30 A. I didn't, I had no further contact with Monarch, as far as I recall after that.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
78
12:42:53 1 Q. 406 Did you take up with Fine Gael?
2 A. No, why would I take it up with Fine Gael?
3 Q. 407 Would it not have been a matter of great interest to Fine Gael the matter that
4 there is rampant bribery in Dublin County Council?
12:43:03 5 A. I wasn't involved with Fine Gael in those days if I recall I think my
6 relationship had finished I don't know I can't remember, I didn't anyway is the
7 answer.
8 Q. 408 Did you speak to your solicitor about it?
9 A. No I did not.
12:43:15 10 Q. 409 Did you take any kind of advice about it?
11 A. No I didn't, because I didn't know whether it was facts all or not as I said to
12 you earlier on.
13 Q. 410 Did you consider reporting to the Gardai?
14 A. No I did not.
12:43:26 15 Q. 411 So despite the fact that you took the conversation seriously and assumed that
16 Mr. Lynn was telling you, what he believed to be true, you didn't write it
17 down?
18 A. No.
19 Q. 412 You didn't see a solicitor, you didn't say it to the other representatives of
12:43:39 20 Monarch who were present, you didn't follow it up with Monarch, you didn't say
21 it to the party, with whom you had an association and because of which
22 association you got involved in the project in the first place, and you didn't
23 consider reporting to the Gardai?
24 A. Because I had no evidence whatsoever. I mean if you want to go to the Gardai,
12:44:00 25 you have to go with more than a conversation in a bar, you have to go on the
26 basis of the fact that I can tell you categorically A B C D and E, there was no
27 evidence whatsoever that was true, it may be true, but there was no evidence
28 therefore I wasn't going to go and run to, from Billy to Jack and tell them
29 something, a conversation in which I couldn't say was true or not.
12:44:21 30 Q. 413 Were you not concerned that if all this came out at a later stage it would

www.pcr.ie Day 649
79
12:44:25 1 damage your reputation?
2 A. Well what you are saying is damaging my reputation now. In fact the reality is
3 that if never dawned on me that this thing would actually get to a Tribunal,
4 you know. That wouldn't be the reason I wouldn't say it, the reason I didn't
12:44:38 5 say it was that there was no evidence.
6 Q. 414 Okay. Can I have a look at page 8007? Now Mr. O'Herlihy this is where you
7 refer to Mr. Lynn telling you that, what do is you pick off a lead councillor
8 in each of the parties and you discuss the matter with them and you get an
9 estimation from him as to the amount of money and the kind of money involved
12:45:12 10 that would be required to actually buy the votes, and you give that money to
11 the lead councillor and he does everything after that. Now do I understand you
12 to come back from this morning, from asserting that Mr. Lynn said you pick a
13 lead councillor in each of the parties, am I wrong in that?
14 A. As against what.
12:45:32 15 Q. 415 Did I understand to you suggest this morning that in fact it might be only one
16 lead councillor that would be picked?
17 A. I said there to John Gallagher, that it was each of the parties, but only one
18 name was mentioned so I did make the supposition that that person could be
19 working for all the parties but that I do not know.
12:45:54 20 Q. 416 Yes but Mr. Gallagher understandably, asked you about why you didn't follow
21 that up, if you have a look at page 36, 8014, now if you see halfway down, you
22 are asked was any other politician mentioned that you can recall? Answer "No
23 well I don't know. I mean the natural inquisitive question for me would have
24 tonne to say well who was the person in Fine Gael and who was the person in the
12:46:31 25 Labour Party, but I never asked that question, I don't know why I didn't ask
26 the question. Now do you have any view today as to why you didn't ask that
27 question?
28 A. No I haven't, it could well be that we were interrupted, I don't know. I have
29 no idea.
12:46:47 30 Q. 417 Well was it not a question crying out to be asked?

www.pcr.ie Day 649
80
12:46:51 1 A. It certainly would logically suggest, it should be asked, but therefore there
2 must be a logical reason why it wasn't asked and it could be because we were
3 interrupted and that was the end it, I don't know. I actually do not know.
4 Q. 418 I think your background Mr. O'Herlihy is as an investigative reporter isn't
12:47:08 5 that right?
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. 419 And I think we know that one of your greatest attributes as a broadcaster is
8 your ability to ask the question that the audience wants asked, if there had
9 been an audience or a fly on the wall there, would they not have been screaming
12:47:23 10 who is the Fine Gael guy, who is the Labour guy, ask, but you didn't ask?
11 A. I didn't ask.
12 Q. 420 You are a dyed in the wool Fine Gael person, whether or not you have a formal
13 association with the party, I don't think I am mis-describing you when I say
14 that, would you not at least have been dying to know who the Fine Gael person
12:47:43 15 was?
16 A. I can't -- I honestly can't answer the question, I don't know. I don't know
17 why I didn't ask the question, there must have been a logical reason but I
18 can't remember what it might have been, I don't know.
19 Q. 421 All right. Now could I have a look at that, page 8016, now, sorry, if I just
12:48:28 20 look at the last question on page 8016, to your best recollection that was Don
21 Lydon who was the person to whom the hundred thousand was to be paid? Answer
22 Yes to the best of my recollection. My understanding was that he didn't get
23 the 100,000 he got the 100,000 to distribute, how much he got of it I have no
24 idea, but the idea was that he would actually ensure that the votes -- that the
12:48:48 25 Fianna Fail votes would be -- although there might have been other votes as
26 well, but that he would be able to deliver a certain number of votes on that
27 and that he would pay them he would regard as the appropriate fee, as it were,
28 for the vote and that what was left over, he would keep himself. That was the
29 function of the man who was point, as it were, and the way they explained it to
12:49:10 30 me was that there was usually on from each party and that that was the way it

www.pcr.ie Day 649
81
12:49:11 1 usually worked. And then you go on to say, now I'm not saying that was the way
2 it worked for Monarch on this particular project, but what he was explaining to
3 me is that it was a general principle for construction industry people --
4 looking for planning permissions, I assume that should be, sorry that doesn't
12:49:35 5 appear to be on screen.
7 Just the second paragraph, Now I am not saying that that was the way it
8 worked... Do you see that?
9 A. Do I yeah.
12:49:44 10 Q. 422 Now do I understand that to be consistent with the evidence that you gave this
11 morning that effectively you seemed to be rowing back from saying that Mr. Lynn
12 was saying that this would happen, was what had happened on this particular
13 project and saying he may have been talking in a general way?
14 A. Mm-hmm.
12:50:03 15 Q. 423 I understood you to say that this morning and that appears to be what you are
16 is a saying here?
17 A. Yeah I think I was making two points. The question was really was raised by me
18 in relation to the specific project, the question of the, the answer in terms
19 of the lead councillor could have been a generic answer in the context and way
12:50:24 20 in which it normally operates.
21 Q. 424 So, so in Mr. Lynn describing how...
22 A. How the System operates...
23 Q. 425 This payoff may take place he may have been talking...
24 A. He could have been talking generally, or generically, in that context.
12:50:42 25 Q. 426 But Ms. Dillon then asked you, did he say he paid a hundred thousand? And your
26 answer to that was, yes.
27 A. Yeah.
28 Q. 427 So he was talking directly on the one hand and on on the other...
29 A. No no, I am only speculating, he said it, I didn't say it. I am telling you
12:50:55 30 what he said and I asked him the question on the hundred thousand and that's

www.pcr.ie Day 649
82
12:50:59 1 the answer I got. What is down in black and white was what I was told.
2 Q. 428 All right. Can I ask you then about the hundred thousand pounds, mention of a
3 figure of hundred thousand spent by Monarch, seems to have been circulating
4 around the time of the Council meeting were you aware of a figure of a hundred
12:51:32 5 thousand pounds which it was suggested Monarch had spent in trying to get this
6 rezoning?
7 A. I wasn't aware of any figure of any sort.
8 Q. 429 Yes?
9 A. I wasn't aware of any money of any sort being mentioned, I never heard of that
12:51:47 10 figure of a hundred thousand until then.
11 Q. 430 Yes. Ms. Eithne Fitzgerald was asked by Counsel for the Tribunal on Tuesday of
12 last week about a quote attributed to her, in an Irish Times article, now
13 Chairman I don't want to be -- I don't want to disturb Mr. O'Higgins in
14 relation to this, this was the article Ms. Fitzgerald was asked about, its part
12:52:17 15 of the brief and I would like Mr. O'Herlihy to see it, I am not expecting --
16
17 CHAIRMAN: I think he probably has it.
18
19 MS. DILLON: It's in the brief, the earlier objection related to material we
12:52:27 20 didn't have, but this is in the brief so no difficulty.
21
22 CHAIRMAN: All right is there a page number for it.
23 Q. 431 7764. Now you see the bit in the centre Mr. O'Herlihy the bit around the
24 headline quotes, it says "A leading public relations consultant Mr. Bill
12:52:52 25 O'Herlihy is engaged for the campaign as well as architects planners and
26 landscape designers. Monarch have told me that they were spending 100,000
27 pounds to bring pressure to bear on us to rezone their land said Councillor
28 Eithne Fitzgerald, Labour. To put this in context it is more than the
29 nationwide campaign to elect Mary Robinson cost.
12:53:14 30

www.pcr.ie Day 649
83
12:53:15 1 Now there is a hundred thousand pounds and you in the same paragraph
2 Mr. O'Herlihy, you weren't aware of a general suggestion abroad, that Monarch
3 had spent a hundred thousand pounds?
4 A. No but I think you are, to use your own analogy, you are confusing apples with
12:53:28 5 oranges. Hiring of public relations consultant and all the various experts
6 that are mentioned there by Mrs. Fitzgerald, costs money, developing a road
7 show costs money, developing a television promotional film costs money, so a
8 hundred thousand wouldn't be out of the ordinary at all, and would have nothing
9 whatsoever to do about which I am talking.
12:53:53 10 Q. 432 Yes. So the 100,000 figure wasn't in anyway unusual then?
11 A. It could be the promotional figure that they decided was the right figure for
12 that particular project.
13 Q. 433 Yes. Ms. Fitzgerald, before this Tribunal, said she didn't recall the 100,000
14 pound figure and didn't think it was anybody in Monarch who had mentioned it
12:54:12 15 to her.
16 A. Well I hope you are not suggesting it was I said it to her.
17 Q. 434 No I am not, I'm not. But she said and I quote "If you are trying to read into
18 that particular quote that I thought money was being spent to buy councillors,
19 that would not have been something at that time that I would have contemplated
12:54:30 20 was going on, so just for the record Ms. Fitzgerald was distancing herself from
21 any discussion of 100,000 was spent in anyway corruptly, what I am saying to
22 you is that, given that a figure of 100,000 pounds was being bandied about in
23 this article, appearing along side your name, although it's not suggested that
24 you had anything to do with that, is it possible that someone else mentioned
12:55:03 25 this figure to you and that your recollection has become jumbled in some way
26 and that it has become part of another conversation you may have had in
27 relation to this?
28 A. I don't remember having a conversation with Monarch in relation to the
29 promotional costs of the campaign at all.
12:55:23 30 Q. 435 Is it possible that somebody else, whether in Monarch or outside Monarch,

www.pcr.ie Day 649
84
12:55:28 1 mentioned the figure, in a completely different context?
2 A. I have no recollection of such conversation.
3 Q. 436 Certainly Monarch were spending monies of that order on the campaign around
4 about that time, is it at all possible that somebody would have mention that
12:55:56 5 had as a figure which represented expenditure to you and it would have got into
6 your head in that way?
7 A. In the context in which I am talking, no.
8 Q. 437 Right. You will be aware as I have said, that Mr. Lynn not only denies the
9 conversation which you had and says that it couldn't possibly have taken place,
12:56:20 10 and that's most unfortunate because you are somebody for whom he and the other
11 Monarch people have regard, do you have any theory as to why Mr. Lynn who, to
12 use your own words was a nice, decent very professional guy, why he would
13 certainly blurt out to you the details of a scheme to bribe councillors?
14 A. I have given you a few propositions, maybe in responding to my naivete or
12:56:50 15 whatever it might have been, I don't know you will have to ask him that
16 question.
17 Q. 438 My client's position Mr. O'Herlihy is that while they are not suggested in
18 anyway that you are activated by ill will or malice or anything like that, they
19 say that your account of the meeting or the conversation with Mr. Lynn is
12:57:15 20 inherently unbelievable and could not have taken place because Mr. Lynn simply
21 was not there?
22 A. Well my response to that is that it is unbelievable that I would come into a
23 Tribunal, either now or in 2000 and fabricate a story that would damage the
24 reputation of a person for whom I have a lot of respect, it is inconceivable I
12:57:46 25 would do that. And I am simply reporting what was said to me. I do so, I can
26 assure you, with a very heavy heart, I don't want to be in this situation,
27 there is no gain in this for me at all, in fact a lot of the questioning of you
28 in the last couple of minutes have been damaging in my judgement to my
29 reputation, which I think is unfair, because from my perspective I did nothing
12:58:06 30 wrong. I have never been involved in my entire life, in anything to do with

www.pcr.ie Day 649
85
12:58:12 1 financial inducements, or bribery of any sort, I never was part and parcel of
2 any meeting with Monarch or any other client through more than 33 years that
3 had anything to do with something that was either illegal or immoral, so it is
4 unbelievable that I would take a position that would be damaging to people in
12:58:31 5 the way that -- so I reject completely out of hand the notion that this is all
6 fabricated.
7 Q. 439 Well in fairness Mr. O'Herlihy, I never used the word fabricated, I wasn't
8 suggesting it, what I said was it was inherently unbelievable, in fact what I
9 was going put to you next, was the fact, would you -- what way would you go
12:58:52 10 with me on the suggestion that because Mr. Lynn wasn't there and because of
11 your lack of recall of certain details and the fact that you did absolutely
12 nothing afterwards, not even to write down details of the conversation, could
13 it be that you are simply mistaken in your recollection and that the
14 conversation never took place or that it is a miss remembered version of a
12:59:17 15 conversation you had with somebody else?
16 A. No, that would not be my -- I'd have to reject that, the only concession I make
17 to you is maybe my timing is incorrect, that's the only concession I could make
18 to you, that the time of the conversation was different to the time I gave that
19 the conversation took place.
12:59:43 20 Q. 440 Thank you Mr. O'Herlihy.
21 A. Thank you.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: All right.
24
12:59:50 25 MR O'TUATHAIL: Mr. Chairman before the Tribunal rises, if that's the proposal,
26 Seamus O'Tuathail here I appear for Senator Lydon, I would ask you in lieu of
27 the fact that our client was certainly not present at this conversation, that
28 you would repeat for the benefit of the media, the warning that you issued when
29 you ruled that this evidence, naming my client, would be accepted and opened in
13:00:17 30 this Tribunal.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
86
13:00:17 1
2 I do that because of the severe damage that a misrepresentation of this
3 evidence could make in the public mind. Its very important matter, its been
4 followed along. Mr. O'Herlihy has already said that this is pure hearsay, he
13:00:34 5 couldn't swear to it, he hasn't sworn to it and its a remembrance situation, in
6 which I propose to cross examine in the afternoon, so I ask you please to
7 repeat your ruling so that that will be carried with any reports of this
8 morning's proceedings.
13:00:51 10 CHAIRMAN: Well just, I am not quite clear as to what you are referring to,
11 but I mean certainly as far as the Tribunal is concerned this is evidence of a
12 conversation that Mr. O'Herlihy says he had with Mr. Lynn, Mr. Lynn says that
13 conversation didn't take place and I assume Mr. Lydon will contest any
14 suggestion that might arise from Mr. O'Herlihy's evidence, that he, Mr. Lydon
13:01:20 15 did anything inappropriate.
16
17 MR. O TUATHAIL: Sorry Mr. Chairman, finally I am simply asking, this was
18 allowed in on a certain basis, that we were notified in advance that Senator
19 Lydon could be named in this session.
13:01:38 20
21 CHAIRMAN: Yes.
22
23 MR. O TUATHAIL: Mr. O'Herlihy objected in evidence to the naming of Senator
24 Lydon, wanted to write down the name, it was simply allowed in on the basis
13:01:47 25 that it may be of assistance in the general running of the Tribunal.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: Well it was allowed in on the basis that Mr. Lydon had been
28 informed and his legal team had been informed, so its only reason he,
29 Mr. O'Herlihy would have been asked to write down the name would be that if the
13:02:06 30 party to be named had not been informed. But the name has to come out

www.pcr.ie Day 649
87
13:02:12 1 obviously and -- all right.
3 MR. O TUATHAIL: And the fact that its pure hearsay, that is correct should come
4 out as well and accompany any reports.
13:02:19 5
6 CHAIRMAN: Yes but that's, even Mr. O'Herlihy himself said that, he has no
7 direct knowledge.
9 MR. O TUATHAIL: That's the point I'm obliged Mr. Chairman.
13:02:28 10
11 CHAIRMAN: All right you'll want to cross examine for a short while?
12
13 MR. O TUATHAIL: Certainly yes.
14
13:02:33 15 CHAIRMAN: Mr. O'Herlihy you will have to come back at 2.00, I'm afraid. All
16 right?
17
18
19
13:02:54 20 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED FOR LUNCH.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 649
88
13:02:56 1 THE TRIBUNAL RESUMED AS FOLLOWS AFTER LUNCH
3 CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon.
14:04:07 5 MS. DILLON: Yes, sir good afternoon Yes, sir I think Mr. O Tuathail.
7 THE WITNESS WAS THEN EXAMINED BY MR. O TUATHAIL.
9 MR. O TUATHAIL: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Herlihy Seamus O Tuathail is my
14:04:17 10 name and I appear with Mr. Humphreys, for Senator Lydon, I have some questions
11 arising out of your, particularly out of your evidence to Mr. Gallagher in the
12 year 2000.
13
14 Now just to give, I think we agree that these matters or these events if they
14:04:38 15 happened at all, happened in May 1992, isn't that correct?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. 441 You spoke to Mr. Gallagher in what you believe was confidence?
18 A. I may interrupt, you are a bit off mic would you --
19 Q. 442 Sorry, that's the old RTE experience kicking in there.
14:04:54 20
21 Now thank you very much for that, you spoke with Mr. Gallagher, in confidence
22 in July 2000 and now six years later in this year and this moment, and this
23 morning, for the first time this evidence has come to light, isn't that so. I
24 think you mentioned that you hoped when you were talking to Mr. Gallagher that
14:05:24 25 this matter would never come to light isn't that?
26 A. That's absolutely correct.
27 Q. 443 Yeah. And you said that, I think, in the context where you were dealing with
28 the conversation in the bar which is my main concern?
29 A. Mm-hmm.
14:05:39 30 Q. 444 And you protested valiantly in relation to having to give the evidence and

www.pcr.ie Day 649
89
14:05:46 1 particularly naming Senator Lydon, that's so?
3 Q. 445 Yes. Now, just generally a few background questions. You were retained by
4 Monarch Group and your job was to, you campaigned for a period of eight or nine
14:06:05 5 months and you had a threefold objective if I'm correct. You wanted to
6 establish a climate, using public relations techniques in the local community,
7 of support for the Cherrywood project?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. 446 And in that sense you say quite honestly that you were probably contracted for
14:06:27 10 this business because of your Fine Gael connections?
11 A. I'd say that was a big, had a big bearing on it, yeah.
12 Q. 447 Now just going briefly as you can, through your Fine Gael connections, with you
13 have, you mentioned that you worked for 35 years in public relations, what are
14 the Fine Gael connections you are referring to?
14:06:52 15 A. The Fine Gael connections really go back to the end of my period in current
16 affairs and I was particularly friendly with Ted Neilan, he and I worked on 7
17 days together. And he set up a group of people that subsequently became known
18 as the national handlers, if you remember working with Garrett Fitzgerald,
19 Peter Barry, people like that, and I worked on various campaigns. I was the
14:07:18 20 first paid public relations consultant to work on a political campaign in
21 Ireland, that was the first direct elections to the European Parliament. I
22 worked also on piles of general elections, well a number of general elections
23 and I did the party political broadcasts for them and I ran the press office
24 for a number of campaigns, as a consultant.
14:07:44 25 Q. 448 You did that for the Fine Gael party, or for Fine Gael in Government?
26 A. Well initially for the Fine Gael party and then for Fine Gael in Government, it
27 alternated, depending on whether they were in or out, most of the time as you
28 know they were out.
29 Q. 449 I think the gentleman you mentioned Ted Neilan became a Fine Gael TD for Sligo?
14:08:03 30 A. He did, but when I worked with Ted Neilan he was the communications director of

www.pcr.ie Day 649
90
14:08:08 1 Fine Gael.
2 Q. 450 Fine Gael, yes. And what Ministers, over the period, in term terms of your
3 professional public relations involvement, what Ministers or ministerial
4 departments might you have worked for?
14:08:22 5 A. Well I worked for Peter Barry, I worked for Enda Kenny, I worked for Michael
6 Lowry. I can't remember any others but, you know they took up a lot of my
7 time.
8 Q. 451 I think you mentioned that Mr. Frank Dunlop --
9 A. Oh, I worked for John Boland, sorry I worked for John Boland and Jim Mitchell.
14:08:52 10 Q. 452 He was the Minister to for Public service?
11 A. Public Service that's right and Jim Mitchell Transport and Power, that's
12 another.
13 Q. 453 You worked for them as a civil servant or professionally?
14 A. No no as a paid political, as a public relations consultant.
14:09:05 15 Q. 454 Yeah. And going on from that then you say in your conversation with
16 Mr. Gallagher which is recorded, that you believe in terms of the Monarch
17 retainer that it was principally to make contact with Sean Barrett, would that
18 be correct?
19 A. No that would be overstating it a little bit to be honest. He was a key person
14:09:29 20 in it obviously because they felt that he was leader of opinion in South Dublin
21 and therefore in the Dun Laoghaire constituency area and council area he'd have
22 been immensely important and getting his support for the project was seen
23 initially when I first joined, to be hugely important, but he made it clear he
24 wouldn't support it.
14:09:50 25
26 But it was also to make contact with other party people, in order that the
27 message of Cherrywood would be planted firmly in the minds of everybody in
28 terms of its quality and its merits.
29 Q. 455 Yeah. Just referring there, I'm looking at page four internally or page number
14:10:12 30 eight of the Tribunal, the Gallagher conversation, question 22, or answer 22

www.pcr.ie Day 649
91
14:10:22 1 rather --
3 MS. DILLON: 7986.
4 Q. 456 7986 now on that page there, if you look at that Mr. O'Herlihy, you see that
14:10:38 5 clearly, you say in relation to the Monarch project, you say at line 17 "And
6 together we planned" that's Mr. Lynn "Together we planned the media campaign,
7 we planned the community campaigns and we both liaised together in the context
8 of the political campaign per se" and you are asked the question "What did you
9 do as part of the that political campaign? Answer: Well principally I was
14:11:07 10 asked to make contact with Sean Barrett, that was one of the primary objectives
11 because of his status and leadership within the Council or in terms of the
12 influence in the Council."
13
14 So I think, I don't think we are in disagreement that initially you were
14:11:20 15 employed as it were to head hunt Sean Barrett's support for this project, would
16 that be correct?
17 A. That would have been an imperative all right, yeah.
18 Q. 457 Yeah and how would you define a lead councillor just -- how would you define
19 the lead councillor in any Council group, how would you define that person?
14:11:42 20 A. Well my definition could be entirely wrong, but as, in terms of the
21 conversation that I re told earlier today the definition I would have of it, he
22 would be the main point of contact between the client or the company and the
23 council, and the councillors more accurately.
24 Q. 458 Yes. Just in relation to that matter on screen there, because of his status
14:12:09 25 and leadership within the council or in terms of the influence in the council,
26 would that qualify in your description as a lead councillor?
27 A. I didn't see it in those terms at all, as I interpreted it and I could be wrong
28 about this, as I interpreted it, it had nothing to do with status within the
29 council area, it was a question of his ability to make contact with other
14:12:32 30 members of the council for this particular project at the time, therefore I

www.pcr.ie Day 649
92
14:12:35 1 suppose it included automatically a certain status.
2 Q. 459 Yes. And but you wouldn't define him in your sense of what a lead councillor
3 is, as a lead councillor?
4 A. Sean Barrett.
14:12:48 5 Q. 460 Yes?
6 A. In the context of his importance within Fine Gael and his importance within
7 Fine Gael in his own constituency I think he was a hugely important person, but
8 not in the way that you are implying.
9 Q. 461 But also, when you were talking of Mr. Barrett earlier this morning, you
14:13:08 10 described him I think as a friend?
11 A. Mm-hmm.
12 Q. 462 So the liaison with Mr. Barrett goes beyond politics?
13 A. Oh yeah and he made that very clear to me in coming to see the Monarch plans
14 and model, he made it very clear to me that the only reason he was coming was
14:13:25 15 because we were friends, otherwise he wouldn't because he was voting against
16 it.
17 Q. 463 And you had worked I think, when Mr. Barrett was a Minister, had you worked for
18 any of his Ministries?
19 A. No I don't think so, I don't think I did.
14:13:38 20 Q. 464 And the overall campaign and I just want to ask you if I can, coming back to
21 the Mick, political campaign, you were liaising in, with Monarch on a political
22 campaign per se?
23 A. Mm-hmm.
24 Q. 465 Now what did that involve precisely?
14:13:58 25 A. As far as I was concerned as I explained earlier T, meant that I made contact
26 with councillors. I asked -- I talked to them about the quality of this
27 particular proposal and I asked them to come and view the plans and the model
28 in where ever was appropriate, where ever it was there at the time. It could
29 have been in community areas or it could have been Monarch's headquarters or
14:14:21 30 could have been in the Royal Dublin.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
93
14:14:23 1 Q. 466 And in 1992 there was a series of general elections around that period, were
2 Fine Gael in power at that time?
3 A. I don't think so, I think they were out of power.
4 Q. 467 Yeah.
14:14:34 5 A. I think, if I remember.
6 Q. 468 Yeah. And -- but looking at the transcript of Mr. Gallagher, you seem to
7 confine your efforts largely, if I'm correct, to Fine Gael councillors.
8 A. Well I mean I wouldn't have been well known to councillors of any party, to be
9 quite honest about it, because my contact with them would have been fairly low
14:14:55 10 key or non existent in many cases, so I think what I was trying to do was
11 accentuate the positive.
12 Q. 469 Yes. And you say that they would have, that people who visited the project or
13 looked at it at your request would have included Fine Gael councillors and a
14 Green -- that you weren't able to name this morning?
14:15:15 15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. 470 A Green councillor. But you don't know if they included Fianna Fail or Labour,
17 I'm looking at page 7 of Mr. Gallagher's?
18 A. I don't know, but you can take it for granted that would be the case. It has
19 to be recognised also that Monarch had a very sophisticated operation
14:15:33 20 themselves in the contact they had with councillors, so in a way I was gilding
21 the lilly I suppose you could say, because already the ability to make contact
22 with the councillors was there.
23 Q. 471 Yes. And I think the retainer if I'm correct, looking at the invoices that
24 were shown this morning, the retainer was a hundred pounds per hour, was it?
14:15:56 25 A. Well in what we have seen yeah, I can't remember but it was fairly modest let
26 me tell you.
27 Q. 472 Well was it a minimum of five hours per week?
28 A. I can't remember, you see I don't have the contract, I don't know.
29 Q. 473 Well you were meeting at least twice a week for a nine month period with
14:16:16 30 Monarch people isn't that correct?

www.pcr.ie Day 649
94
14:16:17 1 A. Yeah, yeah.
2 Q. 474 And then if I could come along to the -- I think you now accept that the
3 council meeting, when it finished on, in May of 1992, finished around the 2
4 o'clock mark or a few minutes later in the afternoon?
14:16:41 5 A. That point has been made strongly.
6 Q. 475 By Mr. Sanfey, and that your timing, I think you conceded that your timing
7 could be out. Your timing is then running between 11 o'clock and at least 2
8 o'clock in the Royal Dublin?
9 A. Mm-hmm.
14:16:59 10 Q. 476 Now do you recollect, did you have lunch in that period?
11 A. I have no -- I can't remember, I can't remember.
12 Q. 477 Yeah?
13 A. I would suspect I didn't actually, but I don't know. I could have had a
14 sandwich, I don't know.
14:17:10 15 Q. 478 Yeah well the detail that you can remember is that when you were asked about
16 drowning your sorrows after the vote was made known, that more than likely
17 there was no drink in the company, it was coffee?
18 A. Yeah there wasn't any drink.
19 Q. 479 And are you saying that everyone else in that company was not drinking?
14:17:31 20 A. I have no idea, I can't remember. I honestly can't remember.
21 Q. 480 So the other three people, I think you have identified up to three people, some
22 of them coming and going, could have been drinking?
23 A. Theoretically yes, but I don't know.
24 Q. 481 And certainly if they started at 11 in the morning they would be well on by two
14:17:52 25 in the afternoon?
26 A. No there was no question of drinking -- if they drank.
27 Q. 482 Well which is it Mr. O'Herlihy, either you can remember or you can't remember?
28 A. I'm saying to you, that to imply that people were drinking, from 11 o'clock in
29 the morning until two in the afternoon, is completely absurd.
14:18:11 30 Q. 483 But for you to say that you have no recollection and then to say its completely

www.pcr.ie Day 649
95
14:18:15 1 absurd and rule it out is also absurd?
2 A. I'll tell you why its absurd, because people were waiting for the count or
3 waiting for the result of the Council vote, so they were not likely to be
4 completely jarred or hammered, by the time the result came in, so it was
14:18:31 5 important.
6 Q. 484 I'm not even suggesting?
7 A. That's the implication of drinking for three hours.
8 Q. 485 Well I asked you the question were the other people in the company drinking?
9 You deny that you were drinking.
14:18:41 10 A. I'm not --
11 Q. 486 You said you couldn't remember. Now are you changing your evidence?
12 A. If you want to call it changing my evidence, I can't remember but I doubt very
13 much if any of us was drinking.
14 Q. 487 Well surely the phrase drowning your sorrows relates to drink and not to
14:18:57 15 coffee.
16 A. I made that point already this morning that that was simply a figure of speech,
17 obviously you guys who are very literate can tell me I was wrong to say it, but
18 I didn't say it in the context of drink.
19 Q. 488 But its a suspicious factor in the very suspicious scenario that's arising in
14:19:15 20 relation to this conversation. Could I come along to, as it were, the meat of
21 the situation here. This is the remembered conversation between yourself and
22 you allege Mr. Lynn and that's denied since this morning. And I'm looking at
23 page 15 internal, page 30 of the transcript and you say here -- I'm looking at
24 line 6 on page 15 internal, he said "A hundred thousand pounds" he mentioned
14:19:56 25 specifically Fianna Fail. Now and then you go ahead on page 9, there seems to
26 be a question missing but that's a matter for the Tribunal, you go ahead anyhow
27 in reply to some other type of question and you say "And well I mean hang on a
28 second now, my recollection is that he mentioned Fianna Fail, I had to be very
29 careful here now because everything I am talking about is anecdotal" we can
14:20:21 30 agree on that?

www.pcr.ie Day 649
96
14:20:21 1 A. Oh absolutely.
2 Q. 489 Even today its anecdotal "There is no material on tangible evidence or anything
3 like this in my relation with Monarch" is that correct?
4 A. Absolutely correct.
14:20:32 5 Q. 490 Yeah. This was a conversation in a bar --
7 CHAIRMAN: Sorry Mr. O Tuathail what's the page number?
9 MS. DILLON: The page reference Mr. O Tuathail are giving me are not the
14:20:44 10 correct references.
11
12 CHAIRMAN: What page.
13 Q. 491 Page 15 internal, page 30 on top right hand it would be helpful maybe to get it
14 up.
14:20:56 15
16 MS. DILLON: Well page 30 is page 8008 and its not the page in question.
17 Sorry 8008 that's page 30, is that the page?
18 Q. 492 Sorry that the page? Yes I think it is, I'm told it is. Yes it is. And he
19 said a hundred thousand pounds, he mentioned specifically Fianna Fail.
14:21:19 20
21 Now I am simply putting to you Mr. O'Herlihy how tenuous your own evidence is
22 in its own terms. First of all its anecdotal, we have covered that, then you
23 say there is no material or tangible evidence of anything like this in my
24 relation with Monarch. Then you follow that on by saying, this was a
14:21:37 25 conversation in a bar, in the bar of a hotel and it is entirely anecdotal. Now
26 why would you -- what do you imply by saying this was a conversation in a bar,
27 in the bar of a hotel?
28 A. Because it was entirely outside the parameters of the normal formal meetings
29 with Monarch, that's what I am implying in it, nothing whatever to do with
14:22:03 30 normal meetings with Monarch.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
97
14:22:05 1 Q. 493 "I don't have any evidence of any sort to back it up" is that correct?
2 A. That's absolutely correct.
3 Q. 494 Yes. You said, then you go ahead at line 20 there "And he said he had. And if
4 my memory is accurate, and I would in the swear to this" now I want to pause
14:22:25 5 there, you are not swearing to this today either I take it?
6 A. Well I've given the evidence under oath.
7 Q. 495 No I am asking you, because of the seriousness of the allegation that's been
8 floated around, "If my memory is accurate, and I would not swear to this
9 because I just can't be a hundred per cent certain that I am giving you the
14:22:49 10 right name, but I am almost sure the name was Don Lydon" now you are not
11 swearing even today that it was?
12 A. Well I suppose what that reflects is a kind of, the natural caution of taking a
13 person's character and my recollection is that the name that I have given is
14 the accurate name.
14:23:15 15 Q. 496 Yeah because --
16 A. But I couched it as I always would in a case like that, I hope to God I'm not
17 wrong.
18 Q. 497 Well if I go ahead to page 16, we will come back to that recollection because
19 its central to the issues that you have raised here, albeit in terms of
14:23:32 20 hearsay. Just looking at page 16 now, that's page 32 in the right hand top,
21 once the vote was over there my involvement was ended, now I want to emphasise
22 very strongly that I could be inaccurate with the name I have given you --
23
24 CHAIRMAN: Where is that, wait now --
14:23:59 25 Q. 498 That's on page 16 internal, page number 32 on the top right, we better get it
26 up.
27
28 MS. DILLON: Its up.
29
14:24:10 30 CHAIRMAN: Yeah okay line 15.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
98
14:24:13 1 Q. 499 Yeah onwards. "Now I want to emphasise very strongly that I could be
2 inaccurate with the name that I have given you. I am not certain that I am
3 accurate but I could be inaccurate." now --
14:24:26 5 MS. DILLON: Sorry I am not certain that I am inaccurate.
6 Q. 500 Yes, but I could be inaccurate. Yes, thanks Ms. Dillon for that. Now what
7 exactly does that statement mean, given to Mr. Gallagher in July of 2000?
8 A. It means exactly what it says, in the sense that I am pretty sure that the,
9 that the name I have given the Tribunal and given Mr. Gallagher on that
14:24:53 10 occasion, is the correct name, but having said that, as I say, natural caution
11 is such that I just wanted to be, wanted to just put in that qualification.
12 Q. 501 But that's not a qualification, its a total contradiction, as I read it?
13 A. Well its not really, it said I am not certain that I am inaccurate, but I could
14 be inaccurate, that's a qualification.
14:25:15 15 Q. 502 Well now isn't that a 50-50 position, you are trying to have it both ways
16 Mr. O'Herlihy?
17 A. Listen I am not trying to have it anyway let me tell.
18 Q. 503 You either its true or its false?
19 A. As far as I am concerned the evidence I have given is true and the name I have
14:25:28 20 given is the name I recollect after 15 years, so it has to be couched in that
21 length of time.
22 Q. 504 And this was, this name was given eight years on?
23 A. That's right, exactly.
24 Q. 505 And you have already replied this morning that you took no action whatever in
14:25:50 25 relation to that at the time, even though you professed to be shocked by the
26 information?
27 A. Well I certainly was shocked by the information, but I would have been
28 ridiculed I any I had taken any action against an allegation that I couldn't
29 prove one way or the other.
14:26:04 30 Q. 506 Well then if I go down to the following line there, line 21, same page, you are

www.pcr.ie Day 649
99
14:26:11 1 referring again to the conversation and you say it was "It was entirely, the
2 conversation was entirely anecdotal in the sense that it could have been a
3 fellow boasting in a bar for all I know" now how vague is that? Whose the
4 fellow?
14:26:31 5 A. Well you are literally interpreting a figure of speech, the fellow clearly is
6 Richard Lynn, because that's the person I am talking about in that particular
7 thing and the fellow is not somebody who is conjured out of the air, it related
8 to a conversation I had with him.
9 Q. 507 And a fellow who boasts in a bar, doesn't he usually have drink on him?
14:26:54 10 A. Generally, yeah but I'm not saying he had on this occasion, I can't remember
11 one way or the other.
12 Q. 508 Well metaphors are being re translated here. So in terms of your auditors, in
13 terms of three people that were in your company, if that was the entire
14 company, this could have been a sort of a drink sodden episode remembered in
14:27:18 15 the tranquility of Dublin Castle eight years later?
16 A. Well I have told you already it was not a drink sodden recollection, I think I
17 made that very clear to you.
18 Q. 509 Well you were certainly sober yourself on your own evidence. I want to, I want
19 to go and deal with this though, you then say and I think you answered
14:27:38 20 Mr. Sanfey, you then go ahead to say that of course this didn't relate to the
21 Monarch transaction that was afoot that particular day, is that correct?
22 A. I don't think so, I don't think that's what I said.
23 Q. 510 Well if I could, if I could go back on some of the replies you gave this
24 morning in cross-examination either to Ms. Dillon or to Mr. Sanfey, when
14:28:07 25 Mr. Sanfey put it to you about material contraventions and planning which
26 wasn't the business afoot in the council offices on that morning, you did say
27 and I'm quoting you here I hope accurately, "There could have been talking
28 about planning an material contraventions in a broader context?"
29 A. Oh yeah that's right I did say that, yes.
14:28:35 30 Q. 511 So there is two possible contexts now arising on your evidence. One is there

www.pcr.ie Day 649
100
14:28:40 1 was a specific context, that this particular motion and vote in which Senator
2 Lydon was involved and 72 other councillors, that a hundred thousand pounds had
3 been spent to secure a positive vote and for some reason this project had
4 failed, isn't that one context? And the other context is that somebody was
14:29:04 5 explaining to you, generally, how the building industry, over the years had
6 bought planning permissions and material contraventions?
7 A. Yeah correct.
8 Q. 512 Yeah. And you also said in relation to that, you said it twice in your
9 evidence this morning, "I don't know whether they were talking generally or
14:29:24 10 about the particular project" isn't that support the --
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. 513 Yeah. So that, as it were, that gives Monarch a clean slate, in relation to
13 the business being transacted in Dublin City Council that morning.
14
14:29:38 15 CHAIRMAN: Well Mr. O Tuathail I remember Mr. O'Herlihy clearly stating in
16 response to that series of questions, that the -- this conversation with
17 Mr. Lynn arose in the context of him raising the issue specifically in relation
18 to the vote that day and whether, the word or term merit was mentioned, that's
19 the context in which Mr. O'Herlihy explains he raised the issue or at least he
14:30:18 20 raised the issue of vote on that particular day, and then he said Mr. Lynn went
21 on to say what he said.
22 Q. 514 Well thank you Mr. Chairman, could I then refer the Tribunal and the witness to
23 page 20 internal?
24
14:30:40 25 MS. DILLON: 8019 please. Now at line four its coming towards the end of the
26 conversation with Mr. Gallagher and on line four he says "Now I am not --
27
28 CHAIRMAN: That should be 8018.
29 Q. 515 Yes the third line down "Now I am not saying that that was the way it worked
14:31:09 30 for Monarch on this particular project, but what he was explaining to me was

www.pcr.ie Day 649
101
14:31:13 1 the way it worked as a general principle for the construction industry people
2 looking for planning commissions" that's probably permissions. So therefore
3 Mr. O'Herlihy, this is your statement six years ago, clearly this conversation
4 that you had, if you had it and if you heard it correctly, this was giving a
14:31:38 5 general background from somebody in the company about how planning permissions
6 worked or were obtained in reality by bribery, isn't that correct?
7 A. Yes, that is an interpretation.
8 Q. 516 Yeah. And that allowed you, with clear conscious then, to present your final
9 bill some few days later, to Monarch for the work you had already done on the
14:32:10 10 project?
11 A. You are joking I hope are you?
12 Q. 517 No I am asking you the question straight up.
13 A. They are completely irrelevant, I don't understand why you should ask that
14 question.
14:32:18 15 Q. 518 Because you said you were shocked, I'm exploring your state of mind.
16 A. Listen I have gone through.
17 Q. 519 From the time you heard this and your reaction to it, I am quite entitled to
18 ask the question.
19 A. Well I have gone through the answer.
14:32:30 20 Q. 520 Please do it again.
21 A. The answer simply is, that there were no facts whatsoever to back up the
22 allegation made. Now it is very easy to be here in the Tribunal be pompous
23 about did you go to the Gardai, did you go to Fine Gael, did you go to the
24 Manager did you do this?
14:32:48 25 Q. 521 I didn't ask you any of this?
26 A. I know that the questioners were asked what am I going to say? I hear this
27 that and the other. I would be a complete ridiculed idiot. I had no evidence
28 and I made it very clear to John Gallagher. I had no evidence whatsoever, I am
29 simply re telling a conversation, I don't know what weight you put tonne that's
14:33:07 30 for the Chairman of the Tribunal, I can't put any weight because I don't know

www.pcr.ie Day 649
102
14:33:11 1 whether its true or not, I said that to John Gallagher and I said it again
2 today.
3 Q. 522 But you were also relating this hundred thousand pounds issue to a general
4 situation in the building industry and not to the specific vote that was taking
14:33:25 5 place in Dublin council offices that morning, is that correct?
6 A. That is not correct, that's not what I said.
7 Q. 523 Well will I read it -- you can read it there.
9 MS. DILLON: I think in fairness to the witness if Mr. O Tuathail is going
14:33:37 10 select a portion from the transcript that relates to a portion of the answer he
11 should go back to the question that was originally put which he will find on
12 page 8014 and while the answer is quite lengthy it might assist the witness in
13 making any clarification, rather than simply selecting a portion of it?
14 A. Thank you.
14:33:55 15 Q. 524 Now which page are we talking about?
16
17 MS. DILLON: Question, the portion of which Mr. O Tuathail selected at page
18 8016, commences at page 8014 and the question at line 39, was there any other
19 politician mentioned that you can recall? And then the answer commences, it
14:34:12 20 goes on for another page.
21 Q. 525 Hold on now, can you give me the internal pagination.
22
23 MS. DILLON: Internal page 18. Question commences at question 39, it
24 continues on the next page and concludes on the third page.
14:34:31 25 Q. 526 Yeah. "Was there any other politician mentioned that you can recall?" and then
26 the witness goes ahead and he says "No, well I don't know. I mean the natural
27 inquisitive question for me would have been to say well who was the person in
28 Fine Gael who was the person in the Labour Party. But I never asked that
29 question, I don't know why I didn't ask the question.
14:34:58 30

www.pcr.ie Day 649
103
14:34:58 1 In fact if I remember looking back at it, I don't remember any Fianna Fail
2 people coming in and seeing the project, but it wouldn't have followed that
3 that -- that they hadn't because you see my function really would have been to
4 deliver other than the Fianna Fail, I mean it would have been a particular
14:35:17 5 connection with Fine Gael and maybe Labour, because of the coalition, you know,
6 but they would have assumed automatically that I didn't know much about -- I
7 didn't know anything about Fianna Fail.
9 Now I think Mr. O'Herlihy, just in passing, you are saying there "I didn't know
14:35:37 10 anything about Fianna Fail" you are being more or less positively asserting
11 that you had no connection with Fianna Fail in this, in this particular
12 campaign, is that correct?
13 A. No, that's not, that wouldn't be entirely correct but the greater emphasis
14 would have been on Fine Gael and to an extent Labour, but there would have been
14:35:56 15 presumably been some Fianna Fail people as well.
16 Q. 527 Now then do you return, sorry I have to go back on this now because I have been
17 pulled up by Counsel for the Tribunal, but on page 19 question 41 and your best
18 recollection.
19
14:36:12 20 CHAIRMAN: Is that the next Page sorry its on this one, number 41.
21 Q. 528 To your best recollection that was Don Lydon? Answer: Yes to the best of my
22 recollection. My understanding that he didn't get a hundred thousand pound, he
23 got the hundred thousand top distribute. How much he got of it I have no idea,
24 but the idea was that he would actually ensure that the votes, that the Fianna
14:36:38 25 Fail votes would be, although there might have been other votes as well but
26 there he would be able to deliver a certain number of votes on that and we pay
27 them what would be regarded as the appropriate fee for the vote and what was
28 left over he would keep for himself" so we are talking about Senator Lydon at
29 this stage. And then we go ahead to page 20 and you say quite emphatically, at
14:37:00 30 page 4 on page 20, we might as well get that up on screen, line four rather on

www.pcr.ie Day 649
104
14:37:06 1 page 20.
3 CHAIRMAN: What page is this?
14:37:09 5 MS. DILLON: 8018.
6 Q. 529 Page 20 internal.
7 That was the function of the man who was the point, as it were and the way they
8 explained it to me, they, was that there was usually one from each party and
9 that was the way it normally worked. Now having discussed Senator Lydon,
14:37:34 10 having discussed Fianna Fail, they then, he then adds what I was putting to the
11 witness before I was interrupted "Now I am not saying that that was the way it
12 worked for Monarch on this particular project", so there is no doubt whatever
13 on any interpretation of that, is there Mr. O'Herlihy, that you were
14 exculpating Monarch on this particular project in relation to this rumoured
14:38:01 15 hundred thousand pounds?
16 A. What I am doing there is trying to, obviously in a fairly garbled way, I am
17 trying to be as fair as possible, I didn't know one way or the other whether it
18 was true. So that's why I was saying it is not, I'm not saying that that's the
19 way it worked for Monarch on that particular project, because I have no
14:38:21 20 evidence one way or the other to support that.
21 Q. 530 But you are saying affirmatively.
22 A. You are putting two, excuse me, you are putting too positive a response on that
23 spin if you can use a PR expression on that particular line.
24 Q. 531 Well could I just repeat the line to you, it couldn't be my view, but I
14:38:39 25 shouldn't give a view, could it be more emphatic than this Mr. O'Herlihy "Now I
26 am not saying that that was the way it worked for Monarch on this particular
27 project" then you go ahead to give your reasons for denying that, "But what he
28 was explaining to me was the way it worked as a general principle for the
29 construction industry people looking for planning permissions" now isn't
14:39:01 30 that -- you are agreeing with that I take it?

www.pcr.ie Day 649
105
14:39:03 1 A. Well what I am saying to you is that you can interpret now I am not saying that
2 that was the way it worked for Monarch as a qualification if you want to put it
3 that way. You see I am being asked to be specific on certain points that were
4 raised to me in a conversation, and I have no idea how to interpret these
14:39:25 5 things accurately because I have no idea what the background was.
6 Q. 532 What might have been the motive of your informant, would you hazard any guess
7 in this conversation Mr. O'Herlihy?
9 MS. DILLON: I don't --
14:39:42 10 Q. 533 Why would somebody point a finger at Senator Lydon.
11
12 MS. DILLON: I don't want to interrupt.
13
14 MR. O'HIGGINS: If I might interrupt that surely is a question for Mr. Lynn if
14:39:52 15 at all? Mr. O'Herlihy has already repeatedly told the witness what was said.
16
17 CHAIRMAN: How can Mr. O'Herlihy guess as to what was in the mind of Mr. Lynn?
18 If he said this to him?
19 I didn't ask him about and I didn't mention Mr. Lynn's name, I don't think it
14:40:10 20 has been established in evidence that he was talking to Mr. Lynn.
21
22 CHAIRMAN: It says --
23 He was talking to three people in a bar, and he can't recollect the time he
24 spent in the bar.
14:40:21 25
26 CHAIRMAN: Wait now, you said -- you asked, what might have been the motive of
27 your informant? Which I understand to be Mr. Lynn according to Mr. O'Herlihy,
28 would you hazard any guess in this conversation and that's clearly a question
29 that Mr. O'Herlihy can only have an opinion about, and we don't necessarily
14:40:42 30 want to know, or need to know his opinion.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
106
14:40:46 1 Yeah but -- what he does say, what he does say in relation to having or not
2 having opinions Mr. Chairman -- hold on now.
4 CHAIRMAN: But the question you are asking is, why do you, Mr. O'Herlihy
14:41:07 5 think, Mr. Lynn said this to you? Now I can't see how Mr. O'Herlihy can give
6 that, an answer to that, other than --
7 Well Mr. Chairman I want to correct that, I never mentioned Mr. Lynn's name.
9 CHAIRMAN: No you talked about his informant.
14:41:27 10 His informant yes.
11
12 CHAIRMAN: Who we have been told repeatedly today, that that was Mr. Lynn.
13 Yes on Mr. O'Herlihy's evidence, I don't accept that necessarily. I have
14 listened this morning to careful examination of the witness by Mr. Sanfey and I
14:41:41 15 am not at all convinced, there were three people in the company, one of them
16 was coming and going --
17
18 CHAIRMAN: But the question, the evidence is quite clear from Mr. O'Herlihy as
19 to who he says the informant of this information was and that was Mr. Lynn. He
14:41:58 20 has never indicated that any snip et of information on this issue came from
21 anyone else who might or might not have been there for all or part of the
22 conversation.
23 Well if I come back to the issue of opinion --
24
14:42:14 25 MR. O'HIGGINS: Mr. Chairman I don't think Mr. O'Herlihy is in the slightest
26 need of protection from me, but at the same time, might I just ask that if
27 Mr. O Tuathail has some case to put, then I have no objection to his putting
28 it, but is he making the proposition now that this was said by somebody to
29 Mr. O'Herlihy but not by Mr. O'Herlihy? Because there is no evidential
14:42:41 30 foundation of any description for the proposition that somebody else said

www.pcr.ie Day 649
107
14:42:45 1 something to Mr. O'Herlihy and how therefore can Mr. O Tuathail ask any
2 question about the motivation of some party unknown. I think the Chair has
3 already said --
14:42:56 5 CHAIRMAN: I don't think anybody can answer ask that question of
6 Mr. O'Herlihy, unless Mr. Lynn or the or anyone else said the reason I am
7 saying this to you is because I am angry, or whatever. He can't, he shouldn't
8 be asked --
14:43:14 10 MR. O'HIGGINS: Obviously Mr. O Tuathail can, but the question is whether he
11 may. In my respectful submission he can't.
12
13 CHAIRMAN: I think we made it clear Mr. O Tuathail we don't -- we can't permit
14 you to ask this witness as to what he thinks was in the mind of the person who
14:43:30 15 gave him this information.
16
17 MR. O TUATHAIL: Very well Mr. Chairman if that's your ruling in the matter.
18
19 Q. 534 The next question I want to ask you Mr. O'Herlihy is the, when this
14:43:46 20 conversation took place, or this portion of the conversation, the allegation
21 that's made, was it before or after the news arrived about the vote and the way
22 the vote had gone in the council chamber?
23 A. My recollection is that that was a conversation that took place before the vote
24 was in.
14:44:10 25 Q. 535 And how does that square with Senator Lydon's actions in the council chamber on
26 the vote, where he withdrew a Monarch proposal and instead proposed the
27 manager's proposal, the official's proposal for the vote, which turned out 35
28 to 33 against?
29 A. I don't know.
14:44:38 30 Q. 536 Now but, in other words isn't that another --

www.pcr.ie Day 649
108
14:44:42 1 A. I think we are getting away from the main point with respect sir, I am simply
2 re telling a conversation that took place, I am not interpreting what anyone
3 did in any other location such as the council, I don't know. I haven't a clue.
4 I am simply telling you what was told to me.
14:44:57 5 Q. 537 Well we are exploring the context or the res jeste if we go to Munster Irish,
6 in relation to what happened in the bar and your recollection of it, because a
7 very serious and poisonous allegation has emerged in relation to my client and
8 its hedged around, with all the caveats you have put in yourself Mr. O'Herlihy,
9 and its very much a question of opinion, whether you ever heard the name of my
14:45:27 10 client in that context or not, that's why I am pursuing this matter, because
11 the context is very important in relation to this, its all we have in a hearsay
12 situation, to grasp and to deal with.
13
14 For instance, if I could advance matters this far Mr. O'Herlihy, what you did
14:45:46 15 say this morning in relation to whoever gave you this information in the bar,
16 you said the person could have been taking the Mickey out of me, do you
17 recollect saying that this morning?
18 A. I do, I do indeed.
19 Q. 538 Yeah. How does that square with any serious recollection?
14:46:04 20 A. The recollection has nothing to do with my interpretation of the recollection.
21 The recollection is as I put it, under oath, a fact. Now how you interpret it
22 and how I interpret it is an entirely different matter.
23 Q. 539 Yeah and you also said in answer to cross-examination this morning you say the
24 answer could have been generic in the way industry normally operates, that's
14:46:28 25 the industry context rather than the specific context?
26 A. Yeah, yeah.
27 Q. 540 And do you accept that -- you accept I think that Senator Lydon did propose the
28 manager's proposal on that occasion in the council chamber?
29 A. If its a fact its a fact.
14:46:46 30 Q. 541 Yeah. And -- very well. and towards the end of your conversation then with

www.pcr.ie Day 649
109
14:47:21 1 Mr. Gallagher I think you expressed some concern about --
3 CHAIRMAN: What page number is this?
4 Q. 542 I will retrieve the page now towards the very end I think. Yeah, page 25
14:47:53 5 internal at line --
7 MS. DILLON: 8028 please.
8 Q. 543 I think you say there, you are talking to Mr. Gallagher towards the very end of
9 the conversation and you say at line 19 "The one point that I would like for
14:48:18 10 you to bear in mind, from my perspective, is that I have had a number of
11 newspaper journalists from the Sunday Tribune and RTE, a couple of programmes
12 from RTE querying me about this, the concern that I have in surfacing at all is
13 that by association with Frank Dunlop, it damages me and I am very concerned
14 that I am seen to be, even by the people who read the headlines, that because
14:48:39 15 of the fact that I am on television that I have a somewhat higher profile than
16 the average guy" you recollect making that statement to Mr. Gallagher?
17 A. I don't recollect it, but I'm sure I made it.
18 Q. 544 Yeah and that was in the year 2000?
19 A. Yeah.
14:48:56 20 Q. 545 So any, I think worry about association with Mr. Dunlop would have faded in the
21 interval?
22 A. What do you mean by that?
23 Q. 546 Well you wouldn't be as worried today as you were in the year 2000 when you
24 expressed those views to Mr. Gallagher?
14:49:15 25 A. I can't remember.
26 Q. 547 Yeah.
27 A. I don't know why I said it.
28 Q. 548 I'm looking at page 22 internally and just to put it to you Mr. O'Herlihy --
29
14:49:41 30 MS. DILLON: 8022.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
110
14:49:42 1 Q. 549 Sorry yeah, you are operating from memory, its line number 20, its an answer.
2 They are talking about the date, Mr. Gallagher is talking about the date of the
3 vote and he says "Oh it was, I think it would be at the very latest '93, but I
4 don't have any files in the office now, because I would have thrown them out"
14:50:02 5 so you had, by the time you were talking to Mr. Gallagher you had dispersed, or
6 thrown out all your files?
7 A. Oh I had yeah, yeah.
8 Q. 550 Thank you.
14:50:13 10 CHAIRMAN: All right anyone? Mr. O'Higgins do you want to ask your client?
11
12 THE WITNESS WAS THEN EXAMINED BY MR O'HIGGINS.
13
14 MR. O'HIGGINS: I have really only one composite question with maybe two bits
14:50:26 15 of it. I think Mr. O'Herlihy, that in the course of Mr. Dillon's examination
16 on behalf of the Tribunal your attention was drawn to a bill for, I think
17 January 1992, which included a number of items I think telephone calls,
18 meetings and a meeting with Mr. Frank Dunlop, its page 7771, I wonder if we can
19 have that up? Phone calls, briefing discussions, meeting Frank Dunlop, between
14:50:55 20 the 7th and 18th January. Can you indicate how long is billed for that series
21 of things?
22 A. Well the series is billed for one hour in total.
23 Q. 551 Yes?
24 A. So I must have met Frank Dunlop but I have no recollection it have because I
14:51:14 25 wouldn't have put it down unless I had met him, so it would have been, I would
26 have thought, considering briefing discussions would have been with
27 councillors, phone calls presumably to councillors as well and meeting Frank
28 Dunlop would be a very small part that have as well, I couldn't imagine it
29 would be longer than a quarter of an hour or something T, could have been a
14:51:34 30 casual cup of coffee might have a a casual meeting in a hotel, I don't know, I

www.pcr.ie Day 649
111
14:51:39 1 can't remember. Because he had nothing to do with the campaign as far as I was
2 concerned.
3 Q. 552 This is what I was going ask you, because some pages were put to you by
4 Mr. Sanfey and I don't want to go back to them in detail at present, but I'm
14:51:53 5 suggesting and we'll deal with this if there is evidence to that effect later,
6 that they don't indicate an involvement by Mr. Dunlop in factor no certainty of
7 an involvement by Mr. Dunlop on the 27th of May 1992, now can you say when you
8 were involved up to the 27th of May for which you billed on the 29th, can you
9 remember Mr. Dunlop having to your knowledge, any association with any of the
14:52:21 10 affairs of Monarch?
11 A. No, as far as I am concerned he had nothing whatever to do with the campaign,
12 the campaign was being directed by me in association with Richard Lynn, I think
13 Pembroke PR may have been on a retainer basis I am not quite certain because
14 they are mentioned as well, but Frank Dunlop was never part of any campaign,
14:52:41 15 any part of the campaign as far as I was concerned.
16 Q. 553 So can you think of any reason why on the 27th of May 1992, being asked about
17 it several years later, that Mr. Dunlop would know whether Mr. Richard Lynn was
18 in or out of the council chamber at any given time?
19 A. Well not in the context of working on this particular campaign he wouldn't have
14:53:04 20 had any role whatever, I don't know why he was in the council chamber, he
21 certainly wasn't there for this particular campaign anyway.
22 Q. 554 Yes. Thanks very much.
23
24 CHAIRMAN: All right. Just before Mr. O'Herlihy goes, and this is really
14:53:19 25 directed at Mr. Sanfey, is it your client's case, because if it is I think it
26 should be put to Mr. O'Herlihy before he leaves the witness box, is it his case
27 that he did not not meet Mr. O'Herlihy on that day, on the day of the vote, the
28 day Monarch lost the vote at all? I know he disputes saying what Mr. O'Herlihy
29 says he said to him and when it might have been said, but is it his case that
14:53:48 30 he didn't meet him at all that day?

www.pcr.ie Day 649
112
14:53:50 1
2 MR. SANFEY: I don't understand that to be his case. I understand he met
3 Mr. O'Herlihy early in the morning. But I would like an opportunity to take
4 instructions on that, Chair, if you just give me a couple of moments, it
14:54:03 5 certainly is his case that from the time he went into the chamber, he didn't
6 see Mr. O'Herlihy again, but -- I wonder if I could just take instructions on
7 that.
9 CHAIRMAN: Yes certainly.
14:55:20 10
11 MR. SANFEY: Chairman, Mr. Abrahamson has taken instructions and Mr. Lynn will
12 say that he can not recall with certainty whether he met Mr. O'Herlihy on the
13 morning before the meeting, but that once he went into the meeting he didn't
14 see Mr. O'Herlihy again, didn't have contact with him.
14:55:47 15
16 CHAIRMAN: All right. That's fine. Thank you. Thank you Mr. O'Herlihy.
17 Thank you very much.
18
19 THE WITNESS THEN WITHDREW
14:55:56 20
21 MR. QUINN: Mr. William Dockrell please.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 649
113
14:56:03 1 WILLIAM DOCKRELL, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS EXAMINED
2 AS FOLLOWS BY MR. QUINN:
4 CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon Mr. Dockrell.
14:56:40 5 Q. 555 Good afternoon Mr. Dockrell, Mr. Dockrell I think you are a member of the Fine
6 Gael party and on the 13th of July 1995 you were co-opted on to Dun
7 Laoghaire/Rathdown as County Council as a councillor, is that correct?
8 A. That's correct yes.
9 Q. 556 And I think you were re-elected in the 1999 local elections, is that correct?
11 Q. 557 You were asked for a statement by the Tribunal by letter of the 9th March 2006
12 at pages 389 and 390 and at 391 to 392 you provided a statement on the 9th of
13 March 2006, isn't that correct?
14:57:19 15 Q. 558 I think in that statement you say that you had no contacts with any of the
16 companies or agents in the Monarch Group, isn't that right?
17 A. To the best of my knowledge and belief, yes.
18 Q. 559 You say that on reflection you did meet, albeit briefly, as you recall on an
19 informal basis, Messrs Lynn, Sweeney and Reilly?
21 Q. 560 You say you understand that they attended a number of Council or special
22 meetings in the months proceeding the 1999 local elections, and you recall
23 being introduced to them either within the confines of the County Hall building
24 in Dun Laoghaire, or possibly at an informal reception, you say that as far as
14:57:56 25 you recollect you never meet either formally, or otherwise, Messrs Monahan,
26 Gilane or indeed Mr. Dunlop, although you will instantly recognise Mr. Dunlop
27 from his numerous appearances on TV, is that correct?
29 Q. 561 You say that having examined your files you recall receiving a payment of 500
14:58:14 30 pounds, you think the figure is correct, by cheque from Mr. Richard Lynn,

www.pcr.ie Day 649
114
14:58:20 1 Dunloe Ewart PLC by letter dated 13 of March 1999 is that correct?
3 Q. 562 You say the donation was as you understand it given to you in good faith and
4 received by you in good faith as a donation towards your election expenses.
14:58:34 5 You say it was not a favourable payment for voting, as an elected
6 representative on any issue or issues affecting lands at Cherrywood or any
7 other lands in or around the Dublin area, is that correct?
9 Q. 563 I think in fact you go on at page 392 to say that as you have already stated
14:58:57 10 any donations you received were given to you solely for your election expenses
11 and were accepted by you as such. And you say, you also say I might also
12 mention that I made a statement to the gardai to that effect, is that correct?
14 Q. 564 In what circumstances did you come to make a statement to the gardai in
14:59:15 15 relation to this matter?
16 A. Well the, I was approached by them, not the local gardai I think these
17 particular gardai were attached to Dublin Castle, if I remember it correctly.
18 And they asked me to make a statement. Now I have searched my files and I
19 don't actually have a copy of that statement but this was a number of years
14:59:39 20 ago.
21 Q. 565 How many years ago?
22 A. I think it was about three or four years ago now actually.
23 Q. 566 Now just in relation to the 500 pounds you say you received from Mr. Lynn, did
24 you know Mr. Lynn when you received that money?
14:59:55 25 A. I would have met him previously, yes.
26 Q. 567 You have I think in your statement, as I have read it, said that Messrs Lynn,
27 Sweeney and Reilly attended a number of council and special meetings in the
28 months preceding the 1999 local elections is that right?
15:00:12 30 Q. 568 And you say you recall being introduced to them within the confines of the

www.pcr.ie Day 649
115
15:00:16 1 council buildings is that right?
3 Q. 569 From that I take it that prior to months preceding the 1999 local elections you
4 had never met Mr. Lynn?
15:00:27 5 A. That's correct, yeah, yes.
6 Q. 570 So you had been a councillor from 1995 until shortly and you had remained a
7 councillor, but you had not met Mr. Lynn until shortly prior to the 1999 local
8 elections?
9 A. That is correct sir and that's to the best of my knowledge.
15:00:45 10 Q. 571 Yes. And then somebody introduced you to Mr. Lynn shortly prior to those
11 elections and you say you received subsequently an unsolicited 500 pound
12 contribution to your election campaign?
13 A. That that's correct yes, that was sent to me. I actually have the letter here,
14 I brought it in.
15:01:03 15 Q. 572 And do you know why Mr. Lynn would have given you a contribution in those
16 circumstances?
17 A. I think it was just in relation to donation for my election expenses, I
18 wasn't -- you know it was my first election and at that stage I hadn't a clue
19 what it was going to cost, but as, you know as I say, as I accepted it in good
15:01:32 20 faith and it was understandably given to me in good faith.
21 Q. 573 Can I ask you did you receive many unsolicited 5007 pounds donations towards
22 that 1999 campaign?
23 A. I received a number of donations.
24 Q. 574 No but did you receive many unsolicited 500 pounds or greater donations?
15:01:50 25 A. No.
26 Q. 575 This stood out?
27 A. This particular one I do remember because on reflection and on examining my
28 1999 file I came across the letter.
29 Q. 576 Would you say it was an unusual donation first of all you barely knew Mr. Lynn
15:02:11 30 at that stage isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 649
116
15:02:11 1 A. I wouldn't have known him that well no.
2 Q. 577 It was unsolicited that is correct?
4 Q. 578 It was for 500 pounds?
15:02:13 5 A. 500 punt.
6 Q. 579 How would 500 pounds compare to other donations you would receive at that time?
7 A. It would be a lot bigger certainly.
8 Q. 580 Do you know if anybody else received similar unsolicited donations in or about
9 1999?
15:02:27 10 A. I couldn't recall for certain now, you know, on that.
11 Q. 581 Did Mr. Lynn, Mr. Murray, sorry Mr. Lynn, Mr. Sweeney or Mr. Reilly ever ask
12 you to vote on any of their proposals be it Dunloe Ewart or indeed Monarch
13 proposals?
14 A. No these were discussed at our group meetings, I mean they were quite a number
15:02:53 15 of them in the years, well months preceding the '99 election as part of the
16 Development Plan.
17 Q. 582 Yes. These were the, would have come up in the normal way in the review of the
18 1993 plan as varied, isn't that right?
15:03:07 20 Q. 583 There had been a variation when you came to the Council in '95?
22 Q. 584 But there was a review I think which commenced in May or June 96 and I think
23 throughout '97 and in the early part of '98?
24 A. 98, I think you are correct there.
15:03:23 25 Q. 585 In January '98 I think, if we could have 2617, there were at least 3 or 4
26 proposals or motions which would have benefited the Monarch lands, isn't that
27 right?
29 Q. 586 Did you support those proposals at that time?
15:03:39 30 A. We would have discussed it at group meeting, the Fine Gael group and I think

www.pcr.ie Day 649
117
15:03:47 1 most Fine Gael councillors anyway would have, including myself, would have
2 supported them and I am just speaking on memory now although the evidence would
3 be there on record.
4 Q. 587 Yes. There appears to have been a practice within the council certainly by
15:04:02 5 1998 of not recording the vote on all occasions, in other words those voting
6 for and against motions don't appear to have been listed.
7 A. Well I would have thought that certainly the main motion, now you are going
8 back to 1997 sir and '98 that's a while back, I would have thought that they
9 would have been certainly in the minutes of the meeting.
15:04:25 10 Q. 588 Not in all cases, but in fact in relation to some of the Monarch proposals they
11 were passed by unanimously in some cases, isn't that right?
13 Q. 589 When they came up for confirmation in June 1998 I think apart from a motion by
14 Councillor Fitzgerald and Smith, which is recorded, if I could have 2647, which
15:04:47 15 is a motion to rescind map 10, changes 4, which would have restricted the
16 extension of the Science and Technology Park, that motion is recorded and I
17 think you voted against the proposal which would have, had it been successful,
18 would have restricted the extension of the park, isn't that right?
15:05:09 20 Q. 590 And is it your evidence to the Tribunal that you were never lobbied by anybody
21 on behalf of Monarch and never lobbied by Mr. Lynn in relation to any matter?
22 A. No, no.
23 Q. 591 Thank you very much?
24 A. Thank you.
15:05:23 25
26 CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Mr. Dockrell.
27
29
15:05:28 30 MR. QUINN: Mr. Trevor Matthews please.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
118
15:05:36 1
2 TREVOR MATTHEWS, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS EXAMINED.
15:05:51 5 CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon Mr. Matthews.
6 Q. 592 Thank you Mr. Matthews, I think you first came to be a member of Dublin County
7 Council in March 1992 in succession to a colleague who was promoted to Junior
8 Minister, is that correct?
9 A. That's correct, Tom Kitt.
15:06:18 10 Q. 593 Yes. You are a member of the Fianna Fail party?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 594 And I think you continued to be a member of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County
13 Council, after it was formed, in January '94 is that correct?
14 A. That is correct.
15:06:29 15 Q. 595 Can I just ask you in the first instance about a series of motions which
16 carried your name and which appear to be dated the 17th November 1997, if I
17 could have 7286 please? This is a motion which was put in on the review of the
18 1993 plan as varied, its signed by a number of councillors but the second
19 councillor who has signed the motion would appear to have been you?
15:06:56 20 A. That's correct yeah.
21 Q. 596 That's a motion to extend the area of the Science and Technology Park, isn't
22 that correct?
23 A. Yes that is correct.
24 Q. 597 And I think there is a map accompanying that motion which also bears your
15:07:08 25 signature and then there is a further motion at 7288, its a motion extending
26 the district centre into an area which had previously been zoned for
27 residential purposes isn't that right?
29 Q. 598 And that contains your signature also is that correct?
15:07:24 30 A. It does, yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
119
15:07:25 1 Q. 599 And that was accompanied by a map and we can see that map at 7289 and then
2 finally, there is a motion if I could have 2587, its a motion seeking to delete
3 from a draft written statement a restriction on the redevelopment?
4 A. On the redevelopment that's correct.
15:07:46 5 Q. 600 Of a district centre is that correct?
7 Q. 601 I think in the 93 plan the district centre which had the C zoning had been
8 limited to retail elements the size of a neighbourhood centre?
9 A. Neighbourhood centre, that is correct.
15:08:00 10 Q. 602 You will, as I have demonstrated there, you have signed those three motions?
11 A. I did.
12 Q. 603 And the three maps isn't that right?
13 A. I did, that's right.
14 Q. 604 You were asked I think for a statement earlier this year in relation to your
15:08:16 15 contacts with Monarch and their representatives, if I could have 1530 please, a
16 letter of the 10th March 2006 and amongst the matters that were required of you
17 to provide details to the Tribunal, were your contacts with the late
18 Mr. Phillip Monahan, Richard Lynn, Eddie Sweeney, Dominic Glennane, Phillip
19 Reilly Frank Dunlop and others and then you were asked for any payments or
15:08:44 20 benefits you might have received from either the Monarch Group or any of those
21 people is that correct?
23 Q. 605 I think you replied if I could have 1532, on 14 March of 1996, I just propose
24 to read that statement to you if I may, you refer to the letter of the 10th
15:08:59 25 March which I have just had on screen, you say "I had had no real involvement
26 with the lands in question and the only person that I can recall contacting me
27 was Richard Lynn and I think it was sometime in the mid 1990s, I have no
28 recollection of being contacted, or meeting any of the other people listed in
29 your letter, concerning these lands.
15:09:18 30

www.pcr.ie Day 649
120
15:09:18 1 I was not a councillor in 1989 as I was only co opted to replace Tom Kitt early
2 in 1992.
4 Do I recall making a contribution in the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Council chamber
15:09:32 5 sometime during the process saying it was wrong to limit the retail element of
6 the lands at Cherrywood and this in addition we needed retail warehousing. I
7 think we were talking about one thousand or so new homes, as well as the
8 Science and Technology joint venture project, where around three thousand new
9 jobs were to be created. It was an ideal location for retail, warehousing,
15:09:56 10 leisure and hotel and apartment accommodation just off the motorway with free
11 parking available. I would have discussed this and my ideas with Richard Lynn.
12
13 Concerning the Monarch Group, do I not know what companies or associates or
14 member of the group, or if there are more companies involved other than those
15:10:14 15 listed in your letter.
16
17 With regard to those listed in your letter I did not receive any payments from
18 them concerning, or with regard to, the rezoning of land at Cherrywood" in fact
19 you hadn't been asked if you had received payments concerning or with regard to
15:10:28 20 the rezoning of lands, do you accept that, I can open the letter?
21 A. No the letter on my interpretation of the letter as far as that, it did refer
22 to your reference was lands at Cherrywood so I took it to mean that.
23 Q. 606 We'll open the letter its at 1530, I don't want to waste time now?
24 A. No, no I mean -- I am only saying that was my interpretation of.
15:10:50 25 Q. 607 Do you accept that your interpretation was wrong, you hadn't been asked if you
26 had received money in connection with rezoning or sorry with regard to the
27 rezoning of the land at Cherrywood. You were asked to provide a statement?
28 A. Of any involvement with regard to the lands at Cherrywood.
29 Q. 608 Yes. Your statement should including but not be limited to and Roman numeral
15:11:13 30 three, any payments or benefit you may have received from or on behalf of those

www.pcr.ie Day 649
121
15:11:17 1 listed at Roman numerals one and two, together with details of the manner of
2 such payments or benefit, when such payments or benefits were made, by whom
3 they were made and the reasons therefore, the bank accounts or accounts into
4 which the said payments or funds were lodged, how you treated such funds on
15:11:35 5 receipt.
6 A. With regard to that section I didn't receive any payments from Monarch or
7 those listed.
8 Q. 609 No, you weren't asked about payments from Monarch you were asked about payments
9 or benefits received from or on behalf of those listed at Roman numerals one
15:11:52 10 and two and at two?
11 A. Then I must have misinterpreted the letter I took it to mean Monarch and I took
12 it to mean Cherrywood.
13 Q. 610 You agree with me that when you did reply on the 14 March 2006, you made no
14 reference to a sear east of payments that you had received I think from
15:12:14 15 Mr. Lynn, isn't that right, which I will detail in a moment?
16 A. I didn't receive a series of payments from Mr. Lynn.
17 Q. 611 I see?
18 A. I received a 500 --
19 Q. 612 Perhaps I will open your letter on the 16th April 2006. If I could have 8537.
15:12:22 20 A. As I said I received a legitimate contribution from Dunloe Ewart, of 500 pounds
21 in provision leisure complex 450 euro and this was in 1999 and it was towards
22 the election campaign, but it had nothing to do with, as I would see it,
23 nothing to do with Cherrywood lands.
24 Q. 613 The letter that we have now on the screen or the 16th of April 2006 is a letter
15:12:50 25 you wrote after you had received the brief?
26 A. As I --
27 Q. 614 On the 12th April?
28 A. As I had received all the boxes of documentation when I had gone through those
29 documents.
15:13:01 30 Q. 615 Which show a series of payments, isn't that right? Which I will detail now and

www.pcr.ie Day 649
122
15:13:04 1 in fairness I should open that letter, the 16 of April.
3 "Further to my letter of the 14 March concerning the lands at Cherrywood I,
4 note from the documentation that you sent to me, that Dunloe Ewart PLC and the
15:13:17 5 Pavilion Group were mentioned in connection with the Monarch Group.
7 As outlined in my letter concerning the Monarch Group and those listed in your
8 letter I did not receive any payments concerning or with regard to the rezoning
9 of land at Cherrywood.
15:13:29 10
11 I did receive legitimate political contributions towards my campaign in the
12 1999 local election from Dunloe Ewart PLC 500 and Pavilion Leisure Centre
13 Limited, 450 pounds. You have already been advised that Mr. Frank Dunlop made
14 a legitimate contribution of 250 pounds towards this campaign, see attachment.
15:13:50 15 I note that Dunloe Ewart contributed 250 and 150 pounds to the Fianna Fail
16 Dublin South CDC golf classic held on 18 of April 1999 saying that I made the
17 request on their behalf.
18
19 With regard to the motions and the correspondence I had completely forgotten
15:14:04 20 that I signed them but as outlined in my letter I would have had discussions
21 with Richard Lynn about the Science and Technology Park and the necessity for
22 a major retail development at this location.
23
24 Having viewed the documentation my best recollection of the event is that
15:14:19 25 Richard Lynn made an appointment to see me in my business office on the Naas
26 Road to discuss the motions and see if I would sign them. I have no idea of
27 the date of this meeting.
28
29 We had a detailed discussion about each motion and as I agreed that the content
15:14:31 30 of the motions was the right thing to do for the development of Cherrywood I

www.pcr.ie Day 649
123
15:14:35 1 signed them.
3 Richard Lynn took the signed motions with him for submission to the Council.
15:14:40 5 The documentation shows that the motions were listed for the 21st of January
6 1998 and that they were not controversial as motions 10.14 was passed bay show
7 of hands, motion 10.13 was passed by amendment, without prejudice to the
8 advancement of the golf club and the Manager's report was accepted with regard
9 to motion 10.15 A" And then enclosed with that letter, if I could have 8539
15:15:05 10 please, are photocopies of two cheques, the first is a cheque of the 18th of
11 May 1999 from Mr. Dunlop and the second is a cheque of the 6th May 1999 from
12 Pavilion Leisure Complex and the third is a cheque at 8540 of 500 pounds dated
13 29th of March 1999, do you see that?
14 A. Yes that's the, for the election.
15:15:31 15 Q. 616 Yes if I could have 8541 please, we have the letter enclosing the contributions
16 to the election campaign?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 617 Am I correct in understanding Mr. Matthews that the contributions from Dunloe
19 Ewart and the pavilion were from Mr. Lynn?
15:15:48 20 A. No, they are not. Dunloe Management Services, Dunloe Management Services but
21 it was Mr. Lynn that sent the covering letter, but it's not a personal cheque
22 from Mr. Lynn.
23 Q. 618 I accept that. But did you ask for that contribution?
24 A. I would have sent out a standard letter and I think you have a copy of that
15:16:06 25 letter because there was one as it general election for the election campaign,
26 I don't know whether you have it dated 15 of April 1999, you should have it.
27 Q. 619 We can add it to the brief if necessary.
28 A. I said there as you know the local elections will be held on the 11th June this
29 year and I am preparing my campaign. You will appreciate that running a
15:16:30 30 campaign is very expensive and in order to be elected I need assistance and

www.pcr.ie Day 649
124
15:16:34 1 would be obliged if you could make whatever donation you deem appropriate, you
2 will be aware that Government regulation provide donations in excess of 500
3 have to be declared, its essential that the work carried out in the new county
4 of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown continues by electing councillors who contain the
15:16:53 5 aggressive the approach has been instrumental in obtaining significant
6 infrastructural developments throughout the country. A significant number of
7 candidates from a diversion range of parties will be running this makes the
8 task of being elected very difficult. If the county is to develop and prosper
9 it is necessary that the work carried out to date be continued to ensure that
15:17:11 10 this county is a better place to live in, for my part I'm a senior manager with
11 a major multinational company and bring to the Council a business and
12 developmental approach. I would like to continue this work and with your help
13 will launch a comprehensive campaign through secure, successive forthcoming
14 elections.
15:17:27 15
16 That was a general letter that I sent out.
17 Q. 620 Did Mr. Lynn get a copy that have letter can I ask?
18 A. Mr. Lynn or, would have got a copy, would have got that letter.
19 Q. 621 And Mr. Lynn I think forwarded the payment to you in April 1999, as we see
15:17:42 20 there, isn't that right?
21 A. The 7th April 1999.
22 Q. 622 Yes, now when you responded initially to the Tribunal in March you made no
23 mention at that time of the three motions which I opened a moment ago and which
24 you had signed?
15:17:54 25 A. No as I said I totally forgot them.
26 Q. 623 Even though those motions were signed in November 1997?
27 A. Well I had forgotten about them, that's all I can tell.
28 Q. 624 You will you tell the Tribunal how you came to sign those three motions?
29 A. Well basically what happened was that I would have had a phone call from
15:18:15 30 Richard Lynn, asking me, asking to see me and he came to my office as I have

www.pcr.ie Day 649
125
15:18:19 1 explained in the letter.
2 Q. 625 How well did you know Mr. Lynn in 1997?
3 A. I would have known him, I would have known him reasonably well because he'd
4 been promoting the Monarch scheme for quite some years, I suppose the first
15:18:36 5 time really he saw me was about 1994, as I said when I was on the Council in
6 '93, '92 and '93 I would have been new and I don't think there was any real
7 contact with him until the new council started in Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown. I
8 think its probably fair to say that I would have had a lot of correspondence
9 and brochures or whatever was going with the Monarch proposal, I think they
15:19:08 10 were flying around to nearly all councillors and to the local people generally.
11 Q. 626 You were a member of the council I think in May 1992 isn't that right?
12 A. That's when I would have been, in May 92 yeah.
13 Q. 627 If we could have 7207 I think you voted in favour of Messrs Lydon and McGrath's
14 proposal that the manager's proposal the map 92/44 be accepted isn't that
15:19:31 15 right?
16 A. Just a second to see what are we talking about here.
17 Q. 628 This is a map which would have suggested I think an extension and development
18 of these land at four houses to the acre on an Action Area Plan of piped
19 sewerage?
15:19:44 20 A. I voted for.
21 Q. 629 You voted for that isn't that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 630 You voted also for Councillor Gilmore and O'Callaghan's proposal in relation to
24 the town centre is that correct, if I could have 7214 we can get that vote up.
15:20:01 25 A. That is correct.
26 Q. 631 Both of those proposals would have been proposals which would have been
27 acceptable to Monarch interests isn't that right?
28 A. Yeah and I mean just with regard to the Monarch Development and all that, it
29 seemed to be a very very good plan and seemed to be good for the area.
15:20:17 30 Q. 632 Did Mr. Lynn approach you and seek your support for either of those proposals

www.pcr.ie Day 649
126
15:20:22 1 at that time?
2 A. I don't know whether he did or he didn't but I can just say generally that
3 Mr. Lynn N, all the time, never asked me for my vote or to vote, now I was in
4 favour of the proposals, so -- but he.
15:20:37 5 Q. 633 He never asked you for your support for Monarch proposals?
6 A. No what he did was he would put the proposal in front of me and explain what
7 they were trying to achieve, but I actually agreed with what they were trying
8 to achieve, but he never asked me to go in and vote for a motion.
9 Q. 634 How often would you come to you and put before you the proposal of what they
15:20:56 10 were trying to achieve?
11 A. I honestly don't know, but I mean I would have been contacted on a number of
12 occasions.
13 Q. 635 Yes. But he surely would have known from the first contact with you that you
14 were a supporter of the Monarch proposals?
15:21:09 15 A. I don't think any doubt about that, I have been a supporter of development of
16 the county I think from the very beginning.
17 Q. 636 And I think you voted in favour of the Councillor Marren Coffey proposal on the
18 11th of November 1993 isn't that right, if we could have 7263, this was what
19 went on public -- sorry which, the were pose all, that was acceptable an put on
15:21:33 20 display in the 1993 Development Plan isn't that right?
21 A. Just a second please, this was the County Manager's recommendation.
22 Q. 637 No this was a proposal by councillors Marren and Coffey, which effectively
23 reversed a motion by Councillor Barrett which had reduced the density on the
24 site, from four to one house per acre?
15:21:59 25 A. I wouldn't have agreed one house to the acre, so I would have voted for that.
26 Q. 638 Yes. If we could have 2359 please? The area, the entire area coloured yellow
27 on that map is an area which the Manager had recommended be zoned at four
28 houses to the acre?
29 A. Yes.
15:22:22 30 Q. 639 The Barrett motion had reduced it to one house to the acre and the proposal

www.pcr.ie Day 649
127
15:22:29 1 which you supported by councillors Marren and Coffey were that that portion
2 surrounded by the read line and coloured yellow be zoned at four houses to the
3 acre, that vote took place on the 11th November 1993. Can I ask you did
4 Mr. Lynn or anybody from Monarch ask you to support that proposal?
15:22:57 5 A. I can't recall whether they did, but I mean I would have supported. I wouldn't
6 have supported one to the acre and I mean, I even think four to the acre is too
7 low.
8 Q. 640 So your view would have been that at least, if there is an area of land which
9 is capable of carrying four to the acre as opposed to one to the acre that area
15:23:18 10 ought to be zoned one four to the acre?
11 A. I put it to you where I am living myself is either 10 or 12 houses to the acre,
12 I think that's proper development of land, four to the acre is a very limited
13 development and even if you take it forward nowadays, they are filling in all
14 the corner sites where I am living so its going to be more than 10 or 12 to the
15:23:37 15 acre this is the way its gone, land is too scarce just to even -- I think four
16 to the acre is far too low.
17 Q. 641 Well can I --
18 A. That's my opinion.
19 Q. 642 Yes okay, can I put it in the negative to you Mr. Matthews, do you see the area
15:23:50 20 coloured yellow outside the red line north of the red line?
21 A. At the top.
22 Q. 643 Yes well all of the area top and bottom, but outside the red line, you were
23 voting --
24 A. Its coloured blue isn't it.
15:24:04 25 Q. 644 No no the area coloured blue was an agricultural zoning, the area coloured
26 yellow which has, which is outside the red line which is -- slightly there is
27 very little to the bottom?
28 A. You are talking about that land.
29 Q. 645 Yes?
15:24:22 30 A. Yes okay.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
128
15:24:23 1 Q. 646 In supporting the Councillor Marren Coffey motion in November 93 you were
2 effectively zoning that land at one house to the acre and can I ask you having
3 regard to what you have said about density how you came to vote that that land
4 be zoned at one house to the acre in November 93?
15:24:42 5 A. In 93.
6 Q. 647 Yes?
7 A. I can't really. I mean as I said I was very knew at that stage and -- I don't
8 know but I would -- my whole thing would be to vote for higher densities.
9 Q. 648 Now Mr. Lynn has discovered to the Tribunal a number of expenses claim forms
15:25:04 10 for week endings and there are two which I just want to put to you for the
11 moment, one is for the week ending the 28th of January of 1994 at 4956 and the
12 other is for the week ending 13th May 1994 which is at 5119 and they appear to
13 show a claim by Mr. Lynn for expenses in connection with the Cherrywood
14 Properties Limited, Cherrywood rezoning, T Matthews, do you see that? Could
15:25:32 15 Mr. Lynn have spoken with you in relation to the Cherrywood rezoning in May, in
16 January and May '94?
17 A. He could, as I said that was Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council time, so it
18 is quite possible. As I said to you at the beginning I think that was the time
19 that I was probably first had contact with Mr. Lynn.
15:25:50 20 Q. 649 Yes and I think in fact Later in May 1994 during this period the Council were
21 preparing a, an Action Area Plan based on the vote which we saw previously
22 isn't that right for the Cherrywood lands and I think that came before the
23 Council together with a motion from Councillor Gilmore, in relation to the
24 Science and Technology Park, I think you referred to the Science and Technology
15:26:14 25 Park?
26 A. Which I would have within in favour of.
27 Q. 650 You were very much in favour of that?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 651 And did you know that from a strategy point of view that Monarch recorded your
15:26:25 30 support as something that should be obtained, as appears from a document

www.pcr.ie Day 649
129
15:26:29 1 discovered to the Tribunal which probably was created sometime prior to June
2 1994, if I could have 5202?
3 A. Yeah I saw that in the documents.
4 Q. 652 You saw at 5203, the support of the following members must be obtained and you
15:26:45 5 are there?
6 A. I saw that in the documents.
7 Q. 653 There are a number of follow On expenses claim forms, supplied by Mr. Lynn,
8 which appear to suggest that he was meeting with you for '94, '96 and you will
9 have seen these in the --
15:27:09 10 A. Yeah I did yeah.
11 Q. 654 Yes. You will have seen those?
12 A. I honestly believe they can all be attributed to me.
13 Q. 655 You don't believe those --
14 A. I met Mr. Lynn, but I don't see how they can all be attributed to me.
15:27:22 15 Q. 656 For example the week ending 3rd of November 1994 at 5433, Development Plan
16 review, T Matthews, then there is one at 5435 for the week ending 11th November
17 94, I think there was a --
18 A. Its just those amounts --
19 Q. 657 There was a crucial vote --
15:27:40 20 A. The point is I was working in industry, I had to limit the time I took off to
21 go to the Council meetings, or anything, I had to work through lunchtime, I had
22 to work late at night, I took homework, I was trying to build up my base in
23 Dundrum, so I mean there wouldn't have been time for those sort of meetings
24 that's why I just question this.
15:28:02 25 Q. 658 Okay.
26 A. For example if you take the 26th of the 1st '96.
27 Q. 659 Yes that's the week ending.
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 660 If we can have 5746 please.
15:28:15 30 A. I was in Malta from 20 of January 96 to 3rd of the 2nd 96.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
130
15:28:21 1 Q. 661 So you think you were away?
2 A. And if you take 11th of the 7th or 4th of the 4th I was in Sydney on the 27 of
3 the 3rd and flying back, via Japan, on 8th of the 4th.
4 Q. 662 If we can have 6300 please?
15:28:43 5 A. So I don't see how they can all be attributed to me to be honest with you, but
6 that's not to say I didn't meet Richard Lynn, I did meet him he was very
7 professional, showed me the plans and kept me abreast of what's going on,
8 that's not in dispute.
9 Q. 663 Yes. You dealt with the 5th of the 1st '96, if I could have --
15:29:05 10 A. No 26th of the 1st '96.
11 Q. 664 He has a schedule in for the 5th of January '96 which is 5735.
12 A. He has yes.
13 Q. 665 Your query is on the one for 26 of January?
14 A. No I am querying generally the amount of things, I don't remember anything like
15:29:26 15 that.
16 Q. 666 There is one for the 24 of May '96 which is at 5951, he has one for the 21st
17 June 96?
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. 667 At 6022, he has one for the 23 of August '96 at 6067, he has another for the
15:29:42 20 4th of April '97 at 6300, the 6th June '97 at 7360, the 11th July '97 at 6365
21 the 8th August '97 at 6375. You say whilst you had meetings with him you
22 dispute you may have had meetings on all those occasions that he seems to
23 suggest?
24 A. I can't see that I would have had the time to have -- I mean a cup of coffee
15:30:10 25 yes, but I can't see I would have had the time they appear to be lunches or
26 something, as I explained to you. I used to work through my lunch hour because
27 I was working full time, that's really what I am saying, but I am not saying
28 that Richard Lynn didn't keep me fully abreast of the development and what they
29 wanted to do with Monarch, as I told you already I agreed what they wanted to
15:30:31 30 do with the Monarch developments.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
131
15:30:33 1 Q. 668 Thank you very much Mr. Matthews.
4 A. Okay, thank you.
15:30:39 5
8 MR. QUINN: We have one witness left.
15:30:48 10 CHAIRMAN: How long will this witness be approximately?
11
12 MR. QUINN: I think a half hour. Unless the stenographer wants a break?
13
14 MR. QUINN: Mr. Marren please.
15:31:01 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 649
132
15:31:01 1 DONAL MARREN, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS EXAMINED AS FOLLOWS
2 BY MR. QUINN:
4 CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon Mr. Marren?
15:31:37 5 A. Good afternoon.
6 Q. 669 Thank you Mr. Marren. Mr. Marren I think you are a member of Fine Gael and you
7 were first elected to the local authority in 1978 is that correct?
8 A. January '78, yes.
9 Q. 670 Yes. I think that you were a member in its time of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown
15:31:55 10 County Council, is that correct?
11 A. First of all Dun Laoghaire Corporation and then Dublin County Council in 1985
12 and Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council in 1994.
13 Q. 671 I think for a time I think you were in fact Cathaoirleach of Dun
14 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council is that right 1998?
15:32:13 15 A. On two occasions, 2001 and 97/98.
16 Q. 672 Would it be from June or July of '97 to...
17 A. The election of Cathaoirleach was on second Monday of July traditionally.
18 Q. 673 You have supplied a statement to the Tribunal which is to be found at brief
19 pages 8007 to 8309. I think one of the questions asked of you was details of
15:32:40 20 any payments you might have received from Monarch interests, or the series of
21 named individuals, and I think in that statement at 8309 you say you may have
22 received a political donation of 500 pounds from Monarch Properties Limited
23 around the time of the local election in 1991 but you couldn't state this with
24 certainly and you had been unable to find any records to verify it isn't that
15:33:04 25 right?
26 A. Yes I would just like, Mr. Quinn -- first notice I got really of being
27 requested to make a statement on this, was a letter of the 16th of May, which
28 was delivered in error to another address, no fault of the Tribunal, but then
29 the occupiers were away from home and it left me with about three days in fact
15:33:30 30 to draft a statement, I did that under pressure.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
133
15:33:32 1 Q. 674 Yes.
2 A. I realise subsequently that I did not receive a donation at that time.
3 Q. 675 At all?
4 A. From Monarch, at that time, 1991 as I stated there had.
15:33:42 5 Q. 676 Okay. So contrary to what we see here you got no payment at all from Monarch
6 in 1991, is that what you are saying?
7 A. That's what I believe to be the case.
8 Q. 677 Can I ask you what caused you to say you might have received 500 pounds from
9 them?
15:33:57 10 A. Because I think I did in 1999 and I think that may have been in my mind.
11 Q. 678 You were confusing 1999 with 1991?
12 A. I did, if you understand the circumstances -- I had to draft that under a lot
13 of pressure and inevitably, I think I made that mistake.
14 Q. 679 Yes. I think you had been lobbied by a series of people on behalf of Monarch
15:34:22 15 isn't that right? You had received representations from a number of people as
16 we see from your statement at 8308. You say you received many representations
17 during the period of the consideration of the Development Plan on the lands at
18 Cherrywood in the ownership of Monarch Properties from servants or agents of
19 Monarch Property Limited. You say you cannot recall having any contact or
15:34:45 20 meeting with the late Mr. Phil Monahan, other than exchanges a few words with
21 him at the official opening of the Bloomfield shopping centre in Dun Laoghaire.
22 You said did you not receive any payments or benefits from Mr. Monahan in his
23 capacity as servant or agent of Monarch Properties Limited.
24
15:35:00 25 You said I think Mr. Noel Murray whom you understood to be a director or Senior
26 manager of Monarch Properties, made representations concerning the lands at
27 Cherrywood. You said did you not receive any payments or benefit from
28 Mr. Murray in his capacity as a servant or agent of Monarch?
29 A. Correct.
15:35:15 30 Q. 680 I think you said Mr. Eddie Sweeney, whom you understood to be a director of

www.pcr.ie Day 649
134
15:35:19 1 Monarch Properties, made representations concerning the land at Cherrywood
2 particularly with regard to the proposed Science and Technology Park. You
3 outlined the benefits such a development could have for the county. And you
4 visited the Science and Technology Park in Montpelier, France along with
15:35:33 5 Mr. Michael Ryan a consultant associated with Plessey Park Limerick and
6 Mr. Eddie Sweeney, on invitation of Mr. Sweeney. Can I ask you were there
7 other councillors on that visit?
8 A. No, just those three persons.
9 Q. 681 No other representatives from the local authority?
15:35:49 10 A. No just the three named persons.
11 Q. 682 You said you did not receive any payments from Mr. Sweeney in his capacity as
12 servant or agent of Monarch Properties Limited.
13
14 You say did you not receive any representation from Frank Dunlop concerning the
15:36:02 15 land at Cherrywood and you did not receive any benefits or payments from Mr.
16 Dunlop in his capacity as a servant or agent of Monarch Properties Limited.
17 You met with Mr. Dominic Glennane, whom you understood to be the financial
18 controller of Monarch Properties Limited, on a few occasions, you could you not
19 recall him making explicit representations concerning the land at Cherrywood
15:36:19 20 and did you not receive any benefits or payments from Mr. Glennane in his
21 capacity as a servant or agents of Monarch Properties.
22
23 You said Mr. Phillip Reilly, whom you understood to be a Senior manager with
24 Monarch Properties made representations concerning the lands at Cherrywood.
15:36:38 25 You did not receive any benefits or payments from Mr. Reilly in his capacity as
26 servant or agent of Monarch Properties, you say Mr. Richard Lynn whom you
27 understood to be a servant of Monarch Properties Limited made several
28 representations concerning the lands at Cherrywood in his capacity as a servant
29 or agent of Monarch Properties, isn't that correct?
15:36:52 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
135
15:36:52 1 Q. 683 All in all therefore a quite a number of representations had been made to you
2 by different representatives of Monarch, in relation to the Cherrywood lands?
3 A. Yes, very many.
4 Q. 684 Now I think the first real vote in relation to these lands came about on the
15:37:07 5 6th of December 1990, when a motion by Councillor Betty Coffey and councillor
6 McDonald, was proposed, isn't that right, if we -- you will have seen that?
7 A. Well what actually, I didn't get a brief either, I got no documentation and I
8 asked Mr. King on Tuesday, the 30th to supply me with some, he did that
9 promptly, I got a CD ROM the following day, I have gone through up to page
15:37:34 10 2775. But I really haven't had an opportunity, I devoted as many hours as
11 could I, but I haven't had an opportunity to really to get a real...
12 Q. 685 Feel for it?
13 A. Recall, that's right.
14 Q. 686 Would you prefer Mr. Marren if your evidence were taken on another day?
15:37:49 15 A. No I will go through with it now, but I may have to ask for help occasionally.
16 Q. 687 As far as we understand the voting pattern we'll certainly help you?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 688 Do you recall the meeting of the 6th of December 1990, at 6952. When DP90/123
19 which was the Manager's proposals had been discussed on two previous occasions
15:38:10 20 in the months of October and November of 1990?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 689 And I think Councillor Coffey had tabled a motion, but she didn't proceed with,
23 but both herself and councillor McDonald put forward a motion on the day which
24 would have effectively restricted and considerably reduced the effect of
15:38:29 25 DP90/123, isn't that right?
26 A. Yes, yes.
27 Q. 690 When their motion was put forward Councillor Fitzgerald proposed an amendment
28 to that motion, isn't that right?
29 A. You will have to help me here.
15:38:40 30 Q. 691 If I could have 6954 please? Councillor Coffey motion, sorry councillor

www.pcr.ie Day 649
136
15:38:49 1 McDonald Coffey motion is 6953, I will just read to you, the Draft Development
2 Plan for 1990, for Carrickmines Valley area be prepared on the basis of
3 limiting zoning development to the eastern side of the South Eastern Motorway
4 proposed line and taking cognisance of the developments approved in the area
15:39:05 5 since the adoption of the 1983 plan and in doing this significantly reduce the
6 number of areas being proposed for industrial zoning and indicate where public
7 open spaces/parks will be provided and indicate the nature of residential
8 zoning for proposed residential lands.
15:39:20 10 By way of amendment to the motion in the names of councillors McDonald Coffey
11 and Murphy, it was proposed by Councillor Fitzgerald and seconded by Councillor
12 Buckley to amend the motion to broadly confine development zoning to the east
13 of the motorway and north of the Glenamuck Road?
14 A. Yes, I voted for that didn't I.
15:39:39 15 Q. 692 You did, yes. You voted for the amendment, but you don't appear, and the
16 amendment was unsuccessful -- and then the motion itself was, went on to be
17 voted upon and you don't appear to have voted on the motion at all?
18 A. Well I probably not there, was I, I wasn't in attendance was I? You see like a
19 lot of us I had a 9 to 5 job.
15:40:03 20 Q. 693 Sorry, apologies you actually did vote on the motion itself. At this stage we
21 are confusing our councillors. You voted for that amendment as appears at
22 6954?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 694 And that motion was unsuccessful. On the casting vote of the Chairman and then
15:40:26 25 the motion itself was proposed, as you see at the bottom of 6954 and if we go
26 to 6955 we see that amongst those voting against it was yourself, Councillor
27 Marren.
28 A. Yes, I can see I voted against it, but I am really finding it difficult to
29 recall.
15:40:52 30 Q. 695 Yes. You voted in favour of an amendment to it and that was unsuccessful and

www.pcr.ie Day 649
137
15:40:59 1 then you voted against the motion itself.
2 A. I would -- well I really would love to be able to read through that and try to
3 recall it, but I cannot I'm really struggling at the moment, try to recall the
4 circumstances of that motion.
15:41:19 5 Q. 696 In fact I think you had contributed to the debate on the day, if we look at
6 6953 please? You see?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 697 The discussion resumed with contributions from Councillors Marren, Muldoon,
9 Cass, Shatter, McMahon and Laing.
15:41:38 10 A. That the proposed rezoning be abandoned? That's the motion isn't it?
11 Q. 698 Yes.
12 A. I recall now re coiling, with a certain amount of shock, at the proposal of
13 the Manager on that occasion, that all that valley be built on, it seemed to
14 me just on initial presentation, that it was the wrong thing to do.
15:41:58 15 Q. 699 Yes. And that's why you proposed an amendment to councillor McDonald and
16 Coffey's motion, which was to the effect that the development would take place
17 east of the motorway line, only?
18 A. Yes, yeah.
19 Q. 700 You see by voting against Councillor Coffey and McDonald's motion you were
15:42:29 20 effectively reverting to the Manager's proposal, isn't that right?
21 A. I'm sorry Mr. Quinn but, whether it's the lateness of the day, or what, but I
22 really am finding it very difficult to comprehend.
23
24 CHAIRMAN: Well perhaps --
15:42:51 25
26 MR. QUINN: Maybe if I took it in stages, you had the Manager's proposal which
27 was DP90/123, which you say was a proposal that you felt you couldn't support?
28 A. Mm-hmm.
29 Q. 701 Then you had Councillor Coffey and McDonald's proposal, leaving aside the
15:43:06 30 proposed amendment to it, which you supported, but councillor McDonald Coffey

www.pcr.ie Day 649
138
15:43:11 1 proposal, which was effectively limiting zoning to the motorway line or
2 proposed motorway line and you --
3 A. I think I would support, I think.
4 Q. 702 But you, the record shows that you voted against it.
15:43:22 5 A. Did I, well I'm sorry.
6 Q. 703 If we could have 6955 please, again?
7 A. I appear to have acted in a contradictory manner.
8 Q. 704 I am not -- its just I am just looking for --
9 A. Well.
15:43:55 10 Q. 705 An explanation in relation to it if there is one or if you can recall one?
11 A. No I cannot, but I often recall occasions like that, when debate developed
12 and -- I mean inconsistency, I hold my hand up, I have frequently if you want
13 to trace a line through that whole Development Plan from start to finish, I
14 think I could count many inconsistencies, but I did eventually come around to a
15:44:22 15 clear vision of what I felt was the right thing to do.
16 Q. 706 Okay. I think by the 24 of May 1991 the Manager the manager had put forward
17 three options in relation to what might form the 1991 Draft Development Plan
18 and there was a vote in relation to those options and, at that meeting on the
19 24 of May '91 and we see the vote at 7006 and you voted in favour of the first
15:44:50 20 option, which in fact was the successful option, namely that the plan would be
21 on the basis of DP 90 A/129 A.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 707 Which effectively limited development, at four houses to the acre to the east
24 of the motorway line, isn't that right?
15:45:08 25 A. Yes, yes.
26 Q. 708 And then, I think, there were a series of motions and the matter came become
27 before the Council with a Manager's recommendation contained in the map 92/44
28 if we could have 7203, which is effectively extending the residential zoning to
29 one of the proposed lines of the South Eastern Motorway on an Action Area Plan
15:45:32 30 on piped sewage at four houses to the acre and I think Councillors Lydon and

www.pcr.ie Day 649
139
15:45:38 1 McGrath, had proposed that that map be adopted, and that vote took place as I
2 say on the 27 of May 1992, if we could have 7207 and I think you voted in
3 favour of that proposal at that time, isn't that right?
4 A. I voted in favour of that, yes.
15:45:59 5 Q. 709 That was unsuccessful, but you were in favour of that proposal, isn't that
6 right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 710 Then I think that the meeting continued and there was a vote on the order in
9 which matters would be taken, if we can have 7208 and a proposal by councillors
15:46:21 10 Gilmore and O'Callaghan, as to the order in which motions would be taken was
11 unsuccessful and you voted against their proposed order, isn't that right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 711 And then I think there had been a motion in the names of Councillors Lydon and
14 Hand, which at that stage was withdrawn, isn't that right? It wasn't --
15:46:38 15 A. Yes, I recall that.
16 Q. 712 It was indicated they didn't wish to proceed with that you indicated you recall
17 that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 713 Then there were a series of motions which would have effectively zoned the area
15:46:49 20 at one house to the acre, there was a motion for example you see at the very
21 bottom of 7209 and more particularly at 7210, a motion by councillors Gordon
22 and Reeves, that the land be zoned on septic tank, at one house to the acre and
23 a motion by councillor Breathnach and Smith, at one house to the acre?
24 A. Yes.
15:47:09 25 Q. 714 That motion I think had been unsuccessful and you voted against that?
26 A. Yes, I had come around at that stage, I had been very convinced by the
27 arguments put forward by the planners I recall it now, they argued for
28 something which they termed a buffer zone, that would be east of the N11 where
29 the housing in Dun Laoghaire Corporation on the -- which side am I now, the
15:47:31 30 eastern side of the N11 was of course, had been constructed in the 70s and 80s

www.pcr.ie Day 649
140
15:47:37 1 at a high density, high for that time it was 16 or 17 to the hectare. And the
2 argument then between the N11 and whatever the proposed new line of the motor
3 would be four to the acre and would give way to agricultural land, that seemed
4 an appealing proposition and one that I more and more favoured.
15:47:59 5 Q. 715 Yes and I think that having voted against that then there was a motion by
6 councillors Fitzgerald and Dillon-Byrne, again at a density not exceeding one
7 house to the acre and you again voted against that, as we see at 7211?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 716 There was a motion by Councillors Lohan and Keogh, that the lands be proposed
15:48:17 10 at AS 2, that is septic tank, one house to the acre. And you voted against
11 that?
13 Q. 717 Then there was a proposal for high amenity zoning, and I think you voted
14 against that, that was a motion by councillors Smith and Breathnach, then there
15:48:33 15 was a further motion for special amenity area order in the names of councillors
16 Gilmore and O'Callaghan and you voted against that, isn't that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 718 Then Councillor Gilmore and O'Callaghan had a proposal that portion of the land
19 be zoned C, for district centre, isn't that right?
15:48:51 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 719 And you voted in favour of that isn't that right?
22 A. A district centre, is it?
23 Q. 720 C, yes, district centre.
24 A. District centre. I thought I voted against that.
15:49:01 25 Q. 721 If we could just have 7214 please, we are now in May 1992 and the proposal by
26 councillors O'Callaghan, Gilmore and O'Callaghan is that Dublin County Council
27 hereby resolves that the lands on map 27 outlined in red which had been signed
28 for identification purposes by the proposers of the motion be zoned C in the
29 review of the Development Plan?
15:49:25 30 A. For district centre.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
141
15:49:27 1 Q. 722 Yes?
2 A. I did change my mind on that subsequently because I felt and there were very
3 telling arguments for traders in Dun Laoghaire, that they were being squeezed
4 out of the business by excessive provision of shopping, already had been in
15:49:40 5 place, Cornelscourt Dunnes, Stillorgan shopping centre, Frascati centre in
6 Blackrock and one more they said, I took on board their arguments that a
7 district centre there, not at that stage but later, wasn't the correct thing to
8 do.
9 Q. 723 Then I think there was a motion by councillors Gilmore and O'Callaghan in
15:49:58 10 relation to seeking agreement with the landowner and the developer, in relation
11 to the lands, I don't think you voted on that proposal, nor did you vote in
12 relation to proposal by councillors Barrett and Dockrell, which was a
13 successful proposal, that the lands be zoned at a density, not exceeding one
14 house to the acre, isn't that right?
15:50:18 15 A. Yeah, probably wasn't there was I, if I were there I expect I would have voted.
16 Q. 724 Yes. What way would you have voted on that proposal?
17 A. Well I had come around now to accept four -- ten to the hectare or four to the
18 acre.
19 Q. 725 You would have voted against that?
15:50:36 20 A. I expect so, yes.
21 Q. 726 That's at 7216. Now I think you then, the 91 map was amended, went on public
22 display and the matter came back before the council on the 11th November '93,
24 A. Yes.
15:50:56 25 Q. 727 There is a motion, there are two motions which I wish to bring to your
26 attention, you will have seen these I am sure, at 7226 there is a motion to
27 accept the Manager's recommendation and delete the amendment, that is the
28 amendment which would have been inserted by that last vote which you don't
29 appear to have voted upon.
15:51:15 30 A. No, well I have a clear recollection of that because I actually spoke on it and

www.pcr.ie Day 649
142
15:51:20 1 proposed it.
2 Q. 728 Okay. Can I ask you when was that motion lodged?
3 A. I think it may have been on the day, I think I was acceptable at that second --
4 Q. 729 Yes. The motion as signed who would have typed the motion?
15:51:39 5 A. Oh I think I got assistance with that, but that wasn't unusual.
6 Q. 730 Who gave you assistance?
7 A. I think may have been Mr. Lynn.
8 Q. 731 Yes you think Mr. Lynn may have typed the motion for you?
9 A. Let's be clear on this, provide the secretarial services, it was to my
15:51:54 10 prescription, I knew exactly what I wanted, that is not I think what Mr. Lynn
11 wanted I think Mr. Lynn wanted, I think Monarch were pressing 16 if I recall to
12 the hectare and pressing for restoration of the district centre I wasn't taking
13 either of those, and I also added in my own hand that the remainder of the land
14 be two to the hectare.
15:52:14 15 Q. 732 Can I ask you you say Mr. Lynn would have typed the motion for you?
16 A. Well -- I think so, but not absolutely certain, but I mean if -- I got, we get
17 a secretarial assistance, either through the County Council, or some other
18 place.
19 Q. 733 I was going to ask you that, what secretarial assistance was available to you?
15:52:33 20 A. If you went in to the general purposes office and asked or the planning office
21 asked to have a map, could I have a map, in fact these maps were fairly freely
22 available through the executive officers, and you could get a, I wasn't
23 computer literate at the time, but I have rectified that in the meantime.
24 Q. 734 Okay. Just in dealing specifically, rather than in the generality of the
15:53:02 25 situation, if we deal with the specifics of this motion, are you saying
26 Mr. Lynn typed this motion, insofar as a portion of it is typed, at your
27 behest?
28 A. Yes, yes.
29 Q. 735 Was that typed on the day?
15:53:15 30 A. You have asked me -- I can't recall whether it was submitted that day or

www.pcr.ie Day 649
143
15:53:21 1 earlier, I really cannot recall that.
2 Q. 736 Can you tell the Tribunal the circumstances under which you a councillor asked
3 Mr. Lynn to type a motion in relation to lands that he was concerned with?
4 A. Well I will. I will and I hope I will tell them fairly and as accurately as I
15:53:39 5 can.
7 I had very clearly come to the view that ten houses to the hectare was
8 appropriate at that land. I know the question will be asked, why not the whole
9 area? Because the Manager was recommending 178 hectares be zoned at ten to the
15:53:57 10 hectare, but we had come through a very bruising debate, we come through a
11 fairly torrid time in the Council and some of my closest political associates,
12 councillors Barrett and Dockrell and indeed very close friend in the Labour
13 Party councillor Frank Smith, were resolutely opposed to that ten to the
14 hectare and you know, I felt that it was academic in a way the lands to the
15:54:29 15 north of it have, because they had no access by road, so the lands that
16 mattered was the land in the ownership of Monarch Properties, which could be
17 developed and was developed in the short-term, because the access lead onto the
18 Wyattville Road, that was one reason.
19
15:54:50 20 The other reason I felt was I mean the idea of a Science and Technology Park
21 was talked about much later in '94, late '94 and early '95, but it was a
22 concept that we had discussed frequently prior to that and I had been Chairman
23 of the third level education committee, an ad hoc committee for Dun Laoghaire
24 VEC with a task to recommend to the VEC, how the second level College of Art
15:55:19 25 and Design in Eblana Avenue, might have its status increased to a regional
26 technical college. And I recall recommending to the VEC, well they to meet
27 certain criteria, you had to get land of 70 hectares you had to have three
28 colleges, one of the colleges we recommended to be in the new school, would be
29 a business school and to supplement, or support that, we fought, I'm not sure
15:55:44 30 if we used the word Science and Technology Park, but incubator or units that

www.pcr.ie Day 649
144
15:55:50 1 would assist the graduates from the academic into the commercial world, in art
2 and design and so on.
4 Now that was very much in my mind and Mr. Sweeney it was in '92, I think, came
15:56:01 5 to me and talked enthusiastically about the location of a Science and
6 Technology Park in this land down here. He met a very receptive mind because I
7 had already developed my thoughts on it even though it was only theorising, he
8 was a practitioner, he was a businessman and had already contacts with business
9 people abroad, so I was very enthused by that idea and I felt that the rezoning
15:56:30 10 of that land, I say rezoning I mean maintaining the Manager's recommendation of
11 a density of ten to the hectare, would supplement and expedite the provision of
12 a Science and Technology Park.
13
14 And thirdly, I think I have to really stress this point, that I mean on a local
15:56:52 15 elected representative, I represent people and try to represent their views as
16 best I can. Now there were two groups of people, there was the upper
17 Carrickmines and the lower end you have Loughlinstown. There is a very big
18 difference in quality of life, residences, there is a very articulate affluent
19 and well organised group of people at the north, who didn't want any
15:57:22 20 development whatsoever and I had to recognise to a certain degree their
21 sensitivities and the sensitivities of my colleagues, but quite an opposition
22 was the case south, at Loughlinstown and they were the people that I was
23 closest to. They were the people that I represented on the Council and they
24 were fully supportive of the Monarch proposals. They saw it as something that
15:57:45 25 would lift their area, an area that had been subject to unemployment and a
26 certain amount of social problems and they felt that this creation of a new
27 dynamic centre, might provide opportunities, but more importantly would lift
28 the area and its image.
29
15:58:02 30 And they were their hopes and aspirations, they were the aspirations, I wasn't

www.pcr.ie Day 649
145
15:58:07 1 going to trample on, in fact I saw it as my duty, to help realise those hopes
2 and aspirations. And that's why I put that motion and I remember speaking in
3 the council, as I tell it to you Mr. Quinn, I tell it in a matter of fact way,
4 but I can tell you I spoke with passion and enthusiasm on that day, as to what
15:58:30 5 that meant to the people that I represented.
7 And there were a number of councillors coming out of the Council who thanked
8 me, said I didn't know how I was going vote, you made up my mind for me on that
9 occasion.
15:58:44 10 Q. 737 My question to you Mr. Marren was how did you, a councillor, come to have
11 Mr. Lynn type a motion for you on the day?
12 A. You mean.
13 Q. 738 Physically?
14 A. Physically.
15:58:56 15 Q. 739 Yes. How did it come about that you had to rely on the promoter of this
16 development to sign the motion that you were proposing on the day?
17 A. Well I mean, it was a secretarial service, it wasn't that --
18 Q. 740 That would have been available to you within the Council to provide a
19 secretarial service to you?
15:59:13 20 A. If it was available from somewhere else I'd take it.
21 Q. 741 Who provided you with the map?
22 A. Don't -- I wouldn't like to be represented as some sort of a stodge who was
23 told here do this, go and do that. I wouldn't -- I hope you are not implying
24 that.
15:59:27 25 Q. 742 No just, this is an inquiry Mr. Marren and we are really enquiring into the
26 circumstances on the day and the circumstances surrounding this particular
27 motion and how it came to be typed up and how the map came to be provided and
28 typed up and signed by you. And at this stage I am really concerned about the
29 circumstances under which the motion came to be physically typed up, did you
15:59:51 30 ask Mr. Lynn to type up the motion or did Mr. Lynn have a typed motion?

www.pcr.ie Day 649
146
15:59:56 1 A. Well I think it may be in discussion, I'm not sure who initiated it, but I am
2 the responsible person. They are my thoughts and that is my wish.
3 Q. 743 I appreciate that the motion obviously reflects your wish because you signed
4 it, but just getting the mechanics into place so to speak, how did -- who
16:00:16 5 produced this typed motion and map?
6 A. I think Mr. Lynn did, I really do.
7 Q. 744 Okay. Did you ask him to type it or did he produce a typed motion and map for
8 you?
9 A. I told him what I wanted, I believe that to be the case, this is what I am
16:00:32 10 doing and this is as far as I am going and then on reflection I said I better
11 be some palliative, some consolation for the people at the upper end who are
12 advocating.
13 Q. 745 How long before the debate on the 11th November 1993 did you ask Mr. Lynn or
14 tell Mr. Lynn, that this was what you were proposing, so that he would have a
16:00:54 15 map and motion ready for signature?
16 A. I think, if you go distribute the earlier motions we went through, I think my
17 ideas were crystalising, what I wanted. What I wanted was the Manager's
18 recommendation of ten to the hectare, I was supporting that now. What I was
19 supporting was a neighbourhood centre, rather than a district centre and what I
16:01:13 20 was most anxious was to secure was some Science and Technology Park, so those
21 thoughts were formulated and I think Mr. Lynn either sitting in the public
22 gallery, or where ever quickly picked up what I was doing.
23 Q. 746 And knowing your mind or your attitude to the matter you say that he had a
24 motion prepared which reflected that without having discussed it with you, is
16:01:33 25 that correct?
26 A. No he would have discussed it with me, he knew exactly where I stood.
27 Q. 747 Did you have a discussion with Mr. Lynn sometime in advance of the meeting on
28 the 11th November where you discussed the context or the content of a motion
29 that you would be prepared to support?
16:01:49 30 A. I had frequent meetings. I mean it was very difficult and I -- I told them yes

www.pcr.ie Day 649
147
16:01:57 1 this is what I am doing.
2 Q. 748 And he produced a motion for you is that correct?
3 A. To my prescription.
4 Q. 749 Yes. And what you were proposing, was that, was a rezoning at four houses to
16:02:10 5 the acre of the Monarch only lands, isn't that right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 750 And one of the reasons you put forward for selecting the Monarch only lands was
8 the accessibility to all of the lands. If I could have 2359 please, this is
9 the map which I think shows all of the lands zoned at one house to the acre, we
16:02:32 10 see the Monarch lands outlined in red, as I understand it, Mr. Marren and you
11 would have a better knowledge of the area than me at this stage, that there was
12 no road built on any of the lands at this stage?
13 A. Oh that's right, yes.
14 Q. 751 So there was no greater accessible to the Monarch lands at this stage than
16:02:48 15 there was no any of the other lands isn't that right?
16 A. At that stage.
17 Q. 752 Yes?
18 A. But it was planned in the immediate term to enter from the Wyattville Road, a
19 link road which would and has now of course, linked up with the South Eastern
16:03:03 20 Motorway, at that time the line of the motorway wasn't determined, but it,
21 whatever it would be the link road to was to come in here from the Wyattville
22 junction and it was the plans were well advanced for provision of that which
23 would allow for the development of those lands, wouldn't allow for the
24 development of the upper lands.
16:03:21 25 Q. 753 If I could have 7226, presumably the distinction between these lands and the
26 upper lands was just the length of the roadway, isn't that right?
27 A. Well they would be accessed by the spine road that's planned from the Glenamuck
28 interchange down to the Wyattville interchange and that hasn't as yet been
29 produced and I don't think those lands will be accessible until that spine road
16:03:43 30 is constructed.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
148
16:03:44 1 Q. 754 Not alone were you supporting a proposal which would have given four houses to
2 the acre on the Monarch lands, but you were also suggesting that the balance of
3 the lands which the Manager was recommending be zoned at four houses to the
4 acre, that they be zoned at one house to the acre isn't that right?
16:04:00 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 755 So you were going against the Manager's recommendations and you were singling
7 out for support only the Monarch lands?
8 A. Well its what you might call an example of real politic. Sometimes you have to
9 balance your realities with your ideals. On this occasion there were
16:04:26 10 sensitivities at work, which had to be catered for and the motion was not
11 intended to confer benefit absolute or, on Monarch, vis-a-vis the other
12 developers, nor the corollary did it intend to disadvantage the other
13 landowners vis-a-vis Monarch.
14 Q. 756 But isn't that the effect of the motion?
16:04:48 15 A. I would contend that is academic, because it really didn't matter, that land
16 couldn't be developed then, nor has it been developed since, nor can it be
17 developed until the spine road is constructed, whereas their land could be
18 developed, that really on the day met most people's, well the vote was there to
19 show it, it met with the majority vote.
16:05:09 20 Q. 757 Now can I ask you, did Mr. Lynn also have insight into the mind of councillors
21 Lohan, Coffey, Cosgrave and Ormonde on the day they seem to also have signed
22 the motion?
23 A. I couldn't answer that.
24 Q. 758 Did you discuss your motion or this motion with any of the other co
16:05:28 25 signatories?
26 A. I am certain that that would have been the case, I'd hardly put their names,
27 we'd hardly put our names tots one motion without having discussed it and
28 coming to agreement about it, but I have no recollection of those discussions.
29 Q. 759 The impression I am getting from what you are saying to me Mr. Marren is that
16:05:47 30 you had detailed discussions with Monarch in the lead up to this vote on the 11

www.pcr.ie Day 649
149
16:05:52 1 of November 1993 as a result of which Mr. Lynn produced a typed motion and a
2 map, which you signed and you subject to the amendment as we see it in your
3 handwriting on the motion?
4 A. Mm-hmm.
16:06:05 5 Q. 760 Isn't that correct?
6 A. Well the main part of it is my thoughts as well. They emanate from me.
7 Q. 761 Yes?
8 A. That I am sure would not be what Monarch would have wished, they would probably
9 have framed a motion 16 to the hectare, district centre, but -- that's mine. I
16:06:22 10 take responsibility.
11 Q. 762 This is what the Monarch, the market would hold on the day?
12 A. The market.
13 Q. 763 Yes, in other words this is what the councillors would --
14 A. That was my judgement, it was a political judgement and one that proved to be
16:06:34 15 correct.
16 Q. 764 Which coincidentally favoured Monarch, isn't that right?
17 A. That wasn't the intention. And I have outline that had. My intention was not
18 to give a, confer an advantage on any landowner nor to deny for that matter any
19 landowner an advantage. I was working for the, what I thought was the best
16:06:52 20 interests of the people and I can -- I have taken sworn testimony today and I
21 take that very very seriously as a practising Christian, I am what I did was,
22 in the best interests of the people I represent, nothing else.
23 Q. 765 Had Mr. Reilly approached you in relation to the matter at this stage?
24 A. Mr. Phil Reilly, I would meet periodically, perhaps at some of those, perhaps
16:07:22 25 in some social occasions or where ever, but I can't recall him immediately
26 prior to that, meeting with him.
27 Q. 766 Was it Mr. Lynn you dealt with?
28 A. Mr. Lynn I would have met, I also met Mr. Sweeney regularly and Mr. Sweeney who
29 particularly promoted the idea of Science and Technology Park and I think it
16:07:40 30 was the instrument that really enthused me about this area.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
150
16:07:46 1 Q. 767 Were there any other councillors present when you were discussing this matter
2 with Mr. Lynn in the lead up to the vote on the 11th November?
3 A. Not that I recall.
4 Q. 768 Now there was a second motion I think if I could have 7228 which was also
16:08:00 5 proposed and was successful on the occasion, isn't that right, in relation to
6 the limiting the size of the neighbourhood centre isn't that correct?
7 A. Yes yes yes.
8 Q. 769 Could I take it Mr. Lynn would also have that motion typed?
9 A. That was clearly not in his interest, but he may very well have. Monarch were
16:08:19 10 seeking a district centre, my attitude was and it changed incidentally as you
11 saw on the screen there, initially I thought a district centre was a good idea,
12 gradually came to the belief that a neighbourhood centre was accurate.
13 Q. 770 If I could have motion 7228 and 7226 side by side please, would you agree with
14 me Mr. Marren that these motions would appear to have been typed, by the and
16:08:51 15 produced from the same source?
16 A. Oh I do yes, oh I do.
17 Q. 771 And if Mr. Lynn produced the motion in relation to the residential zoning
18 doesn't it follow as of course, that he must also have produced the other
19 motion?
16:09:06 20 A. Provided I would prefer to say the secretarial services, he could in the in his
21 interests for the company he worked for advocate a neighbourhood centre, nor
22 indeed could he have advocated ten houses to the hectare, that's what I had
23 settled on and agreed, and if I was facilitated in producing the motion that's
24 fine.
16:09:28 25 Q. 772 And I think then that both motions were successful, but that in time the
26 restriction in relation to the neighbourhood centre was lifted subject to a
27 wording from the Manager, isn't that right?
28 A. In Dun Laoghaire in the first variation.
29 Q. 773 Yes?
16:09:46 30 A. Oh, yes. I mean the opposition seemed to dissipate very rapidly, when we

www.pcr.ie Day 649
151
16:09:52 1 settled down with Dun Laoghaire, people who were very much opposed to
2 residential development in this area seemed now to be quite favourably disposed
3 to it, people who cast doubt on the feasibility of a Science and Technology
4 Park, were now advocating it as a recipe for the cure of the economic ills of
16:10:13 5 the area, I didn't participate very actively in those debates, I often listened
6 in silent astonishment, because there was quite a change in people's attitudes
7 and I am never quite sure what caused it, but it was much easier for me in the
8 new Council.
9 Thank you very much Mr. Marren.
16:10:39 10
11 Q. 774 JUDGE FAHERTY: Can I ask you Mr. Marren, you said you didn't believe that
12 Mr. Lynn would have wanted just ten houses to the hectare?
13 A. I think their submission, Judge Faherty, was for 16.
14
16:10:54 15 Q. 775 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes because that's one of the responses you gave, but there
16 was a letter written by Mr. McCabe to the Council in July, and this was
17 obviously in response to the second public display, as a result of
18 Mr. Barrett's motion, the second map showed two houses to the hectare, isn't
19 that right, for all the lands?
16:11:15 20 A. Yes yes.
21
22 Q. 776 JUDGE FAHERTY: And Mr. McCabe I think he was a planner, on behalf of Monarch
23 wrote to the Council seeking -- he was objecting to change number 3?
24 A. Yes, yeah that would --
16:11:36 25
26 Q. 777 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes, now I was reading the beginning of his letter he is
27 asking that -- if I just as I understand it, its page 7221.
28
29 MS. DILLON: Yes just in relation to this document sorry to cut across
16:11:46 30 Mr. Quinn, there are two versions of this letter, we have inquired from Dun

www.pcr.ie Day 649
152
16:11:50 1 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council to confirm which, if either were received by
2 them, we still don't have that confirmation.
4 JUDGE FAHERTY: Maybe I should leave the question Ms. Dillon, it would
16:12:00 5 appear --
7 MS. DILLON: What is common to both is that they were unhappy with the
8 density gone out in second display there is no issue about that.
16:12:08 10 Q. 778 JUDGE FAHERTY: Exactly. That is my question Mr. Marren Monarch were clearly
11 unhappy about the density as is evidenced from this letter, and they were
12 objecting to that change and they seem to want it removed. If the change were
13 removed simplicitor change 3 goes off the map, the second public display as I
14 understand it it, would revert to what went out on the first display that's ten
16:12:32 15 houses to the hectare?
16 A. Yes, that's my understanding, yes that would have been the case. But there
17 were -- sorry.
18
19 Q. 779 JUDGE FAHERTY: I am just saying that if that letter is there and now assuming
16:12:45 20 that is the letter that was sent to the Dun Laoghaire, to the County Council,
21 back in 1993 and we don't know yet obviously, this may be subject to
22 clarification later, it will be seen, it would suggest that Monarch were
23 looking for two things really, a reversion to the first display, ten houses to
24 the hectare and perhaps an extension of the boundary, further down southwest,
16:13:10 25 do you understand?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 780 But there didn't seem from that letter again this may be subject to
28 clarification at a later stage, I am cautious in my question to you, that
29 Monarch would appear, that they wanted would, have been happy enough with ten
16:13:24 30 houses to the hectare, they wanted change 3 gone?

www.pcr.ie Day 649
153
16:13:26 1 A. Yes I understand.
3 Q. 781 JUDGE FAHERTY: I am just wondering, if that is the case, where do you say
4 between July '93, because this was obviously a representation that went in
16:13:38 5 after the second display, and November '93, did Monarch make a formal case for
6 a larger residential density? I know they did previously.
7 A. Yes.
9 Q. 782 JUDGE FAHERTY: I am just asking you --
16:13:51 10 A. I think their original was 16. I think they were shocked when it was reduced
11 to one to the acre.
12
13 Q. 783 JUDGE FAHERTY: But do you see my point? I am just putting, it would appear
14 that Monarch were just looking for a deletion of change 3, I think in fairness
16:14:06 15 to yourself, a further extension of the boundary of the residential boundary I
16 think they were still looking for that. Why do you say then that the motion,
17 which I understand was typed, it appeared to have been typed at some point by
18 Mr. Lynn as I understand it?
19 A. Yes.
16:14:26 20
21 Q. 784 JUDGE FAHERTY: Was that before the day, its dated the 11th November? Did it
22 come to the Council chamber with the motion?
23 A. You know Mr. Quinn posed those questions and I really couldn't answer with
24 certainty, whether it was that day, or the day before, I really couldn't, but
16:14:43 25 it was around that time, certainly.
26
27 Q. 785 JUDGE FAHERTY: Because that's what the motion says, to delete the -- to
28 accept the Manager's recommendations?
29 A. Yes. Yes but I had reached that position myself independently, much earlier on
16:14:58 30 and I recall the planner in question, Mr. Conway, and I -- I almost recall the

www.pcr.ie Day 649
154
16:15:03 1 day on which he convinced me it was the right thing to do, in retrospect of
2 course it probably wasn't, but we can only make our judgements at a particular
3 time.
4 Q. 786 JUDGE FAHERTY: Can I ask you, back in -- when was it, May 1992, the manager
16:15:19 5 had put forward his, this is before the second display, his more ambitious
6 project that it would be, I think, still low level residential density, at four
7 houses to the acre, on an Action Area Plan?
8 A. Yes.
16:15:35 10 Q. 787 JUDGE FAHERTY: And I think he also wanted to extend the actual residential
11 zoning further south, that was his -- this was the DP 92/44, this was the
12 Manager's map?
13 A. Yes yes.
14
16:15:49 15 Q. 788 JUDGE FAHERTY: And you supported that?
16 A. Yes yes.
17
18 Q. 789 JUDGE FAHERTY: An that map when it went up and I understand subject to what
19 counsel says, was in relation to the whole of the area that had been already
16:16:01 20 zoned residential in this area?
21 A. Yes approximately 178 acres.
22
23 Q. 790 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes and you had supported that, you voted in favour of that,
24 now that motion was unsuccessful, but it was a motion that was voted on, the
16:16:11 25 first matter that was voted on back in May 1992.
26 A. Yes.
27
28 Q. 791 JUDGE FAHERTY: I am just -- why then, this is the question that you probably
29 anticipate, since you had voted in favour of that back in 1992, why limit it --
16:16:34 30 A. Oh I know. Well I think we were all on a sort of odyssey, a journey of

www.pcr.ie Day 649
155
16:16:38 1 discovery if you like and we had to adapt ourselves to situations, I -- I mean
2 some of my very close colleagues, close associates were resolutely set against
3 it and it was really an effort to, I suppose to, help them some of the way, at
4 the same time achieve what we in the south end and Loughlinstown people really
16:16:59 5 wanted.
7 Q. 792 JUDGE FAHERTY: Just can I ask you Mr. Marren, the very first vote on the 11th
8 of November, it was a motion to confirm change 3. I think there was some
9 amendment made to that it was lost, but that was the first vote that was taken
16:17:15 10 on the 11th November, I have forgotten now whose names it was, but it was a
11 motion to confirm change 3?
12 A. Yes Councillor Barrett and Dockrell was it.
13
14 MS. DILLON: Smith and Buckley.
16:17:42 15
16 Q. 793 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes 7261 and that motion is lost isn't that correct?
17 A. For 27, against, 43, yes.
18
19 MR. QUINN: No the vote is at 7262.
16:17:57 20
21 Q. 794 JUDGE FAHERTY: 7262 actually.
22 A. Yes.
23
24 Q. 795 JUDGE FAHERTY: You vote against that obviously because you don't --
16:18:07 25 A. Yes.
26
27 Q. 796 JUDGE FAHERTY: And that would appear, just want to - that vote in itself
28 would you voting against that would appear consistent with more or less the
29 approach you you took back in 1992, in support of The manager's map?
16:18:26 30 A. Yes yes, I think so yeah.

www.pcr.ie Day 649
156
16:18:29 1
2 Q. 797 JUDGE FAHERTY: But I am just asking you why not then leave it at that Mr --
3 because that vote having lost, what was the effect of, on the map, can I ask
4 you that as a councillor -- this change 3 had gone out in 1992, this
16:18:48 5 confirmation vote, this is a confirmation vote and its lost?
6 A. This is a confirmation, it was lost.
8 Q. 798 JUDGE FAHERTY: Therefore doesn't the support change 3 had was now lost?
9 A. Yes on my understanding then is that it would be all, ten to the hectare, the
16:19:06 10 whole lot.
11
12 Q. 799 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes?
13 A. Well there was conciliation if you like, consolation for whatever for a lot of
14 my close colleagues and the upper land couldn't be developed -- it was academic
16:19:21 15 and it was going to happen fairly soon anyway, those people --
16
17 Q. 800 JUDGE FAHERTY: I don't know if you can answer this question Mr. Marren, on
18 the minute that is we have now, they may not be the entire minutes of the 11th
19 of November and I can't say, but in a lot of meetings we would have minutes of
16:19:37 20 meetings from the County Council, we would have seen, in various Modules there
21 would be reports given and objections and representations would be referred to
22 by the Manager and indeed by -- and itemised, isn't that correct?
23 A. Yes yes.
24
16:19:56 25 Q. 801 JUDGE FAHERTY: Can you recall whether objections and representations by
26 residents of the northern part of the lands --
27 A. Oh, yes, very strong representations.
28
29 Q. 802 JUDGE FAHERTY: And just to get back to --
16:20:06 30 A. I'd say to summarise in a sentence, they were opposed to any development, I'd

www.pcr.ie Day 649
157
16:20:10 1 say that was their position.
3 Q. 803 JUDGE FAHERTY: Right. And get back to the question of the road Mr. Marren,
4 Mr. Quinn has suggested that there was no road as of the November '93?
16:20:23 5 A. No that's right but it was planned and we knew it was planned an we knew it was
6 coming on stream fairly soon, which it did.
8 Q. 804 JUDGE FAHERTY: Were you aware that there was, the pipe running through the
9 Monarch lands?
16:20:36 10 A. Oh, yes, it was bisecting it I think.
11
12 Q. 805 JUDGE FAHERTY: But the -- that pipe obviously wouldn't begin and end with the
13 Monarch lands, did you know where it continued on to?
14 A. I thought it went from Glenamuck cottages, down to Shanganagh outfall, I think
16:20:50 15 that was the line of it.
16
17 Q. 806 JUDGE FAHERTY: I see. And can I just ask you, when you, you seem to be the
18 first signature on the motion on the 11th of November Mr. Marren.
19 A. Yes.
16:20:59 20
21 Q. 807 JUDGE FAHERTY: Mr. Marren, do you have a recollection of actually signing it
22 for Mr. Lynn? Or when it was produced?
23 A. Oh I remember -- I couldn't say the exact location, but I remember putting my
24 name to that motion, yes.
16:21:14 25
26 Q. 808 JUDGE FAHERTY: And were there others with you when you signed it?
27 A. No I can't recall that, I really cannot, but I would -- I'm sure I would have
28 discussed that with councillors that are from my general area, that is
29 councillors Coffey and Lohan.
16:21:33 30

www.pcr.ie Day 649
158
16:21:33 1 Q. 809 JUDGE FAHERTY: But you don't know when this discussion --
2 A. But I could say I definitely didn't discuss it with councillor Ormonde,
3 definitely not.
16:21:47 5 Q. 810 JUDGE FAHERTY: Did you discuss it further with the Manager or Council
6 officials, Mr. Marren, when this motion was put?
7 A. Usually if you put forward a motion in the Council if there is a planning
8 officer or Manager there who disagrees with the content or feels that it is an
9 unproductive type of motion they are very prompt to say so, no such expression
16:22:08 10 was made when I moved that motion.
11
12 JUDGE FAHERTY: I see.
13
14 CHAIRMAN: Right thank you very much?
16:22:15 15 A. Thanks.
16
18
19 CHAIRMAN: Half ten tomorrow, all right?
16:22:36 20
21 MS. DILLON: May it please you sir.
22
23 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING DAY,
24 THURSDAY 8TH JUNE 2006, AT 10.30 AM.
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 649
1
2 9TH JUNE 2006 AT 10.00 A.M:
4 MR. QUINN: Good morning, sir. Mr. McCabe please.
10:05:40 5
6 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Mr. Quinn.
8 CONTINUATION OF EXAMINATION OF FERGAL McCABE
9 BY MR. QUINN
10:05:53 10
11 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Mr. McCabe.
12
13 Q 1 MR. QUINN: Good morning, Mr. McCabe, I am sorry that you had to come back but
14 I don't think we will be very much longer. I think we had been dealing with
10:06:04 15 your involvement with Monarch interests in the lead up to the crucial vote on
16 the 11th November 1993 and if I could have 7026. This is a motion which was
17 proposed by Councillor Marren and others which had direct relevance to the
18 Monarch lands, isn't that right, you may or may not have been here yesterday
19 when this motion was being dealt with by Councillor Barrett?
10:06:29 20 A I generally heard Councillor Barrett's evidence, I didn't follow the thread of
21 it.
22 Q 2 Yes. Did you know that this vote, this motion was being tabled for the 11th
23 November?
24 A No, I didn't.
10:06:39 25 Q 3 Did you have any input into this motion?
26 A No none whatsoever.
27 Q 4 There is an accompanying map 7227, did you have any input into the preparation
28 of that map?
29 A This is the map attached to the motion?
10:07:00 30 Q 5 Yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 651

2
10:07:00 1 A No, I didn't.
2 Q 6 But you would agree with me that the motion and the map clearly identified the
3 Monarch lands?
4 A Yes, they are the Monarch ownerships.
10:07:08 5 Q 7 And I don't think it's in dispute but it's obvious from the wording of the
6 motion, it was intended that the Monarch lands and only the Monarch lands would
7 be zoned at four house to the acre, isn't that right?
8 A That seems to be the intention of the map you are showing me.
9 Q 8 Now, I think you provided, following on that vote, you provided to Mr. Sweeney
10:07:27 10 a report on the outcome of the vote, if I could have 4703.
11 Can I ask you, you had, I think you told the Tribunal yesterday that you
12 weren't present at any council meeting?
13 A Yes, I should clarify I was looking at the evidence last night, I have
14 obviously been at council meetings in my career, usually as a consultant to
10:07:51 15 councils but I have never been at meetings to deal with lands, clients' lands
16 which were the subject of the Development Plan process.
17 Q 9 Yes. Now, accompanying that letter is a map, if I could have 4706. If I could
18 have 7229, which is the map accompanying the motion and if it could be put
19 beside 4706. If they could be put side by side please.
10:08:37 20
21 CHAIRMAN: What's the other page?
22
23 MR. QUINN: 7229 sorry, 7227, either way, that's the map that accompanied the
24 motion in relation to the C zoning, the one on the left and the one on the
10:08:57 25 right is the map which accompanied your letter, you would agree with me they
26 look almost identical?
27 A They do in the sense that the map on the left shows the body of lands and an
28 area designated for a neighbourhood centre and the other lands, the other map
29 shows what appears to be agriculture.
10:09:16 30 Q 10 Where did you get the map which accompanied your letter?
www.pcr.ie Day 651

3
10:09:19 1 A Could I see my letter again please?
2 Q 11 Yes, if I could have 4703 please.
3 A Obviously I am referring there to the outcome of the zoning motions.
4 Q 12 Yes. Did somebody provide you with the zoning motions and accompanying maps?
10:09:50 5 A I must have been made aware of them but I can't say from what source.
6 Q 13 But in any event, you didn't prepare or provide the map which accompanied the
7 zoning motions?
8 A No.
9 Q 14 Now, I think it was your view that the lands had been zoned at 10 houses to the
10:10:09 10 hectare, isn't that right, which would be about four house to the acre?
11 A I think that's correct, yes.
12 Q 15 Yes. Were you familiar with the various lettering that was being applied by
13 the council in the different zoning types, for example, I think AP was
14 residential on piped sewerage, isn't that right, E was industry, B was
10:10:39 15 agriculture?
16 A Yes.
17 Q 16 A1 I think was a zoning for residential?
18 A Communities, I think --
19 Q 17 On an action area plan?
10:10:48 20 A Yes.
21 Q 18 There was no question of an action area plan in relation to these lands as a
22 result of that motion, isn't that right?
23 A Not in relation to that motion, that's simply to relate to specific land
24 parcels.
10:11:02 25 Q 19 Yes. But an action area plan was actually undertaken, isn't that right,
26 because if we look at 4923, this is a meeting on the 6th January 1994 with
27 Mr. Murray and two representatives of the Monarch interests and Mr. Murray has
28 advised, as you will see under heading "zoning/action plan" that he would
29 expect to have an action plan completed in approximately two months. Do you
10:11:30 30 see that?
www.pcr.ie Day 651

4
10:11:30 1 A I do, I wonder is Mr. Murray, you know, using the word action plan loosely.
2 Q 20 Did you know that the council were proposing to have an action plan for the
3 area?
4 A I couldn't say I knew.
10:11:44 5 Q 21 Did you have any discussions with Mr. Murray or anybody within the newly
6 created Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council in relation to an action plan?
7 A I don't recollect but I would say they would have been prudent to have an
8 action plan for such a large area of land.
9 Q 22 Yes. But if that were the case, presumably the councillors would have deemed
10:12:04 10 an action plan as being the appropriate zoning for the lands, isn't that right?
11 A That would have been the correct thing to have done, yes.
12 Q 23 Yes. And I think following on those discussions at 4975 on the 15th February
13 1994, Monarch wrote to you in relation to the possibility of you heading up a
14 team dealing with an Environmental Impact Statement own on the lands, isn't
10:12:31 15 that right?
16 A Yes.
17 Q 24 And I think at this stage, it had been accepted or acknowledged that there
18 would have to be some sort of access to the lands, isn't that right, so that
19 they could be opened up for development?
10:12:41 20 A That would seem to be the thrust of the second paragraph.
21 Q 25 Yes and that appears to have been accepted by the planners and the council.
22 And it was in that context, I think you were coming on board as providing
23 planning advice, isn't that right?
24 A Yes.
10:13:00 25 Q 26 Just in relation to the lands generally, would you agree with me that this was
26 a green field site in '89, it had a very low density zoning on septic tank
27 which was unrealistic but had a residential designation so to speak, isn't that
28 right?
29 A Yes.
10:13:17 30 Q 27 It had no services, it had no access, it was still uncertain exactly what area
www.pcr.ie Day 651

5
10:13:22 1 of land could be developed having regard to the movement on the line of the
2 Southeastern Motorway?
3 A That would have been the position in early '89.
4 Q 28 But it was almost certain it was land that it was land that at some stage going
10:13:36 5 to be developed?
6 A If one took into account the ERDO study and the council's own working papers.
7 Q 29 Yes. It was going to be developed so really what Monarch, the developer are
8 seeking to achieve here, is they are seeking to accelerate the development of
9 the land, is that right?
10:13:52 10 A I think that's a very good way of putting it.
11 Q 30 Now, I think the issue then arose in relation to the science and technology
12 park, isn't that right? It had been mooted and had been in the air but I think
13 at this stage the science and technology park becomes more centrally involved
14 in relation to the lands, is that right?
10:14:19 15 A It does but as I say I am not terribly familiar with where the idea came from
16 or how it --
17 Q 31 But as a strategy, would you agree with me that it was obvious that in the
18 absence -- that the science and technology park was the key to opening up the
19 development of these lands.
10:14:36 20 A Not necessarily, there was demand for housing also but there was an identified
21 shortfall for employment uses and --
22 Q 32 If I could have 5211, this is a strategy report prepared in June of 1994 within
23 Monarch and under the heading "science and technology park" it says "The
24 rezoning of the agricultural lands and the increase of the residential density
10:14:58 25 rests on the premises that a science and technology park will be brought to
26 fruition, without this potential job creation concept, the agricultural lands
27 will not be rezoned and no increase in density will occur."
28 A What's the genesis of that?
29 Q 33 That's a report compiled by I think perhaps Mr. Lynn for Monarch in June 1994.
10:15:18 30 A I am not too sure I would concur with the, with his conclusion.
www.pcr.ie Day 651

6
10:15:24 1 Q 34 It was created I think maybe, if we look at 5215, on the 15th June 1994, you
2 wouldn't agree with 5212?
3 A No.
4 Q 35 You wouldn't agree with Mr. Lynn's assessment?
10:15:39 5 A No, it would seem to me that the lands by their very nature should have been
6 comprehensively developed which required a range of necessary uses,
7 residential, commercial, employment.
8 Q 36 But we are talking about accelerating the development prospect for these lands,
9 and you are talking about bringing on board the manager and his planners and
10:16:03 10 perhaps councillors, isn't is that right?
11 A Yes.
12 Q 37 And the council has just voted on the lands in November of 1993, we are now in
13 early '94 and I suggest to you it's being envisaged by Monarch that the key to
14 increasing densities and opening up additional agricultural land for
10:16:30 15 residential development was the prospect of a science and technology park?
16 A I can't respond to that, I haven't seen the memo, it wouldn't be the conclusion
17 I would come to myself.
18 Q 38 Okay. I want to put yourself in the frame of mind you were in back in June of
19 '94, or January to June '94, when you were advising Monarch and you presumably
10:16:42 20 attended a series of meetings and would have advised different representatives
21 within Monarch, isn't that right, at that time?
22 A I am sure I must have.
23 Q 39 And what I'm suggesting to you is that as far as Monarch were concerned,
24 whether it was a good or bad strategy, as far as Monarch were concerned, the
10:16:56 25 strategy now was to promote the science and technology park and try and trade
26 that off against an increasing density and an extension of the residentially
27 zoned land with the manager/councillors.
28 A That's what the memo suggests but I don't recollect it being put to me.
29 Q 40 Yes. You would agree with me that at different stages were different
10:17:20 30 strategies being devised in relation to these lands, isn't that right, both in
www.pcr.ie Day 651

7
10:17:23 1 relation to accelerating the Carrickmines sewer, accelerating the line of the
2 roadway, proposals in relation to what might be comfortably rezoned on the
3 lands, isn't that right?
4 A It was an evolving situation.
10:17:40 5 Q 41 But from your point of view and within Monarch, you were devising strategies on
6 how you might get these lands rezoned at different stages, I am not saying
7 there's anything particularly wrong in that approach but as a planner, that's
8 your --
9 A I think my concern throughout the entire exercise was ownership neutral, this
10:18:04 10 was a strategic area of land and I was of the view that whatever consequences
11 there were for Monarch, the correct approach was that the development of the
12 largest area of land possible should be pursued in a comprehensive fashion so
13 that at some later date in the future a properly planned development would
14 arise, environment would be provided.
10:18:27 15 Q 42 Under normal circumstances, had these lands been rezoned as they were, they
16 would just lie there and either be developed at four houses to the acre or
17 alternatively, they would have been either a variation of the plan or
18 alternatively, there would have been an opportunity on the review of the plan,
19 which occurred I think in this case in 1997/1998. The choices were simple, you
10:18:52 20 either developed on the existing zoning, you brought a material contravention,
21 you varied the existing zoning or you reviewed, you varied it on review.
22 A Yes. They are the practical options.
23 Q 43 But that did not happen here, isn't that right? Within months of the November
24 1993 decision, you were into an action area plan and an attempt to increase the
10:19:14 25 zoning and the area of zoning on the lands, isn't that right?
26 A Yes.
27 Q 44 And the key, the strategy key to that as appears from this memo is the science
28 and technology park which for obvious reasons was very attractive to the
29 planners, isn't is that right?
10:19:29 30 A It would have appear to be but that wasn't my strategy.
www.pcr.ie Day 651

8
10:19:33 1 Q 45 But it was Monarch's strategy I suggest to you?
2 A So the document would appear to suggest.
3 Q 46 Did you not know that it was Monarch's strategy at this time?
4 A I don't recollect that there was a direct link between the provision of science
10:19:49 5 and technology and increased densities.
6 Q 47 But a science and technology park would have itself have necessitated a
7 variation of the plan for starters, isn't that right?
8 A Yes, it was, it was different use.
9 Q 48 Different use and you are now into a variation of the plan which gave you an
10:20:04 10 opportunity to deal with other aspects of the plan that you have may have been
11 uncomfortable with as a developer, isn't that right?
12 A Well not necessarily.
13 Q 49 Under normal circumstances it was unlikely you would get a variation of the
14 plan in the absence of the five year review, isn't that right?
10:20:20 15 A I don't think there's a rule there, you know.
16 Q 50 But it's not on the table, unless obviously you have a large number of
17 councillors who support you, in which case it would be difficult to justify a
18 review so soon after a confirmation of the existing plan.
19 A I think I know where you are going, all I can say is that I don't see a direct
10:20:42 20 correlation between the provision of science and technology and the need to
21 change other elements.
22 Q 51 But as it happened, there was a review undertaken and the review did increase
23 density on the lands, isn't that right?
24 A If you --
10:21:04 25 Q 52 First of all, there was a variation necessitated by the science and technology
26 review, isn't that right? And that resulted in an increased density on the
27 lands.
28 A If you could show me the text of the variation or the --
29 Q 53 Well I think there was, if we could have 7284 please. This is a draft
10:21:28 30 variation and I think it had been identified in the earlier meeting in early
www.pcr.ie Day 651

9
10:21:36 1 January 1994 with Mr. Murray that he was of the view that there was an anomaly
2 in relation to agriculturally zoned lands; in other words the residential
3 zoning had been to a notional prior line of the motorway.
4 A Yes.
10:21:50 5 Q 54 However that line had now moved westward.
6 A Yes.
7 Q 55 And there was an area of Monarch lands which had been or were zoned
8 agricultural zoning and it was felt that they now could be zoned for
9 residential purposes, isn't that right?
10:22:05 10 A That seemed appropriate, an appropriate planning decision to make. I could
11 observe on that map for the first time the QBC or quality bus corridors
12 appearing and that's a very significant factor which would of itself increase
13 densities. It would be more relevant in increasing densities than a science
14 and technology park.
10:22:31 15 Q 56 When was the quality bus corridor put in?
16 A I don't know but I see it on this map.
17 Q 57 You say that would have, the creation of a quality bus corridor would have
18 increased the density on the lands?
19 A There's a direct correlation between, provision of public transport and
10:22:51 20 densities.
21 Q 58 I understand that that was an objective of the '93 plan, quality bus corridor?
22 A I see. But I would have thought the quality bus corridor would have been
23 determined of density more than the science and technology park.
24 Q 59 Do you, you presumably knew that there were a series of meetings between
10:23:11 25 Monarch representatives and the manager and the planners in relation to the
26 science and technology park which led to an agreement, whereby the council
27 became a joint venture partner in the science and technology park, isn't that
28 right?
29 A I am aware of that.
10:23:26 30 Q 60 And there was a trade off in relation to density and there was a variation
www.pcr.ie Day 651

10
10:23:29 1 which was confirmed in April '95, isn't that right?
2 A I am not aware of that.
3 Q 61 Yes. But it had the support of the councillors and the planners, isn't is that
4 right?
10:23:38 5 A I accept that.
6 Q 62 However I think there were difficulties experienced in development, in the
7 development of the science and technology park, isn't is that right?
8 A It it didn't materialise.
9 Q 63 At all? Is there a science and technology park in Carrickmines at the moment?
10:23:56 10 A The first building that was, that arrived I think was Lucent Technologies.
11 Now, whether that would be considered the kind of use that wouldn't have
12 arrived in some other zone and would have been attracted purely to a science
13 and technology zoning, I am not too clear.
14 Q 64 If we -- sorry just in relation to the, before I leave it Ms. Dillon reminds me
10:24:23 15 in relation to the bus corridor, if we could have 7280. This is a specific
16 local objective on map 27. Do you see there number 4, extend bus way/LRT
17 proposal to Wyattville Road?
18 A Yes.
19 Q 65 So it's unlikely that would have sparked the review or the variation, isn't
10:24:48 20 that right?
21 A Well, possibly the consequences of it hadn't been said but to put a bus way
22 through lands zoned at 10 to the acre wouldn't make very much sense.
23 Q 66 That bus corridor, was that to be through the lands or was it on the adjoining
24 Bray Road?
10:25:03 25 A It was on the general line of the old Harcout Street railway.
26 Q 67 Has been that been constructed?
27 A The railway procurement agency is in the process of, I think the EIS has been
28 published. And the railway order has been published.
29 Q 68 What we are talking about is the extension of the Luas, isn't that right?
10:25:20 30 A It's now upgraded to LUAS. Yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 651

11
10:25:22 1 Q 69 But even at this stage it would have necessitated, and I am talking about
2 '93/'94, the creation of a roadway which would have been along the lines of the
3 existing LUAS, isn't that right? Through a field site which hadn't been
4 developed and which had been an objective in the 1993 plan?
10:25:44 5 A Sorry, could you repeat that point?
6 Q 70 In 1993 --
7 A Yes.
8 Q 71 -- in the Development Plan, that was an objective going forward.
9 A Yes.
10:25:53 10 Q 72 Which provided that at some stage in the future, where the old Harcout Street
11 line, that there might be some sort of rapid transport system put in place,
13 A Yes.
14 Q 73 And even now, the LUAS hasn't been brought to Cherrywood?
10:26:08 15 A It's imminent and contributions are being levied to make it happen but I would
16 make the point that at the time in early '90s in particular, the public
17 transport debate was beginning to be, was more -- there was much more
18 discussion of it and it would seem to me that the implications of the provision
19 of a quality bus corridor or subsequently a LUAS, through development lands
10:26:37 20 would require increased densities in any event.
21 Q 74 Yes, and it was debated and discussed and was dealt with in the context of the
22 1993 plan, isn't that right?
23 A It doesn't seem to have been.
24 Q 75 Yes. Well it's a specific local objective of the '93 plan.
10:26:51 25 A The provision of the bus way was the consequent -- density doesn't seem to be
26 realised.
27 Q 76 It's certainly not realised in relation to the balance of the lands through
28 which this bus corridor was to travel and which were to remain zoned at one
29 house to the acre.
10:27:09 30 A Well that's an absurdity.
www.pcr.ie Day 651

12
10:27:12 1 Q 77 At 6054 I think, sorry just before I get to that, if I could have 7050, this is
2 an extract from your submission in 1991.
3 A Yes.
4 Q 78 To the Draft Development Plan. Do you see 4.1.2, "The basis of physical
10:27:41 5 planning is the relationship between land use and transport. The creation of a
6 high capacity transport system is presumably intended to make the city centre
7 and the city regions as accessible as possible to the maximum number of
8 people."
9 A That's correct.
10:27:54 10 Q 79 So you were making submissions on the basis of a transport, increased transport
11 system as far back as 1991, isn't that right?
12 A Yes.
13 Q 80 And that was on behalf of Monarch?
14 A Yes.
10:28:06 15 Q 81 And Monarch were briefing councillors at that time and subsequently, isn't that
16 right? And presumably they were briefing them based on submissions and advice
17 being given to them by others, other professionals, including yourself, isn't
18 that right?
19 A Presumably.
10:28:20 20 Q 82 And this was available to them as a possible inducement to increase the density
21 on the lands, isn't that right?
22 A Possibly.
23 Q 83 If I could come to 6054. This is a memo of July 1996, the review necessitated
24 by the science and technology park has taken place in April 1995 and now we are
10:28:50 25 a year on and we are also into the review of the 1993 plan. And you see there
26 on the second part of the first paragraph, where they are dealing with how they
27 might approach the manager in relation to existing zonings, they say:
28
29 "The matters need to be addressed if zoning is to be enhanced. It is necessary
10:29:10 30 to re-establish a good working relationship with the county manager to overcome
www.pcr.ie Day 651

13
10:29:15 1 his embarrassment of having piloted changes in the Development Plan to achieve
2 a science and technology park and then find the parties are reluctant to
3 proceed with the venture. The manager will not be cooperative until and unless
4 the science and technology park moves ahead."
10:29:28 5
6 You see what I'm suggesting to you, Mr. McCabe and whether it was intended or
7 otherwise, that the Monarch devised a strategy of putting or placing a science
8 and technology park on these lands and that on the back of that they got the
9 cooperation of the manager and presumably the councillors, to increase density
10:29:47 10 on the lands: The science and technology park never materialised and now in
11 July 1996 as you go into the review of the 1993 plan, they find themselves in a
12 situation where they have lost favour with the manager.
13 A But I'm unaware of that debate.
14 Q 84 You are unaware of that debate but you agree with me that is exactly what
10:30:10 15 actually happened, isn't is that right?
16 A Well if an objective is put into a Development Plan a zoning objective, then
17 the planning authority is bound to pursue it.
18 Q 85 The manager had gone out own a limb presumably to try and create employment
19 within his district and he had promoted this science and technology park. He
10:30:27 20 had become a joint venture holder in the park, there had been consequences
21 which had benefited Monarch but the park had never been created, is that right?
22 A As said, I think one or two of the buildings that arrived would be of science
23 and technology nature but -- and I have never seen a science and technology
24 park but I don't know what it looks like but I think I generally agree with you
10:30:55 25 the science and technology park didn't arrive.
26 Q 86 But the increased zoning had arrived?
27 A I would again suggest that was for a different reason. More to do with public
28 transport.
29 Q 87 Yes. You think that the increased zoning and the variation of the 1993 plan,
10:31:10 30 which occurred in '95 occurred as a result of increased transport?
www.pcr.ie Day 651

14
10:31:19 1 A I would think that as the debate went on, that the penny dropped more regarding
2 the implications of provision of public transport for residential densities.
3 Q 88 Yes. Now, I think that there was a review of the '98 plan, sorry the '93 plan
4 and there were again the Monarch lands had the density restrictions removed,
10:31:40 5 isn't that right? The science and technology park was increased and there was
6 effectively an increase in density brought about in the 1998 plan, isn't that
7 right?
8 A The density caps were removed.
9 Q 89 Yes. And you were involved and you made submissions in relation to that.
10:31:57 10 A I believe I did.
11 Q 90 On behalf of Monarch.
12 A Yes.
13 Q 91 Thank you very much, Mr. McCabe.
14
10:32:03 15 CHAIRMAN: I think Mr. Sanfey wants to ask you a few questions.
16
17 MR. SANFUI: Chairman, in fact I don't intend asking any questions, Mr. McCabe
18 dealt with everything in evidence.
19
10:32:15 20 CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, sorry to bring you back.
21 A Not at all, thank you, sir.
22
24
10:32:22 25 MS. DILLON: Mr. William Murray please.
26
27
28
29
30
www.pcr.ie Day 651

15
10:32:25 1 MR. WILLIAM MURRAY, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS EXAMINED
4 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Mr. Murray
10:32:56 5 A Good morning, chairman.
7 Q 92 MS. DILLON: Good morning, Mr. Murray, thank you very much for attending the
8 Tribunal. I think Mr. Murray, you have previously given evidence to the
9 Tribunal in connection with the O'Halloran Darragh Kilcoyne lands and the
10:33:08 10 Paisley Park rezoning, isn't that right?
11 A That's correct.
12 Q 93 And in the area of land that was concerned in that module or those two pieces
13 of land were fairly close to the Monarch lands which were the subject of this
14 Module, isn't that right?
10:33:22 15 A Correct.
16 Q 94 And can I take it and account Tribunal take it, that you affirm the evidence
17 you have already given in relation to the Carrickmines I Module?
18 A Yes.
19 Q 95 And in the course of that evidence, you will recollect, Mr. Murray, that there
10:33:34 20 was some discussion about the origin of a map called DP90/123?
21 A Yes.
22 Q 96 And it was your view I think and correct me if I am wrong, that was a map that
23 was prepared by the planners, is that right?
10:33:47 25 Q 97 And did you accept that any particular submission or any particular matter
26 would have had a bearing or a significant bearing on that map, can you
27 remember?
28 A Would I accept that it had, I don't know whether to yes or no or to that. It
29 wouldn't have had a bearing, any submissions wouldn't have had a bearing,
10:34:10 30 that's the answer.
www.pcr.ie Day 651

16
10:34:11 1 Q 98 If I can just show you the map at 6937, Mr. Murray, and it will come up on
2 screen beside you. Now it's a slightly feint copy of DP90/123 but I think you
3 will be reasonably familiar with DP90/123?
4 A Yes.
10:34:32 5 Q 99 And outlined and hatched in red on that map are the outline of the Monarch
6 lands at Carrickmines.
7 A Right.
8 Q 100 Do you see that?
9 A Yes.
10:34:40 10 Q 101 Now, the map DP90/123 was a fairly radical proposal from the planners in
11 relation to increasing the amount of residentially zoned land and increasing
12 the amount of industrially zoned land, isn't that right?
14 Q 102 Now, if we just take a few items off that map, Mr. Murray, the first thing that
10:35:04 15 has happened is the line of the motorway, is that blue line on that which is
16 the line of the motorway, is that now in the same position as it was in the
17 1983 plan?
18 A I couldn't tell you, you would have to put the two up.
19 Q 103 All right. I will give you the 1983 plan, page 6875. Or perhaps a better map
10:35:31 20 would be 6876. Now, you see outlined in the red to the right of the screen
21 there's an outline of the Monarch lands, do you see that? To the left of the
22 screen, I beg your pardon, do you see that where the cursor is?
23 A Yes.
24 Q 104 And do you see the line of the motorway plotted through the Monarch lands if we
10:36:07 25 could have page 6877 please, it might assist Mr. Murray. This is an enlarged
26 extract from the 1983 plan, Mr. Murray.
27 A That's better.
28 Q 105 Is that clearer?
29 A Yes.
10:36:18 30 Q 106 Now, you will see there the proposed line of the motorway bisects the Monarch
www.pcr.ie Day 651

17
10:36:23 1 lands, isn't that right?
2 A Yes.
3 Q 107 And if you go to DP90/123 at page 6937, you will see that the blue line which
4 is the motorway line is beneath or south of the Monarch lands, isn't that
10:36:39 5 right?
6 A That's right.
7 Q 108 It would follow from that then that the line of the motorway has moved, isn't
8 that right?
9 A That's correct.
10:36:45 10 Q 109 All right. Now, can you outline to the Tribunal the reasons as to why the line
11 of the motorway was moved on the map at DP90/123?
12 A The line of the motorway didn't become fixed until quite some number of years
13 after that and various studies and various reports would have been prepared and
14 various lines drawn by the engineers for the road over the period as the lands
10:37:15 15 were being examined. What you see on the map there was the then current best
16 thinking in relation to the road line in the county council.
17 Q 110 And certainly you had received a detailed submission in November 1989 from
18 Monarch Properties Limited, isn't that right? The planning department had
19 received that. You will have seen that in the documentation and it's in
10:37:38 20 Ms. Collins' statement which you refer in your own statement, Mr. Murray, is
21 that right?
22 A Yes.
23 Q 111 In that it was suggested one of the matters that was suggested was a change in
24 the density, the residential density, an introduction of retail, an
10:37:52 25 introduction of a business or industrial park, and in order to facilitate all
26 of that, the moving of the line of the motorway off the Monarch lands. Would
27 you agree Mr. Murray, that from Monarch's point of view, it would have served
28 their interests better to get the line of the motorway moved beneath their
29 lands? Doesn't that follow?
10:38:12 30 A Oh it would, yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 651

18
10:38:15 1 Q 112 Because it had been agreed by the council that the development would stop at
2 the line of the motorway, isn't that right?
3 A I am not so sure that's correct.
4 Q 113 Up to the line of the 1983 motorway as it then was, was it not agreed by the
10:38:28 5 council that the residential development would stop at the line of the
6 motorway?
7 A I don't think that's correct. Now, in terms of the whole motorway certainly,
8 maybe some particular stretches.
9 Q 114 And certainly in December of 1990, the effect of the motion before the council
10:38:47 10 was to leave zoning at the 1983 line, isn't that right? Certainly the
11 document --
12 A That was a motion in the course of the consideration of the review, yes.
13 Q 115 But certainly it appears to be the position on the understanding of the
14 councillors who have given evidence that even prior to that, that the decision
10:39:08 15 had been made that development would only take place up to the line of the
16 motorway?
17 A In parts of the Carrickmines area, that's true, yes.
18 Q 116 And that would have covered the Monarch lands, isn't that right?
19 A In this, in the case of this map, yes.
10:39:23 20 Q 117 And indeed if one looks at the residential zoning maps, the residential map, if
21 one looks at the map I think prepared in May of 1991, at 7018, if that can be
22 turned the correct way please.
23
24 Now, this is a map DP90/129A which I will come back to but what I want to draw
10:40:00 25 your attention to, Mr. Murray, in relation to -- if you just look at that map
26 and I will give you an increased, a closer, blown up version of that map is at
27 7019. If you just have the map on screen normal size will do fine please.
28 Thank you very much.
29 What I want to draw to your attention, Mr. Murray, just in relation to the
10:40:54 30 development to the line of the motorway because the Tribunal has been told by a
www.pcr.ie Day 651

19
10:40:56 1 number of councillors that it was their understanding following the making of
2 the 1983 Development Plan, that residential development as permitted under the
3 1983 Development Plan went as far as the line of the motorway as it then was in
4 the '83 plan. And do you see on that map the black line that cuts through the
10:41:14 5 old 1983 line cutting through the Monarch Properties lands?
6 A Yes.
7 Q 118 And you will see that the residential zoning from the 1983 plan is confined to
8 the west, to the east of that line, isn't that right?
9 A Yes.
10:41:27 10 Q 119 And that would appear to support the information that has been provided to the
11 Tribunal that development under the 1983 plan was confined to the east of the
12 1983 line, isn't that right?
13 A In the Cherrywood area.
14 Q 120 In the Cherrywood area which is what we are concerned about?
10:41:44 15 A Right.
16 Q 121 Would you agree then, Mr. Murray, insofar as these lands are concerned or the
17 Monarch lands are concerned, that the position on the ground from 1983 before
18 the review of the plan took place was that the importance of the Southeastern
19 Motorway line in that location was that it determined the level of development.
10:42:05 20 A Yes.
21 Q 122 So that any person who owned land, the further west they could move the line,
22 the more land was available for development?
23 A Well that follows.
24 Q 123 Yes. And indeed on that map, it can be seen that there is, there are two
10:42:21 25 lines, the 1983 line and then a revised line.
26 A Yes.
27 Q 124 Do you see that? But if we go back to the original question Mr. Murray which
28 related to DP90/123 and I think you have agreed that the line of the motorway
29 has been moved, isn't that right?
10:42:45 30 A Yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 651

20
10:42:47 1 Q 125 Isn't that right? At 6937. Now, according to what had been established in the
2 19 -- stated in the 1983 plan, if DP90/123 had been adopted by the council,
3 Mr. Murray, the effect of that, on the Cherrywood lands and on the Monarch
4 Properties lands would have been the following, there would have been a town
10:43:10 5 centre zoning. Coloured red on the map, is that right?
6 A Yes.
7 Q 126 There would have been an area of industrial zoning on the Monarch lands
8 immediately adjacent to the town centre zoning.
9 A Yes.
10:43:25 10 Q 127 There would have been a distributor road that was feeding into the Southeastern
11 Motorway.
12 A Yes.
13 Q 128 And the balance of the lands within the Monarch take would have been zoned
14 residential at normal densities.
10:43:38 15 A Either residential or amenity, recreation.
16 Q 129 The only -- yes, that's the green area, the small green area, isn't that right,
17 near Tully Church?
18 A It looks blue to me.
19 Q 130 If you look at the outline of the Monarch lands, do you see that there's a kind
10:43:57 20 of a dotted green area immediately south of the interchange between the
21 motorway and the Monarch lands, where the cursor is?
22 A Yes.
23 Q 131 That is in the vicinity of Tully Church, isn't that right?
24 A It's hard to read the map, it probably is.
10:44:18 25 Q 132 A small portion of that green area abuts into the Monarch property lands on
26 that map, isn't that right?
27 A Yes.
28 Q 133 So that what was being proposed by the planners in connection with the
29 Carrickmines Valley but particularly for the Monarch property lands, was the
10:44:34 30 following, a neighbourhood centre, an industrial area, increased residential
www.pcr.ie Day 651

21
10:44:39 1 density to normal levels, isn't that right?
2 A Yes.
3 Q 134 And a small area of high amenity adjoining Tully Church, isn't that right?
4 A Yes.
10:44:51 5 Q 135 Now, what had been sought by Monarch Properties in their submission to the
6 council was summarised in a portion of the document at 6912, a detailed
7 document was provided to the planning officials of the council and set out at
8 paragraph 7.1, 7.12 and 7.13 were matters that were being sought by Monarch
9 consisted of 1, a neighbourhood structure of 5 to 6,000 persons stretching from
10:45:32 10 Cherrywood to Lehaunstown to Carrickmines Great with a local centre, shops
11 school and church, so that was seeking residential, isn't that right?
12 A What's the date on that please?
13 Q 136 It's November 1989.
14 A Yes.
10:45:44 15 Q 137 Isn't that right?
16 A Yes.
17 Q 138 The second matter that was sought was a substantial commercial centre of ten
18 hectares to serve the southeast area of the site with direct access on to the
19 Wyattville Road extension?
10:45:58 20 A Yes.
21 Q 139 And the third thing was a business or industrial park of 11 and a half
22 hectares, isn't that right?
23 A Yes.
24 Q 140 Would it be fair to and correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Murray, that in DP90/123
10:46:13 25 that substantially, the council were giving Monarch or agreeing with what
26 Monarch had sought?
27 A That's how it looks.
28 Q 141 Isn't that right? And I want to draw to your attention what Mr. Eddie Sweeney
29 said in statement to the Tribunal and Mr. Richard Lynn because Mr. Lynn and
10:46:32 30 Mr. Sweeney have stated in their statements and will tell the Tribunal that
www.pcr.ie Day 651

22
10:46:37 1 they believed that the planners had accepted their submission and had adopted
2 it and produced a map which they brought to the council, do you agree with
3 that? That DP90/123 was partly as a result of a submission made by Monarch
4 Properties?
10:46:54 5 A Well as I said at the beginning, I don't have any specific recollection of
6 taking their submission and implementing it in terms of bringing it into the
7 plan.
8 Q 142 Well Mr. Eddie Sweeney will tell the Tribunal apparently at page 2186 that the
9 Monarch proposal --
10:47:16 10 A Can I just say that my role in this particular part of the plan was of a
11 supervisory sort of a role and I didn't directly draw up in the draft of the
12 plan.
13 Q 143 Indeed, yes, but we will see how you come to speak to it to the councillors and
14 explain it a moment Mr. Murray?
10:47:36 15 A Absolutely but it was drawn up by others and brought forward.
16 Q 144 But you were the person who brought it to the council?
17 A If there was a link or connection between some submission that may have come in
18 which and the plan itself, it's not a link that I was aware of.
19 Q 145 Be that as it may, Mr. Murray, I mean you were the deputy planning officer at
10:48:06 20 the time, isn't that correct?
21 A Yes.
22 Q 146 And when the map and the manager's report was brought to the councillors, you
23 were the person who was called upon by the manager to explain the contents of
24 the map and answer any queries arising from the councillors' considerations,
10:48:12 25 isn't that right?
26 A Yes.
27 Q 147 Right. So that whoever might have prepared the map is really irrelevant
28 because you are the person who stood over the map before the councillors, isn't
29 that right?
10:48:22 30 A It's not irrelevant if you are looking for a link between a submission and what
www.pcr.ie Day 651

23
10:48:24 1 went on to the map.
2 Q 148 I am not, I think you misunderstand me, Mr. Murray, I am not looking for any
3 link in relation to anything, I am trying to see whether or not when you have
4 considered the documents and you have looked at the map, whether you now at
10:48:40 5 this point in time accept that it would appear that the planners, for whatever
6 reason, accepted the submission that was made by Monarch and replicated that in
7 DP90/123?
8 A You could take that, it would appear, yes. It would. I mean that's one
9 explanation of it, yes.
10:48:59 10 Q 149 Is there another explanation you would like to offer to the Tribunal,
11 Mr. Murray?
12 A I don't know, as I say, I mean it's a question of fact whether there was a link
13 or not and I am saying to you is that I can't make that link, I didn't do that
14 part of the work.
10:49:12 15 Q 150 Yes.
16 A I stood over the final plan because I was a deputy planning officer and agreed
17 with it. But I mean the submissions, the likes of submissions that come in
18 from anybody, in those days there was piles of them, they just got buried and
19 if they were read once, that was it.
10:49:29 20 Q 151 But certainly insofar as Monarch were concerned at 2186, Mr. Murray, sorry not
21 Mr. Murray, Mr. Sweeney will tell the Tribunal in the second paragraph that the
22 Monarch proposals generally were accepted by the planners and were therefore
23 officially recommended by them to the county manager to be subsequently
24 reflected in his report to the council and I understand that Mr. Sweeney there
10:49:51 25 is talking about the submission that was made in 1989 which was subsequently
26 reflected in DP90/123?
27 A That's his view but as I said to you, I can't confirm to you whether or not
28 there was a direct link between the submission and the draft.
29 Q 152 And indeed at 1384, Mr. Richard Lynn, whom I believe you would have met on a
10:50:10 30 number of occasions, Mr. Murray, you would have met Mr. Lynn on a number of
www.pcr.ie Day 651

24
10:50:15 1 occasions, is that right?
2 A That is right.
3 Q 153 And Mr. Lynn will tell the Tribunal in the centre of that page, "A submission
4 was made to Dublin County Council proposed Draft Development Plan based on the
10:50:27 5 work of the above team and that submission was accepted by the county manager
6 and formed part of the manager's report to the council of October 1990, titled
7 the Carrickmines Valley action plan." Now, I suggest to you that the only
8 matter that Mr. Lynn could be discussing there is DP90/123 because that's the
9 only map and the report that goes with it that was brought to the council in
10:50:48 10 October 1990, isn't that right?
11 A I am confused now about Carrickmines Valley action plan.
12 Q 154 Well leaving that --
13 A 1990.
14 Q 155 Well the only matter that was brought to the council in 1990 in connection with
10:51:03 15 the Cherrywood area was DP90/123 and the report that went with it, Mr. Murray,
17 A That was part of the whole Development Plan review process, there was numerous
18 reports and numerous -- well maybe went on to -- I don't know the dates but
19 there were a lot of reports, it was an ongoing process, it wasn't the only
10:51:25 20 thing that was brought up.
21 Q 156 Just in relation to the point that you made about the submission that was made
22 by Monarch Properties to Dublin County Council at 2952, Mr. Richard Lynn is
23 told by Mr. Fergal McCabe of Mr. McCabe's belief that the submission was being
24 considered seriously by the council. And I think indeed that there's
10:52:02 25 correspondence from the council saying that they had received the submission
26 and that it was being examined critically. Would you have seen the submission
27 at all, Mr. Murray?
28 A I must have I suppose but I have no specific recollection of it.
29 Q 157 I think when the matter came before the council on the 16th November 1990, at
10:52:22 30 6949 and this was the second meeting to consider the Carrickmines Valley, the
www.pcr.ie Day 651

25
10:52:35 1 proposals, the third paragraph, sorry the second paragraph under the heading
2 "Chairman", says "The proposals shown on DP90/123 were further explained by
3 Mr. Willie Murray and overhead slides illustrating the zoning of the area were
4 shown." Isn't that right?
10:52:56 5 A Yes.
6 Q 158 So it would follow from that that you were explaining DP90/123 to the
7 councillors?
8 A Yes.
9 Q 159 And I think at the earlier meeting, which had considered first considered the
10:53:07 10 Carrickmines Valley was the meeting of the 18th October at 6930 and at 6934 of
11 that, in dealing with -- this is the report that explains DP90/123, you will
12 see there under the heading residential "development" that the lands zoned for
13 residential development would accommodate a population of 30,000 and it
14 represents an additional population and it talks about two shopping centres,
10:53:46 15 one at Ballyogan and a new one at Cherrywood, isn't that right?
16 A Yes.
17 Q 160 And then at 6935 in the second last paragraph, it was recommended that the
18 approach be adopted and in the final paragraph "The manager indicated the
19 planning officer would prepare a supplementary report" and you provided that
10:54:06 20 report to the meeting of, we have already dealt with it, on the 16th November.
21 A Yes.
22 Q 161 Would you agree, Mr. Murray, that it's likely that one of the factors that was
23 taken into account in formulating the proposals in connection with the
24 Carrickmines Valley were the submission made by Monarch Properties?
10:54:27 25 A It certainly looks like that.
26 Q 162 The moving of the line of the motorway even on DP90/123 would have facilitated
27 development on all of the Monarch lands, is that right?
28 A Yes.
29 Q 163 Because once they were to the east of the motorway line, according to what had
10:54:44 30 been agreed in 1983, they were open for development, isn't that right?
www.pcr.ie Day 651

26
10:54:50 1 A Well you know it would have to be agreed again, I mean that was, '83 was '83
2 and there was a line there and that was the line. A different line might cause
3 a different view to be taken by the council. Depending on other
4 considerations, it's not just simply a matter of where the line is.
10:55:08 5 Q 164 Yes but as people understood matters.
6 A If the same policy were to continue through, yes but it mightn't have.
7 Q 165 But as matters stood at the time, in October 1990, the stated council position
8 following the making of the '83 plan until the '83 plan was actually changed,
9 was that development would stop at the line of the Southeastern Motorway?
10:55:30 10 A Yes, as shown on the '83 plan.
11 Q 166 As shown on the '83 plan.
12 A It didn't say anything about moving it.
13 Q 167 Correct.
14 A Or where the development would stop if it were moved, it's a different point.
10:55:40 15 Q 168 Yes. But insofar as the Carrickmines Valley area was concerned and where the
16 Monarch lands are situate in particular, the position as far as those lands are
17 concerned, is that development would stop at the line of the motorway, at that
18 point in time?
19 A The 1983 development was to stop at the line of the motorway which was in the
10:56:00 20 centre of the Monarch lands. If the motorway were to move, it's a different
21 planning story.
22 Q 169 Yes.
23 A There's no reasons to that development would move with it or not move with it.
24 Everything has to be considered at the time of making a plan. So the movement
10:56:15 25 of the motorway would give rise to consideration of what was the appropriate
26 land use in the vicinity. You can't say a policy was adopted in 1983 that
27 would automatically apply later on.
28 Q 170 No but what I am saying if the motorway wasn't moved, it was going to cut the
29 Monarch lands in two, isn't that right?
10:56:36 30 A Yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 651

27
10:56:37 1 Q 171 It wasn't moved and whatever decision might be taken if that position were to
2 pertain, the existing position, if there was no change in the line of the
3 motorway, was that development would stop at the line of the motorway.
4 A Yes.
10:56:50 5 Q 172 Right. So one or two things would have to happen, there would either have to
6 be a change of the policy in of the council in relation to the development west
7 of the motorway or there would have to be a move in the line of the motorway?
8 A Yes.
9 Q 173 And in DP90/123, the line of the motorway was moved?
10:57:07 10 A Yes.
11 Q 174 And that would, if it had been implemented, if DP90/123 had been adopted by the
12 council and accepted as an appropriate draft plan to put on display, that map
13 would have benefited land owners, including Monarch, isn't that right?
14 A That's right, not only did the motorway move on that map but the policy of
10:57:27 15 stopping development at the motorway was abandoned.
16 Q 175 But that wasn't accepted by the council, isn't that right?
17 A That's correct, that's correct.
18 Q 176 And it was rejected in December of 1990.
10:57:39 20 Q 177 And the decision that was made by the council was recorded at 6953 and at the
21 bottom of that, the motion that was successful which was that the draft
22 development for 1990 be prepared on the basis of limiting zoning development
23 east to the Southeastern Motorway proposed line and then it sets out certain
24 other matters that are taken into account, but effectively but would you agree,
10:58:10 25 Mr. Murray, that was a rejection of DP90/123?
26 A Oh yes.
27 Q 178 And the council having come up with DP90/123 is now being instructed to prepare
28 a map based on the 1983 plan and take account of developments that have
29 actually occurred?
10:58:25 30 A Yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 651

28
10:58:25 1 Q 179 And that map I think was presented to the council in January of 1991 and was
2 noted by the council, isn't that right?
3 A Yes.
4 Q 180 Yes. However in May of 1991, another planning map was prepared for the area
10:58:41 5 DP90/129A, isn't that right?
6 A Yes.
7 Q 181 Which is at 7018. And this again covers the Carrickmines Valley, isn't that
8 right?
9 A Yes.
10:58:59 10 Q 182 And I will show you an extract of that which relates to the subject lands at
11 7019. And the lands outlined in red are the Monarch lands.
12 A Yes.
13 Q 183 And again, can I just draw to your attention that on this map which is entitled
14 "adjustments to the 1983 plan to form basis of 1991 draft" do you see that?
10:59:23 15 A Yes.
16 Q 184 And that would have been in accordance with the instruction that was given in
17 December 1990, isn't that right?
18 A With the motion, yes.
19 Q 185 Now, what adjustment is being taken account of there, can you explain,
10:59:34 20 Mr. Murray, that moves the line of the motorway off the Monarch lands?
21 A Well, there's a revised line for motorway shown which moves the motorway off
22 the Monarch lands.
23 Q 186 Yes. Just looking at that map, the motorway line that bisects the Monarch
24 lands is the 1983 line, isn't that right?
10:59:58 25 A Yes.
26 Q 187 And there is then a broken black line which is described as revised line for
27 motorway.
28 A Yes.
29 Q 188 And it commences outside the Monarch lands at a junction further back, isn't
11:00:09 30 that right, at the top of the map?
www.pcr.ie Day 651

29
11:00:16 1 A It, it --
2 Q 189 It leaves the '83 line and rejoins the '83 line at a point beneath the Monarch
4 A Yes.
11:00:26 5 Q 190 Would it be fair to and correct me if I am wrong, that what that line appears
6 to be doing is moving the motorway off the Monarch lands?
7 A It does move the motorway off the Monarch lands.
8 Q 191 Yes. Why was that suggested as a line, can you remember, Mr. Murray?
9 A No, I can't, I can remember that there were a lot of studies being done by the
11:00:48 10 roads department in relation to the appropriate line for the motorway based on
11 all of the transportation objectives that they wanted to achieve with the
12 motorway and based on how it might link back to Dun Laoghaire and based on the
13 sort of landscape it was going through and the effect it would have on that
14 landscape.
11:01:06 15 So I don't know precisely where the dotted line came from in or who it came
16 from but it would have been generated internally in the county council by the
17 roads department.
18 Q 192 Well you would have known the area, isn't that right, you were the deputy
19 planning officer for this area at that time.
11:01:23 20 A Yes.
21 Q 193 You would have known at this stage that the owner of the lands outlined in red
22 were Monarch Properties.
23 A Yes.
24 Q 194 And you would have known, I assume, that the owner of the adjoining lands was
11:01:35 25 Mr. Galvin, who -- the lands subsequently became known as the golf course
27 A Yes.
28 Q 195 And correct me if I am wrong but what has occurred on this map which emanated
29 from the planning department of Dublin County Council was to move the line of
11:01:50 30 the motorway or the revised line of the motorway off Monarch Properties's lands
www.pcr.ie Day 651

30
11:01:56 1 and put it on to the Galvin's lands?
2 A That's is the result of the revision that was made to the motorway line, yes.
3 Q 196 So that the two landowners who were directly affected by this change are
4 Monarch Properties on the one hand and Mr. Galvin on the other hand?
11:02:14 5 A And others, yes.
6 Q 197 But the two largest landowners were affected, isn't that right?
7 A Yes.
8 Q 198 And it follows does it not, that what would have a beneficial effect on one
9 mighty equally have a detrimental effect on the other?
11:02:29 10 A Yes.
11 Q 199 Because if the line of the motorway was going to cut through Mr. Galvin's lands
12 it was going to have an effect on his plans for the government course?
13 A Yes.
14 Q 200 But what this map is suggesting is a revised line for the motorway which has
11:02:40 15 the effect of moving the motorway, be it a notional line or otherwise off the
16 Monarch Properties lands and into Mr. Galvin's lands?
17 A That's the effect of it. Yes.
18 Q 201 And can you give any reason to the Tribunal why that decision would have been
19 made by the planning department in May of 1991?
11:02:57 20 A The decision arose out of a revised road line as being the appropriate road
21 line at that particular time reflecting the current thinking in the roads
22 department. It's not even how it ended up. It moved further up and it's
23 constructed now further out. It was a very movable feast at that time and
24 could have gone anywhere. It at one stage it went down right down parallel to
11:03:20 25 the N11 and very close to. There were numerous lines throughout those years
26 and that was just the current one at that time which we were asked to
27 incorporate.
28 Q 202 Who asked you to incorporate it?
29 A Well that line would have come from the roads department.
11:03:33 30 Q 203 But certainly looking at the map in its simplest form, it really only affects
www.pcr.ie Day 651

31
11:03:37 1 two landowners?
2 A It has the effect you describe definitely but that's not the cause.
3 Q 204 What is the cause?
4 A The cause is considerations of road design.
11:03:46 5 Q 205 Well what consideration?
6 A The planners don't draw motorways.
7 Q 206 I am not suggesting that they do but this is a map that comes from the planning
8 department, isn't that right?
9 A The map but it's made up of inputs from others and the revised line of the
11:04:00 10 motorway could have come from nobody except the county engineer.
11 Q 207 The second thing that's happening there and this is a planning matter and you
12 might be able to assist in in relation to that, Mr. Murray, there's a change
13 proposed there of a change in zoning density effectively, it's not a change,
14 it's only from AS/1 to AP?
11:04:19 15 A Yes.
16 Q 208 And the AS/1 is residential septic tank one house to the acre.
17 A Yes, is there a key?
18 Q 209 Not on this map unfortunately, but I can get you a key off the '83 plan but S/1
19 was septic tank one house to the acre.
11:04:37 20 A Yes.
21 Q 210 And then the change that is proposed is AP which is residential, pipe on piped,
23 A Yes.
24 Q 211 And the density on the legend and I will goat you the legend is four houses to
11:04:49 25 the acre or ten houses to the hectare which I understand was regarded as low
26 density?
27 A Yes.
28 Q 212 If you go north on that map, you see a second AS/1 to AP, do you see that?
29 A Yes.
11:05:00 30 Q 213 And these lands are all of the lands that were zoned residential in the '83
www.pcr.ie Day 651

32
11:05:04 1 plan, isn't that right?
2 A Yes.
3 Q 214 So what was being proposed by the planning department was a change from septic
4 tank to piped sewerage for the Carrickmines Valley?
11:05:16 5 A Yes.
6 Q 215 And that arose I suggest as a result of the decision to bring the, the upgrade
7 of the Shanganagh sewer and the advent of the Carrickmines sewer scheme.
8 A Yes.
9 Q 216 Can you indicate on that map, if you could Mr. Murray, where across the Monarch
11:05:30 10 lands the sewer pipe was going to go.
11 A From recollection, I think it goes up the valley which is the dotted line on
12 the right hand side, close to it there, a bit to the left. I think that's
13 roughly the line of the -- roughly, you go north from there through the peak, a
14 dotted line going northwards.
11:05:54 15 Q 217 The motorway line.
16 A No, inside it, it goes through the top corner, that one yes, I think that's the
17 valley, the Carrickmines Valley, it's hard to read the map but it ran I think
18 up the Carrickmines Valley.
19 Q 218 And it was to go all the way, would it also served the northern lands?
11:06:12 20 A Yes.
21 Q 219 So that if one takes the cursor and goes the whole way up the north, would it
22 have continued in a somewhat straight line and served the northern portion of
23 the lands?
24 A Up as far as about there and it swings off to the west.
11:06:25 25 Q 220 Swings off -- From where?
26 A Somewhere around where the cursor is there.
27 Q 221 But was it designed to serve the northern lands which were also being changed
28 from AS/1 to AP?
29 A Oh yes.
11:06:39 30 Q 222 So that it was intended that all of those lands be serviced by the Carrickmines
www.pcr.ie Day 651

33
11:06:43 1 sewer?
2 A Yes and a great deal of other land also.
3 Q 223 And the sewer was to swing west to serve the Ballyogan lands, is that right?
4 A That's right.
11:06:50 5 Q 224 And was the genesis of this entire pipeline the decision to rezone the
6 Ballyogan lands?
7 A Was the genesis of --
8 Q 225 The introduction of the Carrickmines sewer, Mr. Murray, and the opening up of
9 this land for development arose as a result of a decision to develop the
11:07:08 10 Ballyogan lands, is that right, a commitment to develop the Ballyogan lands?
11 A In part, there were other lands that were zoned which were not serviced, there
12 were a lot of land serviced by way of pumped systems, this is my recollection
13 of it and that was undesirable. And the strategic decision was made to provide
14 a new mains sewer and a new main treatment works.
11:07:32 15 Q 226 And just in relation to the sewer and the treatment works, was that a capital
16 cost, that was going to be a capital cost, is that right? To the council?
17 A Well no, I don't think entirely to the council. I wouldn't be clear on how
18 those things were financed but there was certainly an element of finance from
19 the department.
11:07:51 20 Q 227 What department was that?
21 A Whatever it was called then, Environment and Local Government.
22 Q 228 And for large scale infrastructural developments at that time, the department
23 would have had an input in the provision of money, is that right?
24 A That's my recollection of it, I wouldn't be the expert now in relation to that,
11:08:11 25 they would be matters for the county engineer.
26 Q 229 But you, this map would have been changed in the planning department because of
27 the imminence of the development of the Carrickmines sewer.
28 A Oh, yes.
29 Q 230 That's what led to the change to piped sewerage, even though the pipe wasn't in
11:08:29 30 place.
www.pcr.ie Day 651

34
11:08:29 1 A Oh yes, yes.
2 Q 231 And the effect of that, would it be fair to, it would have been accepted and
3 understood once the sewer went in, all of the lands were going to be opened up
4 for development?
11:08:39 5 A All of --
6 Q 232 The Carrickmines Valley lands that were zoned residential.
7 A Yes.
8 Q 233 And if the 1983, if the line had been changed for the Southeastern Motorway in
9 accordance with the broken line that's outlined on DP90/129A, that would have
11:08:55 10 meant that all of Monarch's lands could have been zoned residential up as far
11 as that line.
12 A Yes.
13 Q 234 Now, I think that that was approved by the council in May of 1991, Mr. Murray,
11:09:07 15 A Yes.
16 Q 235 And it went out on the first public display as the map at 7021. Now, the
17 yellow lands were all of the residentially zoned lands up to the 1983 line and
18 they have now been changed, you will see, to AP, isn't that right?
19 A I will just get to grips with it.
11:09:40 20 Q 236 Mr. Kavanagh will increase and you will see that it's AP.
21 A Yes.
22 Q 237 And that was piped, residential on piped sewerage, isn't that right?
23 A AP, yes.
24 Q 238 And the balance of the Monarch lands which are west of the motorway line are
11:10:01 25 zoned agriculture.
26 A Yes.
27 Q 239 Now, I think a submission was made by Monarch Properties to the plan --
28 A That's west of the '83 motorway line.
29 Q 240 That's correct.
11:10:15 30 A But not the then current one.
www.pcr.ie Day 651

35
11:10:17 1 Q 241 Not the then, no, because you will see again on that map as you point out on
2 that map that the line of the motorway has moved again even slightly further
3 west, isn't that right?
4 A Yes.
11:10:32 5 Q 242 Now, it's completely traversing the golf course lands, isn't that right? What
6 will become the golf course lands?
7 A Well, it hasn't become the golf course lands. It's zoned B at the moment,
8 there was a proposal for a golf course at that time.
9 Q 243 Yes and it became on objective of the council in the making of the 1993 plan
11:10:52 10 that those lands would be used for public golf course, isn't that right?
11 A That's right.
12 Q 244 And I think that was passed unanimously by the council but what has happened to
13 the proposed line of the motorway, is that it has moved further away from the
14 Monarch lands, if I can put it in its simplest terms?
11:11:09 15 A Perhaps, marginally, yes.
16 Q 245 Again there's also provision, again it's a notional line for the Wyattville
17 link, isn't that right?
18 A Yes.
19 Q 246 Cutting through the Monarch lands and that would have provided a link from the
11:11:22 20 N11 down to the motorway.
21 A Yes.
22 Q 247 And that again would have provided access, isn't that right, on to the motorway
23 from the Monarch lands?
24 A If they were getting an access to it, yes, very likely.
11:11:31 25 Q 248 Now, I think a submission was made by Monarch Properties to the Development
26 Plan and in summary what was sought is set out at 7039 and what Monarch sought
27 was that the designation of AP be altered to A1/PS, in other words to ordinary
28 development densities.
29 A Yes.
11:11:59 30 Q 249 And because AP was low density as it then was, isn't that right, Mr. Murray,
www.pcr.ie Day 651

36
11:12:07 1 the second, the zoning zonal boundary between the present residentially lands
2 to the east and the agricultural zoned lands to the west be altered to the line
3 shown on the attached map and then that a new objective to put in a town centre
4 facility or district centre facility be included in the location shown on the
11:12:26 5 attached map and I think that location ultimately became the location of the
6 town centre, 7042. You will see the area marked C in the centre of that map
7 was the area that ultimately became the town centre and that was what was
8 sought.
9 A Oh yes.
11:12:47 10 Q 250 Now, I think that the matter effectively came back in before the council in May
11 of 1992, isn't that right, Mr. Murray?
12 A Yes.
13 Q 251 And there were a number of motions but the first matter that was dealt with was
14 a modification or changes that were proposed by the manager and that is the map
11:13:07 15 at DP92/44 which is page 7203. I am going to show you the original copy of
16 7203, Ms. O' Raw please. (map handed to witness)
17 This map, Mr. Murray, was the map that was produced by the manager, isn't that
18 right? And this map is described as proposed zoning and motorway changes on
19 maps 26 and 27, 1991 Draft Development Plan.
11:14:00 20 A Yes.
21 Q 252 Now, can I suggest to you, Mr. Murray, looking at the map and if we could just
22 have the map back on screen please, looking at the map that the main changes
23 that are suggested by this map affect in the main, only the lands owned by
24 Monarch Properties.
11:14:29 25 A Can I take a step backwards, I'm just not quite sure, are you saying this map
26 was presented to the council?
27 Q 253 Yes.
28 A I don't know, I can't confirm that, it doesn't look like it's in a finished
29 state such as would be presented to the council, it may well have been.
11:14:40 30 Q 254 Yes, if you look at 7207 which will come up on screen beside you now,
www.pcr.ie Day 651

37
11:14:46 1 Mr. Murray. And you will see there proposed by Councillor Lydon and seconded
2 by Councillor McGrath that "The manager's report and the proposed amendments to
3 the draft plan recommended therein and shown on DP92/44" and it sets out what
4 those changes are and "was put to the council" and as happens lost, and if you
11:15:08 5 go back to the map the original of which is in front of you and a copy of which
6 is on screen at 7203, you will note you are looking at DP92/44, isn't that
7 right?
8 A Yes. It didn't look finished to me.
9 Q 255 The report did say if they were prepared to accept it, proper maps would be
11:15:28 10 drawn on foot of it. But looking at it now, Mr. Murray, is it fair to say that
11 the substantial portions of the changes on this map are directed towards the
12 lands of Monarch Properties.
13 A The substantial changes?
14 Q 256 Yes.
11:15:42 15 A Occur on those lands, yes.
16 Q 257 Well we know from the earlier map that we looked at that there were northern
17 lands that are also zoned residential which are not apparently subject to any
18 change by the manager on this map, isn't that right?
19 A That's right.
11:15:58 20
21 JUDGE FAHERTY: Ms. Dillon, would it be possible for Mr. Murray, if you put up
22 7039, the 1991 plan, the one that went out on the first public display, if they
23 could go up side by side if possible.
24
11:16:12 25 MS. DILLON: Mr. Murray could work off the original he has in front of him and
26 he has that and we will work off the 7039 on screen please.
27
28 JUDGE FAHERTY: Just in fairness to himself, the point you are making to him
29 now.
11:16:35 30
www.pcr.ie Day 651

38
11:16:35 1 Q 258 MS. DILLON: Sorry, 7021. You see on screen beside you, Mr. Murray, at 7021,
2 these are the residentially zoned lands in the Carrickmines Valley that were
3 residentially zoned in 1983 and which as a result of DP90/129A are now zoned AP
4 and they went out on the first public display.
11:17:04 5 A Yes.
6 Q 259 The manager bring before the council through the planning department changes
7 that he proposes to the 1991 map and they are contained on map 92/44 which you
8 have in front of you?
9 A Yes.
11:17:13 10 Q 260 Now, what I had asked you was this, would you agree that the main change, the
11 substantial thrust of DP92/44 is directed towards the Monarch Properties'
12 lands?
13 A Just can I clarify what changes you are talking about?
14 Q 261 Well the suggestion that the zoning density would be changed from AP to A1P
11:17:41 15 encompasses in the main the Monarch property lands and not the balance of the
16 residentially zoned lands in the Carrickmines Valley, isn't that correct?
17 A That's correct, yes.
18 Q 262 In fact if you look at the map that's on screen to your left, which is 7021 I
19 think, you will see that all of the lands coloured yellow is zoned residential
11:17:59 20 and if you go back to look at DP92/44 you will see that the changes proposed by
21 the manager to changing the density from AP to A1P relate substantially only to
22 the Monarch lands?
23 A Perhaps I will clarify, I am not sure what you mean when you say change in the
24 density. AP was to be four to the acre on piped services. A1P is the same
11:18:28 25 density as far as I recollect, four to the acre but that the lands must be
26 subject to action area plan. That's the implication of the one.
27 Q 263 And that action area plan --
28 A So all -- to the extent that the Monarch lands are affected, it means that the
29 lands within the Cherrywood area are to be the subject of an action area plan.
11:18:54 30 Q 264 And the action area plan will make provision for retail, neighbourhood
www.pcr.ie Day 651

39
11:18:58 1 facilities, shopping, schools, houses, matters such as that sort?
2 A That's correct.
3 Q 265 And it will come back into the council for approval?
4 A Yes.
11:19:07 5 Q 266 It will be prepared by the planners and it will come back into the council to
6 be approved, isn't that right?
7 A Yes.
8 Q 267 There's no provision in this map for the northern lands to be subject to an
9 area action plan?
11:19:19 10 A No, the view is taken at that point that the area between the valley to the
11 north and the N11 and the Brides Glen and the motorway was a reasonably
12 discrete area and should be subject to its own local area plan and that was the
13 view at that point.
14 Q 268 On DP92/44 the small area to the west of the map, the change that's being
11:19:44 15 proposed there is from B to AP, isn't that right?
16 A Yes.
17 Q 269 That's not a change for action area plan, is that right?
18 A That's right.
19 Q 270 And that's again outside the Monarch take.
11:19:54 20 A Yes.
21 Q 271 And again, if I can ask you just to confirm that what the manager is also
22 proposing is to move again the notional 1983 line somewhat further west and to
23 rezone the lands that were agriculture to A1P again.
24 A That's the, yes, yes.
11:20:16 25 Q 272 And --
26 A It's the first line that you come across to the left of the old line, yes.
27 Q 273 And the effect of that would have been to leave Monarch with a reduced amount
28 of agriculturally zoned land and an increased amount of residentially zoned
29 land, is that right?
11:20:32 30 A Yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 651

40
11:20:32 1 Q 274 All of which residentially zoned land was going to be, if this was passed,
2 subject to an action area plan?
3 A Yes.
4 Q 275 And the action area plan would have -- the planners would have created a plan
11:20:43 5 which would have had to come back into the councillors for their approval.
6 A Yes.
7 Q 276 And the councillors when the action area plan came back into them could have
8 made any changes they liked?
9 A Yes.
11:20:53 10 Q 277 Isn't that the position?
11 A Yes.
12 Q 278 So that effectively, if this had been passed and it's adopted and accepted by
13 the council, the Monarch lands would have been opted out, as it were, of the
14 1993 review.
11:21:08 15 A Well the zoning would have been fixed at A1 and the detail of the further
16 development of the detail of the lands use for the area wouldn't take place in
17 that plan.
18 Q 279 That's right.
19 A Would have been done afterwards.
11:21:23 20 Q 280 Yes and it would have allowed for the council or it would have allowed for the
21 council after the 1993 plan was made, everybody would have known that there was
22 going to be a reconsideration or an immediate reconsideration of the Monarch
23 lands.
24 A If that had been passed, there would have been local area plan, or action area
11:21:43 25 plan prepared, yes.
26 Q 281 That in the event was unsuccessful, isn't that correct, Mr. Murray, the vote
27 was lost?
28 A Right.
29 Q 282 And the council did not accept the manager's changes, isn't that right? You
11:21:59 30 will have seen that in the documentation but they did approve a motion by
www.pcr.ie Day 651

41
11:22:03 1 Councillor Barrett at 7175 please. And Councillor Barrett's motion encompassed
2 all of the residentially zoned lands in the Cherrywood area on map 27, isn't
3 that right?
4 A Yes.
11:22:21 5 Q 283 And Councillor Barrett's motion which was passed was a motion to confine the
6 density of those lands at one house to the acre?
7 A Yes.
8 Q 284 Now, can I ask you this, Mr. Murray, as a professional planner: That went out
9 on the second public display and representations were made about it and it came
11:22:44 10 back in for final consideration by the councillors in November of 1993. If
11 that motion, when a vote was brought in November 1993 seeking to confirm that
12 change and that motion was lost, what was the effect of losing the motion from
13 your point of view, what would the map have been, do you understand the point
14 I'm making?
11:23:12 15 A This map shows one to the acre.
16 Q 285 One to the acre. And --
17 A As per the motion.
18 Q 286 It went out on public display, the second display at one to the acre. A motion
19 was brought seeking to confirm the change.
11:23:27 20 A Can we see that one?
21 Q 287 The motion?
22 A Yes.
23 Q 288 It's November 1993.
24 A And the map.
11:23:34 25 Q 289 Yes. The 7174 no, you are looking for the motion seeking to confirm the change
26 in November 1993.
27 A The one you are asking me about and the map.
28 Q 290 Yes. The motion is at 7224. Now, the first part of that is the motion,
29 "Dublin County Council resolves that the lands referred to as change 3 on map
11:24:08 30 27 be confirmed as low density housing" and change 3 on map 27 can be seen on
www.pcr.ie Day 651

42
11:24:15 1 7218. Sorry, 7217. Now, you will see in the centre of the yellow lands there,
2 3.
3 A Yes.
4 Q 291 And change 3 was the change in density brought about as a result of the
11:24:41 5 successful passing of Mr. Barrett's motion.
6 A Yes.
7 Q 292 And that went on public display and there was then a motion brought by
8 Councillors Buckley and Misteil to confirm change 3.
9 A Right.
11:24:53 10 Q 293 And that was lost?
11 A Right.
12 Q 294 Now, if no other motion had been brought, Mr. Murray, what would the status of
13 those lands have been in the '93 plan?
14 A If the motion to change what went on display was lost, well then it would have
11:25:12 15 been what went on display which was one to the acre.
16 Q 295 It went on display on the first public display, the second -- this is the
17 second public display.
18 A It would be the second public display has it at one to the acre, is that right.
19 Q 296 Has it as one to the acre and that is lost and not confirmed, what takes its
11:25:32 20 place?
21 A It would revert.
22 Q 297 So what had gone on display in 1991, the first public display?
23 A Yes.
24 Q 298 Which would have been four to the acre.
11:25:41 25 A Yes.
26 Q 299 It wouldn't have reverted as I think Mr. Barrett suggested yesterday to what
27 had been on the map in 1983?
28 A No, no, what went on display first was the draft plan which if it was not to be
29 changed would become the plan.
11:25:56 30 Q 300 Yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 651

43
11:25:57 1 A So if it's not changed by this process, well then it would become the plan.
2 Q 301 The sequence here was that the 1991 draft plan had it at four to the acre in
3 the first public display.
4 A Yes.
11:26:09 5 Q 302 As a result of Councillor Barrett's motion, the second public display it's one
6 to the acre, the confirming motion is lost.
7 A Yes.
8 Q 303 And if there had been no other motion, you say it would have reverted to the
9 1991 draft of four to the acre.
11:26:23 10 A Yes.
11 Q 304 And it would not have reverted to the 1983 plan.
13 Q 305 Can I just show you very briefly, Mr. Murray, the motion that was brought in
14 November 1993 at 7227 please. This is the map attached to a motion and I will
11:26:46 15 she you the text in a minute, would you agree the outline of those lands are
17 A Yes.
18 Q 306 And the motion is at 7226. And this motion seeks to accept the county
19 manager's recommendation and delete the 1993 amendment in respect of the lands
11:27:03 20 outlined in red on at attached map and the attached map are the Monarch lands
21 only, is that right, you have just seen it?
22 A Yes.
23 Q 307 And that the balance of the lands remain at two per hectare.
24 A Yes.
11:27:16 25 Q 308 The effect of that motion and what that motion was seeking, Mr. Murray, was to
26 rezone the Monarch lands at four to the acre and the balance of the
27 residentially zoned lands at one to the acre?
28 A Yes.
29 Q 309 Isn't that right? Looking at the plan from your knowledge and experience of
11:27:31 30 the location, what are the reasons that would justify making such a distinction
www.pcr.ie Day 651

44
11:27:36 1 in the residentially zoned lands?
2 A I couldn't, I wouldn't come up with any reasons to make a distinction like
3 that.
4 Q 310 If you look at the map at 7217 and these are the residentially zoned lands in
11:27:57 5 the Carrickmines Valley and from your knowledge of the area, are there any
6 reasons that would justify a zoning of four to the acre for the Monarch lands
7 and that the balance of those lands at one to the acre?
8 A No.
9 Q 311 I think you would agree, I think what happened and you have seen it from the
11:28:19 10 documents and you would know this, that these lands were zoned at the Monarch
11 lands were zoned at four to the acre and the balance of the lands were zoned at
12 one to the acre in the 1983 plan, is that right?
13 A Yes.
14 Q 312 And I think also as a result of a motion brought by Councillor Gilmore A
11:28:35 15 district centre zoning was achieved an a portion of the lands.
17 Q 313 And I think that the manager was not in favour of the district centre zoning,
18 is that right?
19 A I don't know that, I don't know the answer to that.
11:28:49 20 Q 314 I think in May I think the manager had said in May -- sorry, when they came
21 into the confirming meeting, the manager I think had recommended that the
22 amendment be deleted at 7265.
23 A That's the Gilmore's motion?
24 Q 315 Yes, this is when it came back in for the confirming meeting and the manager is
11:29:26 25 giving his report in relation to the rezoning, he recommends the amendment be
26 deleted and the amendment of course is the amendment putting the town centre on
27 the lands, isn't that right?
28 A I think what was proposed there was a town centre, what the manager was saying
29 only retail of a neighbourhood centre scale should be allowed so to put a bald
11:29:49 30 town centre zoning on would be inappropriate. Without any kind of limitation
www.pcr.ie Day 651

45
11:29:55 1 on the retail.
2 Q 316 And that amendment was in fact I think adopted by the councillors and accepted,
3 isn't that right?
4 A There was an amendment there then and the manager would have withdrawn an
11:30:05 5 objection at that point.
6 Q 317 And the effect of that was to cap the retail element at neighbourhood size.
7 A Yes.
8 Q 318 And that became an objective in fact in the written statement.
9 A Yes.
11:30:15 10 Q 319 Now, would it be fair to, Mr. Murray, arising out of what happened in the
11 course of the review of the Development Plan that the best chance that Monarch
12 had of maximising their potential in relation to the lands was DP90/123 had it
13 been accepted?
14 A The best chance?
11:30:40 15 Q 320 Yes. In other words the most benefit would have accrued to the Monarch lands
16 if DP90/123 had been accepted?
17 A You can't just say that. I mean DP90 had the motorway thing going through,
18 just south, off their lands. From a strategic point of view, that whole area
19 was always an area which proper planning and development would require to be
11:31:06 20 zoned and developed at normal densities and for a range of uses. And that's
21 why DP90/123 came along. And their best bet, Monarch's best bet I suppose in
22 terms of what happened subsequently, would have been if that had gone through,
23 yes, if that's what you are asking me.
24 Q 321 That was the question. I mean the most advantageous plan that was put forward
11:31:37 25 from Monarch's point of view in the review of the 1938 plan was DP90/123, the
26 zoning was normal zoning density, it had industrial zoning, it had town centre
27 zoning and it had no Southeastern Motorway, isn't that right?
28 A That's right.
29 Q 322 And when that was unsuccessful, in other words when the councillors did not
11:31:59 30 accept that, it followed that there had to be a second approach by Monarch,
www.pcr.ie Day 651

46
11:32:04 1 isn't that right? They then had to make a submission to the Development Plan.
2 A They did, yes.
3 Q 323 And then it became necessary to have motions prepared by councillors.
4 A Yes, that's the process.
11:32:17 5 Q 324 And that's what happened.
6 A Yes.
7 Q 325 Isn't that right?
8 A Well, you said to have motions prepared, I don't know if they had them prepared
9 but they were certainly prepared.
11:32:27 10 Q 326 Motions that affected the Monarch lands both for and against were brought
11 before the council in May of 1992, isn't that right?
12 A Yes.
13 Q 327 And had the motion that, let's say the pro Monarch motion been successful, it
14 would have had a certain effect but it wasn't successful, isn't that right?
11:32:44 15 A Yes.
16 Q 328 And would it be fair to that the last chance of salvaging anything for Monarch
17 Properties arose when the matter came back in before the council to be
18 confirmed in November 1993?
19 A Yes.
11:32:58 20 Q 329 Isn't that right?
21 A Yes.
22 Q 330 At that stage, they had to get whatever they could, they had to claw back
23 whatever they could, isn't that right?
24 A I imagine so, yes.
11:33:09 25 Q 331 Because if they didn't, they were going to be left with one house to the acre
26 on the 1993 plan.
27 A Yes.
28 Q 332 And any change in connection with that would require a material contravention?
29 A Or a variation.
11:33:19 30 Q 333 Or a variation but a material contravention would require a 75 percent majority
www.pcr.ie Day 651

47
11:33:25 1 of the council, isn't that right?
2 A Yes.
3 Q 334 And whereas a vote on a Development Plan is a simple majority vote, a vote of
4 one will do you, is that right?
11:33:33 5 A Yes.
6 Q 335 So that it became essential for Monarch to ensure insofar as they could that
7 what had happened in May of 1992 with Mr. Barrett's motion was not replicated
8 in November 1993 when the matter came back in before the council.
9 A Yes.
11:33:50 10 Q 336 Can I ask you finally, Mr. Murray, about what you know about the making of the
11 area action plan, you will have heard Mr. Quinn talking about with Mr. McCabe
12 earlier this morning about the action area plan in Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown
13 County Council in early 1994. And can you tell the Tribunal what you recollect
14 of the making of that action area plan?
11:34:28 15 A Of the making of it, how the lines were drawn on the map?
16 Q 337 No, no. How it came to be that there was an action area plan in early 1994?
17 A I think there was an objective in the Development Plan to prepare one.
18 Q 338 Just one second. To be fair to yourself, Mr. Murray, I am not at all sure that
19 that in fact is correct, I will just get you the written statement in relation
11:34:53 20 to map 27. And if we have 7280 please. These are the special objectives in
21 relation to map 27, isn't that right?
22 A I must have been mistaken in relation to that then. I don't, then the answer
23 is I don't recall how work was commenced or why work was commenced.
24 Q 339 Yes. Did you have any discussions with anybody from Monarch Properties as to
11:35:27 25 the making of an action area plan or how an action area plan might arise in the
26 new Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council?
27 A I can't, I don't recall.
28 Q 340 The 1993 Development Plan was made or confirmed on the 10th December 1993, is
29 that right?
11:35:49 30 A Yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 651

48
11:35:50 1 Q 341 And in January of 1994, old Dublin County Council split into three local
2 authority areas, is that right?
3 A Yes.
4 Q 342 There was Fingal, South Dublin and Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council?
11:36:02 5 A Yes.
6 Q 343 And you became at that stage the planning officer for Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown
7 County Council.
8 A Yes.
9 Q 344 And Mr. O' Sullivan became the manager of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County
11:36:12 10 Council.
11 A Yes.
12 Q 345 And you had both previously within the planning officer designate and the
13 manager designate, isn't that right?
14 A Yes.
11:36:21 15 Q 346 And would it be fair to that this land in the Carrickmines Valley was one of
16 the last undeveloped pieces of land within Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County
17 Council?
18 A Well one of the last undeveloped and with access to new sewerage facilities,
19 yes.
11:36:41 20 Q 347 And there were a number of matters that were going to be important in relation
21 to developing any of that land, one was the introduction and actual
22 implementation of the Carrickmines sewer?
23 A Yes.
24 Q 348 And that would require an input from the department of the environment in
11:36:59 25 relation to the provision of money?
26 A That's my recollection. Yeah.
27 Q 349 In determining the speed of the matter could be implemented, the quicker you
28 got the money, the quicker the sewer was going to built?
29 A I would imagine so, it wasn't my area.
11:37:12 30 Q 350 And The other item that was going to be important was determine the line of the
www.pcr.ie Day 651

49
11:37:16 1 motorway?
2 A Yes.
3 Q 351 In the making of the 1993 plan, the council had unanimously adopted a
4 resolution and indeed it became part of the statement that, it became an
11:37:27 5 objective of the council to develop a golf course on the lands at Lehaunstown?
6 A Yes.
7 Q 352 And they were the Sean Galvin lands, isn't that right?
8 A Yes.
9 Q 353 And those lands joined immediately the Monarch property lands.
11:37:38 10 A Yes.
11 Q 354 And a movement of the motorway line off Monarch Properties lands was going to
12 bring it into Mr. Galvin's lands?
13 A Yes.
14 Q 355 And vice versa, if you were take it go off Mr. Galvin's lands, it was either
11:37:53 15 going into the Monarch Properties --
16 A Yes.
17 Q 356 -- was a westerly line, it was even further west than Mr. Galvin's lands.
18 A Well the bit we are talk being, it may still have been on his lands.
19 Q 357 Yes but not cutting it in two?
11:38:07 20 A Cut can it in some fraction.
21 Q 358 Yes, so there would have been certain competing interests that would have to be
22 balanced, is that right? By the planners in approaching this, you have a
23 stated objectivity of the public golf course and you have the residential
24 development with the town centre of on it, both of them brought in under the
11:38:29 25 1993 plan, is that right?
26 A Yes.
27 Q 359 And the line of the south eastern motorway was going to be an important
28 determinant in deciding how things were going to progress in the area?
29 A Yes.
11:38:41 30 Q 360 Right. And at that stage was is still the position that development would stop
www.pcr.ie Day 651

50
11:38:43 1 at the line of the motorway, Mr. Murray?
2 A In that particular location?
3 Q 361 Yes.
4 A Yes.
11:38:46 5 Q 362 So that it was still the council position that once the line was fixed and
6 built, there would be no development to the west of that line?
7 A I don't know was it explicit but it was a fact, yes.
8 Q 363 And that was the understanding of the planning department, isn't that right, in
9 Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council?
11:39:05 10 A Yes.
11 Q 364 And in a way when one looks at it and looking back at it, is that the more land
12 available for actual development would have had a knock-on effect for revenue
13 for the council, is that right?
14 A Revenue in terms of levies?
11:39:23 15 Q 365 Yes. So the more houses you build, the more industry you brought in, the more
16 development there was, then the more revenue stream would be created for the
17 council?
18 A That's right but there were also costs involved. If the revenue was to meet
19 costs, it's not just pure revenue.
11:39:41 20 Q 366 No, no. I mean accepting all of that, but I mean it's a cause and effect, you
21 ever going to have to put a very expensive sewer through the Carrickmines
22 Valley, isn't that right?
23 A Yes.
24 Q 367 Zoning at one house to the acre was unlikely to pay for that by way of
11:39:54 25 development levies?
27 Q 368 Therefore the increase in density that would follow would have assisted in
28 paying for the sewer, if I can put it at its simplest?
29 A Yes.
11:40:04 30 Q 369 There were certain infrastructural matters that had been set out as five year
www.pcr.ie Day 651

51
11:40:09 1 proposals such as the Wyattville Road and the Southeastern Motorway in the 1993
2 plan, isn't that right?
3 A Yes.
4 Q 370 And they were going to have to be paid for, isn't that right?
11:40:22 5 A Yes.
6 Q 371 One of the sources of revenue for the council would have been development.
7 A Yes.
8 Q 372 So the council itself would have had some interest in the line of the motorway
9 as being the end line for development, isn't that right?
11:40:32 10 A Yes.
11 Q 373 Because the more development you got to the east of the line, the better you
12 were in a position to balance your books by way of paying for the
13 infrastructural developments.
14 A Well, yes I suppose so.
11:40:45 15 Q 374 It's simple, isn't it. Now, I think that in January of 1994, in fact the 6th
16 January 1994 at 4923, you are recorded here, Mr. Murray, as informing
17 Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Lafferty of Monarch Properties Limited under the heading 2,
18 where it says "zoning action plan" and I wrote "Willie Murray stated he would
19 expect to have the action plan complete in approximately two months time and it
11:41:16 20 would draw attention to the anomaly of the B zonings, the recommendation would
21 be that this be changed to AP zoning." You see that?
22 A Yes.
23 Q 375 Well first of all, would you agree you must have had a meeting on the 6th of
24 January 1994 with Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Lafferty?
11:41:36 25 A Yes.
26 Q 376 And that you appear there to be telling them there's going to be an action plan
27 and you will have it ready in two months?
28 A Yes.
29 Q 377 Isn't that right? And that you are going to draw the attention to the anomaly
11:41:46 30 of the B zoning.
www.pcr.ie Day 651

52
11:41:47 1 A Yes.
2 Q 378 And an action plan was prepared, isn't that right, by April of 1994?
3 A Yes.
4 Q 379 And I think that is at 2722 and I just want to draw to your attention in the
11:42:11 5 report that speaks to that map, Mr. Murray, at 7473, just on the last paragraph
6 there, the report notes "Two areas of land located between the proposed
7 motorway and residentially zoned land and totalling 26.4 hectares are presently
8 zoned partly B agriculture and partly G high amenity. It is considered this
9 zoning is now somewhat anomalous and these lands should be further examined and
11:42:37 10 they are shown for future consideration on the action plan."
11 A Yes.
12 Q 380 Now, I am drawing to your attention there the use of the words anomalous
13 together with the earlier record of you informing Mr. Lafferty and Mr. Sweeney
14 at 4923, that the report would draw attention to the anomaly of the B zoning
11:43:00 15 and the recommendation would be that these would be changed to AP.
16 A Yes.
17 Q 381 And then if you look at the map at 2722 please, and can I ask you, were the
18 lands that you were talking about, the lands within the take of Monarch
19 Properties which are zoned agriculture immediately adjoining the residentially
11:43:24 20 zoned lands to the south of the picture and then the agricultural lands
21 adjoining the residentially zoned lands in the centre of the picture?
22 A Yes.
23 Q 382 So what you were acknowledging in January of 1994 to Monarch Properties was
24 that you felt or it was your opinion that that zoning was anomalous and that
11:43:47 25 the zoning should be changed?
26 A Yes.
27 Q 383 Notwithstanding the decision in December of 1993 by the councillors that the
28 zoning should be agriculture.
29 A Not withstanding it?
11:43:59 30 Q 384 Yes, I mean the decision had been made in December 1993 by the councillors that
www.pcr.ie Day 651

53
11:44:03 1 the zoning on that land would be a portion of it residential and a portion of
2 it agriculture, isn't that right?
3 A That's right.
4 Q 385 And in January of 1994, you are expressing your view that that's anomalous and
11:44:14 5 that the agricultural zoning should be changed to residential?
6 A That's right.
7 Q 386 Right. And was that, and that was your view obviously, is that right?
8 A Yes.
9 Q 387 And you had explained that to Monarch Properties and you told them that you
11:44:26 10 were having an action area plan prepared?
11 A Yes.
12 Q 388 Now, the action area plan with respect to you, Mr. Murray, seems to deal only
13 with the Monarch Properties lands, is that right, would that be fair to say?
14 A No. That's not fair to at all. The red line encloses the Monarch lands but
11:44:42 15 the action plan goes much further than the Monarch lands.
16 Q 389 If we have the full action area plan on screen please, Mr. Kavanagh, this is
17 the full extent of the action plan.
18 A Yes.
19 Q 390 Now, and you say it doesn't focus on the Monarch Properties lands.
11:44:57 20 A No, I am saying it doesn't relate exclusively to the Monarch lands. It relates
21 to the entire land segment between Cabinteely and the new motorway line and
22 Carrickmines and the N11.
23 Q 391 Right.
24 A And Brides Glen.
11:45:12 25 Q 392 I must show you our own report of the Cherrywood action plan, 7472 and I want
26 to drawer to your attention under the heading "location" the note presumably by
27 yourself, "The plan centres on 236 acres of land presently owned by Monarch
28 Properties Limited." Now which is correct, Mr. Murray, the evidence you have
29 just given to Tribunal or the report that you prepared at the time the draft
11:45:39 30 action plan was prepared?
www.pcr.ie Day 651

54
11:45:40 1 A Both are correct. It does centre on Monarch lands are in the centre of it.
2 Q 393 I had asked you did you agree with me that the plan centred on the Monarch
3 lands and you had said no, that you had said the plan was dealing with other
4 lands in the area and I am just drawing to your attention what you yourself
11:46:00 5 said in the report that went to the Planning Development and Tourism Committee
6 on the 25th May 1994?
7 A It it's a descriptive term that the Monarch lands are in the centre of the
8 local area, local action area plan. I am not disagreeing with you in that
9 sense but it's not exclusively about the Monarch lands, that's what I was
11:46:21 10 trying to say.
11 Q 394 And certainly in the body of the report in dealing with the main element of the
12 plan, you deal with the anomalies, is that right, that the 7473, you deal with
13 a number of houses, you deal with the district centre and neighbourhood shops
14 and the park and ride, isn't that right? Now the district centre is dealing
11:46:58 15 only with the Monarch lands, isn't that right?
16 A The district centre is located in the Monarch lands, yes.
17 Q 395 The anomaly to which you refer is dealing with the anomaly you had earlier
18 identified, isn't that right?
19 A Yes.
11:47:08 20 Q 396 And that's the anomaly on the Monarch Properties lands.
21 A Well there's two, two areas of land in the anomaly as it were.
22 Q 397 If you just leave it on screen, Mr. Kavanagh, increase it Mr. Kavanagh, the
23 bottom part of the page. Thank you.
24 A The last paragraph refers to two areas of land.
11:47:44 25 Q 398 Would you agree that in the main, the action plan is dealing primarily if not
26 exclusively with the Monarch Properties lands?
27 A The action plan relates to all of the lands, the Monarch lands are central to
28 it, they contain as it happens the town centre, district centre, they don't
29 contain the golf course, they don't contain the river valleys, they don't
11:48:07 30 contain the land which is up near Cabinteely. They are central.
www.pcr.ie Day 651

55
11:48:11 1 Q 399 But it's not an action area plan for the entire of the Carrickmines Valley,
2 Mr. Murray, is it?
3 A No, it's for the Cherrywood to Carrickmines section, the valley would proceed
4 then up towards Ballyogan and Stepaside.
11:48:28 5 Q 400 And did you do an action area plan for the balance of the Carrickmines Valley,
6 that part not covered by the action plan?
7 A We did ultimately.
8 Q 401 At this time, in January 1994?
9 A Not at this time.
11:48:40 10 Q 402 Would you agree, Mr. Murray, that you and your department had extensive
11 contacts with the personnel from Monarch Properties over the years?
12 A I would say so, yes.
13 Q 403 And that your diaries record a very significant number of meetings with various
14 individuals, including but not limited to Mr. Eddie Sweeney?
11:48:57 15 A Yes.
16 Q 404 Mr, I think Richard Lynn.
17 A Not so many with him but some, yes.
18 Q 405 Mr. Noel Murray?
19 A Yes.
11:49:06 20 Q 406 Mr. Phillip Reilly?
21 A Yes.
22 Q 407 And I think Mr. Phillip Monahan on one occasion at least?
23 A Perhaps, yes.
24 Q 408 Can you remember the circumstances under which you came to meet Mr. Monahan.
11:49:18 25
26 CHAIRMAN: Ms. Dillon, could I stop you there, we will break for a few
27 minutes. We will break for ten minutes.
28
www.pcr.ie Day 651

56
12:05:54 1
2 MS. DILLON: Mr. Murray please.
4 CONTINUATION OF EXAMINATION OF MR. WILLIAM MURRAY
12:06:00 5 BY MS. DILLON:
7 Q 409 Good afternoon, Mr. Murray. I think I had just asked you about whether or not
8 you had met Mr. Phillip Monahan prior to the break, is that right?
9 A Yes, if it's on record that I met him, I know I met him but I am not quite sure
12:06:28 10 where.
11 Q 410 I think there's an entry in your diary but there is also a record of a meeting
12 with Mr. Kevin O'Sullivan in fairness you were not present at on the 13th May
13 1996 at 5936. And this is a meeting involving Mr. Kevin O'Sullivan, Mr. Dermot
14 Drumgoole, Mr. Phillip Monahan and Mr. Noel Murray and I want to drawer to your
12:06:52 15 attention at 5937, the following page, under the heading "Galvin's golf course
16 lands. "PM advised he had bought the lands with Manor Park Home Builders with
17 a view to jointly developing these lands. PM -- that's Mr. Monahan -- stated
18 that he would like to move the Dun Laoghaire golf club from its present
19 position over the Cherrywood lands. KOS -- that's Mr. O' Sullivan -- stated he
12:07:15 20 did not think it would be as easy as Mr. Monahan thought. He stated that a
21 number of public representatives had preliminary discussions with him in this
22 regard and they were still sitting on the fence. Mr. Monahan stated he was of
23 the view at least 60 to 70 percent of the committee of Dun Laoghaire golf club
24 were in favour of them moving.
12:07:30 25
26 Mr. Monahan gave a brief outline of how he would like to see the road moved to
27 enable the golf course be developed on the mountain side of the new road, Mr.
28 O' Sullivan advise the EIS on the Southeastern Motorway was at an advanced
29 stage."
12:07:46 30
www.pcr.ie Day 651

57
12:07:46 1 Did you know anything about a proposal, Mr. Murray, to swap or exchange lands
2 with either the Dun Laoghaire golf course or any golf course with lands at
3 Cherrywood?
4 A I know about those sort of considerations, those sort of ideas at some point in
12:07:59 5 time, but as to when, I don't know. I mean it was always a possibility that
6 someone would come up with a suggestion like that. But I don't know when or
7 when I became aware that it might be a possibility, I just don't know.
8 Q 411 But certainly if this is an accurate note of what happened in May of 1996,
9 Mr. Monahan appeared to be suggesting that there would be a change or an
12:08:20 10 exchange of lands between Dun Laoghaire golf club and the Cherrywood lands?
11 A Yes.
12 Q 412 Were you aware of any such suggestion?
13 A I couldn't say that I was or not, I don't think I was but I don't know.
14 Q 413 Thank you very much, Mr. Murray, if you answer any questions anybody else may
12:08:38 15 have.
16
17 MR. SANFEY: Chairman, just one or two questions.
18
19 THE WITNESS WAS CROSS-EXAMINED AS FOLLOWS BY MR. SANFEY:
12:08:44 20
21 Q 414 Mr. Murray, my name is Mark Sanfey, I represent Monarch Properties, just one or
22 two questions arising out of your evidence.
23
24 Ms. Dillon asked you in relation to the December 1993 meeting as to whether
12:09:00 25 there was any reason justifying as a differentiation between a zoning balance
26 of four to the acre for Monarch Properties and one to the acre for everyone
27 else and you gave a one word answer to that question and you said no. Can I
28 take it that your answering that question in your capacity as a planning person
29 and that you are not aware of any valid planning reason as to why that should
12:09:30 30 be so?
www.pcr.ie Day 651

58
12:09:31 1 A That's what I'm saying. I don't see any difference between the land within or
2 outside the Monarch lands in relation to planning or in relation to density.
3 Q 415 In fact in December 1993, the manager was recommending the deletion of change 3
4 for the whole of the valley, isn't that right?
12:09:48 5 A Yes.
6 Q 416 And in fact Councillors Marren and Coffey proposed motion to delete change 3
7 but limited that change to the Monarch lands?
8 A Yes.
9 Q 417 With the result that it would remain one per acre for the balance of the lands,
11 A Yes.
12 Q 418 I take it you would accept as a general proposition, Mr. Murray, that
13 councillors take a number of factors into account, not just pure planning
14 factors and they have a number of matters to deal with interests of their
12:10:20 15 constituents, political matters and so on?
16 A Well I don't know what councillors take into account.
17 Q 419 Right. Well suppose what I'm really is you to confirm your one word answer no
18 was really wearing your planning hat, that you couldn't see any valid planning
19 reason?
12:10:38 20 A Oh yes, absolutely.
21 Q 420 Because last Wednesday we had Councillor Marren here who spoke at length about
22 the various reasons that he had for limiting it to the Monarch lands and they
23 were mainly political reasons what he saw to be the interests of his
24 constituents and so on but you have no reason to --
12:10:57 25 A That's as may be, I mean I thought the question was directed to me as planning
26 witness and planning expert and that's the context in which I answered it.
27 Q 421 And you have certainly no reason to doubt Councillor Marren's bona fides in
28 relation to the reasons he advanced?
29 A I have no idea what he said.
12:11:15 30 Q 422 Thank you.
www.pcr.ie Day 651

59
12:11:15 1
2 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Murray, could I just ask you, you have explained how engineers
3 would primarily decide the route of the motorway which moved as the whole plan
4 for the valley progressed. It moved from one location to another and what I
12:11:38 5 understand your evidence, it is to the effect that the engineers to the council
6 would have primarily driven the ideas which would give rise to the movement of
7 the line from time to time and not the planners.
8 A I don't think, Chairman, that would be entirely true. The engineers would be
9 responsible for the alignment and functionality of the road line. Clearly, you
12:12:13 10 know, strategic planning considerations come in also. We have a situation
11 where there was limited amount of zoned or serviceable serviced land, it was a
12 scarce resource, that the motorway was likely to remain as the barrier in that
13 location to development.
14 And therefore there is a planning desire to increase the amount of land
12:12:39 15 available for development because it's obviously scarce. So there is a
16 planning input into a decision but the actual final line must be, must meet the
17 functionality requirements and the technical design requirements of the
18 engineers.
19
12:12:53 20 CHAIRMAN: Exactly but that's as I would have assumed it, that the, if you
21 like, the main driving force behind the location of the motorway line would be
22 from the planners and then obviously the engineers would have to then take into
23 account the sort of lie of the land and so on.
24 A Mmm.
12:13:19 25
26 CHAIRMAN: But that the main driving force behind the line going into a
27 particular location would be, that would be coming from the planners.
28 A Well there were numerous studies done and all sorts of environmental and
29 ecological and landscape considerations and obviously the planning
12:13:41 30 considerations to maximise the amount of available development land.
www.pcr.ie Day 651

60
12:13:45 1
2 CHAIRMAN: We see in the earlier maps, the proposed route of the motorway to
3 be going through the Monarch lands.
4 A Yes.
12:13:59 5
6 CHAIRMAN: And presumably when that line was drawn, that would have had the
7 blessing, so to speak, of that time of the engineers.
8 A That would have been very early on. It didn't firm up until --
12:14:12 10 CHAIRMAN: Yes but that line --
11 A Oh it would have, it would have. Well, I can't say if it actually, it must
12 have. It must have. They wouldn't have gone with it.
13
14 CHAIRMAN: And then we see the line moving significantly west of that
12:14:35 15 position.
16 A Yes.
17
18 CHAIRMAN: In terms of distance, as a matter of interest, what would it be,
19 what would be the approximate distance between the line as it originally went
12:14:49 20 through the Monarch lands and the line as we subsequently see it west of the
21 Monarch -- are we talking about a half a mile or --
22 A Well it would be a matter of the fact of whatever line you choose, you have to
23 measure it.
24
12:15:10 25 CHAIRMAN: But it's a significant distance.
26 A To where it ended up, it is, yes. But to the first shift, it's not hugely
27 significant -- a couple of hundred metres.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: I know you can't be certain as to how the lines were shifted and
12:15:30 30 the reasons for them, but is it likely that the suggestion for the line being
www.pcr.ie Day 651

61
12:15:40 1 moved to the extent that it was off the Monarch lands, that that suggestion is
2 unlikely to have come from the engineers but more likely to have come from the
3 planner or at least the planning side of the council?
4 A Well the planning input would have been to maximise the amount of land.
12:16:02 5
6 CHAIRMAN: Yes.
7 A But as regards impetus and stuff, it's hards to, you know --
9 CHAIRMAN: To put it another way, isn't it unlikely that the engineers, having
12:16:14 10 picked the or having at some stage been satisfied with the earlier line going
11 through the Monarch lands would have themselves said we want to move it a
12 significant distance away?
13 A I wouldn't agree necessarily with you. We are looking at the line as it
14 affects the Monarch lands but the line is influenced by things that are
12:16:44 15 happening further up and further down the line in terms of its geometrics and
16 as the studies develop and the alignment is firmed up in terms of landscape and
17 so on. You could well get an engineering inspired change but the two may very
18 well have come together on this, both the planning and engineering.
19
12:17:07 20 CHAIRMAN: The preparation of the maps, DP90/123 and DP90/129A and indeed any
21 of the other maps we looked at, presumably somebody had to coordinate the
22 preparation of that map because as you have suggested there, the motorway line
23 is moving as I presume the other considerations are developing as these things
24 are being discussed at official level but somebody finally has to sit down and
12:17:38 25 draw the map, which is then produced to the council. And presumably somebody
26 has to coordinate that.
27 A Yes.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: In that the engineers don't just draw their line of the motorway
12:17:52 30 and somebody else puts in different areas of zoning, presumably somebody at the
www.pcr.ie Day 651

62
12:17:59 1 end of the day has to say this is what we will do, this is the map that we will
2 produce, who would do that?
3 A Well the ultimate sign off will be by the manager on recommendation from the
4 technical officers and the technical officer on the roadside would be the
12:18:19 5 county engineer and I would be the technical officer on the planning side.
7 CHAIRMAN: Well is there, is that -- is that effort from different people
8 which culminates in this map, is that coordinated in some way? Somebody
9 presumably has to at the end of the day, produce for the manager a map saying
12:18:44 10 this is our combined view as to what the map should show?
11 A Well I couldn't tell you now at this point in time whether we had sign off on
12 that map, you know, precisely in relation to the final line of the road from
13 the county engineer. I don't know if we had or if we hadn't. But it was, we
14 did say that the map wasn't to be a final map. It was an indication of a
12:19:10 15 structure that would work and then the final map would then, you know, if it
16 was adopted, the motorway may well have changed when it was brought as a
17 Development Plan map to the council.
18
19 CHAIRMAN: But somebody had to, in the council, had to prepare that map.
12:19:23 20 A That was prepared in the planning department.
21
22 CHAIRMAN: Yes. And by whom, who would actually physically prepare the map?
23 A Well there were quite a number of studies done that led to the map, you know,
24 differing versions of it, would probably still available.
12:19:40 25
26 CHAIRMAN: Is there --
27 A It was a Development Plan team which Enda Conway was in charge of and the
28 actual drawing of the map would be done by the drawing office.
29 CHAIRMAN: And would there be somebody coordinating or chairing those meetings
12:19:58 30 and who would eventually say right, this is what we have agreed?
www.pcr.ie Day 651

63
12:20:02 1 A Well yeah, it would have come as a draft and I would have been involved in
2 approving it and bringing it to the manager.
4 CHAIRMAN: Yes. And the line on the motorway, the line of the motorway as
12:20:17 5 would appear on that version, that final version that would go to the manager,
6 would that be based on, I mean would the engineers have been involved in that,
7 making that final decision?
8 A They would certainly have been shown it, you know, and it may well have gone to
9 the development coordination meeting, I am not quite sure about that. But we
12:20:43 10 were in a situation where everybody was, for all those years, extremely busy
11 dealing with all these things and it wasn't always possible to get sign off
12 from everybody on everything.
13
12:21:00 15 A So that's why it was left that, if the structure is, the basic structure is
16 adopted and the principles, the lines weren't as important as the principles,
17 the principle was that the motorway interchanges would be the focus of the
18 industrial development and that certain areas were landscape areas, certain
19 were residential. If that 123 had been adopted, more detailed plans would have
12:21:27 20 been brought for the statutory process of the Development Plan. And they would
21 have had sign off by the county engineer in relation to the road. So that road
22 line was a planning road line if that's what you are really trying to get at,
23 essentially it was a planning road line.
24
12:21:50 25 CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you.
26
27 JUDGE FAHERTY: I just want to ask you, who decides on an action area plan,
28 Mr. Murray? If there's going to be an action area plan.
29 A Well, some times it's actually an objective of a Development Plan. Sometimes
12:22:14 30 it is a zone which requires an action area plan to be prepared and other times
www.pcr.ie Day 651

64
12:22:25 1 it may arise out of consideration of people want to make planning applications,
2 you have a general zoning, a blanket zoning so where do the schools go, where
3 do the shops go, where do the internal roads go and where do the open spaces
4 go. You need a plan to show that so the planning department would generally
12:22:45 5 produce such a plan:
7 JUDGE FAHERTY: At that at the instigation of the council or --
8 A It could be at the instigation of the council, it could be generated internally
9 or it could be due to indications from developers that they want to lodge
12:22:58 10 planning applications.
11
12 JUDGE FAHERTY: I see. And --
13 A Sorry to interrupt you but the plan, the local area planner as they are now
14 called, the action area plan would go through a process of approval with the
12:23:11 15 council.
16
17 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes. The reason I ask you that, you obviously were in
18 discussion with some of the Monarch representatives in early January.
19 A Yes.
12:23:23 20
21 JUDGE FAHERTY: And you mentioned that you would have an action plan ready
22 pretty shortly I think and you raise the anomaly of the, what you saw as the B
23 zoning on the Monarch lands, isn't that correct?
24 A Yes.
12:23:37 25
26 JUDGE FAHERTY: But I'm just wondering, obviously the new council only came
27 into being on the 1st January, isn't that correct?
28 A Yes.
29 JUDGE FAHERTY: So the council hadn't met before the 6th January, had it?
12:23:52 30 A I doubt it. I doubt it.
www.pcr.ie Day 651

65
12:23:54 1
2 JUDGE FAHERTY: Unlikely, probably.
3 A Yes.
12:23:56 5 JUDGE FAHERTY: Very well, can I just ask you, earlier I think you were asked
6 by Ms. Dillon in 1992, when the manager came back, that was the May 1992, this
7 was after the first public display, and the manager had proposals and he was
8 proposing changes, indeed to what had gone out on the first public display and
9 it was largely going from four houses to the acre on piped sewerage to A1P
12:24:30 10 which you said involved an area action plan. And he wanted to further extend
11 the zoning, the residential zoning I think further south which would have
12 incorporated some of the Monarch lands.
13 A To the motorway line, yes.
14
12:24:51 15 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes. And that map was put up and Ms. Dillon asked you a
16 question or sort of it put it to you that for the lands north of Monarch, if
17 you like north of the Brides Glen divide, there was no provision for an action
18 area plan on those lands and I think your answer was that that was a discrete
19 area and could have its own action area plan and I am just wondering why wasn't
12:25:27 20 that considered by the council at the time? That map you put out, it was
21 DP92/44. That was produced at the meeting, it didn't get anywhere because it
22 was voted down by the council but there was only provision for an action area
23 plan on lands which were largely Monarch lands, it wasn't exactly Monarch in
24 fairness but it didn't include the lands north of Monarch which were zoned
12:25:52 25 residential, the densities, certainly on the draft plan that had gone out four
26 to the acre. And I am just saying why would it not, why would it not be A1P,
27 you see there on the screen actually to your right, Mr. Murray, why would that
28 not have had, that type of zoning be put on the lands north of the Monarch
29 lands?
12:26:20 30 A I don't know why but I mean I could make post hoc arguments as to why because I
www.pcr.ie Day 651

66
12:26:26 1 said it's a relatively discrete piece of land separated from the valley by
2 another land, by a non-development zone which is G and there's a G zone
3 separating it from the bit over at the Carrickmines end as well. It does, it
4 can stand on its own and needn't necessarily --
12:26:45 5
6 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes. I'm just saying in the light of your earlier answers
7 that in fact all of the lands were zoned residential four to the acre.
8 A Yes.
12:26:57 10 JUDGE FAHERTY: In the first plan in 1991, isn't that right? And that was
11 indeed the map that had gone out in 1991. The sewer, the proposed sewer line
12 obviously would presumably I think you said earlier would run up north of the
13 Monarch lands, isn't that correct?
14 A Yes.
12:27:14 15
16 JUDGE FAHERTY: And would be serving the other of lands and it was always
17 envisaged that all these lands would be developed because they were zoned
18 residential as far as back as 1983 and I am just wondering why was the idea for
19 an area action plan just confined to that area and not for this other, albeit a
12:27:41 20 discrete area, north of the Monarch lands?
21 A I don't really know the answer but it could have been because Monarch were the
22 people who were pushing to make things happen there. And it couldn't really
23 happen without a local area plan or an action area plan. It could have
24 influenced the extent of that particular study but I don't know the answer.
12:28:09 25
26 JUDGE FAHERTY: All right.
27
28 CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Murray.
12:28:19 30
www.pcr.ie Day 651

67
12:28:20 1 MR. QUINN: Mr. Kevin O'Sullivan please.
3 MR. KEVIN O'SULLIVAN, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS EXAMINED
12:28:53 5
6 CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon, Mr. O'Sullivan.
7 A Good afternoon.
9 Q 423 MR. QUINN: Good afternoon, Mr. O' Sullivan. You were asked on the 7th April
12:29:03 10 2006 to provide a statement to the Tribunal in relation to the lands at
11 Cherrywood and I think at brief pages 7597 to 7613 is your statement, dated the
12 24th April 2006 and I think you have already given evidence to the Tribunal and
13 I don't propose unless you insist I do so to go through that statement in any
14 detail at this stage.
12:29:22 15 A I think in preparing that statement on the previous occasion, I think you
16 yourself had asked me to include the Monarch lands so in reality I reproduced
17 the previous statement.
18 Q 424 And in relation to just to refresh the Tribunal's memory in relation to this
19 matter, you I think started out at a finance officer in Cork in 1976 and moved
12:29:48 20 to Dublin I think at a finance officer in 1987?
21 A City treasury In 1988, yes.
22 Q 425 By 1983 I think you were in Dun Laoghaire corporation with responsibility for
23 Deansgrange?
24 A In 1983, I was appointed an assistant city and an assistant county manager and
12:30:06 25 I was delegated functions at that time by Frank Feeley, the city and county
26 manager as assistant county manager for Dun Laoghaire corporation and
27 Deansgrange joint Burial Board.
28 Q 426 I think by September 1989 you had taken over from Mr. Morrissey who in turn had
29 taken over from Mr. Redmond?
12:30:24 30 A No, I took over from Mr. Prendergast, I was asked by Mr. Feeley at some stage
www.pcr.ie Day 651

68
12:30:31 1 in August or September 1989 to move into the county, county and city. I am
2 sorry.
3 Q 427 You had a planning responsibility overall planning responsibility?
4 A I had responsibility for planning in the city and planning in the county with
12:30:45 5 the exception of Dun Laoghaire Borough.
6 Q 428 I think the big issue vis-a-vis planning in September 1989 was the review of
7 the Development Plan.
8 A There was a review of the Development Plan in the country which was ongoing and
9 there was about to be a review of the Development Plan in the city.
12:31:03 10 Q 429 I think by September 1991, you moved, you changed your responsibilities and now
11 you became responsible for Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown as assistant manager, is that
12 right, assistant county manager with responsibility for Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown?
13 A What happened in 1991 was that the government made a decision to proceed with
14 the split of the county, which had in fact been put on the long finger after
12:31:31 15 1985 and one of the decisions they made at the time was to appoint three
16 embryonic managers in effect. They were interviewed I think in July of that
17 year and I was one of the three who was offered appointment and I accepted
18 appointment in September.
19 Q 430 Yes. I think the idea at the time was that you would in time become the
12:31:55 20 manager of the newly formed Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council?
21 A That was enshrined in law and the -- enshrined in law and I think the idea was
22 that the three managers I suppose would take an interest in ensuring that the
23 break up took place?
24 Q 431 In an orderly fashion.
12:32:12 25 A As orderly as possible, yes.
26 Q 432 And I think the break up did take place on the 1st January 1994 and you became
27 the manager of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council?
28 A The first thing we had to do was prepare what was called a reorganisation
29 report. Memory is that that had to be prepared six months after the first
12:32:30 30 meeting of the area committee and I think we prepared the reorganisation
www.pcr.ie Day 651

69
12:32:35 1 report, publish the reorganisation report sometime during the summer of 1992
2 and in that reorganisation report, we targeted the 1st January 1994 as being
3 the date for the creation of the new authorities.
4 Q 433 Now, we know from evidence given by Mr. McCabe that the first submission made
12:32:58 5 by the Monarch Group was made in November 1989. I think you had been appointed
6 planning manager in September of 1989.
7 A I can't remember the date but it was some time in September 1989.
8 Q 434 And indeed just arising out of what the Tribunal dealt with, with Mr. Murray,
9 that submission at 6911 by Mr. McCabe on behalf of Monarch dealt with the
12:33:22 10 movement of the line of the motorway. Were you aware that that submission had
11 gone in at that time?
12 A I think the first time I saw was that submission was when I read some of the
13 documentation that you would have circulated.
14 Q 435 Now, you have given evidence previously in relation to DP90/123 and the various
12:33:41 15 working papers, particularly working paper number 4 and I don't, unless you
16 wants to something addition to what you have already said, ask you any further
17 additional questions in relation to that.
18
19 Can I take you to 1993, Mr. O' Sullivan. You were the manager designate at
12:33:58 20 that stage, isn't that right?
21 A That's correct. In strict legal terms, the delegation as assistant county
22 manager was done by the -- still the city and county manager but it wasn't an
23 optional delegation in that he was obliged to make the delegation at that
24 stage.
12:34:16 25 Q 436 Yes. But for all intents and purposes, you were going to be in charge of Dun
26 Laoghaire/Rathdown?
27 A There was absolutely no doubt about that.
28 Q 437 And any issue that might have arisen prior to January 1994 in relation to Dun
29 Laoghaire/Rathdown was an issue that, if it were important enough was to be
12:34:33 30 brought to your attention, isn't that right?
www.pcr.ie Day 651

70
12:34:34 1 A At that stage I was the area management was the technical term and my
2 responsibility at the time would have been Dun Laoghaire corporation which
3 still remained in place, Deansgrange Joint Burial Board which still remained in
4 place and what was called the Rathdown area of Dublin County Council.
12:34:53 5 Q 438 And there is equally no doubt but that and you have admitted to it in your
6 statement, you had a series of meetings with Monarch representatives throughout
7 your period, that is say to from --
8 A There were various meetings with representatives of Monarch, yes.
9 Q 439 Now in June of 1994, Mr. Lynn prepared an action report for the Cherrywood
12:35:17 10 lands and the Monarch interests and I just want to put in context.
11
12 We have now as of November 1994, a vote on the Cherrywood lands which provides
13 that the Monarch lands an the Monarch lands only will be zoned at a density of
14 four houses to the acre. Sorry, November 1993. For some reason in January
12:35:40 15 1994, it would appear that an action area plan had been undertaken and you have
16 heard Mr. Murray's evidence in that regard.
17
18 And now in June, there having been, that action plan having come before I think
19 it's the Planning and Tourism Committee in May 1994 of the council. It has
12:36:01 20 been adjourned to a June meeting, a June 1994 meeting as has a motion by
21 Councillor Gilmore in relation to the provision of a science and technology
22 park and if I could have 5206, this is a progress report from Mr. Lynn and
23 before I open that report, can I ask you, was there an understanding between
24 you and representatives of Monarch, you in your capacity as county manager,
12:36:28 25 that there would be a science and technology park within the Monarch lands and
26 that there would be some level of understanding or agreement between you as a
27 result of the siting of the science and technology park, that there would be a
28 review of the zoning of their lands in early 1994?
29 A I think on the science and technology park, and certainly at the time that I
12:36:50 30 did that narrative statement, my memory would have been that the first
www.pcr.ie Day 651

71
12:36:55 1 initiative on the science and technology park was in 1994. Having seen the
2 statement of Richard Cremmins, that's brought back to me the question of the
3 Sprint programme and at that point I remembered that prior to 1994, discussions
4 were ongoing or there were discussions about the concept of a science and
12:37:22 5 technology park.
6 Q 440 Yes. And --
7 A Now in terms of the specific question you ask me, I don't believe there was any
8 understanding at that stage that in the variation for the science and
9 technology park, there was any question of any other variation being done as
12:37:39 10 well.
11 Q 441 If I just refer you to Monarch's understanding as Mr. Lynn appears to have
12 noted it in 1994, June 1994. Under the heading variation to the Development
13 Plan, he provides "In September 1993, Monarch/Guardian agreed to give a letter
14 to Mr. Kevin O'Sullivan committing the landowner to reserving a significant
12:38:02 15 portion of land which could be considered by the incoming council for possible
16 industrial use to accommodate a science and technology park.
17
18 Any residentially zoned land thus taken up for industrial purposes was to be
19 compensated by bringing in the agriculturally zoned land for residential
12:38:18 20 purposes. There were a number of meetings at which personnel from Monarch and
21 Guardian were present. This proposal was hardened up and an understanding in
22 principle was reached with the county manager regarding it's format and the
23 timing and likely success with elected members although the timescale initially
24 envisaged has not been adhered to, the county manager has taken forward a draft
12:38:38 25 action area plan to the council at the meeting on the 23rd May 1994" and then
26 he refers to a copy of that?
27 A I don't remember there being anything as firm as that in 1993. In fact my
28 memory, I haves to say, my memory is that the question of the other Monarch
29 lands would have been on the table when firm discussions took place with them
12:39:04 30 about the joint venture in fact.
www.pcr.ie Day 651

72
12:39:07 1 Q 442 Joint venture I think comes in around June 1994, isn't that right?
2 A I can't remember how the joint venture came on the table, Mr. Quinn. I thought
3 it had come from some where within the council and I would have understood it
4 coming from within the council because in the first act of the new council in
12:39:28 5 January 1994 would have been to prepare a budget. And that proved to be an
6 extremely traumatic exercise and the lack of resources which the county had
7 became very apparent and led soon in fact to charges having to be introduced
8 which for some councillors would have been the first. So I think there would
9 have been an enthusiasm among many of the councillors for sort of getting
12:39:52 10 involved in some commercial activity which would generate income for the
11 council.
12 Q 443 Can I put forward to you what Mr. Lynn's understanding was as of 16th June 1994
13 if we could have 5204, this is the same document but at a different section and
14 it's an addendum and it might be of assistance in dealing with the joint
12:40:14 15 venture:
16
17 It says "In speakings with Dermot Drumgoole, development officer Dun Laoghaire
18 County Council on the 16th inst", that's the 16th June 1994 "He indicated that
19 the government apparently favours that the science and technology park be
12:40:27 20 located on public lands, Fonthill and Abbotstown being mentioned as two likely
21 locations. He is preparing a draft submission for council approval for the
22 meeting on the 29th June recommending Cherrywood. He asked that we consider
23 the possibilities of the council taking an interest in the Cherrywood lands to
24 satisfy the public involvement stance of the government.
12:40:46 25
26 This appears to be very acceptable and it is recommended that serious
27 consideration be given to this matter and it be followed up. He has not had
28 the opportunity of discussing it with Kevin O'Sullivan, county manager, as of
29 yet."
12:41:00 30 That would appear to be, as far as Mr. Lynn is concerned, in any event, in June
www.pcr.ie Day 651

73
12:41:04 1 1994, the genesis of the --
2 A I read that, Mr. Quinn, which is I can't I said to you that I had thought that
3 the initiative had come from the council itself. But at the end of the day, if
4 that happened, it happened. I don't remember it. I don't remember it being
12:41:20 5 raised with me by Mr. Drumgoole.
6 Q 444 Yes. But in any event, somebody must have raised it with you?
7 A It was raised, I know from my own point of view, initially I was uncomfortable
8 with it, but I got more enthusiastic as time went on and we finally agreed a
9 joint venture.
12:41:42 10 Q 445 It seems to have been raised so as to improve the chances of the park being
11 cited in Cabinteely, is that right?
12 A In the context of that minute, that does seem to be the rationale of it, yes.
13 Q 446 Now, the science and technology, would you agree with me that the science and
14 technology park was being viewed by Monarch as an opportunity to vary the plan
12:42:04 15 to their advantage?
16 A Well I suppose I never thought that the reason for the suggestion of a science
17 and technology park was altruistic. I have read some of the internal documents
18 that were produced and it's certainly a lot more calculating than I would have
19 thought at the time. And I think that it would appear anyway, that the Monarch
12:42:35 20 saw the science and technology park as a means of ensuring that zoning would
21 take place in the land, yes.
22 Q 447 And I think it is the case that, and I put it to Mr. McCabe at 5211, that they
23 saw that the rezoning of the agricultural lands an the increase of residential
24 density resting on the premises that a science and technology park would be
12:42:57 25 brought to fruition.
26 A I am not sure whether I would necessarily, Monarch may have seen that --
27 Q 448 That's what I mean?
28 A But I am I am not sure I would necessarily agree with that because certainly
29 there was nothing zoned there which we would not have felt should have been
12:43:15 30 zoned at the end of the day.
www.pcr.ie Day 651

74
12:43:16 1 Q 449 Yes and your recommendation was four houses to the acre in the 1993 report. I
2 take it there was some confusion expressed by Mr. Barrett in relation to your
3 report. I take it you will accept that you are recommending that all of the
4 lands there, not just the Monarch lands, would have zoning on four houses to
12:43:37 5 the acre?
6 A Well, that's my recollection, Mr. Quinn, yes.
7 Q 450 Would it be fair to say that having decided that there would be a science and
8 technology park sited in the Cherrywood lands, that and when I say you, you the
9 officials within the council, you were anxious to see that come to fruition and
12:43:59 10 you were prepared to facilitate it as best you could?
11 A Once we were part of the science and technology park and once there was a
12 science and technology park proposed, naturally we wanted the development to
13 take place.
14 Q 451 Now at 5207 again dealing with the strategy, Mr. Lynn says "It would be noted
12:44:19 15 however that serious reservations were expressed at the meeting of the 23rd May
16 1994 regarding the rezoning proposals by some of the members." And he
17 describes it, "It is expected that the county manager will continue to promote
18 the zoning and density changes providing he perceives that the majority of the
19 elected members are in favour of such changes."
12:44:41 20
21 And then he goes on to say "That at this point, it is essential that serious
22 discussions take place with leading members of the council to ensure their
23 support."
24 A I think my memory of that stage was that when this was being developed, I asked
12:44:58 25 the council to set up a small group which could act as a sounding board so that
26 at no stage was I finding myself going completely off side with the council.
27 Q 452 You weren't going to go out on a limb, while you were lukewarm with the concept
28 of a join venture, you were happy with a science and technology park?
29 A Oh yes. I think that's very true, I was very enthused about a science and
12:45:24 30 technology park, my lukewarmness was in relation to a joint venture.
www.pcr.ie Day 651

75
12:45:28 1 Q 453 But in any event you couldn't create a science and technology zoning, you had
2 to have the approval of the council members?
3 A It did but I didn't want to go down the road of discussing this unless the
4 members were being brought along at the same time and knew what was happening.
12:45:42 5 Q 454 Now, it would appear also from that document which I am opening to you, that
6 other departments within the council were very amenable to assisting Monarch in
7 developing their lands at that time, you have heard the evidence of Mr. Murray
8 and his reference to the action plan in January of 1994.
12:45:59 10 But if you look for example under the heading "services and access", you see
11 "That by letter of the 23rd May 1994, Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council
12 confirmed that they expect that the scheme -- that is the Carrickmines Valley
13 sewerage scheme -- will commence in early 1995 and that a clause will be
14 inserted into the contract to allow the early connection for the development of
12:46:20 15 Cherrywood. This was achieved through direct negotiating with the county
16 engineer. The county engineer has also undertaken to examine if it becomes
17 necessary, a temporary service connection should the mains scheme be delayed
18 beyond an acceptable timeframe."
19
12:46:35 20 You will also see at the next page at 5208 under the heading main access, "This
21 matter was discussed with the county engineer at meetings on the 19th May and
22 2nd June, at which his proposals to be submitted to the council were tabled.
23 They provided for a flyover together with a slip road north and south of the
24 Wyattville junction. He also indicated how temporary access could be gained to
12:46:57 25 the site complimentary to his proposals."
26
27 Then the next one dealing with and I won't read it, central roundabout, at the
28 bottom you see access to the lands adjacent to the N11, agreement was reached
29 with the county engineer to allow access from the N1 to service circa 20 acres
12:47:12 30 of residentially zoned lands subject to an existing access of the an adjoining
www.pcr.ie Day 651

76
12:47:17 1 landowner being permanently closed and that agreement appears to be over the
2 head of an named engineer. Isn't that right?
3 A It is, yeah.
4 Q 455 And then again at 5209 under the heading "water". "Agreement was reached that
12:47:27 5 the site would be serviced from the Rathmichael area on existing services."
7 So it would appear from reading those reviews of the situation as of June 1994,
8 that the various departments of the council were very anxious to facilitate a
9 development of the lands, isn't t right?
12:47:55 10 A There was an enthusiasm about developing the science and technology park. Yes.
11 Q 456 Well not just the science and technology park wasn't starting at that stage, is
12 that right?
13 A Yes.
14 Q 457 Now, we know that I think Councillor Gilmore tabled a motion in relation to the
12:48:09 15 science and technology park and the go ahead for that was given at a meeting on
16 the 29th June 1994, is that correct? And that led to further meetings between
17 yourself and Monarch which resulted I think in agreement being reached in
18 November 1994 whereby you would become a joint venture, a joint venture partner
19 with Monarch and GRE, is that right?
12:48:35 20 A That's right.
21 Q 458 And you had several contacts with Monarch, is that right?
22 A Well, there were lots of meetings at that time, I think the meetings were
23 mainly with Eddie Sweeney and Richard Blackwood from GRE. And also I also
24 remember at some stage a conversation with somebody else from GRE but it may
12:48:53 25 have been a telephone conversation.
26 Q 459 Would it be fair to say there was, like all negotiations, an element of hard
27 balling going on between yourself and your new partners as to what you might
28 concede or be prepared to support in the event of a joint partnership with
29 Monarch and GRE?
12:49:11 30 A There was but I mean certainly we would have had a bottom line and we didn't
www.pcr.ie Day 651

77
12:49:17 1 get to the bottom line if I remember rightly.
2 Q 460 When you say, you would have had been prepared to concede more than you
3 actually did?
4 A I think we might have been, yes, but we played it as hard as we could, yes.
12:49:30 5 Q 461 Now, in that regard, would it be fair to say and I am going to open a letter in
6 a moment and I will ask you to comment on it, that Monarch were approaching you
7 on the basis that they had the councillor majority for what they were
8 proposing; in other words, that they did not necessarily need your agreement
9 for what they were seeking to achieve.
12:49:50 10 A Yeah, I read that, Mr. Quinn, and I don't remember it. But at the end of the
11 day, they didn't go that route. And I would guess that at that stage, despite
12 all that's happened before, at that stage I was pretty confident that the
13 council would go with whatever recommendation emerged and was recommended by
14 the manager and senior officials.
12:50:21 15 Q 462 If we could have 5393, this is a letter from Monarch on the 20th October 1994
16 to GRE, this is at a crucial stage of the negotiations, isn't that right,
17 because the vote I think is on the 14th November when agreement is concluded.
18 If we just look at the very last paragraph there, this is where Monarch are
19 trying to convince GRE to go with your proposals for the joint venture
12:50:43 20 agreement. It says: "Richard and Anthony are confident that the motion will
21 succeed which is the opposite view held by the county manager and his officials
22 who were saying even it it did succeed on the first vote on a marginal basis
23 that it would fall at the further vote after the end of the three month display
24 period due to public pressure and the lack of support from the manager and his
12:51:01 25 officials." Now I think the vote in question was a motion which would have
26 increased density, isn't that right?
27 A There was a motion which I think was withdrawn after --
28 Q 463 After agreement.
29 A After the --
12:51:15 30 Q 464 Just to put in context, am I right in thinking you are seeking to negotiate a
www.pcr.ie Day 651

78
12:51:20 1 one third interest in this science and technology park and in consideration of
2 that and for a preferential purchase contract, you are prepared to recommend to
3 the councillors increasing density which would obviously be of benefit to
4 Monarch. On the other hand Monarch are telling you they have a motion in place
12:51:39 5 which will increase the density in any event.
6 A Which I certainly wouldn't have welcomed at the time.
7 Q 465 I appreciate that so effectively they were seeking to call your bluff so to
8 speak and say they could get sufficient councillor support to increase the
9 density even against your recommendations?
12:51:58 10 A That's what that seems to be saying. I don't remember it but that's what it
11 seems to be saying.
12 Q 466 I accept that's what it's saying but I am just slightly surprised that you
13 couldn't remember that level of debate going on in the lead up to the agreement
14 concluded?
12:52:12 15 A I don't remember it.
16 Q 467 Now I think as it happened, you did come to the council, as I say, on the 14th
17 November 1994, at 5486. We see where you produced a report including the
18 agreement which you had recommended, which you had concluded, the heads of
19 agreement which you had concluded but which obviously had to be signed off by
12:52:41 20 the members and there was a full debate on that and on the proposed variation
21 and I think by a substantial majority, something like 17 to 2, the agreement
22 was accepted and your recommendations were accepted for the variation, isn't
23 that right, and the variation went through and was put on public display and
24 was confirmed at a meeting in April 1995, is that right?
12:53:01 25 A That's correct, yes.
26 Q 468 Now, by July 1996, however, if we could have 6054, the science and technology
27 park hadn't taken place, you were about to or you had just commenced a review
28 of the 1993 plan and you had a meeting with Monarch and you will see there from
29 the second paragraph under paragraph 1, that they were anxious to re-establish
12:53:28 30 good relations with you. Can you recall that taking place, Mr. O' Sullivan?
www.pcr.ie Day 651

79
12:53:33 1 A I can recall being angry that we were unable to obtain the transfer of the
2 lands. I think the question of establishing good relations with me objectively
3 is really irrelevant because I couldn't, in considering a new Development Plan
4 and making recommendations, I couldn't take any grudge against anyone else but
12:54:03 5 I suppose human nature being human nature, something like that was going to
6 happen.
7 Q 469 Were you disappointed is what I really want to know, by 1996?
8 A I was angry I think, Mr. Quinn, at that stage, that it hadn't moved forward.
9 Q 470 Yes. And did it ever take place?
12:54:17 10 A The transfer of land took place.
11 Q 471 What you had envisaged back in 1993, did that ever come to from fruition?
12 A I don't think, Mr. Quinn, what I was about to say the transfer of land took
13 place. Noel Smyth through Dunloe became involved and I think for the first
14 time there seemed to be an urgency to get the thing up and moving and that was
12:54:44 15 happening when I left. I left in September 1998 and I have absolutely no idea
16 what the position is on the ground now.
17 Q 472 But that was five years on from when you had originally --
18 A It was, yes.
19 Q 473 Now, can I just finally deal with one matter just to get a view on it, on the
12:55:05 20 review of the 1993 plan which took place, the position paper in June 1996 and
21 on the consideration of a series of draft maps and written statements in the
22 January to April 1997 period, on the 2nd April 1997 and more particularly on
23 the 4th February 1997, there was a motion in relation to the densities, you had
24 produced as a draft plan a plan which did not contain any densities, isn't that
12:55:34 25 right?
27 Q 474 And at 254 -- sorry, 2550, there is a motion by Councillor Dillon-Byrne, Smyth
28 and Buckley that the density zoning of all the maps of the Draft Development
29 Plan be restored to that density which was designated and in the same manner
12:55:55 30 the Development Plan presently in being. Now, that motion was debated in
www.pcr.ie Day 651

80
12:56:00 1 February and wasn't completed and was reviewed in April 1997 and I think was
2 voted, was unsuccessful but I think you undertook as we will see at 6299 in
3 the -- to make arrangements for and you agreed to make available to the members
4 a written list together with the relevant maps showing the changes proposed in
12:56:24 5 the draft plan which had been presented at previous meetings. Now, can I ask
6 you, why did you decide to suggest that there would be a publication of a draft
7 plan which did not show any densities in early 1997?
8 A Because the planning advice that I was getting at the time was that the
9 numerical presentation of densities wasn't good planning practice. Now, the
12:56:52 10 memory of what happened at the time would be that and perhaps I should go back
11 to the previous borough plan, in that borough plan an attempt was made at that
12 stage to change the density situation in the borough plan. Changing -- would
13 not have been in favour of that and there was a sort of compromise reached in
14 the council which was a mixed use development zoning, which in fact ended up
12:57:23 15 with very high densities and very good quality developments.
16
17 So when we came to do, when the drafts came to be done for the 19 -- what was
18 ultimately the 1998 plan, the recommendation was that there be no densities in
19 it, that densities would be controlled by development control and not by sort
12:57:42 20 of numbers on a map and I went along with that view and supported that view.
21 Q 475 Now in the report which you provided to the council in February, if I could
22 have 2550 and I just want to put two matters to you, if I may, up see there
23 about half ways down, your report, which was read to the council and commences
24 "In the Dublin County Development Plan 1983, there are no specific density
12:58:11 25 controls on the bulk of the lands zoned residential."
26
27 Now that report is repeated at the adjourned meeting of the council.
28 A Sorry, Mr. Quinn, first of all that makes no sense at all. Why would we be
29 referring --
12:58:24 30 Q 476 That's exactly the point I am going to ask you in a moment.
www.pcr.ie Day 651

81
12:58:27 1 A I would think that should be 1993, I can't swear to it but I would think, it
2 doesn't make any sense to referring to a 1983 plan when it wasn't there.
3 Q 477 Because if you look at the adjourned debate on the 2nd April 1997 at 6295, you
4 say the following report of the manager was read. At the special meeting of
12:58:58 5 the council held on the 4th, the February the following motion was moved. The
6 report of the motion was as follows and it omits the first paragraph of the
7 report which you seem to have presented.
8 A It does.
9 Q 478 And I am just wondering if you can help the Tribunal in any way as to -- how
12:59:15 10 that came about?
11 A I have no memory at all of it, is it material, I am not sure is it material?
12 Q 479 It's an unusual?
13 A It is unusual. You would have expected that what was reproduced as being the
14 last report would be the last report.
12:59:33 15 Q 480 And that would make sense and that it wouldn't be referring to a 1983 --
16 A I think I can understand if it was a typographical error, that that can happen.
17 Q 481 Just going back to the variation, the possibility of the variation, I had
18 referred to the meeting in September 1993 but in fact could that have gone back
19 further, I wonder if we look at 4312, this is a Monarch note of a meeting held
13:00:11 20 on the 14th July 1993, where Mr. Sweeney appears to have tabled two draft
21 submissions, the second of which would have supported a science and technology
22 industry and a C zoning and if we look at the last page of that at 4313, it
23 concludes, "K O S -- who is presumably you -- suggested we that we proceed with
24 the two submissions and that the science and technology submission could be
13:00:40 25 withdrawn within a fortnight from the 4th August 1993 and that he should have
26 word from his legal adviser which if appropriate he would pass on.
27
28 If it were not possible to accommodate the industrial proposal, he would
29 seriously look at the as a variation to the plan in the new year when the new
13:00:58 30 Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council came into being."
www.pcr.ie Day 651

82
13:00:58 1 In other words, I think you were concerned as to whether or not you could so
2 alter the plan, it having been published, it should include an industrial
3 zoning?
4 A It couldn't be at that point.
13:01:07 5 Q 482 But as early a as July '93, a science and technology was being discussed?
6 A I think I said to you at the beginning here that when I started seeing the
7 Sprint programme, I suspected this discussion on science and technology went
8 back into early 1993, if not in late 1992.
9 Q 483 Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. O' Sullivan.
13:01:29 10 A Thank you.
11
12 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sanfey, do you want to ask?
13
13:01:36 15 A Thank you. Judge.
16
17 THE WITNESS THEN WITHDREW:
18
19 CHAIRMAN: That completes today's.
13:01:42 20
21 MS. DILLON: Yes, sir, there are no further witnesses listed for today and I
22 think we have three witnesses lists for Tuesday, including Mr. Dunlop but it
23 might be as well to alert people there's no sittings next Friday, this day
24 week.
13:01:55 25
26 CHAIRMAN: Yes, there are no sittings on this day week.
27
28 MS. DILLON: The 16th.
29
13:01:59 30 CHAIRMAN: And we are sitting next week, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
www.pcr.ie Day 651

83
13:02:03 1
2 MS. DILLON: That is correct.
4 CHAIRMAN: And I think we are sitting on Tuesday at 11 o'clock. And the other
13:02:08 5 two days at half ten.
9 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED UNTIL TUESDAY,
13:02:29 10 13TH JUNE 2006 AT 11.00 A.M.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
www.pcr.ie Day 651

1
2 14TH JUNE, 2006, AT 10:00 A.M.:
10:07:57 5 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Mr. Quinn.
7 MR. QUINN: Mr. Eamonn Gilmore, please.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 653
2
10:08:06 1 MR. GILMORE, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS QUESTIONED BY MR. QUINN AS FOLLOWS:
3 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Mr Gilmore.
10:08:29 5 Q. 1 MR. QUINN: Good morning, Mr Gilmore.
7 Mr Gilmore, the Tribunal recently wrote to you and requested a statement in
8 relation it your involvement with the lands at Cherrywood.
10:08:38 10 On the 12th of June you provided a statement. It's at 8587 and 8593 of the
11 brief.
12
13 Whilst I don't intend to go through the statement in detail, it would be fair
14 to say that if we could have 8593, dealing with a query in relation to any
10:08:57 15 payments or benefits you may have received. You said the following.
16
17 "During the 1992 General Election, Mr. Richard Lynn telephoned me to state that
18 Monarch Properties wish to make a financial contribution to my election
19 campaign. I declined the offer. During a subsequent election, either the
10:09:13 20 1997 General Election or the 1999 local elections, Mr. Lynn telephoned me again
21 to offer a contribution to my election campaign. When I declined the offer he
22 indicated that he had expected me to decline and that it was made in the
23 context of a general offer to parties and candidates generally. On neither of
24 these occasions did Mr. Lynn make the offer conditional for supporting on a
10:09:34 25 planning matter nor indeed did he refer to any planning matter during these
26 conversations. Around the time of the merger of the Labour Party and
27 Democratic Left, the end of 1998 beginning of 1999, I was informed by
28 constituency officers of the Labour Party that Mr Eddie Sweeney or his company
29 had made a donation of 1,000 pounds to the Dun Laoghaire constituency of the
10:09:54 30 Labour Party. The contribution was returned to Mr. Sweeney."

www.pcr.ie Day 653
3
10:09:58 1
2 Is that your evidence in relation to payments you may have been offered or
3 received from Mr. Lynn, Monarch Properties or their associated companies?
4 A. Yes.
10:10:11 5 Q. 2 Now, can I ask you why did you decline the offer from Mr. Lynn for the General
6 Election 1992, which I think was held in November 1992?
7 A. It was probably instinct. At the time Monarch Properties were proposing
8 rezoning of land. I was a member of the County Council at the time. It was
9 controversial. I didn't think it was appropriate to accept a contribution to
10:10:44 10 my election campaign at a time when I was a member of the County Council making
11 decisions on matters that effected their company.
12 Q. 3 I should have asked you at the outset. In 1992 you were a member of the
13 Dublin County Council, isn't that right? When were you first elected?
14 A. I was elected in 1985 re-elected in '91. Served until the end of '94 when I
10:11:09 15 was appointed Minister of State and then was co-opted back on again in --
16 Q. 4 September, I think?
17 A. 1997 and then served until the end of the dual mandate in 2003.
18 Q. 5 Did you get the impression from Mr. Lynn that he was making similar calls to
19 other politicians during the course of that election?
10:11:29 20 A. Yes, my impression was that this was a ring around of some kind to offer
21 election contributions, it wasn't a terribly long conversation.
22 Q. 6 Did he indicate to you the amount that they had proposed offering you?
23 A. No.
24 Q. 7 And again, I think in either '97 or 1999 you received a similar call?
10:11:47 25 A. Yes, and it was the same, you know, type of ringing around, you know, would
26 you -- you know, can we make a contribution to your election campaign and I
27 declined and he said something to the effect 'well that's what I expected you
28 to say' and went on to wish me well in the election.
29 Q. 8 Were those the reasons why you returned the 1,000 pounds from Mr. Sweeney's
10:12:11 30 companies in '98/'99?

www.pcr.ie Day 653
4
10:12:13 1 A. Well that came through the party rather than to me and it came up in
2 discussions. Around the time of the merger we had a kind of a joint committee
3 of the old constituency executive of the Labour Party and the old constituency
4 executive of the Democratic Left. It came up at one of those meetings that
10:12:32 5 this contribution had been made. There was a brief discussion on it. And it
6 was returned.
7 Q. 9 Now, I think you have told the Tribunal, if we look at 8592, that you knew Mr.
8 Dunlop and you knew that Mr. Dunlop was lobbying in the early 1990's on behalf
9 of developers. He lobbied you in relation to two developments at least. One
10:12:58 10 at least was in the Carrickmines area, the Paisley Park?
11 A. That's correct, that was my first contact with Mr. Dunlop. He approached me
12 about Paisley Park.
13 Q. 10 And another development?
14 A. I remember he sending me stuff or giving me material about Quarryvale.
10:13:14 15 Q. 11 Yes. Just in relation to Mr. Dunlop. You would have seen Mr. Dunlop, I take
16 it on your visits to the council chamber?
17 A. Oh, yes, he was regularly around the council chamber.
18 Q. 12 And Mr. Lynn equally and Mr. Reilly and possibly Mr. Sweeney?
19 A. Yes, I would have seen them regularly. They were both around the council
10:13:34 20 chamber. Also, over that period of time they were a regular feature at
21 various community activities and various events around the constituency.
22 Q. 13 Now, just dealing with the Cherrywood lands themselves. I think the Manager
23 brought proposal to the council in late 1990, which was effectively DP90/123.
24 And there were two meetings one in October and the other in November, which
10:14:01 25 culminated I think in a motion being debated on 6th of December 1990. Do you
26 recall the Manager's proposals and that debate on 6th of December 1990?
27 A. Yes, I do. I recall that there was a recommendation from the Manager that
28 there should be, I suppose, a strategic approach taken to future development of
29 what became known as the Carrickmines Valley, the area of -- the area really
10:14:27 30 from Leopardstown Road out to Loughlinstown, Shankill and back up to Stepaside,

www.pcr.ie Day 653
5
10:14:34 1 Kiltiernan and the Manager was recommending a mixture of housing, industrial
2 and commercial development right across that whole stretch of area.
3 Q. 14 Did you know by December '90 that Monarch had acquired these lands in
4 Cherrywood and had made submissions to the Manager and to the planners in
10:15:00 5 relation to their possible development?
6 A. No.
7 Q. 15 I don't think you were present at that meeting on the 6th of December but you
8 were present I think at a meeting on the 24th of May '91 when there was
9 discussion on the map for public display; isn't that right?
10:15:16 10 A. That's right.
11 Q. 16 You supported the first proposal there I think, which was the '83 map subject
12 to amendments; isn't that right?
13 A. That's right. The Manager, first of all it has to be said, was anxious to get
14 something out on public display because we were coming up towards the Local
10:15:36 15 Elections and we'd been at it for about four years. And there was this -- he
16 presented a set of I think it was three alternatives, one of which was to put
17 out this varied version of the '83 Plan and I supported that, yes.
18 Q. 17 Now, I think then that that map went on display between September and December
19 '91 and submissions were received. There were some oral hearings I think in
10:16:02 20 early '92 and the Manager came back then in early '92, around May '92, with his
21 proposals DP92/44 namely. If we could have 7203, please.
22
23 This is the Manager's proposals. They are effectively to extend the
24 residential zoning and to extend it on an action area plan; isn't that right?
10:16:34 25 A. That's right, yes.
26 Q. 18 Now, I think you yourself at that stage had, together with some of your
27 colleagues, tabled some motions; isn't that correct?
28 A. That's correct, we had.
29 Q. 19 If we could have 7162. This is a motion signed by yourself, Councillor
10:16:48 30 O'Ceallaigh and Councillor Colm Breathnach?

www.pcr.ie Day 653
6
10:16:52 1 A. O'Callaghan.
2 Q. 20 Apologies, for a special amenity area order to be made for the
3 Loughlinstown/Shanganagh Valley; isn't that right?
4 A. That's right.
10:17:02 5 Q. 21 I think there was a further motion. If we could have 7165, please. This was
6 a proposal that the lands be zoned AS 1, which is, I think, is residential on
7 septic tank. One house to the acre
8 A. One to the acre, yes.
9 Q. 22 And then if I could have finally 7168, which is a proposal that an identified
10:17:25 10 area of land be set aside for C zoning; isn't that right?
11 A. That's right.
12 Q. 23 Now, can I just ask you in relation to that C zoning. How did you come to
13 table that motion?
14 A. Well, in the lead up to the tabling of those motions there was a lot of debate
10:17:41 15 in the community. There were I suppose two differing views emerging; one was
16 that there should be no development at all on the lands and the second was a
17 view, mainly, centred in the Loughlinstown/Ballybrack area, mainly among
18 community leaders, that the proposals that were made by Monarch Properties
19 would generate employment. Now, bearing in mind that the Manager in his
10:18:08 20 original recommendation in 1990 had proposed that there should be some
21 commercial zoning on that land, we decided to table a motion which would, we
22 felt, generate some employment in that area.
23 Q. 24 You had attended I think a meeting of the Carrickmines Valley Preservation
24 Association held on 5th of November '91. We see that at 3368.
10:18:32 25
26 And we see your contribution as noted, I think, by a representative of Monarch
27 at 3369. Namely, you had queried why there should be no junctions on the
28 motorway and why land shouldn't be zoned for industry. And you queried the
29 difference in density between four houses to the acre and ten to the acre.
10:18:52 30 Was that reasonable?

www.pcr.ie Day 653
7
10:18:53 1 A. Yes, there were a number of issues. One was the Carrickmines Valley
2 Association were suggesting that there should be no junction on the motorway
3 between Shankill and Sandyford. I didn't agree with that because I felt that
4 that would concentrate all of the traffic coming on and off the motorway in
10:19:11 5 both the Shankill and Sandyford areas and I expressed that.
7 I had indeed at meetings with the council argued that the effect of what we had
8 done in what had gone out on public display, in my opinion, had left the Dun
9 Laoghaire/Rathdown end of the county short in terms of the industrial and
10:19:35 10 commercially zoned land. There was no land zoned for industry -- there was no
11 remaining land effectively in the old Dun Laoghaire borough which was zoned for
12 industry or commercial activity. And the amount in the Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown
13 end of the old County Council was very low and the effect of the motions that
14 had been passed in May of 1991 had been to cut that down even further.
10:19:59 15
16 And given that there was very substantial unemployment, we'd about 8,000 I
17 think in the Dun Laoghaire Labour Exchange, there was I think about 13,000 I
18 think altogether unemployed in the county, there was -- it was having huge
19 effects in communities like Loughlinstown and Ballybrack in particular. I
10:20:18 20 felt that there was a need to redress that in the amendment stage of the County
21 Development Plan. I expressed that at that meeting and indeed other meetings
22 that were held around that time as well
23 Q. 25 I think on 18th of March '92 you wrote to Mr. Lynn. I think at that stage you
24 were suggesting an independent?
10:20:36 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 26 Economic assessment of the development; isn't that right?
27 A. That's right. When Monarch mounted this big public relations campaign to
28 support their proposal and as part of that they said that they were going to
29 create 1,000 jobs in the construction stage and 1,000 jobs would be generated
10:20:59 30 when it would be all built. Now, I reckoned that yes, there was jobs

www.pcr.ie Day 653
8
10:21:05 1 potential in what they were proposing but I felt that they were exaggerating
2 the amount and I suggested that there should be an independent evaluation
3 carried out of the jobs potential of what they were proposing and I recommended
4 that that should be carried out by the Irish Productivity Centre.
10:21:22 5 Q. 27 I think they acceded to that request?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 28 I think the 1,000 jobs during the initial construction phase became 500 and 600
8 jobs; is that correct?
9 A. Yes, it didn't -- I mean, they didn't come to the conclusion that it was going
10:21:38 10 to be 1,000 at construction and 1,000 afterwards. I think it was 500 over the
11 entire construction stage and 600 when completed. Which of course was still
12 significant I felt.
13 Q. 29 Would it be fair to say during this period there would have been contact
14 between you and representatives of Monarch, possibly Mr. Lynn in relation to
10:21:55 15 the strategy and your proposals in relation to the district centre?
16 A. Oh, yes.
17 Q. 30 Can I ask you. How did you settle on the precise location for the centre as
18 appears in the map accompanying your motion?
19 A. Um, well, I was conscious of the road connection from the old Wyattville Road
10:22:14 20 to the new motorway was going to go up there and there was also the Harcourt
21 Street line. And I had a separate motion that the Harcourt Street line should
22 be preserved for public transport. At that time the idea was a bus way now
23 it's obviously the LUAS and the location was around where the connecting road
24 and the bus way would intersect.
10:22:37 25 Q. 31 Yes. Was that the subject of any negotiation with the Monarch representatives
26 or discussion at that time or was it solely your --?
27 A. No, no, it was our own -- it was our own um -- it was our own ideas.
28 Q. 32 Well then I think on 27th of May the Manager produced his report and if we
29 could have 7207.
10:23:08 30

www.pcr.ie Day 653
9
10:23:08 1 Councillors Lydon and McGrath proposed that the Manager's draft be accepted;
2 isn't that right? I think you voted against that?
3 A. That's right.
4 Q. 33 At the time. Can I ask you were there particular councillors who were -- who
10:23:13 5 were easily identifiable with the Monarch proposals at this time? In other
6 words, were there councillors whose views in relation to this were well known?
7 A. I mean, there were a lot of councillors who had motions down on it.
8 Q. 34 Yes?
9 A. And it was obviously very -- there was a lot of controversy about it. I --
10:23:39 10 I -- no, I wouldn't -- I mean, that wasn't, I mean that wasn't my view that
11 there were particular councillors that you could say were identifiably --
12 Q. 35 Supportive?
13 A. Supportive of Monarch. I mean, different people had different motions on it.
14 Q. 36 In any event you voted against that proposal. If we look at 7208. I think
10:23:58 15 you then had a proposal that the motion would be taken in a certain order and
16 that proposal or motion was unsuccessful; isn't that right?
17 A. That's right. What we were trying to do, we felt that the motions we had
18 submitted were kind of a package. We were anxious to have had them voted on
19 as a package. The standing orders required each motion to be voted on
10:24:20 20 separately and to relate only to a specific thing. They had to be voted on
21 separately. So we suggested that order. It was as close as we were going to
22 get to voting on it as a package.
23 Q. 37 Yes. Councillor Lydon, I think, and Hand advised the members that they wished
24 to withdraw a motion that they had tabled. That's at 7209. And then you got
10:24:44 25 into the first of a series of motions?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 38 In relation to the density effectively?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 39 We see at the bottom of 7209 a motion by Councillor Gordon and Reeves which is
10:24:54 30 to be found at 7210, that the lands be zoned effectively at one house to the

www.pcr.ie Day 653
10
10:24:59 1 acre on septic tank. I think that was taken together with a motion in the
2 name of Councillor Breathnach and Smith that there would be -- that the Monarch
3 lands would be at one house to the acre. That would have been very low
4 density; isn't that right?
10:25:13 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 40 That was about as low as you could go at that time vis-a-vis housing?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 41 I think you voted against that?
9 A. That's right.
10:25:20 10 Q. 42 You were to subsequently vote on the same day in favour of an almost similar
11 motion brought by Councillor Barrett. Can I ask you why you voted against
12 that motion and in favour of the Councillor Barrett motion subsequently?
13 A. Well first of all, that motion came before the motions that we had tabled
14 ourselves. And we were anxious, to if you like, support the motions that we
10:25:41 15 had tabled ourselves. The Councillor Barrett motion if you like was at the
16 end. And that was the fall-back position.
17 Q. 43 You would never have got to your motions had these motions been successful?
18 A. That's right. Those motions, they would have cut across the proposals that we
19 had had in our motions and then obviously as the proposals which were in our
10:25:57 20 motions began to fall, if you like the fall back position then became
21 Councillor Barrett's motion.
22 Q. 44 I think we see your motion at 7214 and I think you were successful in relation
23 to that motion. That's the C zoning; isn't that right?
24 A. That's right, yes.
10:26:12 25 Q. 45 And then we see the Councillor Barrett motion. I think the matter then went
26 out on publish display for a second time; isn't that right?
27 A. That's right.
28 Q. 46 Now, sometime in 1993 it appears that the idea of a Business and Science and
29 Technology Park being sited on the left-hand side became a reality. When did
10:26:35 30 you first hear about the science and technology suggestion?

www.pcr.ie Day 653
11
10:26:38 1 A. I think it was sometime around the middle of 1993. There was an invitation to
2 visit Montpelier in France to look at a science and technology park there.
3 And I remember that was around the time in fact our third child was born, which
4 was in August. So it was sometime around then.
10:26:58 5 Q. 47 We see in correspondence between Monarch and GRE on 13th of July '93. At
6 4825, if we look at 4826.
8 There is a dispute in relation to fees incurred in relation to that trip.
9 Mr. Sweeney, as we see there, says outcome of the conference has been used to
10:27:18 10 good effect with Councillor Donal Marren and Deputy Eamonn Gilmore in
11 particular and may yet provide us with a mechanism of obtaining an acceptable
12 zoning on Cherrywood.
13
14 You would accept that at this stage Monarch were anxious to increase their
10:27:32 15 density both in relation to housing and in relation to industry on the site;
17 A. That's right. Could I say that I didn't actually go on that visit to
18 Montpelier.
19 Q. 48 Yes. Councillor Marren has given evidence that he was the only person who
10:27:48 20 travelled on that.?
21 A. Oh, yes. I mean, there was no -- you know, they were looking for the maximum
22 amount of zoning that they could get on it.
23 Q. 49 I think at a meeting with the manager on the 14th July 1993 at 4312, they are
24 putting forward the concept of the Science and Technology Park, but they are I
10:28:09 25 think asking for an increase in density for any lands that would be lost as a
26 result of the park being sited there; isn't that right?
27 A. Yes. I wasn't aware of that at the time.
28 Q. 50 You weren't aware of that?
29 A. No.
10:28:21 30 Q. 51 Were you aware of any discussions with the management as opposed to the

www.pcr.ie Day 653
12
10:28:25 1 councillors in relation to the science and technology or indeed industry on the
2 land in this period that is 1993?
3 A. No.
4 Q. 52 Now, we do know that there was a -- that the matter came back before the
10:28:41 5 council, I think, on 11th of November 1993, isn't that right?
6 A. That's right.
7 Q. 53 And two motions in the names of Councillor -- If I could have 7226, please.
9 This is a motion in the name of Councillor Marren, Lohan, Coffey, Cosgrave and
10:28:59 10 Ormonde, effectively zoning an area of land with four houses to the acre with
11 the balance being zoned at two houses to the hectare, which is effectively one
12 to the acre, came before the council; isn't that right?
13 A. That's right.
14 Q. 54 If I could have 2720. This is the map which would have shown, the blue area as
10:29:18 15 you will see on the map is an area zoned for agricultural purposes. The red
16 area is your town centre.
17 A. Uh-huh.
18 Q. 55 The area surrounded by the red verge line is the Monarch lands?
19 A. Yes.
10:29:32 20 Q. 56 And all of the area coloured yellow including that surrounded by the red line
21 is an area where the Manager was suggesting ought to be zoned at four houses
22 to the acre?
23 A. Uh-huh.
24 Q. 57 And the motion that came for debate was a motion that only those lands, that is
10:29:49 25 to say the Monarch lands, be zoned at four houses to the acre. You voted
26 against that motion I think at that time?
27 A. I did, yes.
28 Q. 58 The motion was successful.
29
10:29:58 30 Can I ask you, was there any good reason why only the Monarch lands should at

www.pcr.ie Day 653
13
10:30:02 1 that time be zoned at four houses to the acre?
2 A. I don't recall any discussion of that at the time. I don't recall that being,
3 you know, in the debate that took place about it. I don't recall that being
4 an issue in the argument.
10:30:16 5 Q. 59 In the council?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 60 It would appear, would you agree with me, that that motion would appear to have
8 benefited only the Monarch lands?
9 A. Well it applied only to the Monarch lands.
10:30:25 10 Q. 61 And Mr. Murray, the planning officer, said that there was no good planning
11 reason why only the Monarch lands. I appreciate that you were opposed to it
12 in principle. But that there was no good planning reason why only the Monarch
13 lands should be zoned at four to the acre?
14 A. Well I don't -- I mean, if that's Mr. Murray's view obviously he was the county
10:30:46 15 planner at the time.
16 Q. 62 Now, the zoning was not an area Action Plan zoning it was just four houses to
17 the acre on piped sewage. I think an area Action Plan was commence in the
18 early '94. We know from the notes of the meeting with Mr. Murray indeed at
19 4293 on 6th of January '94 that he was hoping to have an Action Plan ready
10:31:09 20 within two months. And he was also suggesting that the plan might highlight
21 the anomaly of that area coloured blue on the map.
22
23 If we could have 2720 again, please, which was zoned agricultural. That now
24 that the line of the motorway was likely to move further west, that that area
10:31:27 25 be zoned for residential purposes also. Did you know that those debates and
26 those discussions were taking place at that time with the planners or the
27 Manager?
28 A. I did not, no.
29 Q. 63 It would appear that in early '94, that is to say in I think in May '94 you
10:31:48 30 tabled a motion in relation to the science and technology park; isn't that

www.pcr.ie Day 653
14
10:31:52 1 right?
2 A. Yes, for the planning committee of the council.
3 Q. 64 For the planning committee of the council. Did you have any discussions with
4 either the management in the first instance. When I say management I mean the
10:32:02 5 Manager or the planners, in relation to the tabling of that motion in advance
6 of it being tabled?
7 A. I didn't have any discussions specifically about the motion. But I would have
8 had I think at the time that the science and technology park idea was floated,
9 probably some brief informal discussions with the Manager about, you know,
10:32:30 10 whether he thought it was a good idea or did he thing there was anything in it
11 or merit in it or was it a runner. That type of discussion.
12 Q. 65 Yes. Would it be fair to say that he was supportive of anything that would
13 create jobs within his county?
14 A. Yes, he was positive about it.
10:32:37 15 Q. 66 Yes. If we look at. There was a meeting then I think on the 19th of May.
16 Your motion is tabled for the Planning and Tourism Committee on 23rd of May.
17 On 19th of May '94 at 5107 there is a meeting between the representatives of
18 the council and representatives of Monarch and indeed, GRE. If we look at 5108
19 under the heading Action Area Plan. The plan is produced to the Monarch
10:33:07 20 representatives.
21
22 And AP I think is the Deputy County Manager. Outlined previous discussions he
23 had had with Kevin O'Sullivan, County Manager, in relation to changing 56 acres
24 and 11 of agriculture to facilitate job creating zoning science and technology
10:33:24 25 park. The Deputy Manager indicated GRE were prepared to consider -- sorry.
26 I should say that is Mr. Pat Field, who is a representative of GRE, were
27 prepared to consider this subject to being compensated for loss of residential
28 land. He also raised a point of the density of residential on service land.
29
10:33:46 30 Did you know at this time when you were tabling your motion that it was likely

www.pcr.ie Day 653
15
10:33:50 1 to result in GRE and Monarch asking that there be additional lands zoned for
2 residential or indeed other lands zoned for industrial purposes?
3 A. No. In fact, my thinking was that it would have done the reverse, because I
4 was quite unhappy at the four to the acre zoning that had been put on the land
10:34:08 5 and felt that, you know, given a choice, you know, that if you had -- the one
6 thing we weren't short of in Dun Laoghaire at that time were large houses and
7 large sites. We were short of opportunities for people to get some work.
8 And I felt that the -- the purpose of my motion was to -- was to if you like,
9 substitute the science and technology park for some of the housing zoning.
10:34:33 10 Q. 67 Now, I think that if we continue on at 5109. Just you see RML, I think that's
11 Mr. Lynn, advised that the members would be receptive to a proposal from
12 management to change the 66 acres to industrial to facilitate a science and
13 technology park, to retain 17 acres of commercial and for the residue of the
14 lands to be zoned residential with an A1 density.
10:34:57 15
16 DT, who I understand is the Deputy Manager, indicated that it was his
17 impression that the change of the industrial lands was a fait accompli.
18
19 Did you understand the change to industrial lands or the science and technology
10:35:11 20 lands at this stage, that is to say May 1994, to be a fait accompli?
21 A. No, I did not. The motion that I had tabled wasn't considered by the
22 committee until after that.
23 Q. 68 That's right. We do know, for example, on 14th of June. If I could have
24 8617, that Monarch were writing to GRE. This is in relation to the agreement
10:35:32 25 between Monarch and GRE. And we see from that letter, "we discussed amongst
26 other things a fee payable to Monarch Property Services for work in connection
27 with the change of zoning to industrial on certain of the Cherrywood lands.
28 The fee suggested for this was 50,000 payable immediately and a further 100,000
29 on success, half being payable by guardian".
10:35:53 30

www.pcr.ie Day 653
16
10:35:53 1 Did you know that there were those sort of discussions and correspondence
2 between Monarch and GRE at this time in relation to the possibility of getting
3 industrial zoning on the lands?
4 A. No.
10:36:04 5 Q. 69 Now, there was a report I think published or produced by Mr. Lynn in June of
6 1994 and you will have seen that in the brief circulated but included in that
7 was a projection for fees that might become payable. If we could have,
8 please, sorry, the report itself is at 5167 but if I could have 5175. There's
9 a heading Budget for Social Events. You will see there at item No. 11. And
10:36:43 10 it refers to an appendix A. And at appendix A, to be found at 5178 under the
11 heading Cherrywood General Promotions. That's 5178. They set out a budget,
12 as I understand it, we'll hear evidence I'm sure in time from the
13 representatives of Monarch in relation to it.
14
10:37:03 15 You will see that there is a proposed budget in relation to a general election
16 and a Senate election. There is a budget for all of the various political
17 parties including I think your own at that time. Did you know that Monarch
18 were proposing a budget for at that time, that is June '94, in relation to
19 upcoming political events?
10:37:24 20 A. No, I did not.
21 Q. 70 Now, Monarch identified a number of key people in relation to the matter. I
22 think you were identified as one of those. They were all local councillors.
23 I presume it wouldn't surprise you that you would have been identified as
24 somebody whose support ought to be solicited at this time?
10:37:50 25 A. Well, I was a member of the council at the time and ...
26 Q. 71 You step out the of the picture I think by late '94 because you're appointed
27 a Minister; isn't that right?
29 Q. 72 I think there was a policy of the Government's to designate as an area a
10:38:05 30 science and technology park and Cherrywood -- the Carrickmines lands was one of

www.pcr.ie Day 653
17
10:38:10 1 the areas that was in contention for that; isn't that right?
2 A. Yes, the designation idea I think had come back actually too early -- I knew it
3 was in the air this idea of designating at the time that I tabled the motion
4 for the planning committee. And I knew that there were discussions involving
10:38:26 5 universities and that there were a number of sites in consideration. One of
6 which was the Cherrywood site.
7 Q. 73 If we could have 7464.
9 The science -- the possibility of a science and technology park and the review
10:38:41 10 of the plan and the negotiations with the Manager. Did you know that the
11 Manager negotiated on behalf of the council to become a joint partner?
12 A. Yes, I did. In fact, that had been reported to the council.
13 Q. 74 Yes?
14 A. Before I went off the council at the end of '94.
10:39:00 15 Q. 75 That was reported, I think, at a meeting on 14th of November '94.
16
17 If we could have 2390. We see that meeting. We can see the Manager's Report
18 at 2391, and subsequently the agreement itself is I think at 2392. The idea
19 was that the council would purchase one-third of the lands.
10:39:30 20 A. That's right.
21 Q. 76 Yes. Now, you knew -- you were present for that, that was shortly before you
22 left the council; isn't that right?
23 A. That's right. My recollection of it was that the Manager came back with a
24 recommendation that the council would become a partner in the whole science and
10:39:50 25 technology park project idea. That it would acquire part of the lands. And
26 I think there was also the idea that if the council acquired additional lands
27 adjacent to it, that it could -- that the council could increase its share of
28 the project and there were some arrangements made for setting up of some kind
29 of a joint company and so on to manage it.
10:40:14 30 Q. 77 And I think that that found unanimous agreement amongst the councillors; isn't

www.pcr.ie Day 653
18
2 A. Yes, the whole idea of the science and technology park was unanimously
3 supported by the council at the time. There may have been some, some
4 individuals may have some difficulties -- I think probably some individual
10:40:33 5 aspects of it but the overall idea was a general consensus on the council that
6 this was a good idea, this was something we should be looking for and we were
7 also aware that there was sites in each of the other three local authorities.
8 Q. 78 Yes?
9 A. Who were bidding to get this designation as a national science and technology
10:40:52 10 park.
11 Q. 79 I think that designation was given in 1996 but not to Cherrywood?
12 A. That's right.
13 Q. 80 I think it went to City West?
14 A. City West, yes.
10:41:00 15 Q. 81 There is no doubt but that the science and technology park allowed for increase
16 in density on the site in Carrickmines; isn't that right? That whole scheme
17 brought about by the review of the plan, the action area plan, the variation of
18 the plan necessitated, I suggest, by the science and technology park allowed
19 for an increase in density and increased area for residential zoning?
10:41:31 20 A. Well it was a consequence of it.
21 Q. 82 Yes?
22 A. That there was an increase in density. I wouldn't agree that it necessarily
23 had to be like that.
24 Q. 83 Yes?
10:41:40 25 A. But that was the way it turned out.
26 Q. 84 That appears to have been -- as far as Monarch and GRE were concerned, they
27 were anxious that if there were to be a science and technology park at this
28 location, in particular if the council were to be involved, then the gain to
29 them was an increase in density; isn't that right?
10:41:57 30 A. Yeah, the agreement or if you like the framework that was agreed, was that

www.pcr.ie Day 653
19
10:42:03 1 council would acquire part of the land, would become a partner in it. There
2 was this knock on effect in terms of the -- I think there was some knock on
3 effect in terms of the district centre and also a knock on effect in terms of
4 the land which was zoned residential and I suppose that emerged as a kind of a
10:42:23 5 package.
6 Q. 85 Now, I think that there was -- it took some time for there to be any
7 development in the area; isn't that right? And certainly I'm not sure if there
8 is even still a science and technology park in the area or do you know?
9 A. Well, Dell and Lucent have been located there. That also developed.
10:42:44 10 Q. 86 We're back in '94/'95?
11 A. No, it was a number of years after that before ....
12 Q. 87 I think the Manager when he was giving evidence expressed annoyance that it
13 took so long for there to be development there. Do you recall any discussions
14 on the delay in getting the development, employment development on the lands?
10:43:04 15 A. Oh, yes, there was annoyance that it was taking so long for it to emerge. I
16 know that it got caught up. There was Monarch Properties, I think there were
17 court cases and they had all kinds of internal problems and so on. Of course
18 it wasn't designated as a science and technology park.
19 Q. 88 Yes. Now, I think the review of the '93 plan came about in '97.
10:43:28 20
21 And you were back in in late '97. I think a series of motions were debate in
22 the January '98, which again result in an extension of the science and
23 technology area and the effectively increase in density and a review of the
24 restriction on the town centre; isn't that right?
10:43:46 25 A. That's right, yes, yes, I remember that.
26 Q. 89 Thank you very much, Mr Gilmore.
27
28 CHAIRMAN: All right. Mr Gilmore, could I just ask you. Were you aware of
29 any rumours or stories of payments to councillors which were circulating in the
10:44:04 30 early 1990s and were the subject I think of some newspaper reports, some

www.pcr.ie Day 653
20
10:44:09 1 witnesses have said they have recalled hearing rumours and stories to that
2 effect. Do you recall anything of that nature?
3 A. Well I remember the newspaper articles.
10:44:19 5 CHAIRMAN: Uh-huh.
6 A. I mean, there had been newspaper articles about what was happening in planning
7 in County Dublin going probably back to the 1970s. There was, I recall, a
8 Garda investigation into the Dublin County Council Bord Pleanala or perhaps
9 both around 1989. It was around the time I was elected to the Dail. And I
10:44:43 10 remember at the time feeling that the Garda investigation was not going to get
11 to the bottom of it. And I called in the Dail for an inquiry.
12
13 I also published in the lead up to the 1991 Local Elections, a kind of a
14 summary of what had been happening on the County Council by way of material
10:45:05 15 contraventions and Section 4 motions and that type of thing. I never -- I
16 didn't hear of specific, you know, A paid B money but I suppose my general
17 impression was that -- was that there were payments going to political parties
18 and that there was a kind of a general disposition to be pro, probuilding or
19 pro, you know, proconstruction. But I didn't hear. I didn't hear of any
10:45:36 20 specific, somebody paying somebody money, that type of thing.
21
22 CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you very much, Mr Gilmore.
23
24
10:45:46 25
27
28
29 CHAIRMAN: We'll rise until eleven o'clock so that ...
10:46:13 30

www.pcr.ie Day 653
21
10:46:13 1
3 AND RESUMED AS FOLLOWS:
11:12:00 5
6 CHAIRMAN: Now, Mr. Dunlop.
8 Continuation of questioning of Mr. Frank Dunlop as follows:
11:12:11 10
11
12 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Mr. Dunlop.
13 A. Good morning, Chairman, Judges.
14
11:12:24 15 MR. MURPHY: Good morning, Mr. Dunlop
16 A. Good morning, Mr. Murphy.
17 Q. 90 Mr. Dunlop, could I just ask you, to begin with, if having overnight perhaps
18 reflected on your evidence yesterday and considered your evidence, anticipated
19 your evidence today, have you anything, have you any comment to make about your
11:12:42 20 evidence yesterday? Would you like to add anything, is there any correction
21 you want to make in it or are you happy with it?
22 A. No. I'll proceed as normal.
23 Q. 91 Right. Mr. Dunlop, can I ask you -- yes. Could I have 8705, please.
24
11:13:27 25 The Tribunal has received recently a narrative statement from Cathal Boland.
26 A. Uh-huh.
27 Q. 92 And on page 8705, under your name, the first paragraph he says "on two separate
28 occasions Mr. Frank Dunlop extended invitations to me to attend, which I did,
29 the official openings in both the Tallaght and UCI Malahide Road, Coolock
11:14:02 30 cinema complexes. The date of the Tallaght event eludes me while the Malahide

www.pcr.ie Day 653
22
11:14:10 1 Road was in the late Summer, early Autumn of 1991. Mr. Dunlop's company were
2 the public relations firm engaged to handle the events. As I understand the
3 promoters were keen to have a cross-section of the community in attendance at
4 these high profile events. No other benefits were received by me from any of
11:14:21 5 the above, their servants or agents"
7 Have you any comment to make on that, please?
8 A. Yes. We did act for, I beg your pardon, we did act for the company that
9 Mr. Boland refers to and we were responsible for the publicity surrounding the
11:14:40 10 openings of -- advising the companies and surrounding the openings of -- of
11 various openings that they had throughout the city.
12 Q. 93 Right. What is the company you're talking about?
13 A. UCI, United Cinemas International.
14 Q. 94 Right. Has that anything to do with what I was asking you yesterday about,
11:14:55 15 namely about the opening of the Tallaght Centre?
16 A. No, no, absolutely not.
17 Q. 95 It's a different one?
18 A. No, the Tallaght Town Centre as an entity as such, nothing to do with me.
19 UCI, was a client. A normal regular client.
11:15:11 20 Q. 96 All right. And they didn't open -- did they open their cinema complex at the
21 same time as the Tallaght opening?
22 A. That I can't tell you whether or not they were open at the same time as the
23 actual opening of the complex. I couldn't absolutely say that. But
24 certainly we advised the company and we did the promotions in relation to the
11:15:33 25 openings.
26 Q. 97 But I imagine that in relation to, for example, if the Tallaght Centre opening,
27 that we talked yesterday that you went to with Mr. Lawlor and the other people
28 whose names you wrote down?
29 A. Correct.
11:15:49 30 Q. 98 And the opening that you went to with Mr. Boland. If they were the same

www.pcr.ie Day 653
23
11:15:54 1 opening on the same day you'd recall?
2 A. Yes, I would. And I don't think they were.
3 Q. 99 Yes?
4 A. In fairness. I -- I just looked at it on the screen and I've seen it. I saw
11:16:05 5 this statement five minutes ago.
6 Q. 100 Yes?
7 A. In relation to, the usual. But certainly we acted for UCI.
8 Q. 101 Yes?
9 A. Certainly members of my staff were responsible.
11:16:15 10 Q. 102 Yes?
11 A. For the publicity surrounding these openings.
12 Q. 103 Yes. But can I just -- you see, Mr. Dunlop, one of the things I'm finding
13 difficulty with you is that you don't seem to be able to give a definitive
14 answer on anything and you always leave the door a little bit open for
11:16:30 15 something, for a different answer if some more, what you call "evidence" comes
16 to light. I'm just suggesting to you, perhaps I'm wrong in this, there
17 really couldn't be any doubt, the opening of the Tallaght Centre that I
18 discussed with you yesterday and the one you I'm talking about now, the opening
19 of the UCI that you acted for with Mr. Boland. I don't think there could be
11:16:51 20 any doubt in your mind as to whether they are two separate occasions or one
21 occasion?
22 A. I can absolutely assure you that UCI Cinemas, United Cinemas International was
23 in no way in the forefront of my mind at the time we went to the opening of the
24 Tallaght Town Centre with the people that I mentioned to you yesterday.
11:17:08 25 Q. 104 Mr. Dunlop, I think Mr. Dunlop, you have said previously?
26 A. Uh-huh.
27 Q. 105 That you never paid money to Mr. Cathal Boland?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 106 And have you just a few moments ago you've been given the statement?
11:17:40 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
24
11:17:40 1 Q. 107 If you can go to 8706, please.
3 And if -- I'll just read out that paragraph.
11:17:52 5 "Frank Dunlop phoned me and arranged to meet me in the council after lunch. I
6 am unclear as to what the date was. I was in the FG room and Frank came in.
7 We had a chat about the election, what might happen. He gave me a
8 contribution in a sealed envelope and told me it was provided by four or five
9 individuals. When I asked him for their names he told me they were happy to
11:18:10 10 make the contribution and that it was not necessary that they be acknowledged.
11 I was then and still am unaware of the identity of these subscribers. But he
12 gave me to believe -- he gave me to believe that he was not one of these
13 people. He indicated he was in a hurry, wished me luck regarding the election
14 and left. Subsequently when I opened the envelope which contained 4,000
11:18:33 15 pounds in cash. There is no documentation in my possession other than my
16 record of receipt of this amount. From records to hand it is clear that Mr
17 Dunlop is not recorded as making any other contribution or subscription to me
18 at any time nor do I recall him as so doing."
19 I understand this was November 1992, I think that comes from the previous page.
11:18:58 20 Have you anything to say about that?
21 A. No. Sorry, I do have something to say about it. The answer is no, I did not
22 make that contribution.
23 Q. 108 Right. You didn't make that?
24 A. No.
11:19:15 25 Q. 109 All right. So Mr. Cathal Boland is inventing that, making it up, not telling
26 the truth, making an allegation against you that is without foundation?
27 A. Well, he may have well got 4,000 pounds but he certainly didn't get 4,000
28 pounds from me.
29 Q. 110 I'm not interested in if he got it from anybody else, Mr. Dunlop. We're
11:19:36 30 talking about 4,000 pounds in cash from you?

www.pcr.ie Day 653
25
11:19:38 1 A. No.
2 Q. 111 Did he get any sum in cash from you?
3 A. He got a contribution that he requested from me for some political function, a
4 fundraising function that he was organising.
11:19:48 5 Q. 112 How much?
6 A. I think it was something in the order of 250 pounds or something.
7 Q. 113 I take it 250 is right?
8 A. Yes, you can.
9 Q. 114 Okay. All right. Okay. That's fine. We're aware, we're on notice of
11:19:57 10 that. This he just -- he didn't get this from you, you are flabbergasted?
11 A. Well I am -- well the answer is no, I did not make that contribution to him.
12 And secondly, the background is why would I make such a contribution to Cathal
13 Boland? Cathal Boland never appeared on the radar screen, as far as I'm
14 concerned, in relation to matters we're dealing with in this Tribunal. In
11:20:23 15 fairness to him, he never asked for and I never gave him any money in relation
16 to anything relating to the Development Plan in Dublin County Council.
17 Q. 115 Now, Mr. Dunlop, in we could just have -- I want to just touch on something.
18 Page 571, please. I was asking you yesterday about that first meeting with Mr.
19 Sweeney?
11:20:57 20 A. Yeah.
21 Q. 116 And I was -- your evidence is that that meeting just took place just with
22 Mr. Sweeney?
23 A. Yes
24 Q. 117 You are very clear about that and I was putting to you about your private
11:21:12 25 interview in May 2000 when you said it was Mr. Sweeney and Mr Lawlor.
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 118 I can't remember how you answered me. Anyway, you said what you are saying
28 now is correct and what you said then was not correct?
29 A. What I did say to you yesterday and the transcript may well show it to be
11:21:29 30 correct. Yes, I did meet Mr. Sweeney on his own. Yes, I did meet

www.pcr.ie Day 653
26
11:21:35 1 Mr. Sweeney with Mr. Lawlor on other occasions with Monarch. I think that
2 summarises what I said.
3 Q. 119 Can you tell me this. That first meeting with Mr. Sweeney in Harcourt Street.
4 How could you describe your recollection, have you a good recollection of it or
11:21:49 5 a vague recollection of it?
6 A. I would say I have a reasonable recollection of it, yes.
7 Q. 120 A reasonable recollection of it?
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. 121 Is it a recollection, the reasonableness of the recollection one that maybe you
11:22:04 10 wouldn't remember precisely who was there?
11 A. No. Let me assure you in relation to who was precisely there. I met
12 Mr. Sweeney on his own on that occasion.
14 A. I met Mr. Sweeney obviously many more times, either alone or in the presence of
11:22:20 15 other people.
16 Q. 123 571 and I put this to you yesterday. Your answer is -- do you see this? The
17 introduction was facilitated by Liam Lawlor with Eddie Sweeney?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 124 At Monarch's offices in Harcourt Street. I met with Eddie Sweeney and Liam
11:22:37 20 Lawlor at that office?
21 A. Uh-huh.
22 Q. 125 And then you go on to say how Mr. Sweeney explained certain things to you.
23
24 Now, I put that to you yesterday, all right, as to what you had said to the
11:22:47 25 Tribunal in an interview in May 2000 about who was at the meeting?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 126 And Mr. Lawlor was there?
28 A. Yeah.
29 Q. 127 Could we move on in that interview, please, to page 589.
11:22:59 30

www.pcr.ie Day 653
27
11:22:59 1 Now, and Mr. Lawlor, Mr. Dunlop, I remind you that you have sworn today and
2 yesterday that Mr. Lawlor was not at this first meeting
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 128 Page 589. Mr. Hanratty at line 50, while we are waiting on that can I just
11:23:19 5 flash back to the first meeting that you had with Eddie Sweeney.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 129 You said that Liam Lawlor was there?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 130 Can you just recall again what was said at that by Mr. Sweeney and or
11:23:32 10 Mr. Lawlor
11 A: I will tell you what was said by Mr. Lawlor. Mr. Lawlor said that you
12 are making a blip of the whole thing.
13 Q: To who?
14 A: To Sweeney. To Sweeney. And Sweeney said there is very little I can do
11:23:47 15 about it because we cannot control Phil. We do not know what Phil is at and
16 according to Richard, Phil is causing most of the problems for us by virtue of
17 his running an independent. I'll come black to all of this later.
18
19 Thinks he can do it himself and by running an independent campaign and talking
11:24:03 20 to people individually on his own initiative which was the first indication
21 that I had, obviously I had not been involved before. Which was a disastrous
22 scenario to discover. To find yourself of running on something on behalf of
23 a client. You discover the client is doing something completely differently
24 or independently and to pick up the pieces
11:24:20 25 Q: This was a briefing meeting was it.
26 A: Yes. I remember it vividly"
27 A. Uh-huh.
28 Q. 131 Now, do you disagree that you remember that first meeting vividly as opposed to
29 reasonably?
11:24:32 30 A. No, I disagree, sorry. I disagree that that account in contrast with the

www.pcr.ie Day 653
28
11:24:40 1 account that I have given now. This account, the latest account I've given
2 you. Mr. Liam Lawlor was not present at the first meeting.
3 Q. 132 Mr Dunlop, would you please stick to my simple question. Do you have a vivid
4 recollection of the meeting or what you said a moment ago, a reasonable
11:24:55 5 recollection which I would have thought are two different things.?
6 A. I have a reasonable recollection of the meeting.
7 Q. 133 You said in 2000 to the Tribunal you had a vivid recollection. Which is it?
8 A. I have a reasonable recollection of the meeting and what was said by
9 Mr. Sweeney.
11:25:09 10 Q. 134 I take this as an inconsistency then on your part that you don't have a vivid
11 recollection, Mr. Dunlop?
12 A. No, I don't agree.
13 Q. 135 Now, I remember it vividly because it was in Eddie Sweeney's own office which
14 was a very cluttered affair in the Harcourt Station. Q: was this meeting
11:25:26 15 arranged by Liam Lawlor ?
16 A: Yes.
17 Q: In what day I suppose it's on -- did he phone you and ask you to come
18 along?
19 A: Exactly.
11:25:38 20 Q: Or did he set up the meeting?
21 A: He set up the meeting.
22 Q: In what capacity was he acting here, was he an advisor or something?
23 A: I think I said there, when I was talking to Mr. Gallagher I, said I
24 believe that certainly there was a very strong relationship between Liam Lawlor
11:25:55 25 and Phil Monahan in the first instance and obviously between Liam Lawlor and
26 the Monarch organisation.
27 Q: They told you that somebody was making a monumental whatever of it. Did
28 Eddie Sweeney kind of apprise you or update you of what had happened up to that
29 point
11:26:11 30 A: He said that Richard and Phil but Richard in particular had done an

www.pcr.ie Day 653
29
11:26:14 1 enormous amount of work with all of the councillors. They seemed to be
2 bending the wind to every wind that blew out in Cherrywood in relation to the
3 opposition. Notwithstanding the fact that a lot of them were already on board.
4 Q: yes. In sense of having been given money
11:26:28 5 A: Yes.
6 Q: Was there any discussion in Mr Lawlor's presence by Mr Sweeney in connection
7 with what you were going to do, why you were being brought on board.
8 Presumably Mr Lawlor knew because it was he who arranged the meeting?
9 A: Yes.
11:26:39 10 Q: The discussion ran along the lines that look there is a scenario here
11 where a decision has to be made, what is going to be run with. You know,
12 Frank here knows all of the councillors, knows all of the people. He can. I
13 do not mean to be sort of but this.. this was actually said and it sounds a
14 bit immodest my saying he knows them all and they will believe him. If Frank
11:27:00 15 says look this is the best thing to do on a compromise basis. I'll get the
16 thing sorted. At that same meeting, as per usual, maps were flying in all
17 directions and drawings if we did this and that and and altered this and
18 altered that, we have facility to do it but there was absolutely no doubt in my
19 mind then, or now, that I was brought in by Lawlor, recommended to Eddie
11:27:19 20 Sweeney and others on the basis that I had capacity, persuasiveness or
21 otherwise to ensure that whatever was acceptable to Monarch would run. At
22 that meeting was there any discussion of how much your fee would be or was that
23 a different occasion. No, you raised the fee. Question 77. Did Lawlor
24 participate in that conversation at all?
11:27:37 25 A: Lawlor would have been there during it. He did not participate in it."
26 Sorry, perhaps I shouldn't have skipped. Maybe just in case, you might think
27 I was leaving something out, question 76:
28 Q: Was there any discussion of how much your fee would be or was that on a
29 different occasion?
11:27:51 30 A: No, no, I raised the issue of the fees and at the end of a period of

www.pcr.ie Day 653
30
11:28:03 1 time, ten minutes or fifteen minutes, Sweeney said a lot of money has been
2 spent on this already and got that much money available, you know what Phil is
3 like. Phil likes to look after the money things himself. I said look I
4 ain't doing it for nothing was the bottom line.
11:28:10 5 Q: Did Lawlor participate in that conversation at all?
6 A: Lawlor would have been there during it but he did not participate in it
7 and I did not see why he should participate in it because he was probably.
8 Again, I have no proof of this but he was probably on a separate arrangement
9 and he would probably regard, I think what's left out there is 'me', as
11:28:28 10 something of an idiot for allowing myself to be envaigled into a position where
11 it's only 25 grand.
12 Q: Part of which had to be at least dispensed?
13 A: Yes.
14
11:28:43 15 Now, the rest I'll come to later.
16
17 Mr. Dunlop, I'm only putting that long extract to you for two reasons. There
18 can be no doubt from that interview where you said you had a vivid
19 recollection -- from that interview with Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Hanratty.
11:29:01 20 Where you said that you had a vivid recollection of the first meeting. There
21 is no doubt there on a number of occasions you are clear that Mr. Lawlor was at
22 the meeting. You are even quoting Mr. Lawlor.
23 A. Uh-huh.
24 Q. 136 Secondly, it was clear from what you said yesterday that Mr. Sweeney rang you,
11:29:19 25 I didn't think for a moment that the phone call was out of the blue. But you
26 were saying -- I think you agreed it wasn't right out of the blue, you had
27 maybe a notion that it might be coming. But it was afterwards when Mr. Lawlor
28 spoke to you you realised that he was there and you would have inferred that
29 Mr. Lawlor set it up.
11:29:36 30

www.pcr.ie Day 653
31
11:29:36 1 Somewhere along the line you have either told two blatant lies to the Tribunal.
2 Either in that interview to Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Hanratty or today and
3 yesterday to the judges in the Tribunal on sworn evidence. Please, elect.
4 A. Elect? Choose you mean. What I told you yesterday and what I'm telling you
11:29:57 5 this morning is I went to the meeting with Mr. Sweeney. There was no other
6 person present. I did attend other meetings in Monarch with Mr. Sweeney and
7 others and Mr. Lawlor. Along the lines of what I told Mr. Hanratty and
8 Mr. Gallagher, conversations along those lines.
9 Q. 137 Don't go into that, Mr. Dunlop.
11:30:19 10 A. Sorry.
11 Q. 138 I don't mean to interrupt you if you're saying something important --
12
13 MR. REDMOND: Mr Chairman, on behalf of Mr Dunlop, in so far as Mr. Murphy is
14 purporting to make allegations of deliberate falsehoods. I think it is
11:30:30 15 entirely irresponsible of him to interrupt Mr. Dunlop when he is attempting to
16 defend himself.
17
18 CHAIRMAN: I don't quite agree. Mr. Dunlop is being asked simply to indicate
19 now whether the clear impression one has from the private interviews with
11:30:51 20 Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Hanratty, to the effect that the first meeting involved
21 Mr. Lawlor. That that clearly is in conflict with the evidence he has given
22 us yesterday and today to the effect that Mr. Lawlor was not there.
23
24 And Mr. Murphy asked Mr. Dunlop to now decide which version was correct.
11:31:17 25 So that's what Mr. Murphy was asking Mr. Dunlop to do.
26
27 So perhaps, Mr. Dunlop, if you could first of all, say which is correct. Is
28 the version in the private interview correct. Or is the version that you've
29 given us yesterday and today correct?
11:31:32 30 A. Yesterday and today inconsistency with my statement that I made to the

www.pcr.ie Day 653
32
11:31:37 1 Tribunal.
3 CHAIRMAN: Can you explain then to us?
4 A. Yes?
11:31:40 5
6 CHAIRMAN: Why this very clear account of a first meeting involving Mr. Lawlor
7 was given some years ago but closer to the date when the meeting took place.
8 Why that account was given and given in such detail if it didn't take place?
9 A. It's six years ago. Yeah, these were wide discussive discussions with the
11:32:04 10 Tribunal, with the representatives of the Tribunal in -- am I on mike?
11
12 CHAIRMAN: Yes.
13 A. With the Tribunal in private session in relation to my relations with various
14 developers and politicians. Certainly there is absolutely no doubt. And
11:32:21 15 there can be no doubt and as far as I'm concerned there is no doubt, that
16 Mr. Liam Lawlor was involved. As I said, in my statement, was responsible
17 for, I suspect, the recommendation to Monarch that I be brought on board.
18
19 CHAIRMAN: Yes we --
11:32:39 20 A. Discussions along the lines that I say in private session did take place. But
21 the first meeting that I had with Mr. Sweeney was with Mr. Sweeney alone.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: But do you accept that the transcript clearly states -- clearly has
24 you stating that at the first meeting it was A, set up by Mr. Lawlor. And B,
11:32:59 25 that Mr. Lawlor and Mr. Sweeney and yourself were in attendance and conducted a
26 discussion at that first meeting
27 A. Yes, I know it says that.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: Well can you explain --
11:33:11 30 A. I accept it says that.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
33
11:33:12 1
2 CHAIRMAN: Can you explain why you said that quite clearly at that time and
3 give a different version now?
4 A. Well, in answer to your previous question, Chairman. These were wide
11:33:24 5 discussions with the Tribunal trying to put the pieces together as to what
6 relationship I had with various developers, various companies and various
7 politicians.
9 CHAIRMAN: But does that mean then that you -- that what you said at the time
11:33:42 10 at the first meeting is incorrect?
11 A. It's incorrect. What I'm saying is that the first meeting that took place
12 with Mr. Sweeney was as a result of a phone call from Mr. Sweeney. I attended
13 with Mr. Sweeney alone. I attended at various other meetings with Mr. Sweeney
14 and others from Monarch, in the Monarch properties offices. In the company of
11:34:03 15 Mr. Lawlor, on occasion, not on all. Yes, conversations and discussions along
16 the lines that I outlined in the private session did take place but --
17
18 CHAIRMAN: Sorry
19 A. Sorry, the difference Chairman is in the private session I said this took place
11:34:18 20 at the first meeting.
21
22 CHAIRMAN: Can you explain why you clearly stated all of this to have taken
23 place at the first meeting at a time six years ago, much closer to the event
24 than now?
11:34:30 25 A. Uh-huh.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: I mean, is it that you -- that you gave a version which you knew to
28 be incorrect at the time? Is that your explanation or is it that you are
29 mixing up the first meeting and subsequent meetings?
11:34:51 30 A. Well, I don't mean to be disingenuous, Chairman. But I would suggest to you

www.pcr.ie Day 653
34
11:34:56 1 at the meeting in the private session that I -- that I mixed up certain
2 elements of the many conversations that took place between Mr. Sweeney,
3 Mr. Lawlor, myself and other representatives of Monarch.
11:35:10 5 CHAIRMAN: All right.
8 Q. 139
9 MR. MURPHY: Mr. Dunlop, I want to just go a little bit further with that,
11:35:19 10 just by way of a question to you. I want to suggest to you that throughout
11 that interview, you lied to Mr. Hanratty and Mr. Gallagher?
12 A. No. All of the details that I gave Mr. Hanratty and Mr. Gallagher in relation
13 to my relationship with Mr. Sweeney, and Mr. Lawlor, and other representatives
14 of Monarch, is absolutely correct. Other than, in that instance, I said that
11:35:43 15 this took place at the first meeting. That is not correct.
16 Q. 140 Okay. There is no other --
17 A. Sorry.
18 Q. 141 That is not correct. That is a lie.?
19 A. No, there was no deliberate intention --
11:35:55 20 Q. 142 All right?
21 A. On my part on that occasion to mislead Mr. Gallagher or Mr. Hanratty. These
22 were --
23 Q. 143 Well --
24 A. Sorry, Mr. Murphy. These conversations with Mr. Murphy, or with Mr. Hanratty,
11:36:09 25 and Mr. Gallagher, were conducted in particular circumstances in as relaxed an
26 atmosphere as possible to enable both sides to come to a conclusion as to what
27 occurred in general terms. To enable people to put the jigsaw together as to
28 what had happened in Dublin County Council in relation to particular
29 developments. And I was of the disposition then, as I am now, to assist as
11:36:37 30 best I can in relation to what exactly happened.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
35
11:36:41 1 Q. 144 So this is an error about putting Mr. Lawlor at the first meeting?
2 A. Well you suggested and I'm attempting to correct the suggestion that you made
3 in relation that it was a deliberate lie.
4 Q. 145 Yes. I'm suggesting that.?
11:36:54 5 A. You're not suggest it. You did say it.
6 Q. 146 I know --
7 A. I know you said it and I am disputing that.
8 Q. 147 Yeah?
9 A. In the circumstances that I have outlined to you --
11:37:02 10 Q. 148 You have explained that.?
11 A. Thank you.
12 Q. 149 It's a mistake when you told --
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. 150 I take it there are no other mistakes?
11:37:08 15 A. There may well be, there may well be.
16 Q. 151 There may well be more mistakes in this relaxed atmosphere that were made that
17 are not deliberate?
18 A. Well --
19 Q. 152 All right. Sorry, Mr. Dunlop. Because the twin -- the second part of what
11:37:33 20 all of that was. One was in Mr. Lawlor's presence but the other was
21 Mr. Lawlor clearly organising it, setting it up, phoning you, asking you to
22 come to the meeting. That's another thing you don't agree with but that's
23 another thing you said it in that interview?
24 A. I said it became clear to me subsequent to the meeting that Mr. Lawlor had a
11:37:50 25 role in it because Mr. Lawlor said to me --
26 Q. 153 I know that. What we just read out what you said at that meeting and it was
27 that it was set up -- yes. That Mr. Lawlor phoned you and set up the meeting
28 and what capacity was he acting. I mean, you are also saying that when you
29 told Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Hanratty that Mr. Lawlor actually phoned you to set
11:38:16 30 up the meeting. That that's not right?

www.pcr.ie Day 653
36
11:38:18 1 A. Correct.
2 Q. 154 Okay. Now, before going back to the detail of your first meeting, Mr. Dunlop.
3 I want to suggest to you in September 2003 you submitted the second narrative
4 statement to the Tribunal. If we could have that, please, 422.
11:38:45 5
6 Could you just tell me. Did you have everything you required before -- I
7 mean, it's pretty, this is three years later, pretty important request from the
8 Tribunal, pretty important narrative statement. I take it you are happy with
9 that statement?
11:38:58 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 155 And that it told the truth?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 156 And that you did whatever research was necessary to formulate that statement to
14 provide it to the Tribunal?
11:39:06 15 A. Well, I don't know what you mean by "research", but I made the statement.
16 Q. 157 All right. Well did you rely just on your own memory or for example, did you
17 go to your accountants, have discussion with anybody that might be necessary.
18 Are you satisfied that's your document and that it's accurate?
19 A. Yes.
11:39:23 20 Q. 158 I want to suggest, to you, Mr. Dunlop, that it's riddled with inconsistencies
21 and inaccuracies.
22
23 Now, if you remember yesterday morning, you agreed with me that your statements
24 and interviews taken together were confusing and difficult to follow and
11:39:39 25 contradictory. And you agreed with that.
26
27 In the same way, I want to now put to you that this statement. I'm going to
28 go through them very briefly just to touch on them to show what I'm talking
29 about but I just want your general reaction to that statement.
11:39:50 30

www.pcr.ie Day 653
37
11:39:50 1 You have read that statement and you've read your interviews. I am suggesting
2 to you that statement is riddled with what I've just said
3 A. You've just said that it's riddled with inconsistencies and are going to go
4 through them.
11:40:05 5 Q. 159 I am but before I do that I want you to know, do you think having read it that
6 it's riddled with inconsistencies?
7 A. No.
8 Q. 160 You think it's accurate?
9 A. Yes.
11:40:09 10 Q. 161 All right. Before I just embark on that, can I ask you what, when you
11 prepared this statement in 2003, how would you have described your expertise in
12 planning matters?
13 A. My expertise in planning matters. I've never claimed to be an expert in
14 planning matters.
11:40:27 15 Q. 162 How would you describe, you know, if somebody asked you what do you know about
16 the planning process. If they had asked you in August 2003 what would you
17 have said, what you have would you have answered them?
18 A. About the planning process per se or the Development Plan per se.
19 Q. 163 The whole thing. Everything that happened in '93?
11:40:46 20 A. There was a Development Plan, various mechanisms that you had to follow --
21 Q. 164 You wouldn't describe yourself as an expert on it?
22 A. Definitely not.
23 Q. 165 Would you have described yourself as familiar with it?
24 A. Yes.
11:40:56 25 Q. 166 With the '83 Plan, the '91 draft, applications, motions to rezone, all of that
26 kind of stuff?
27 A. Not necessarily with the '83 Plan or what was the other one you mentioned the
28 '90 plan, no, not necessarily.
29 Q. 167 Okay. But the procedure whereby you go for zoning and so on?
11:41:14 30 A. I've described that on a number of occasions here in the building, in the room.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
38
11:41:19 1 Q. 168 Okay. Can we take page 422, line -- well Monarch was known to -- Monarch was
2 known to me as a company which developed the Tallaght Town Centre, was owned by
3 Mr. Phil Monahan and engaged in attempts to have the lands at Cherrywood,
4 Loughlinstown in Carrickmines in South County Dublin rezoned from agricultural
11:41:41 5 use to other purposes mainly housing and retail.
7 Do you want too say anything about that?
8 A. No, let me go through it. If this is the way that you want to proceed. Was
9 known to me as a company that developed the Tallaght Town Centre, correct.
11:41:54 10 Was owned by Mr. Philip Monahan, correct. There may well have been other
11 shareholders, I don't know. Engaged in attempts to have their lands at
12 Cherrywood rezoned from agricultural use to other purposes mainly housing and
13 retail, yes.
14 Q. 169 Now, I suggest to you that Monarch were not engaged in attempts to rezone from
11:42:17 15 agricultural to other purposes.?
16 A. Well, fine. You are suggesting it.
17 Q. 170 Who is right, are you right that it was engaged in that or am I right in saying
18 that it wasn't?
19 A. Monarch Properties were engaged in having lands at Carrickmines -- at
11:42:41 20 Cherrywood, Loughlinstown, known as Cherrywood in Carrickmines zoned for
21 residential purposes and, and I don't know at what stage this entered into the
22 frame or into the picture, a district centre.
23 Q. 171 Mr. Dunlop, don't you know that Monarch were not trying to rezone from
24 agricultural to residential?
11:43:06 25 A. Well, that does not appear on my horizon in relation to my relationship with
26 Monarch. What Monarch were trying to do during the course of the Development
27 Plan was to get lands in Cherrywood rezoned.
28 Q. 172 They weren't.
29 A. What?
11:43:21 30 Q. 173 They weren't?

www.pcr.ie Day 653
39
11:43:22 1 A. Well that's the general orientation and understanding that I had of it.
2 Q. 174 I suggest you didn't.?
3 A. I --
4 Q. 175 I suggest you knew jolly well it had nothing to do with rezoning from
11:43:33 5 agricultural to residential?
6 A. Well you may suggest it.
7 Q. 176 It's wrong?
8 A. Fine.
9 Q. 177 You say it's wrong?
11:43:38 10 A. No, I'm not saying it's wrong. You said it's wrong. You're the one who said
11 it's wrong.
12 Q. 178 Well you are saying I'm wrong; aren't you?
13 A. No, I'm saying --
14 Q. 179 Can we both be right?
11:43:50 15 A. What I'm saying is, my understanding in relation to what was occurring during
16 the course of the Development Plan, this is the Development Plan. It is not a
17 planning application. It's the Development Plan. Where you have lands,
18 applications being made on the basis of submissions for lands to be rezoned
19 from one usage to another.
11:44:11 20 Q. 180 This was not happening in this case, Mr. Dunlop. I suggest you know and knew
21 that what was happening was Monarch, when you came in in March '93 what they
22 wanted to do was to change the density of the land and get a better density
23 than one house per acre?
24 A. Yes, certainly.
11:44:28 25 Q. 181 Is that right?
26 A. No, certainly the density issue was a major factor.
27 Q. 182 It was the only factor?
28 A. Well, as I explained in my statement, yes.
29 Q. 183 Sorry. Yes. And the town centre. Of course. I'm not talking about that.
11:44:43 30 You are saying in the first paragraph of your narrative statement to the

www.pcr.ie Day 653
40
11:44:47 1 Tribunal coming from where you were, with all you knew of what you did with
2 Monarch and the plan, etc and the zoning and so on. You are getting it
3 fundamentally wrong in suggesting that they were trying to get a change of
4 zoning from agricultural to residential.?
11:45:04 5 A. Well I've said to you five minutes ago and I'm saying it to you again. My
6 relationship with Monarch was on the basis of the problem that they had during
7 the course of the Development Plan vis-a-vis their lands in Cherrywood,
8 Lahaunstown vis-a-vis their application for residential and/or town
9 centre/district centre.
11:45:26 10 Q. 184 Yes.?
11 A. That was the reason I was brought in. It was to unscramble the problem.
12 Q. 185 Yes?
13 A. That had developed as a result of bad communication.
14 Q. 186 But they told you, I presume, in briefing you. And you knew, that in fact
11:45:43 15 these lands had been zoned residential from 1983 or maybe before. And what
16 was required was a change not of zoning but of density?
17 A. They may well have done.
18 Q. 187 Yeah. Now, all right. Anyway, you agree that's wrong what you say there?
19 A. Perceptionally, yes. But my understanding in relation to the difficulties
11:46:04 20 with Monarch was to solve their problem and their problem was -
21 Q. 188 I understand that?
22 A. Density.
23 Q. 189 I understand that, Mr. Dunlop. We'll come to that. Anyway, perceptionally
24 this is an inconsistency?
11:46:16 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 190 Sorry, whatever that means. Because I don't understand it?
27 A. Very good.
28 Q. 191 Now, just going on from there.
29
11:46:28 30 I had met Mr. Philip Monahan once or twice socially but had never acted for him

www.pcr.ie Day 653
41
11:46:35 1 or his company Monarch.
3 I opened to you yesterday where you talked about Mr. Lynn, you know, having
4 worked for him and being paid by I can't remember now, being paid by Monarch
11:46:45 5 prior to this involvement?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 192 That's a second inconsistency.?
8 A. Being paid by Monarch? When?
9 Q. 193 Well do you want me to get the up the thing again? All right. This is the
11:47:29 10 one that I couldn't find yesterday and I've lost it again.
11
12 It was where it was -- you had said that you had done something for Monarch
13 previously or Mr. Lynn. And you had received, I think you'd received
14 payments. But anyway, it was to the effect that you had had a business
11:47:51 15 dealing with Monarch or somebody in Monarch before March '93. And your answer
16 was that you had no recollection of it.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 194 Do you recall what I'm talking about?
19 A. Yes, I do I remember it now. You put it on the screen subsequently.
11:48:04 20
21 JUDGE FAHERTY: Were you referring to a private interview?
22 A. Yes.
23
24 JUDGE FAHERTY: Page 572 I think it was.
11:48:09 25
26 MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Judge.
27
28 JUDGE FAHERTY: I think that might be it.
29
11:48:13 30 MR. MURPHY: It is, thank you. 572.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
42
11:48:17 1
3 Q. 195 Down at the bottom "I had got other monies from Monarch previously but that was
4 purely from public relations work. It had nothing whatsoever. It was purely
11:48:29 5 the publication aspects of various things and I then kept in touch with Mr
6 Richard Lynn".
8 Isn't that an inconsistency with what you say here?
9 A. Well yes it is. Because I never got.
11:48:37 10 Q. 196 That's fine?
11 A. I never did any work.
12 Q. 197 That's the second inconsistency. And then paragraph two. Taking into
13 account the diary references to him in November 1992. I did not know any of
14 the other executive of Monarch personally prior to my becoming involved with
11:48:55 15 the company in early '93.
16
17 That's wrong?
18 A. Did not know the other executives in Monarch personally prior to my becoming
19 involved with the company in 1993.
11:49:07 20 Q. 198 I'm not saying whether you did or not. I'm just saying it's inconsistent with
21 what you said in private interview?
22 A. Fine.
23 Q. 199 Did you think in the last sentence of that paragraph "I recall that
24 Messrs. Lynn and Reilly were conducting their lobbying of councillors
11:49:20 25 contemporaneously with my lobbying in relation to Quarryvale and other matters
26 in the latter parts of '92 and the early parts of '93" Do you think
27 Quarryvale could actually be a mistake for Paisley Park?
28 A. No, I don't think so, Mr. Murphy. Because Quarryvale was an ongoing issue.
29 Q. 200 All right. We'll ignore that one. The next paragraph then "I had not met
11:49:41 30 either Messrs. Lynn or Reilly prior to encountering them casually in the

www.pcr.ie Day 653
43
11:49:46 1 environs of Dublin County Council's offices.
3 That's an inconsistency again, isn't it? It's along the same lines of not
4 having known Mr. Lynn prior to March 1993?
11:49:55 5 A. Which I didn't.
6 Q. 201 Just the inconsistencies?
7 A. I did not know him before March 1993.
8 Q. 202 All right. To go on to the next page, 423.
11:50:07 10 Half way down the second paragraph. "Monarch would not achieve the level of
11 rezoning it either wanted or considered economically viable". Half way down
12 the second paragraph on the right margin you have the name Monarch and then
13 would not achieve the level of rezoning
14 A. Yes, I have it, yes.
11:50:33 15 Q. 203 That's a bit like the first point I'm making that it wasn't rezoning it was
16 density?
17 A. Density, yes.
18 Q. 204 All right. And -- all right. And then at the bottom of that page "I do not
19 know who recommended to Mr. Sweeney that he contact me. He being Mr. Lawlor.
11:50:53 20 And I never discussed the genesis of the contact with any other third party".
21
22 That's inconsistent with your private interviews?
23 A. With the private interview, yes.
24 Q. 205 Next page. 524.
11:51:05 25
26 Top. "However, having met Mr. Sweeney following his contact with me
27 Mr. Lawlor told me a short time afterwards that he knew that I had met with
28 Mr. Sweeney".
29
11:51:14 30 That's also inconsistent.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
44
11:51:16 1
2 "I subsequently attended a large number of meetings in Monarch's offices in
3 Harcourt Street requesting ". I think yesterday we dealt with the fact that
4 you had said in private interview two. It's another inconsistency
11:51:28 5 A. I think I had said that I met Mr. Sweeney twice.
6 Q. 206 Two meetings in Monarch offices in Harcourt Street?
7 A. That's what I said in the private meeting.
8 Q. 207 That's an inconsistency.?
9 A. Yes.
11:51:40 10
11 CHAIRMAN: Sorry, Mr. Murphy, we have to rise just for a few minutes to attend
12 to something. It will be probably less than ten minutes.
13
14 MR. MURPHY: . All right. Certainly.
11:51:48 15
16
17 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED FOR A SHORT BREAK AND RESUMED AS FOLLOWS:
18
19
11:55:01 20
21 Q. 208 MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Chairman.
22
23 Mr. Dunlop, Chairman, just before, I'll continue. Mr. Redmond just pointed
24 out to me that the point I was making at the beginning of this narrative
12:15:14 25 statement by way of an inconsistency in relation to the question of zoning.
26 That it wasn't a question of rezoning from agricultural to residential. He
27 makes the point and I accept it that in fact part of the motion in May '92,
28 which was I think Mr. Don Lydon proposing the Manager's recommendations. It
29 did include for a change from agricultural to residential in respect of part of
12:15:46 30 the lands.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
45
12:15:47 1
2 Where I was coming from is in fact that really when Mr. Dunlop was brought into
3 the Monarch team, it was really to deal with increasing the density from one
4 house per acre. So I accept what Mr. Redmond points out. And I think I'll
12:16:02 5 drop that as an inconsistency.
7 CHAIRMAN: Well also, and I think it's fair to point out too, that a lot of
8 witnesses will mix-up terms planning and rezoning and words. So not a great
9 deal I think turns on how one expresses what was in fact going on in the
12:16:26 10 council.
11
12 But anyway, that's fine. I can understand.
13
14 MR. MURPHY: It wasn't a good point anyway, Chairman, I think is what you're
12:16:33 15 saying. (laughter)
16 Q. 209 Mr. Dunlop, sorry, to keep coming back to this first meeting with Mr. Lawlor.
17
18 You said in your statement., page 423, please.
19
12:16:46 20 I am just trying to skip through what I see as inconsistencies in your
21 narrative statement.
22 A. Before you go any further, Mr. Murphy. May I, without appearing pedantic.
23 When you talk about inconsistencies in my statement. You mean inconsistencies
24 between the statement that you have and the private sessions, not internal
12:17:08 25 inherent consistencies in the statement.
26 Q. 210 That's correct.
27 A. I don't want to appear pedantic. I think it's an important point.
28 Q. 211 Yes. Could we just go to the bottom of that. Last paragraph.
29
12:17:18 30 "My direct involvement occurred in early 1993 after I was contacted by

www.pcr.ie Day 653
46
12:17:22 1 Mr. Eddie Sweeney of Monarch. My diary, I believe that meeting may have
2 occurred on the 9th of March '93". I think that should be the 8th?
3 A. It is the 8th, Mr. Murphy, yeah.
4 Q. 212 Anyway --
12:17:35 5 A. There was a meeting on the 9th as well but it didn't involve Mr. Sweeney.
6 Q. 213 As you've said, you were contacted by Mr. Sweeney. That's what you say here
7 in October, September 2003. And that's what you are saying in evidence. And
8 I was pointing out to you that in fact you had said in private interview?
9 A. Yeah.
12:17:53 10 Q. 214 That you were contacted by Mr. Lawlor and that Mr. Lawlor was present. And
11 you don't agree with that. That's fine. 4041, please.
12
13 This is your telephone messages, Mr. Dunlop.
14 A. No, it's not.
12:18:13 15
16 JUDGE FAHERTY: That's 4014.
17
18 MR. MURPHY: I may have called the wrong number.
19
12:18:20 20 JUDGE FAHERTY: No, I think you called the correct number, Mr. Murphy.
21
22
23 Q. 215 MR. MURPHY: Telephone messages Monday 8th of March 1993. That's your
24 document I think, isn't that right, Mr. Dunlop?
12:18:33 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 216 9:55. Ann - Liam has arranged a meeting with Ed Sweeney in Monarch house at
27 five o'clock today?
28 A. Yeah.
29 Q. 217 That seems to be in the teeth of what you've been telling us?
12:18:47 30 A. Well he has arranged a meeting with Ed Sweeney in Monarch house at five o'clock

www.pcr.ie Day 653
47
12:18:53 1 today. Yes, obviously Liam Lawlor. Ann rang. That's Liam Lawlor's
2 secretary.
3 Q. 218 That puts you on notice before going to the meeting that Mr. Lawlor has
4 arranged that meeting?
12:19:05 5 A. Yes, it does.
6 Q. 219 I think your sworn evidence on a number of occasions was that you didn't learn
7 of Mr. Liam Lawlor's involvement until afterwards when he informed you that he
8 was aware a meeting had taken place?
9 A. He told me a short time afterwards that he knew I met Mr. Sweeney. I have
12:19:22 10 said consistently, over yesterday and today, that Mr. Lawlor was not at the
11 first meeting. It was subsequent to my meeting with Mr Sweeney that
12 Mr. Lawlor said to me, I don't know 'how did you get on with Ed?'or 'I know you
13 met Ed'.
14 Q. 220 And what was the last part?
12:19:37 15 A. Mr. Lawlor told me a short time afterwards that he knew that I had met with
16 Mr. Sweeney.
17 Q. 221 Ed?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 222 But, Mr. Dunlop, you have said categorically now that it's Mr. Sweeney who
12:19:50 20 phoned you to set up a meeting?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 223 You didn't know of Mr. Lawlor until afterwards?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 224 This is your phone message saying that Ann has phoned and left a message saying
12:20:01 25 that Mr. Lawlor has arranged a meeting with Mr. Sweeney in Monarch house
26 today?
27 A. Yes, they would appear to be inconsistent.
28 Q. 225 I presume your telephone message is accurate?
29 A. These were not kept by me but my secretary.
12:20:17 30 Q. 226 Who was your secretary?

www.pcr.ie Day 653
48
12:20:27 1 A. I can't remember her name now, she has long since gone, Norma, I think.
2 Q. 227 Do you think she made a mistake about that?
3 A. No, I wouldn't suggest she made a mistake. This message was recorded by her
4 for my benefit.
12:20:29 5 Q. 228 You are not distancing yourself?
6 A. No, no, these messages have come up on previous occasions and used in evidence
7 by other people.
8 Q. 229 Doesn't it mean what you told the three Judges a few moments ago is wrong?
9 A. No. What I have said yesterday and what I have said today and what I said a
12:20:48 10 few moments is that Mr. Sweeney rang me in relation to -- I spoke to
11 Mr. Sweeney. We agreed to meet. We did meet. Mr. Lawlor was not present
12 at the meeting.
13 Q. 230 Don't mind that. Please don't go on to that. sorry. Your evidence was
14 Mr. Sweeney. I think you said yesterday a few days earlier rang you. This
12:21:13 15 is on Monday?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 231 I think you said a few days earlier rang you to set up the meeting?
18 A. I said I wasn't quite sure. I said it could have been a few days earlier.
19 Q. 232 All right. This appears from this that you are being phoned on Monday morning
12:21:26 20 to be told for the first time that Mr. Lawlor has arranged a meeting with
21 Mr. Sweeney for five o'clock?
22 A. Yes, it would appear so, yes.
23 Q. 233 Doesn't that mean that what you said earlier and yesterday just was not true?
24 A. No. What I've said to you yesterday and what I'm saying to you today again,
12:21:43 25 messages or telephone messages, that I spoke to Mr. Sweeney and went and met
26 Mr. Sweeney at Mr. Sweeney's request. Mr. Liam Lawlor's secretary could --
27 Q. 234 Did you say you phoned Mr. Sweeney?
28 A. No, no, Mr. Sweeney rang. Asked me to go and see him. I went and saw him.
29 Mr. Liam Lawlor's secretary, Ann, I do not dispute this, obviously left a
12:22:09 30 message for me for my benefit to say that Liam has arranged a meeting with Ed

www.pcr.ie Day 653
49
12:22:14 1 Sweeney in Monarch at five o'clock today. What I've said to you yesterday and
2 what I'm saying today. Mr. Sweeney rang me to go and see him. I went and
3 saw him. Subsequent to the meeting with Mr. Sweeney Mr. Lawlor told me, said
4 that he knew that I had met with Ed.
12:22:32 5 Q. 235 Well it's totally inconsistent with your in-house document recorded by your
6 secretary?
7 A. Well -- I don't -- I'm not going to dis--
8 Q. 236 I suggest to you. Sorry, Mr. Dunlop. I'd like you to deal with this
9 conclusively because it's terribly difficult to pin you down. I'm trying to
12:22:49 10 pin you down on this. And I want to know if what you told a few times today
11 and yesterday is wrong?
12 A. No. What I've said to you yesterday and what I'm saying to you today is that
13 I went to see Mr. Sweeney at Mr. Sweeney's request. I do not see any
14 inconsistency in Ann, Liam Lawlor's secretary saying that he has arranged a
12:23:15 15 meeting with Mr. Sweeney. I went and I saw Mr. Sweeney at Mr. Sweeney's
16 request.
17 Q. 237 Well you told us Mr. Dunlop, that you didn't know anything about Mr. Lawlor
18 being involved until you met him after the meeting?
19 A. Correct, yes, following --
12:23:28 20 Q. 238 That is a lie. Because this says, your secretary says that Ann has phoned
21 that Liam has -- so you knew before the meeting that Liam had set it up.
22 Whatever about him going to be there. Leave that. That he had set it up.
23 You knew all about Mr. Lawlor's involvement before going to Mr. Sweeney?
24 A. No, what I have said is Mr. Lawlor contacting -- met me afterwards and said,
12:23:53 25 'you met Ed, how did the meeting go?'.
26 Q. 239 'How did the meeting go, I wasn't there?'
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 240 But you said that -- that was the first you knew about Mr. Lawlor. It's from
29 that you tell the Tribunal that you inferred and I think you say really this is
12:24:08 30 what happened. That Mr. Lawlor is responsible for suggesting your name to

www.pcr.ie Day 653
50
12:24:14 1 Mr.--
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. 241 And what you said on sworn evidence is that's where you found out about
4 Mr. Lawlor recommending?
12:24:22 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 242 And thanking Mr. Lawlor?
7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. 243 But you knew before you went to the meeting that Mr. Lawlor had set it up?
9 A. No. If you look at the list of telephone calls on that day. The telephone
12:24:32 10 calls are virtually within ten minutes of each other. Five -- ten fifteen
11 minutes of each other. That means that I either was not in my office or could
12 not accept those calls. And I may well have got that information subsequently
13 later in the day. I cannot attest to that. What I have said to you
14 yesterday and what I'm saying today, is that that is how the arrangement was
12:24:58 15 put in place.
16 Q. 244 It's an ingenious, Mr. Dunlop, explanation for why you are suggesting now that
17 why that happened. I think you must be accepting that it's inconsistent with
18 what you are saying about knowing Liam set it up. I think what you're saying
19 is that maybe you didn't get the message before the meeting?
12:25:14 20 A. Well what I'm saying to you. Again, to repeat myself again.
21 Q. 245 Don't repeat yourself. Are you saying you didn't get the message before you
22 went to the meeting?
23 A. Let's not get testy. We've enough testiness.
24 Q. 246 Are you telling the truth, Mr. Dunlop?
12:25:28 25 A. I'm telling you the truth about the meeting with a man called Ed Sweeney at his
26 request in his office, subsequent to which Liam Lawlor, a short time
27 afterwards, said that he knew that I had met with Ed Sweeney --
28 Q. 247 Why we're taking so long is because you will not answer the question. I have
29 to ask every question half a dozen times?
12:25:46 30 A. No you don't.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
51
12:25:47 1 Q. 248 I do.?
2 A. No, no, that's an exaggeration.
3 Q. 249 Well perhaps it's five times. Mr. Dunlop, it is quite simple. Are you now
4 saying that that message, I have no idea what you did on 8th of March 1993 or
12:26:01 5 where you were except I know that you went to the meeting in the afternoon.
6 Is it your case now that you wouldn't have got that message?
7 A. I'm not saying it is my case.
8 Q. 250 Right.?
9 A. I am saying that it is a possibility. Sorry, Mr.-- I don't want to add to
12:26:17 10 your grey hairs. But it is a possibility as --
11 Q. 251 Okay?
12 A. As I have given evidence here before in relation to the receipt of messages.
13 I did not sit behind a desk from nine o'clock in the morning until one o'clock,
14 go for lunch, come back at two and sit behind a desk until five. That is not
12:26:35 15 the way I operated. I was out of my office for considerable --
16 Q. 252 At your desk and not taking your messages. You told your secretary perhaps --
17 A. That's a possibility too.
18 Q. 253 You would then have been told about the message?
19 A. That's a possibility. What I'm saying to you is this meeting was set up as I
12:26:51 20 have outlined to you.
21 Q. 254 I'm not interested in it, Mr. Dunlop. I want to know, Mr. Dunlop, can the
22 Tribunal take it that before you met Mr. Sweeney on your own, late afternoon
23 Monday, this Monday?
24 A. Yes?
12:27:03 25 Q. 255 That you did not know about this message. Can the Tribunal take that?
26 A. Well what I -- the only answer I can give to you to that is yes. Because
27 given the consistent evidence that I have given to you today, yesterday and
28 today --
29 Q. 256 Yes?
12:27:16 30 A. Yesterday and today.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
52
12:27:18 1 Q. 257 All right.?
2 A. Is that Mr. Lawlor was not at the meeting. Mr. Lawlor made contact with me
3 shortly afterwards or I linked up with Mr. Lawlor shortly afterwards. And he
4 said he knew that I had met Mr. Sweeney.
12:27:32 5 Q. 258 No. What you said was Mr. Lawlor made contact with you shortly afterwards?
6 A. Yeah and he knew that I had met Mr. Sweeney.
7 Q. 259 So why did Mr. Lawlor make contact with you after the meeting?
8 A. Sure Mr. Lawlor was in contact with me virtually on an hourly basis.
9 Q. 260 You were very close businesswise.
12:27:50 10 A. Not businesswise. We were very close. He was a -- an operator who suggested
11 clients and who recommended clients. As I said to you yesterday. And he was
12 in my office quite frequently.
13 Q. 261 That does not mean that he was very close businesswise?
14 A. Well I gave him money, if that's businesswise, yes.
12:28:10 15 Q. 262 What did you give him money for?
16 A. On various occasions.
17 Q. 263 For introducing you?
18 A. He asked for money and I gave it to him, as I've given evidence heretofore.
19 Q. 264 Yes. What was he asking for money for?
12:28:23 20 A. Liam was always looking for money.
21 Q. 265 Why from you?
22 A. Well, because he would claim that he had introduced me to a particular client.
23 Q. 266 Yeah?
24 A. And he would look for an introductory fee.
12:28:34 25 Q. 267 And did you pay him in every Module -- in every development where he introduced
26 you did you pay him?
27 A. No, I don't think I paid him in all. I think there was some disputes in some.
28 Q. 268 All right?
29 A. Certainly he did not ask me and he was not offered in this Module.
12:28:49 30 Q. 269 Okay. Yes. That's close business dealings; isn't it? Or is it?

www.pcr.ie Day 653
53
12:28:57 1 A. We're into definitional terms.
2 Q. 270 We are. What do you think?
3 A. Well, I mean, I had a close relationship with Liam Lawlor. I didn't run a
4 business with Liam Lawlor.
12:29:06 5 Q. 271 All right?
6 A. I wasn't involved in Liam Lawlor's business. Liam Lawlor wasn't involved in
7 my business. He wasn't a shareholder in my business.
8 Q. 272 And how much would you have paid him overall, over the years, over the
9 Development Plan, say?
12:29:21 10 A. Well certainly over a period. I've given documentary evidence to the Tribunal
11 in various stages of the order of -- over 100,000 pounds.
12 Q. 273 Pretty close. Pretty serious business dealings; isn't it?
13 A. Oh, yes.
14 Q. 274 All right. Do you know what time the meeting took place at?
12:29:39 15 A. Well it's recorded in my diary at five o'clock.
16 Q. 275 Have you any recollection of the time of the meeting which you remember
17 vividly?
18 A. Have I any recollection of the time.
19 Q. 276 What time did you go to the office, what time did you start at?
12:29:55 20 A. Start out at?
21 Q. 277 Why do you suddenly go into this extraordinary position of disbelief and
22 suspicion and not understanding the simplest of questions that a child of two
23 would answer?
24 A. You don't put them simply, Mr. Murphy. If you put the question simply I
12:30:10 25 answer to you the diary reference is to meet Mr. Ed Sweeney at five o'clock.
26 I am a reasonably punctual person. I could have been there at five past five.
27 I could have been there at five to five.
28 Q. 278 All right. Okay. You could have been there at five to five or five past
29 five. My simple question. And I can't put it any simpler. Is what time
12:30:33 30 did that meeting start at. You have a vivid recollection of it?

www.pcr.ie Day 653
54
12:30:36 1 A. Five o'clock it says.
2 Q. 279 That's what it says. The evidence, according to yourself, is a document
3 saying five o'clock. Did it start at five o'clock?
4 A. All I can say to you is my documentary reference is my diary. I was to be
12:30:51 5 there at five o'clock.
6 Q. 280 And the chances are, you'd no message. You didn't get a message -- you didn't
7 get this message from your secretary about Liam?
8 A. The chances are that is as I have said to you two minutes ago, that is a
9 distinct possibility.
12:31:05 10 Q. 281 Page 4042, please. Mr. Dunlop, would you go down to 4:45, please. And read
11 that out.
12 A. "Ann, Liam won't be able to make meeting until 5:30."
13 Q. 282 You are looking at me, Mr. Dunlop. Do you have anything to say?
14 A. You asked me to read it out. I've read it out.
12:31:49 15 Q. 283 Thank you. Do you have anything to comment to make on it?
16 A. No.
17 Q. 284 Mr. Dunlop, everything you are saying in the witness box is untrue.?
18 A. I absolutely reject that.
19 Q. 285 This is untrue. What you are saying in this small point that we're making now
12:32:04 20 about this first meeting, who set it up, who was at it, the time of it, whether
21 or not you got the messages. Is a tissue of lies. Now --
22 A. Let me --
23 Q. 286 Please explain, let's concentrate on this entry that you have read it out.
24 Explain it to the three Judges?
12:32:22 25 A. You have asked me to read it out and I have read it out, "Ann, Liam won't be
26 able to make meeting until 5:30".
27 Q. 287 That's the second time you've read it out. Explain total fundamental
28 inconsistency between the entry in your book here and all you've said about
29 getting the earlier message and whether or not Liam was involved etc.. Please
12:32:42 30 explain to everybody in the room?

www.pcr.ie Day 653
55
12:32:43 1 A. Well I've explained it, I don't know how many times.
2 Q. 288 Once. I want it once, Mr. Dunlop and I want the truth.?
3 A. Let's go again and you'll get the truth as I've told it to you. I don't know
4 how many times already.
12:32:55 5 Q. 289 Let's have it.?
6 A. I went to a meeting in Monarch Properties.
7 Q. 290 Don't give us that, Mr. Dunlop. Give us the truth on this, don't give us all
8 of this ranting and this rubbish. Repeating when I ask a question you repeat
9 the question or you repeat the answer you gave. Please answer. Explain these
12:33:13 10 two entries and your sworn testimony, on oath, to three Judges, to the
11 Oireachtas. Explain your evidence, today, that Mr. Dunlop -- that you did not
12 know Mr. Dunlop set up the meeting. That he wasn't at the meeting?
13 A. Mr. Lawlor.
14 Q. 291 Mr. Lawlor. That's a wonderful point Mr. Dunlop. I beg your pardon. That
12:33:36 15 Mr. Lawlor. That you did not know Mr. Lawlor set up the meeting. That he
16 was not at it. And that everything about these messages that you didn't get
17 them or did get them whatever. Please, once and more all. Three judges up
18 there, bored out of their minds. Would you please tell them the truth for the
19 first time this morning?
12:33:54 20 A. First of all, I reject that statement that you have just made latterly.
21
22 I went to a meeting in Monarch with Mr. Ed Sweeney at his request. I was
23 subsequently told by Mr. Lawlor. I met Mr. Lawlor sometime afterwards. He
24 said that he knew that I had met Eddie Sweeney. Ann saying Liam won't be able
12:34:14 25 to make the meeting until five O'clock. You prefaced all of this by saying
26 five o'clock. The meeting is in my diary for five o'clock.
27
28 JUDGE FAHERTY: Mr Dunlop, can I just ask you. Irrespective of whether you
29 were in the office, whether you got it or were en route to the meeting. At
12:34:31 30 the very least that statement which is, as I understand it, and then you have

www.pcr.ie Day 653
56
12:34:37 1 given evidence previously. You will say that these are contemporaneous
2 accounts of messages, calls to your office taken largely in your absence or
3 when you were otherwise engaged by your secretary
4 A. Yes.
12:34:50 5
6 JUDGE FAHERTY: That I think is taken on the 8th of March 1993?
7 A. Yes.
9 JUDGE FAHERTY: And that -- what Mr. Murphy is putting to you, I would
12:35:00 10 suggest, is at the very least, that that would appear corroborative of what you
11 told the Tribunal in May 2000; that Mr. Lawlor was in attendance at the very
12 first meeting.
13 A. Well, I --.
14
12:35:15 15 JUDGE FAHERTY: If you look at the gist. Now, assuming that the Liam. and
16 you've said I think on many occasions here that the Liam in this -- largely in
17 these messages referred to the late Mr. Lawlor.
18 A. There's no doubt about that, yes.
19
12:35:28 20 JUDGE FAHERTY: And that that would suggest to anybody reading it. That
21 Liam's, unfortunately for some reason, there is a meeting scheduled for five.
22 You've agreed that, it is in your diary. He for some reason can't make this
23 meeting until 5:30.
24 A. Yes.
12:35:42 25
26 JUDGE FAHERTY: I am saying to you, Mr. Dunlop, that given to what Mr. Murphy
27 examined you on yesterday and this morning and earlier. That in May 2000,
28 some seven years after the event when you were in discussions with Mr. Hanratty
29 and Mr. Gallagher, you were telling them about your meeting, your first meeting
12:36:07 30 with Mr. Sweeney and how it was set up and who was there.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
57
12:36:10 1 A. Yes.
3 JUDGE FAHERTY: And I don't want to repeat it. But that would appear, if you
4 like, corroborative of, if you like, or vice versa really with your private
12:36:21 5 interview.
6 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE FAHERTY: That's a contemporaneous record
9 A. Yes, it is.
12:36:26 10
11 JUDGE FAHERTY: And you have stood over that in evidence and cross-examination
12 by many people here about those records. That's where Mr. Murphy is coming
13 from and I think that's really what he wants you to address to the Tribunal.
14 I may be wrong. It is certainly some aspect of it.
12:36:40 15 A. I accept fully that that is an accurate representation of what Mr. Murphy asked
16 me. Certainly. And what I've said is that notwithstanding anything to the
17 effect that I said -- that I said in the private sessions or those messages.
18 Mr. Lawlor was not at the first meeting. He just wasn't there. He was at
19 other meetings with Eddie Sweeney. And I certainly would not be discussing
12:37:11 20 anything in relation to my fees in front of Mr. Lawlor.
21 Q. 292
22
23 MR. MURPHY: Wait now. We'll just take that point Mr. Dunlop. You
24 certainly would not discuss your fees in front of Mr. Lawlor?
12:37:29 25 A. No.
26 Q. 293 Which I completely understand.?
27 A. You do?
28 Q. 294 But you've given evidence in that private interview that you did discuss the
29 fees in front of -- with Mr. Sweeney in front of Mr. Lawlor.?
12:37:43 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
58
12:37:43 1 Q. 295 Now, your point is it wasn't the first meeting?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 296 Let's leave that for a second. The point you now introduce is that you
4 wouldn't have that discussion about fees in front of Mr. Lawlor.?
12:37:53 5 A. Correct.
6 Q. 297 How do you make up to Mr. Hanratty and Mr. Gallagher in May 2000 the fiction
7 that Mr. Lawlor would have been laughing at you because you were agreeing to do
8 all ever this for 25 thousand?
9 A. Well Mr. Lawlor would, often said to me, not to under sell myself, these people
12:38:17 10 have plenty of money and I hope you're getting plenty of money for this, with
11 an ulterior motive, I hasten to add, from his own point of view. The more I
12 got the possibility is the more he would get. No, the reason the meeting took
13 place with Eddie Sweeney was for, at his request, because of the difficulties
14 that they had in Monarch. The fee was discussed with Mr. Sweeney at the first
12:38:42 15 meeting, as is evidenced by the remittance advice notices from Monarch to the
16 payments.
17 Q. 298 I think you must know that you've completely failed to answer the question.?
18 A. No.
19 Q. 299 Why did Mr. Lawlor not get a payment from you in the Cherrywood case?
12:39:02 20 A. Well he certainly didn't ask me.
21 Q. 300 Why didn't he?
22 A. Well I can't answer why he didn't ask me.
23 Q. 301 Hold on, Mr. Dunlop. You've given us the impression. Not just an
24 impression. You've told us he's there. he's around the place in a very
12:39:17 25 substantial way looking for his, what did you call it, an introductory fee?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 302 And you did say maybe in one or two that you didn't -- you didn't get them in
28 every case. What was the explanation for -- I get the impression that
29 Mr. Lawlor would have no hesitation in looking for money?
12:39:33 30 A. None.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
59
12:39:33 1 Q. 303 Why didn't he come to you in this case?
2 A. Well I think that is, to be fair to you and to everybody, I think that's a
3 futile question. I cannot answer why he didn't come to me. All I can tell
4 you is that he didn't.
12:39:45 5 Q. 304 It's very strange.
6 A. Yes, I would say, yes, a bit odd.
7 Q. 305 Now, 4045 please. For completeness on this thing about the meeting. I want
8 to -- your diary entry, this is your diary entry for Monday March 8th
9 A. Yes.
12:40:03 10 Q. 306 Shows five o'clock: E Sweeney?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 307 And there's no mention of Mr. Lawlor there?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. 308 And do you know how many days after that meeting with Mr. Sweeney on his own
12:40:14 15 you met Mr. Lawlor and he told you all about the meeting?
16 A. Well, what I've said a short time afterwards. It could have been the same day
17 or the following morning.
18 Q. 309 Well, would you like --
19 A. Mr. Lawlor was in constant contact with me both at my office and at home.
12:40:30 20 Q. 310 Because you had so many deals going?
21 A. Well, yes. The relationship was such that he was giving. He was
22 transmitting information to me. Notwithstanding the fact that he was no
23 longer a member of Dublin County Council. But that he was transmitting
24 information to me or suggesting to me various things that might possibly be
12:40:51 25 done or ought be done in particular circumstances in relation to a particular
26 client in Dublin County Council.
27 Q. 311 All right. Now, Mr. Dunlop, I suggest, like, you get this phone call and
28 whatever. The meeting is set up for the 8th of March. It's a development
29 out of which you have got 85,000 that we're aware of. Have you received
12:41:12 30 higher sums from this Development Plan?

www.pcr.ie Day 653
60
12:41:13 1 A. Have I received higher sums? Um, oh, yes I have, yes.
2 Q. 312 How much?
3 A. Um.
4 Q. 313 And where? Which one, which development and how much?
12:41:27 5 A. Well it hasn't been opened here.
6 Q. 314 Has it not?
7 A. Well.
8 Q. 315 Don't say which it is. Just give me the amount?
9 A. I know the protocols. No, it hasn't been opened here. But in relation to
12:41:37 10 one. You will be talking of hundreds of thousands.
11 Q. 316 Okay. So there's hundreds of those. That's enormous. This was only a
12 miserable 85,000 in 1983?
13 A. Well not miserable.
14 Q. 317 In 1983. Well is it the second highest?
12:41:51 15 A. Oh, um, I wouldn't -- I'd hesitate to do a priority list.
16 Q. 318 Well don't. Just in rough terms. Take your time, Mr. Dunlop. I don't want
17 to ....?
18 A. It would be relatively. It would be relatively near the top. I'm not
19 suggesting that it is the second highest.
12:42:11 20 Q. 319 There might be another one above it?
21 A. There might be one or two above it.
22 Q. 320 I get the impression you know exactly what the other one or two are?
23 A. Let's not be disingenuous here, Mr. Murphy. Yesterday you were talking about
24 various clients and who introduced who to whom. I'm just being careful what I
12:42:33 25 answer to you. As soon as I say it was the second highest you come along and
26 say it wasn't the second highest. Yes, I'm just saying it could be here near
27 the top.
28 Q. 321 Between 85,000 and the other one which is hundreds of thousands you said?
29 A. Yes.
12:42:45 30 Q. 322 There's a huge gap, can you just tell me have you one or two others in the

www.pcr.ie Day 653
61
12:42:49 1 middle somewhere?
2 A. Possibly one or two others.
3 Q. 323 Would they be 100,000 or 150?
4 A. Yes.
12:42:54 5 Q. 324 It's a pretty substantial -- it's a pretty good brief this particular one,
6 isn't it?
7 A. The Monarch one?
8 Q. 325 Monarch, yes.?
9 A. Yes.
12:43:02 10 Q. 326 Just tell me exactly when you met Mr. Lawlor after your meeting with
11 Mr. Sweeney and you had this discussion you're telling us about. Was it that
12 evening, was it the next morning --
13 A. No, it could have been that evening or it could have been the following day.
14 I can't absolutely say to you definitively how soon afterwards. But I have
12:43:22 15 already said to you that Mr. Lawlor was a regular caller on the phone and a
16 regular caller to my offices uninvited. Both invited and uninvited.
17 Q. 327 And I think did you meet subsequently with Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly?
18 A. I met -- I think the diary will show that's on the screen I met Mr. Lynn and
19 Mr. Reilly the following day, March the 9th. At 5:15.
12:43:51 20 Q. 328 And you had a chat with Mr. Lawlor before that?
21 A. It is quite possible, yes.
22 Q. 329 All right. Mr. Dunlop, the meeting with Mr. Sweeney, 5.00 or 5:30 Monday the
23 8th of March, just you and Mr. Sweeney. You told us yesterday Mr. Sweeney
24 introduced it -- sorry. He explained the background of Cherrywood to you.?
12:44:32 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 330 About which you knew something yourself anyway?
27 A. Anecdotally, yes.
28 Q. 331 Would it be fair to say that you were brought into this? Would it be fair to
29 say that you were brought into Monarch invited you on to their team for a
12:45:04 30 cocktail of reasons?

www.pcr.ie Day 653
62
12:45:10 1 A. I'd say that's possible, yes. There were various issues.
2 Q. 332 Yeah. And could I have, please, 544.
4 Was one of those reasons, Mr. Dunlop, because it was well known that you gave
12:45:43 5 money to councillors for their vote?
6 A. My answer to that is yes.
7 Q. 333 And was another reason to undo Mr. Lydon's mistakes?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 334 And was another reason that Mr. Phil Monahan was running his own show and
12:46:31 10 looking for too much -- looking for too much by way of density?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 335 You see, Mr. Dunlop, I had a lot of difficulty in reading your statements and
13 reading your interviews and trying to understand why you were suddenly
14 introduced to this particular project.
12:47:08 15
16 And they were some of the reasons that I was picking up. And it seems to me,
17 and I wonder. Because this would short circuit things if I have it right.
18 If I put it to you anyway and if it's wrong well then you can correct me.
19
12:47:21 20 If we put all of those things together. If, would I be right to say that --
21 sorry. Am I right in saying that Cherrywood had a problem in relation to
22 getting what they wanted in their development when you came in in March 2003?
23 March 1993. Cherrywood were in trouble?
24 A. Yes.
12:47:45 25 Q. 336 And they were in trouble because Mr. Lydon's proposal -- Mr. Lydon was -- where
26 was he in all of this, in relation to Monarch?
27 A. Well, I think I've said in my statement that it was indicated to me by Mr.
28 Lynn.
29 Q. 337 Uh-huh?
12:48:06 30 A. That Mr. Lydon was -- they were relying on Mr. Lydon. Mr. Lydon was Monarch's

www.pcr.ie Day 653
63
12:48:12 1 man, as it were.
2 Q. 338 Yes.
3 A. In the sense of anything that was proposed, and I don't mean to suggest
4 anything other than this. That Mr. Lydon, Councillor, Senator Lydon was the
12:48:28 5 man who stood up on his feet and made various proposals or speeches, or
6 whatever, in relation to the Monarch proposal. Now, sorry. Just for
7 completeness, Mr. Murphy. You did ask me whether or not Monarch were looking
8 for too much.
12:48:46 10 This is, this goes to the core of the issue where the confusion arose. And
11 that is that it was obvious that there was an internal disagreement, let's not
12 put it any stronger than this, as to what could or could not be achieved. And
13 there was a fear that from an economic point of view or viability point of
14 view, or whatever. That what was being proposed or suggested would not be
12:49:17 15 satisfactory. And that any attempt to compromise or accept a compromise would
16 not be acceptable to Mr. Monahan. Now, that's -- that's in very broad general
17 terms. I fully understand that. And if you wish to pursue it further, yes,
18 please do. But in general, broad terms that was the orientation.
19 Q. 339 That's very helpful. So, I mean, Mr. Lynn was kind of Monarch's face on the
12:49:45 20 ground and on the floor of the chamber; isn't that right?
21 A. Oh, yes.
22 Q. 340 And Mr. Lydon was Mr. Lynn's -- was the Councillor with whom Mr. Lynn -- sorry.
23 He was kind of -- was he sort of putting up the Cherrywood, the Monarch case?
24 A. Yes. Well he had done so.
12:50:00 25 Q. 341 Yes?
26 A. He had done so much prior to, a year previous almost.
27 Q. 342 In May?
28 A. May I think it was, 1992.
29 Q. 343 The big meeting was May '92?
12:50:10 30 A. And the irony of the, as I understood it then and as I think I still understand

www.pcr.ie Day 653
64
12:50:23 1 it. The irony of that position was that instead of ending up with the
2 Councillors agreeing to what the Manager was proposing, they actually voted
3 against what the Manager was proposing and the vote was lost.
4 Q. 344 Yes?
12:50:36 5 A. Whereas, what the Manager was proposing, while it may not have been acceptable
6 to Mr. Philip Monahan, was certainly a -- half a loaf.
7 Q. 345 Yes. So just that meeting in May 1992, Mr. Dunlop.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 346 The Manager's motion was defeated 35 - 33; isn't that right?
12:51:14 10 A. Yes, I think I have -- I accept what you're saying, yes.
11 Q. 347 I'm relying on Ms. Dillon to correct me.
12 A. Well if Ms. Dillon says it is, it's correct.
13 Q. 348 Well ....
14 A. Sorry, what was the figure you gave me?
12:51:31 15 Q. 349 The Manager's motion.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 350 That was defeated 35 - 33?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. 351 Did Mr. Lydon propose that?
12:51:38 20 A. My understanding is that he did. My understanding is that Mr. Lydon spoke on
21 the floor.
22 Q. 352 Yeah.
23 A. And there was dreadful confusion.
24 Q. 353 Yes.
12:51:48 25 A. Now, it so happens, Mr. Murphy, for clarity.
26 Q. 354 Yeah.
27 A. And for ease of progress.
28 Q. 355 Yeah.
29 A. That because of my role in other developments I happened to be in the -- not in
12:51:59 30 the chamber, nearby at the time.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
65
12:52:01 1 Q. 356 Yes.
2 A. And I have not direct, because I wasn't in the chamber. But I have an
3 immediacy in relation to the reaction that took place at that particular time,
4 as a result of what happened on the floor.
12:52:15 5 Q. 357 You'd have a vivid recollection of that day then?
6 A. I have a recollection.
7 Q. 358 Even though you had no personal or financial involvement?
8 A. Yeah, well it was an issue that everybody was talking about.
9 Q. 359 All right. But if that motion that was defeated had been passed. I think
12:52:38 10 Monarch -- I know that you weren't involved. What I'm thinking of is you were
11 presumably told by Mr. Sweeney on the 8th of March, a year later. That had
12 that vote been passed, motion been passed, Monarch would have been reasonably
13 happy with that even if it wasn't enough for Mr. Monahan?
14 A. I'm glad you made that qualification. Some elements of Monarch would have
12:53:00 15 been happy.
16 Q. 360 All right. Now, --
17 A. Maybe I'm ....
18 Q. 361 What houses per acre would that have represented?
19 A. Was it four?
12:53:10 20 Q. 362 If that motion had been passed.
21 A. Let me just check. I don't know if this is ... yes, I don't -- I don't have
22 it -- I don't.
24 A. I know that -- I know that the position was that they ended up with one house
12:53:37 25 per acre.
26 Q. 364 That's correct. I'm coming to that. Anyway --
27 A. So, um, it may well have been that had that motion been passed they would have
28 got four houses to the acre.
29 Q. 365 Fine.
12:53:49 30 A. I'm not being absolute about that.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
66
12:53:51 1 Q. 366 That's fine. But that motion was defeated and it would have partially
2 satisfied Monarch, or maybe it would have made some people in Monarch happy.
3 It wouldn't have made Mr. Monahan happy?
4 A. I don't think so.
12:54:03 5 Q. 367 That's defeated. A result of that was Mr. Lydon, I think on Mr. Lynn's
6 instructions, withdrew his motion for what was exactly what Monarch wanted.
7 Mr. Monahan wanted.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 368 Is that right?
12:54:15 10 A. Yes, motion 31 A 1 withdrawn. There was a vote on another motion.
11 Q. 369 Just -- sorry just for a moment don't go on to that.
12
13 Do you think am I right when I say that Mr. Lydon withdrew a motion which would
14 in fact have given Mr. Monahan what he was looking for?
12:54:35 15 A. Yes, I think you're right.
16 Q. 370 And he withdrew it because it wouldn't make sense to bring it on after the
17 other motion was defeated?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. 371 All right. We go down the list and get the town centre passed?
12:54:47 20 A. Correct.
21 Q. 372 Then we come to Mr. Barrett's motion?
22 A. Which ends up with one house per acre -- hectare.
23 Q. 373 That's correct, one house per acre.
24 A. One house per acre -- or hectare.
12:55:00 25 Q. 374 One house per acre. I understand that if Barrett hadn't introduced that
26 motion, it would all have reverted to the Draft 1991 Plan and it would have
27 been four houses per acre?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 375 So that Mr. Barrett's was really messing things up for Monarch. I'm not
12:55:17 30 saying intentionally but the success of his motion gave Monarch a worse

www.pcr.ie Day 653
67
12:55:22 1 situation than they'd have got if he hadn't brought it in?
2 A. Yes. But the perception, if I may use that word.
3 Q. 376 Yes.
4 A. The perception at the time. And sort of a continuing perception was that had
12:55:42 5 Barrett not done what he did.
6 Q. 377 Yeah.
7 A. That the day would not have been saved for Monarch.
8 Q. 378 Yes.?
9 A. Now, I accept the logic.
12:55:47 10 Q. 379 Yes.?
11 A. I accept the logic of what you outline, that had Barrett not put in that motion
12 or proposed that motion.
13 Q. 380 Yes?
14 A. And I don't know what the genesis of that motion was or I wasn't involved. As
12:56:03 15 I say, most of this is from an observer's point of view, most of the comment
16 did not concern Barrett.
17 Q. 381 Uh-huh?
18 A. It concerned Mr. Lydon.
19 Q. 382 Uh-huh?
12:56:13 20 A. As a result of what had happened.
21 Q. 383 Uh-huh.?
22 A. But I accept that what you're saying is that had Barrett not have done what he
23 did the logic would appear to be that they would have reverted back to the
24 previous council proposal itself; that it would have been four houses to the
12:56:32 25 acre.
26 Q. 384 Uh-huh. Most of the comment was Mr. Lydon?
27 A. Sorry?
28 Q. 385 What you've just said. I'm trying to repeat what you've just said.
29 A. Yes. Most of the comment on the fringes of the meeting outside of the chamber
12:56:45 30 as a result of what happened was about Mr. Lydon.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
68
12:56:47 1 Q. 386 In a word, to what effect?
2 A. You know, he's after making a balls of it.
3 Q. 387 Right. Now, and Mr.-- all right. Now, and you've anticipated me in relation
4 to Barrett. Because you've said in your private interview?
12:57:02 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 388 Mr. Barrett's motion saved the day and I couldn't and can't understand that.
7 You say that was the feeling. That was the perception?
8 A. Yes. I completely understand Mr. Murphy. And it is something that I just
9 even personally I can't get my head around. But I have to say to you, that
12:57:20 10 that was a perception at the time.
12 A. That Barrett had actually saved the day. Whereas the reality is, if you look
13 at it logically, what would have happened is as you outlined.
14 Q. 390 All right. That's perfect. Mr. Dunlop, if we come on to the 8th of March
12:57:38 15 1993. And months have passed now at this stage. But I think up to then
16 probably no urgency because nothing can happen. The plan has to go on display
17 for the second time in July '93. There will be another meeting before the end
18 of the year, isn't that right?
19 A. Yeah.
12:57:55 20 Q. 391 All right. Now, what I just want to -- am I right in thinking that in March
21 '93. I'm not particularly on that date or anything. Since the meeting in
22 May '92 Monarch had really ended up with a bit of a disaster. Sorry. What I
23 mean by that is that they hadn't got the Manager's proposal which I think might
24 have been four houses per acre. Mr. Lydon's motion, which would have given
12:58:23 25 Mr. Monahan, would have made him pretty happy was withdrawn. And they end up
26 with one house per acre.?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 392 A bit of an uneconomic, unviable disaster from Monarch's point of view. Is
29 that right?
12:58:37 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
69
12:58:38 1 Q. 393 Who made 10 million for these lands in 1989. Way over the odds?
2 A. Well I don't know. Anecdotally I'll agree with you. I heard various figures
3 as to how much they paid for the lands. I don't know.
4 Q. 394 All right. So do you know that between May '92 and March '93 when you come on
12:58:57 5 to the team, that Monarch must have been pretty cross with the outcome of that
6 meeting in May '92?
7 A. Well I think I've said, Mr. Sweeney did say to me. And others, not only
8 Mr. Sweeney. Like, you know, you cannot rely on these politicians.
9 Q. 395 Yeah?
12:59:13 10 A. They won't do you know, what -- not what we tell them to do. But they won't
11 do what we want them to do.
12 Q. 396 Yeah?
13 A. But the fundamental point. I'm sorry if this is repetitive. The fundamental
14 point in relation to this is that internally in Monarch it was perfectly
12:59:34 15 obvious to me from day one that there was confused communication lines.
16 Q. 397 Uh-huh.?
17 A. Mr. Lynn was unhappy.
18 Q. 398 Uh-huh?
19 A. Certainly about the alleged, unspecified activities of Mr. Monahan. Nobody
12:59:54 20 knew what Mr. Monahan was doing. Who he was talking to. Whether he was
21 making deals.
22 Q. 399 Mr. Who?
23 A. Mr. Monahan. Mr. Phil Monahan. Mr. Philip Reilly was completely frustrated.
24 He just could not come to terms with the fact of what was happening.
13:00:20 25 Q. 400 Uh-huh?
26 A. So the internal.
27 Q. 401 Yes.?
28 A. Confusion manifested itself externally.
29 Q. 402 Yes?
13:00:22 30 A. In the communications to councillors.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
70
13:00:24 1 Q. 403 Yes?
2 A. What exactly is it that Monarch wants.
3 Q. 404 Yes.?
4 A. And.
13:00:30 5 Q. 405 Like in relation to density for example?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 406 Do they want 50 houses to the acre or would they be happy with ten or eight or
8 four. That kind of thing; would that be right?
9 A. Correct. And politicians, by their very nature, and in the cocooned
13:00:50 10 atmosphere in which they operate, are people who sometimes give more credence
11 to rumour or suspicion and don't accept assurances.
12 Q. 407 Uh-huh?
13 A. As easily as we'll say somebody like yourself.
14 Q. 408 Uh-huh?
13:01:07 15 A. Or myself.
16 Q. 409 Uh-huh?
17 A. Would in normal business circumstances. And there was total confusion.
18 Q. 410 Uh-huh?
19 A. In Dublin County Council among all the parties.
13:01:16 20 Q. 411 Uh-huh?
21 A. Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and otherwise. Nobody knew exactly what Monarch
22 wanted.
24 A. Notwithstanding the excellent lobbying PR work.
13:01:29 25 Q. 413 Yeah?
26 A. That had been done.
27 Q. 414 Yeah?
28 A. By Monarch's representatives up to the point when the vote took place.
29 Q. 415 And that would have been done by Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly; is that right?
13:01:40 30 A. Certainly I would say Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly. But Mr. Lynn was more -- as

www.pcr.ie Day 653
71
13:01:46 1 far as I'm concerned, at my estimation, was there more often than Mr. Reilly.
2 But certainly I met and spoke to Mr. Reilly on a number of occasions while he
3 was there because he had a specific role.
4 Q. 416 Yes.
13:01:58 5
6 CHAIRMAN: All right. Mr. Murphy, it's just gone one o'clock. So we'll
7 adjourn until two o'clock.
9 MR. MURPHY: Thank you.
13:02:06 10
11
12 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED FOR LUNCH.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 653
72
13:02:25 1 THE TRIBUNAL RESUMED AS FOLLOWS AT 2:00 P.M..
4 Q. 417
14:07:08 5
6 MR. MURPHY: Chairman. Mr. Dunlop, I think just before the break we were
7 just finishing up with the May 1992 motion. And the position there was that
8 Barrett, Mr. Barrett's motion was passed and in short form the effect of that
9 was one house per acre for Monarch?
14:07:31 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 418 Not a happy position for Monarch?
12 A. No. But a positive, a positive decision in relation to the Development Plan.
13 I mean, they now have, as distinct from a defeat and a withdrawal, they now
14 have a motion that has passed.
14:07:51 15 Q. 419 Well, except you agreed with me earlier if that motion hadn't been introduced
16 it would have gone back to the 1991 draft plan, which was four houses per acre?
17 A. Subject to the technicalities I agreed with that.
18 Q. 420 One house per acre would be no advance on 1983?
19 A. No.
14:08:09 20 Q. 421 All right. But anyway --
21 A. 1983?
22 Q. 422 Yeah.?
23 A. Oh, yes, sorry I beg your pardon. I know where you're coming from.
24 Q. 423 In any event, it's a serious situation from a business, financial point of view
14:08:22 25 for Mr. Monahan, Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Lynn and everybody connected with Monarch.
26 Isn't that the long and short of it?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 424 That gathers some urgency then as we get into 1993 because of what's ahead -
29 the second display and a further confirmation meeting and then the final plan?
14:08:43 30 A. Correct, yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
73
14:08:44 1 Q. 425 And you have said that you were told that that -- you understood that Mr. Lynn
2 and Mr. Reilly had worked very hard to get those motions passed. The right
3 motions passed and so on?
4 A. Yes. Anecdotally. Mr. Sweeney complemented them. And I knew from my own
14:09:05 5 personal experience as an observer that they had been fairly active.
6 Q. 426 Mr. O'Herlihy was your predecessor there?
7 A. That I understood.
8 Q. 427 I think his contract wasn't renewed after the vote. Do you know?
9 A. No, I don't know any of the technicalities about Mr. O'Herlihy's being hired or
14:09:22 10 what his contract was or was not.
11 Q. 428 All right. Presumably Mr. Sweeney told you what Mr. O'Herlihy had done and
12 contributed?
13 A. Not in any great detail. I knew -- two things I want to say about that. One
14 is, I never met Bill O'Herlihy in relation to the Monarch proposal. I never
14:09:41 15 saw him in Dublin County Council ever during the course of the Development
16 Plan, and I was told in particular by councillor Tom Hand.
17 Q. 429 Yes?
18 A. Whom I think I have indicated previously was a man who, you know, was a --
19 provided information. He said that a video had been distributed.
14:10:03 20 Q. 430 Yes?
21 A. To all of the councillors.
22 Q. 431 All right. And he wasn't too impressed by, he thought the video was a bit too
23 much?
24 A. It was over the top.
14:10:16 25 Q. 432 Okay. All right. Do I take it, just again in short form, Mr. Dunlop, that
26 in fact while Mr. O'Herlihy was a PR person working for Monarch and then you
27 came on. He finished and the then the following March you come in as a PR
28 person?
29 A. That would appear to be the sequence. From my point of view it's not I'm
14:10:33 30 brought in because Bill O'Herlihy has failed or I am brought in because Bill

www.pcr.ie Day 653
74
14:10:36 1 O'Herlihy hasn't done X, Y, or Z. I'm brought in in the circumstances that I
2 outlined to.
3 Q. 433 Do I gather that maybe his PR role was different. It was to produce videos or
4 whatever. He was not involved with the lobbying of councillors. Would, that
14:10:51 5 be right?
6 A. I absolutely agree. Any understanding that I had of it, then and now --
7 Q. 434 Yeah?
8 A. Was that Mr. O'Herlihy's role would appear to be a straight forward
9 communication process with identified audiences, including the local community
14:11:06 10 and the politicians.
11 Q. 435 Perfect. And the lobbying of councillors was left -- that was a job that Mr.
12 Lynn and Mr. Reilly took on and did?
13 A. Yes. As I said to you earlier, I never saw Mr. O'Herlihy in Dublin County
14 Council talking to a councillor lobbying. The only people I saw on behalf of
14:11:25 15 Monarch were Richard and Phil.
16 Q. 436 Perfect. Mr. Dunlop, what I want to say to you then. Come March '93 when
17 the thing is gathering urgency for Monarch people in relation to what's going
18 to happen at the final meeting. The position is that they have an unhappy
19 position from May '92. Mr. O'Herlihy's role has not continued after May '92.
14:11:48 20 And they are -- they have to be -- essentially what they have to do is to
21 change the mind of the councillors; isn't that right? Before November 1993?
22 A. Yes. No. With respect, I think Mr. Murphy, for ease of progress. It would
23 be better to say that they first of all have to make up their minds what they
24 want.
14:12:10 25 Q. 437 That's a good point.?
26 A. Because there's no point in them -- in the councillors or anybody else, indeed
27 but as we are dealing with Dublin County Council and this issue, it is the
28 communications with the councillors that count.
29 Q. 438 Yes?
14:12:26 30 A. So if there is confusion internally in the organisation of Monarch as to what

www.pcr.ie Day 653
75
14:12:31 1 is or is not wanted --
2 Q. 439 Yes?
3 A. Therefore there is going to be inevitable confusion at the other end.
4 Q. 440 I understand. You are explaining that to me now, Mr. Dunlop, I understand
14:12:41 5 that. Now, so when you come in in March '93 to this meeting with Mr. Sweeney.
6 He is explaining all of this to you, I presume?
7 A. Yes, in broad terms.
8 Q. 441 Broad terms. You are hearing for the first time, formally, and now as about
9 to be a consultant to Monarch, you are hearing for the first time formally
14:13:02 10 about this internal wrangling or whatever the internal dissatisfaction is?
11 A. Yes were aware of it maybe anecdotally etc. It would be completely
12 disingenuous of me to suggest that I was not aware anecdotally that Mr. Phil
13 Monahan --
14 Q. 442 Yes?
14:13:24 15 A. Was operating either in parallel with Richard and Philip or was operating in
16 such a way that he was causing difficulties for them.
17 Q. 443 Yes. I understand.?
18 A. Now, Mr. Monahan is no longer with us and I don't want to attribute anything to
19 him that would .... that was my understanding then and continues to be my
14:13:48 20 position.
21 Q. 444 The position was that he had a very high expectation from a density point of
22 view and a very high hope. Whereas Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Lynn didn't have as
23 high a hope and perhaps they were being more realistic is that it broadly?
24 A. Broadly, I think the orientation was that Mr. Sweeney would appear -- as it
14:14:06 25 appeared to me, accepted the role of Richard and Phil, that what they were
26 recommending should be -- they should run with that. Monarch should run with
27 that. And that --
28 Q. 445 And what was that, how many houses per acre?
29 A. But you see, this was the point. And one of the points that I did make to
14:14:27 30 Mr. Sweeney at an early stage. make up your minds what you want.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
76
14:14:33 1 Q. 446 Just tell me what the extremes are. Are they four per acre?
2 A. There was a proposal for a higher residential initially in parts of the initial
3 proposal that went in in 1991 I think.
4 Q. 447 Uh-huh?
14:14:45 5 A. And they would have sort of reflected Mr. Philip Monaghan's views.
6 Q. 448 Uh-huh.?
7 A. But realism as to what the officials would agree to --
8 Q. 449 Yes?
9 A. Or recommend.
14:14:58 10 Q. 450 Yes?
11 A. And this was the core problem.
12 Q. 451 Yes?
13 A. That as a result of what happened in May 1992 --
14 Q. 452 Yes?
14:15:05 15 A. The official's recommendation was defeated.
16 Q. 453 Yes?
17 A. So if they could get back to that original position, which was four per acre,
18 then that would be a starting point.
19 Q. 454 Does that mean, Mr. Dunlop, that in fact you had when you came in, and now you
14:15:22 20 are hearing, you are getting all of this information on that Monday afternoon
21 and the position, as you are receiving it, is that Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Reilly
22 and Mr. Lynn would be kind of happy with -- they'd compromise at the four.
23 Whereas on the other hand Mr. Monahan was out there looking for ten plus maybe?
24 A. I don't know what Mr. Monahan was looking for or what he was saying to people.
14:15:46 25 But what the presentation to me was such --
26 Q. 455 Yes?
27 A. That if they didn't get their act together and get something on the -- accepted
28 that they might end up with nothing.
14:15:58 30 A. And --

www.pcr.ie Day 653
77
14:15:59 1 Q. 457 All right.?
2 A. It would be disingenuous for me also not to suggest, even though I wasn't aware
3 of the details, I was aware anecdotally that there was some relationship with
4 some other company, investment company, that may well have been looking for --
14:16:20 5 had high expectations in relation to the viability of the land.
6 Q. 458 I'm lost on that. What are you talking about there?
7 A. I don't know the name but, I mean, my impression was that there was some other
8 company.
9 Q. 459 Yes?
14:16:34 10 A. That Monarch was either associated with or going to go into joint venture with.
11 Q. 460 Would that be GRE?
12 A. I don't know.
13 Q. 461 Okay. Yeah.?
14 A. I do know that GRE were involved with them in Tallaght.
14:16:46 15 Q. 462 All right.?
16 A. Whether they were involved with them here ....
17 Q. 463 They were involved here, yes.?
18 A. There was some company that obviously people were dictating, look we need X to
19 get a return on our investment.
14:16:57 20 Q. 464 Mr. Dunlop, then, the reason -- the reason why you are brought in and the
21 instruction that you were given then. Would it be kind of a sort of a
22 combination and maybe twofold. And you say twofold in fact in one of your
23 interviews or your statement. There are two things. First of all, Monarch
24 has to get its act together?
14:17:18 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 465 And that seems to mean that Mr. Monahan has to be brought back on side?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 466 Bring into line with a compromise position at around four houses per acre;
29 would that be right?
14:17:30 30 A. In broad terms, yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
78
14:17:32 1 Q. 467 Broad terms?
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. 468 And if that was done then Monarch has its united front?
4 A. Yes.
14:17:37 5 Q. 469 It knows what it wants. Let's say it's four houses per acre for the moment.
6 And then the job is then to convince the councillors that they should vote for
7 this?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. 470 And this would be where your speciality would come in as a person who knew the
14:17:54 10 councillors and would lobby them. Would that be right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 471 And am I right in thinking that go an integral part of what they knew about you
13 and your relationship with councillors was, they knew that you would pay money
14 to councillors in return for their vote?
14:18:12 15 A. Well you say that's an integral part. I mean, that is, with respect, a
16 supposition on your part and it is a supposition on my part as it applies to
17 the generality of Monarch. I don't know what everybody in Monarch thought.
18 Q. 472 No?
19 A. All I can say to you is what the culture of the meeting that I had with
14:18:35 20 Mr. Sweeney. Where he indicated to me that I would have to do things with
21 councillors and it was the only way to get things done.
22 Q. 473 Yes?
23 A. But I cannot attribute those same sentiments to anybody else. And I have
24 specifically said to you, not yesterday or today but I am specifically saying
14:18:52 25 to you now, that in any contact or discussion or debate or strategy that I had
26 with either Mr. Lynn or Mr. Reilly separately or both of them together, that
27 was never ever alluded to.
28 Q. 474 All right. Okay. But sorry. I mean, all I'm getting at here is, your job
29 is twofold. I mean, Mr. Monahan has to be, has to be, some sense has to be
14:19:21 30 spoken to Mr. Monahan?

www.pcr.ie Day 653
79
14:19:23 1 A. But not by me.
2 Q. 475 Very good. I was going to ask you that.?
3 A. Not by me.
4 Q. 476 Don't worry about that?
14:19:28 5 A. Okay.
6 Q. 477 He is going to have to be reigned in a bit?
7 A. Yes, yes.
8 Q. 478 That's right?
9 A. He is going to have to be controlled.
14:19:37 10 Q. 479 Okay. And then the councillors are going to be have to be lobbied?
11 A. On the basis of an agreed strategy.
12 Q. 480 Now, you weren't brought in to talk to Mr. Monahan?
13 A. No, no.
14 Q. 481 So you are saying now, you were saying to Mr. Sweeney. You, Mr. Sweeney, and
14:19:52 15 you Monarch get your act together and tell me what you're happy with?
16 A. Yes. As I go on to say and I don't mean to be pushing things forward,
17 Mr. Murphy, as I go on to say, it was obvious -- it was obvious that Mr. Lawlor
18 was advising Mr. Monahan.
19 Q. 482 Yes?
14:20:11 20 A. At the same time trying to advise Mr. Sweeney.
21 Q. 483 Yes?
22 A. And the rest of the company.
23 Q. 484 Yes?
24 A. Let's use the phrase "honest broker" in the circumstances. He is trying to
14:20:22 25 get people to come to realise --
26 Q. 485 Yes?
27 A. That unless there is a straight forward line of communication, things are going
28 to go disastrously wrong. Mr. Lynn, in particular, on a number of occasions
29 expressed, not dissatisfaction but expressed deep concern as to what Phil
14:20:43 30 Monahan was doing.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
80
14:20:45 1 Q. 486 Yes.?
2 A. He did not know. Other people did not know. And I think it is fair and
3 legitimate to say that he was, as I would be, or indeed anybody else in those
4 circumstances would be, upset. That if a programme of lobbying was being
14:21:07 5 conducted, in a very professional way. That this was being undermined by the
6 person who in fact was his employer.
7 Q. 487 Now, and what this means is that Mr. Monahan was out there telling councillors
8 that he wanted this larger -- no, but I'm sorry. Just to see is my
9 understanding of it right in relation to what your task was and the context in
14:21:28 10 which you were coming in. Mr. Monahan is out there. Did you understand,
11 saying that he wanted this greater density, greater number of houses per acre.
12 And you had Mr. Reilly and Mr. Lynn and Mr. Sweeney with a more realistic, more
13 compromised position?
14 A. Yeah.
14:21:47 15 Q. 488 And then as well as that, is there a suggestion, which I think you made in your
16 interviews, that Mr. Monahan may have been offering money to the councillors or
17 offering higher figures than ultimately were going to come right?
18 A. Yes. Well that is -- can I deal with that compositely for a minute.
19 Q. 489 Yes?
14:22:09 20 A. And if I am going on a little bit longer just stop me. Just stop me.
21 Q. 490 Yes.?
22 A. Nobody knew exactly what Mr. Monahan was doing.
23 Q. 491 Uh-huh?
24 A. We did know and his employees did know, Mr. Lynn, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Sweeney, did
14:22:27 25 know, even though Mr. Sweeney was a member of the Board. They did know that
26 Phil had, on an historic basis, very, very good political contacts. They may
27 have been a but hypocritical. They may have been Mr. Monahan, you know,
28 exaggerating the contacts or whatever. Nonetheless, we did know that there
29 were contacts. And we certainly did know that there was a relationship
14:22:55 30 between Mr. Monahan and Mr. Lawlor. Phil -- Richard Lynn had over a long

www.pcr.ie Day 653
81
14:23:06 1 period of time obviously developed a very close working relationship with a
2 number of politicians, with specific reference to this particular project.
3 Q. 492 Mr. Lynn?
4 A. Mr. Lynn.
14:23:17 5 Q. 493 Oh, yes, yes.?
6 A. Yes. Assisted by Mr. Reilly.
7 Q. 494 Uh-huh.?
8 A. Particularly in Mr. Reilly's case, as I understood it then and understand it
9 now, on the Fine Gael side.
14:23:29 10 Q. 495 Are we talking about the councillors now?
11 A. Yes, we are. In relation to Mr. Sweeney, I have no evidence -- I have no
12 knowledge or evidence to suggest that Mr. Sweeney had any relationship with any
13 politician.
14 Q. 496 Uh-huh?
14:23:43 15 A. Other than a comment that he passed to me to say that they couldn't be relied
16 on.
17 Q. 497 Uh-huh.?
18 A. So, in all of that mix where you had a very successful campaign, ending up in a
19 motion in May 1992, which would have ended up with Monarch getting four houses
14:24:03 20 to the acre in Cherrywood. That being defeated. Another motion withdrawn.
21 And a Sean Barrett motion getting one house to the acre. That obviously was a
22 cause of deep dissatisfaction to Mr. Monahan.
23 Q. 498 Uh-huh.?
24 A. That is the broad brush picture of what was happening.
14:24:27 25 Q. 499 That -- that's --
26 A. Now, as it transpired, thereafter, in -- after my first meeting with
27 Mr. Sweeney when Mr. Lawlor was present at other meetings, it transpired that
28 Mr. Lawlor was attempting to advise Mr. Monahan in some fashion or other.
29 Mr. Lawlor was not slow to understand densities, acreages, zonings, or
14:25:00 30 whatever. Neither was Mr. Monahan. I was only to -- certainly Mr. Monahan

www.pcr.ie Day 653
82
14:25:10 1 attended one meeting in Monarch.
2 Q. 500 Yes?
3 A. And to the best of my belief, put his head around the door at another meeting.
4 At all times, I believe that Richard Lynn and I can't say the same about Philip
14:25:30 5 Reilly, but I do believe that Richard Lynn resented the involvement of Lawlor,
6 or whatever role Lawlor was playing. Because again it was a blind spot. He
7 didn't know what was happening. He didn't know what Lawlor was doing. And
8 while he was conducting his operation on behalf of Monarch, here were two
9 people, his own employer, Mr. Monahan, and another, Mr. Lawlor, a politician
14:25:59 10 but no longer a member of the council, operating, allegedly, on behalf of the
11 company, while he was out there, as the face of the company, lobbying with
12 councillors.
13 Q. 501 Yes. Now, and Mr. Lynn had Fine Gael --
14 A. No, no, Mr. Reilly. Mr. Reilly had a Fine Gael -- either directly or through
14:26:22 15 a family connection, knew a -- certainly one Fine Gael councillor.
16 Q. 502 Yes?
17 A. Councillor Therese Ridge.
18 Q. 503 Sorry. That's Mr. Reilly?
19 A. Yes.
14:26:33 20 Q. 504 Mr. Monahan you said contacted politicians. Did he know councillors?
21 A. We didn't know. We had no idea.
22 Q. 505 Fine?
23 A. We did not know. We did know that as a result of -- sorry. Let me preface
24 by saying we did know. Anecdotally we knew, at least I did, that Mr. Monahan
14:26:57 25 had a relationship or knew Senior Government ministers.
26 Q. 506 Uh-huh?
27 A. And there was a -- let me put it stronger than this. There was a rumour
28 circulating that Philip Monahan had gone to the Government or a Minister in the
29 Government and said that, you know, the only way that this can be done in
14:27:22 30 Tallaght is by tax designation.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
83
14:27:24 1 Q. 507 Uh-huh?
2 A. Now, that may be anecdotal. It may be a rumour. It may have substance in
3 it. I don't know. I was not involved. But in those circumstances, given
4 the success that Tallaght was. And given that Philip Monahan, at least on the
14:27:40 5 face of it, was the person who had succeeded in bringing Tallaght to fruition.
6 Q. 508 Uh-huh?
7 A. That this man did have strong political connections.
8 Q. 509 I see. Thank you. Now, so that's Mr. Monahan's connections, Mr. Reilly's
9 connections. Who was dealing with the Fianna Fail councillors before you came
14:27:58 10 on board?
11 A. Mr. Lynn.
12 Q. 510 Had he close?
13 A. Well as I understood it from Richard, that he had.
14 Q. 511 Yes?
14:28:05 15 A. Good contacts with Fianna Fail.
16 Q. 512 All right. So --
17 A. It was a twin pronged operation before I came on board.
18 Q. 513 Yes?
19 A. There was Philip and there was Richard.
14:28:17 20 Q. 514 Yes. Okay --
21 A. And obviously, in fairness to them, notwithstanding anything that might have
22 been said up to this point or may be said subsequently. Obviously, they got
23 to a situation where in May '92 they had a motion which obviously was being put
24 forward by Councillor Lydon with the agreement of the company and it fell.
14:28:41 25 Q. 515 Yes.?
26 A. Notwithstanding the fact that it was being recommended by the Manager.
27 Q. 516 Okay. I want to move on just back to the March' of '93 when you come in, Mr.
28 Dunlop. As you say, there was a twin approach by Monarch which had failed up
29 to then. There's now a sort of twin problem. One is to get Monarch to agree
14:29:00 30 to make up its mind as to what it's looking for?

www.pcr.ie Day 653
84
14:29:04 1 A. Yeah.
2 Q. 517 And that had nothing to do with you?
3 A. No.
4 Q. 518 Was that Mr. Lawlor to talk to, to reign in Mr. Monahan?
14:29:10 5 A. Putting it bluntly, yes.
6 Q. 519 So you were brought on then for the second purpose, which was your normal
7 purpose in these matters; to do the lobbying?
8 A. I was brought on for the specific purpose to add, again, to use a phrase for
9 the descriptive purposes, to add value to what Richard and Philip were doing.
14:29:30 10 I wasn't directly brought on to lobby every councillor, which I did not do.
11 But I was brought on to add, to supplement what Richard and Philip were doing.
12 Q. 520 And they had done very well?
13 A. In my estimation, yes.
14 Q. 521 Sorry, when you were brought on, it isn't to deal with Mr. Monahan. It is to
14:29:51 15 do your normal lobbying of councillors?
16 A. Yes, correct.
17 Q. 522 And it is well known in March '93 to councillors and to people in Monarch that
18 you at that time were paying councillors money to councillors for their vote?
19 A. Well that is something -- that's a supposition that you are making. I don't
14:30:09 20 know. Again, as I have said five minutes ago, I don't know what the extent of
21 that information was with people. Certainly, the only comment that I can
22 allude to relates to Mr. Sweeney.
23 Q. 523 No -- yes, okay. Yes. But what I want to say, can I come to 544 please.
24 It's not me making the supposition.
14:30:29 25 A. You're all right.
26 Q. 524 Do you see there line 6?
27 A. Line 6.
28 Q. 525 Top of the page. One. Half a loaf being better than no bread. As I said
29 to you the other day, it is important to get some recognition at some stage
14:30:54 30 which would allow for further motions between the first and second display

www.pcr.ie Day 653
85
14:30:58 1 prior to the final vote. The final vote being in December of '93. So there
2 was a lot of to go and froing. It was obvious it to me that one wouldn't need
3 an IQ of more than one to know that not only was I dispensing but other people
4 were dispensing as well, what amounts or how or to whom or distributor wise it
14:31:15 5 was happening. Concluding in an approach to me by Eddie Sweeney and Richard
6 Lynn of Monarch to try and organise the situation with Cherrywood which had
7 been zoned per house per acre or two houses.
8 A. Well, let me deal with that, if I may. I have said that I had the meeting
9 with Mr. Sweeney and the comment that was made. I have also said that I have
14:31:35 10 never had a conversation with Richard Lynn about specific payments to specific
11 politicians.
12 Q. 526 Okay.?
13 A. I did have a comment made to me by Mr. Lynn.
14 Q. 527 Uh-huh?
14:31:44 15 A. In relation to 'you think these idiots would get their act together there's so
16 much money being spent on them.' Now, that was the phrase that was used.
17 Mr. Lynn may have an explanation for that.
18 Q. 528 Yes?
19 A. I took that to mean, in the circumstances, that he was aware that money needed
14:32:04 20 to be paid to politicians.
21 Q. 529 Yes. Okay. Just I'm. That's fine. But Mr. Dunlop, it would have been
22 widely known -- just leave it at that for a second, within councillors, that
23 you were paying money to councillors?
24 A. If you are going to specify councillors, yes.
14:32:20 25 Q. 530 Councillors, yes. And outside of that, there were other developers that you
26 had already acted for, and you were paying councillors in those cases?
27 A. Correct.
28 Q. 531 Yes. And it's clear from what you've said that Mr. Sweeney said to you on
29 that day, that he was aware of the necessity to pay councillors?
14:32:39 30 A. Well, he was aware that there were certain things that I had to do with

www.pcr.ie Day 653
86
14:32:43 1 councillors and that other -- that was the only way that things could be done.
2 Q. 532 Done?
3 A. I am not saying that Mr. Sweeney said specifically I know that you, Frank
4 Dunlop, are paying councillors and that you have to pay councillors. And as I
14:32:57 5 explained to you yesterday, the culture of the meeting, two reasonably
6 intelligent people having a conversation.
7 Q. 533 Yes. But -- yes. I'm sorry. Sorry, Chairman. Yes. Sorry, Mr. Dunlop.
9 What I'm saying is that all right. You had a significant relationship with
14:33:52 10 councillors or certainly with a number of councillors; isn't that right
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 534 That would have been widely known?
13 A. Yes, I think I would accept that, yes.
14 Q. 535 Yes. And you had a special sort of expertise -- sorry. Your role was to
14:34:10 15 lobby councillors and you were good at it. Would that be fair now?
16 A. That's fair, yes.
17 Q. 536 And you were recognised to be good at it?
18 A. Uh-huh.
19 Q. 537 Yes?
14:34:18 20 A. Yes, I would say that.
21 Q. 538 And you were recognised to have been successful?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 539 At lobbying councillors?
24 A. Yes.
14:34:24 25 Q. 540 And an integral part of that lobbying would be paying them money. Not would
26 be but was paying them money?
27 A. Yes.
29 A. Yes.
14:34:35 30 Q. 542 All right. And you were brought on to the Monarch team for the purpose of

www.pcr.ie Day 653
87
14:34:41 1 lobbying councillors?
2 A. And I don't mean to be, to quibble with you, Mr. Murphy.
3 Q. 543 Yes?
4 A. Because I am as anxious as you to move on.
14:34:52 5 Q. 544 Yes?
6 A. But not specifically -- to add support to what Philip and to Richard and Philip
7 were doing.
8 Q. 545 Yes?
9 A. Now, I knew. Because I had a meeting. I met Philip and Richard. And they
14:35:05 10 outlined to me --
11 Q. 546 Yes?
12 A. In some detail what their concerns were and who they were talking to and who
13 they weren't talking to.
14 Q. 547 Yes. But what would adding support to their work mean if it wasn't meaning
14:35:17 15 you talking to councillors and paying councillors?
16 A. Well, that is a matter for, in the first instance, for them to answer. But as
17 far as I understood it and took it --
18 Q. 548 Yeah?
19 A. For my conversations with Mr. Sweeney at subsequent meetings. That once it
14:35:35 20 was agreed what was required, and that was agreed within the company, that I
21 would go to other -- key councillors.
22 Q. 549 Yes?
23 A. And.
24 Q. 550 Yes?
14:35:47 25 A. Just to focus this for a moment. People were beginning to go off side.
26 Q. 551 Yes?
27 A. Not that they were going to go totally negative or whatever. But people were
28 going off side in the sense that some councillors were saying that we should go
29 for as much as we can get. And other people were saying well we should go for
14:36:05 30 less. But we don't know what Monarch wants.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
88
14:36:08 1 Q. 552 Were Mr. Fox and Mr. McGrath two councillors continuing to go for the higher?
2 A. Certainly Mr. McGrath. I would say almost to the same extent Mr. Fox, yes.
3 Q. 553 All right. Are they the two you have in mind?
4 A. There were others I think. I think councillor .... sorry. Sorry. Don
14:36:41 5 Lydon. Sorry. I beg your pardon.
6 Q. 554 Uh-huh.?
7 A. Don Lydon appeared to be. I don't know what happened between Don Lydon and
8 Richard Lynn subsequent to the May 1992 vote. But Don Lydon appeared to say
9 look, whatever the majority of councillors would go for, he would be willing to
14:36:58 10 go for that obviously on the basis that if there was support, if there was a
11 majority support for something he would go with that. I think I said that
12 Betty Coffey -- Betty was -- she was from Dun Laoghaire. She represented one
13 of the wards in the Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown constituency. So she was in the
14 middle of it. She was in the thick of it. And I think Betty was advising
14:37:33 15 caution, which would have been her normal.
16 Q. 555 Yes?
17 A. In fairness to her, her normal disposition anyway.
18 Q. 556 Uh-huh?
19 A. Which would be contingent on not upsetting the officials. If the officials
14:37:46 20 were upset --
21 Q. 557 Yes?
22 A. Betty would be upset.
23 Q. 558 Yes. Mr. Dunlop, when you leave that meeting that afternoon, you know that
24 your job now is to add support to Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly and that means go to
14:38:03 25 councillors, persuade councillors who might be going to change their mind or
26 might be going off side to come back on side and persuade other councillors to
27 come on side. Would that be right?
28 A. I didn't. Well, first of all -- the first objective was having agreed what I
29 agreed with Mr. Sweeney, then to meet Richard Lynn and Philip Reilly. And
14:38:29 30 then to agree with them.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
89
14:38:31 1 Q. 559 Yes, yes, yes.?
2 A. Now, again, and this is subject to other people. Not subject but obviously
3 other people will give evidence to this effect and I don't mean to offend
4 anybody unnecessarily. But I do think that certainly Richard Lynn resented
14:38:47 5 the fact that somebody like me was brought in.
6 Q. 560 Oh, I see, yes, yes.?
7 A. Well you can understand his position.
8 Q. 561 Of course, yes.?
9 A. Here he is in a position where he knows that his boss may well be doing
14:39:00 10 something that he does not know about. He know that Mr. Lawlor is in some way
11 involved with his boss and here now is a third person being brought in.
12 Q. 562 Yes?
13 A. Out of the blue. With the implication, expressed or otherwise, implicit or
14 otherwise, that he may not have been doing his job.
14:39:18 15 Q. 563 Yes?
16 A. Mr. Reilly didn't seem to be unduly unhappy. He seemed to be happy that there
17 was at least some further support.
18 Q. 564 All right. Okay. And what we have to do between May -- between this March
19 '93 and November '93 is we have to persuade some councillors to vote
14:39:40 20 differently?
21 A. Well you have to persuade people having agreed as to what we want --
22 Q. 565 Yeah?
23 A. We have to persuade people that that's what they should vote for.
24 Q. 566 Can we just leave the Monarch side of it getting their act together away.
14:39:54 25 It's nothing to do with you now isn't it?
26 A. Exactly. That's agreed.
27 Q. 567 They have to get their act together. You are going to talk to Mr. Lynn and
28 Mr. Reilly. Presumably, Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly continue their efforts. You
29 are going to add your efforts to it?
14:40:09 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
90
14:40:10 1 Q. 568 Yeah, all right. In simple terms -- all right. Now, did you discuss with
2 Mr. Sweeney at that meeting who you would talk to?
3 A. No.
4 Q. 569 Which of the councillors you would talk to?
14:40:24 5 A. No, I didn't.
6 Q. 570 All right. Were you told by Mr. Sweeney which councillors had been spoken to
7 already by Monarch?
8 A. No. Because Mr. Sweeney made it clear in the presentation that he made to me
9 that he relied on.
14:40:37 10 Q. 571 Mr. Lynn?
11 A. No, Richard and Philip, both of them. As I said, complemented them on what
12 they were doing or trying to do, to get done.
13 Q. 572 All right, in the course of the meeting which lasted for how long?
14 A. I think I said to you earlier or maybe it was yesterday, I cannot absolutely
14:40:54 15 say how long the meeting was. It was, you know, half an hour, 45 minutes, an
16 hour. I cannot say definitively. Sorry, maybe I can.
17 Q. 573 And in the course of --
18 A. No, I can't sorry.
19 Q. 574 In the course of this meeting he said what you've said to us already. Which
14:41:10 20 led you to understand that he understood that councillors would have to be paid
21 or might have to be paid?
22 A. The tenure of his remarks to me --
23 Q. 575 Yeah?
24 A. And we've had this before.
14:41:23 25 Q. 576 Yeah?
26 A. In other Modules, the tenure of his remarks to me were such that he indicated
27 that he knew that I had to do certain things with councillors and that that was
28 the only way that things could get done and he did get on to speak about the
29 unreliability of politicians. You can't rely on them. You know, you don't
14:41:44 30 know what they're going to get up to one day after the next.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
91
14:41:47 1 Q. 577 Yes?
2 A. And you have to keep your eye on them.
3 Q. 578 Now, whatever about the precise words, because you don't remember the precise
4 words, you said?
14:41:54 5 A. I will not attribute the words 'I know that you, Frank Dunlop, have to pay
6 councillors to get this done'.
7 Q. 579 But?
8 A. To him.
9 Q. 580 Was it clear to you after this meeting that he had said to you, whatever words
14:42:14 10 he used, that they amounted to communicating to you that he knew that monies
11 would have to be paid to councillors?
12 A. That's as I took it.
13 Q. 581 And could there be any room for doubt from his conversation with you?
14 A. As far as I'm concerned, no.
14:42:31 15 Q. 582 All right.
16
17 CHAIRMAN: Sorry, Mr. Dunlop. I think you told us yesterday, because I have
18 a note of it.
19 A. Yep.
14:42:37 20
21 CHAIRMAN: It doesn't necessarily mean it's accurate. "Do what you have to
22 do". Is that something that you -- is that a summary of what you understood
23 him to say? I understood you to say that -- or to be quoting him fairly
24 accurate. Well which?
14:42:58 25 A. You have to do what I know you have to do. Something along those lines. But
26 the point I really want to make, Mr. Chairman, is that I will not attribute
27 comments to him saying that he specifically said to me "I know that you have to
28 give money to politicians". He did not say that.
29
14:43:13 30 CHAIRMAN: But -- well. I mean, if he said words such as you've suggested he

www.pcr.ie Day 653
92
14:43:18 1 said. What did you understand that to be? Because that's quite capable.
2 That comment is perfect capable of a perfectly innocent.
3 A. I readily accept that. That's why I made the point to Mr. Murphy yesterday in
4 the culture of the meeting and the circumstances of the conversation. I was
14:43:38 5 in no doubt. Mr. Murphy just asked me and I said it to him. I was in no
6 doubt when I left the meeting that Mr. Sweeney knew a number of things in
7 relation to my operation with Dublin County Council and councillors and
8 payments might necessarily have to be made.
14:43:53 10 CHAIRMAN: Well is that because that issue was discussed?
11 A. No, no, no. First of all, it wasn't an agendad meeting and this was an item
12 on the agenda. This was a conversation where Mr. Sweeney was explaining the
13 circumstances to me. He wanted me to become involved. We agreed a fee. He
14 indicated to me in the type of language that he used without specifically
14:44:19 15 saying that I know you have to pay politicians. He indicated to me in such a
16 way that I left the meeting in the full knowledge. And I have said this
17 before in relation to other matters in other modules. And that is why I have
18 an asterisk on this particular Module. Is that Mr. Sweeney was aware that
19 monies would have to be paid or might have to be paid to politicians.
14:44:45 20
21 CHAIRMAN: But if you were in a room with Mr. Sweeney and you understood him
22 to be of the view that money would have to be paid. And that you would have
23 to do this work. Why wasn't there a more open discussion about it?
24 A. Well I think we -- we've had this discussion before here in this room.
14:45:06 25
26 CHAIRMAN: About what?
27 A. About people not openly saying --
28
29 CHAIRMAN: But this is in relation to another Module.
14:45:14 30 A. Correct.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
93
14:45:14 1
2 CHAIRMAN: Well at the moment we are he only interested in this Module.
3 A. Yes.
14:45:19 5 CHAIRMAN: So why, if the two of you were in a room, and each knew what the
6 other was thinking on this subject. I mean, is there any reason why there
7 wouldn't have been a more open discussion?
8 A. Well, let's take it from my point of view, for a start. I was not going to
9 say to Mr. Sweeney, whom I had never met before, I was not going to say to
14:45:44 10 Mr. Sweeney, 'you know that I have to do X, Y and Z'.
11
12 CHAIRMAN: That I could understand would be your view at the start of the
13 meeting.
14 A. Correct.
14:45:55 15
16 CHAIRMAN: But your evidence is that you were fully of the view yourself
17 A. Yes.
18
19 CHAIRMAN: towards the end of the meeting or when the meeting was well
14:46:04 20 advanced. That you felt he knew that you were going to have to pay the
21 politicians?
22 A. Correct.
23
24 CHAIRMAN: So I'm just wondering at that stage why wouldn't there have been
14:46:17 25 some open discussion?
26 A. Well, I certainly wasn't going to raise it. And he didn't, in the
27 circumstances that I've outlined, he did not specifically say A, B, C, I know
28 what you have to do X with anybody in particular or anybody or anybody in
29 general.
14:46:33 30

www.pcr.ie Day 653
94
14:46:33 1 CHAIRMAN: But you said he was indicating that in a different way.
2 A. Exactly. That's why I left the meeting satisfied that he knew what I had to
3 do.
6 Q. 583
8 MR. MURPHY: Mr. Dunlop, Mr. Lawlor was involved with Mr. Monahan and this
9 Cherrywood project for some considerable time before March '93; is that right?
14:47:01 10 A. Well. That I don't know. I cannot specifically say that to you. The logic
11 is that he was.
12 Q. 584 Yes?
13 A. But he never discussed that with me. He never told me that.
14 Q. 585 Would you have any idea would he have been around, would he have been involved
14:47:18 15 in May '92?
16 A. Well he certainly wasn't a member of the council because he lost his seat in
17 the June 1991 Local Elections.
18 Q. 586 Yes?
19 A. He could well have been advising.
14:47:28 20 Q. 587 But, Mr. Lawlor --
21 A. Mr. Dunlop.
22 Q. 588 From what you told me this morning, you were in very frequent contact with
23 Mr. Lawlor?
24 A. Yes.
14:47:37 25 Q. 589 Would you not have known then and you knew an awful lot back in May '92 what
26 was going on in Cherrywood that you've told us, not that you were involved?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 590 So you would have known whether Mr Lawlor, in May '92, you are in a position
29 today to tell us whether Mr. Lawlor was involved in May '92 on behalf of
14:47:53 30 Cherrywood?

www.pcr.ie Day 653
95
14:47:53 1 A. No, I'm not and even, on any reflection, given the personality of the late
2 Mr. Lawlor. Mr. Lawlor wouldn't necessarily tell you everything he was
3 involved in.
4 Q. 591 No, but you'd have known. Yes, he might tell you or you'd know from other
14:48:12 5 people. You'd have known from Mr. Reilly or Mr. Lynn or seen Mr. Lawlor
6 there?
7 A. No, in fairness to both of them, I do not recall them ever mentioning that to
8 me in any discussion that we had with them on the margins of the council
9 meetings.
14:48:34 10 Q. 592 Why do you say in fairness to them. What would be wrong if they said it to
11 you that he was involved?
12 A. They can say they knew if they want to. I'm just saying I don't know, I can't
13 attribute a view to them. That's what I mean by that.
14 Q. 593 So by March '93 we've got a bit of a crisis looming for Monarch in relation to
16 A. Uh-huh.
17 Q. 594 And Mr. Lawlor is there at that point; yes?
18 A. Mr. Lawlor is now in the frame. Certainly as far as I'm concerned.
19 Q. 595 Yeah. In fact you say, you've told the Tribunal I think in the interviews,
14:49:04 20 that you regarded him as an advisor or strategy advisor or something like that;
21 is that right.
22 A. Well that was the way Mr. Lawlor would present himself.
23 Q. 596 All right. So he was very heavily involved when you came in?
24 A. Well he was at meetings.
14:49:18 25 Q. 597 Yes?
26 A. That I attended.
27 Q. 598 Yes?
28 A. And I had discussions with him from time to time. Not on a very regular basis
29 but I had discussions with him. He might just say to me what's going on in
14:49:29 30 relation to Monarch down in the council.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
96
14:49:31 1 Q. 599 Did he have -- he had a close relationship with Mr. Monahan I think you said;
2 or did you?
3 A. I don't know what the nature of the relationship was between himself and Mr.
4 Monahan but certainly they had a relationship. Whether it was close, whether
14:49:46 5 it was a business like relationship, whatever. But certainly he had a --
6 what's the word I'm looking for? A quizzical. A sort of quizzical attitude
7 as far as Phil Monahan was concerned. Like, to such an extent you'd never
8 know what Phil would get up to or, you know, I'm sure Phil is involved in
9 something that I can't put my finger on or whatever. He had that sort of.
14:50:23 10 Q. 600 All right?
11 A. Attitude to Phil.
12 Q. 601 And Mr. Lawlor, was he -- did he -- was he close to Mr. Lynn, Mr. Reilly or
13 Mr. Sweeney?
14 A. No, no, no. I don't think Mr. Lawlor was close to Mr. Lynn or Mr. Reilly.
14:50:30 15 Q. 602 All right?
16 A. I think he may well have been close to Mr. Sweeney.
17 Q. 603 Anyway, Mr.-- yes. So in March '93 the crisis situation for Monarch in
18 relation to Cherrywood. Mr. Lawlor has been involved for some time and at
19 this point suggests to Mr. Sweeney that the answer to your problems is bring in
14:50:51 20 Mr. Dunlop because of his familiarity with councillors?
21 A. In broad brush terms, yes.
22 Q. 604 In broad brush. Right. That's the sort of thing he would have said to you
23 in many other developments? Do you remember yesterday we were talking about
24 where he introduced you. It would have been the same. It's very similar to
14:51:20 25 the other situations where Mr. Lawlor introduces you to the developer?
26 A. Yes. And Mr. Lawlor, again, for ease, Mr. Lawlor was a very active
27 participant. You could go into your office in the morning and find a 20 page
28 fax on your machine from Mr. Lawlor that he had dictated the night before for
29 suggestions or recommendations as to what ought to be done. Or proposals for
14:51:47 30 --

www.pcr.ie Day 653
97
14:51:47 1 Q. 605 I think the Tribunal knows that, Mr. Dunlop.?
2 A. I'm glad the Tribunal. That is the very active participation that Mr. Lawlor
3 took. So it would not be unusual for Mr. Lawlor, albeit not directly involved
4 in the council, to be active.
14:52:04 5 Q. 606 Yes. Like, when he wasn't a member of the council. How can he have any
6 influence with councillors?
7 A. It's very difficult to explain that.
8 Q. 607 Or is there a simple explanation.
9 A. Well there may be a simple explanation. I think one councillor, and I think
14:52:32 10 I'm sure I've given evidence to this effect before. One councillor expressed
11 to me that he admired Liam Lawlor because he stood up to the officials and
12 would not accept anything that the officials said no matter what they proposed
13 he was able to.
14:52:47 15 A. Bore holes in it. And people admired that. Whereas other councillors, by
16 virtue of their professions or day jobs or whatever, didn't have the time to do
17 that kind of ...
18 Q. 609 All right. At this stage in the meeting, Mr. Dunlop, you know what your job
19 is and you know the things that have to be done first like Monarch getting
14:53:24 20 their act together etc.?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 610 What about money?
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. 611 What discussion did you have with Mr. Sweeney about your remuneration?
14:53:34 25 A. We had a discussion about money and remuneration, as you call it. And we
26 agreed 25,000.
27 Q. 612 All right. Did that just simply happen like that?
28 A. No.
29 Q. 613 Did he say to you I'll pay you 25. Did you say I'll look for 25; what?
14:53:51 30 A. It didn't happen like that is the answer to your question.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
98
14:53:54 1 Q. 614 How did it happen?
2 A. Sorry. There was obviously some negotiation about it.
3 Q. 615 What did you open at?
4 A. Well, I don't absolutely categorically recollect what I opened at. It
14:54:11 5 certainly would not have been 25.
6 Q. 616 No?
7 A. But.
8 Q. 617 100?
9 A. No. I don't think I would have.
14:54:19 10 Q. 618 50?
11 A. I would have -- I would, and it's only -- I'm not trying to in any way be
12 disingenuous. I don't absolutely recollect. On reflection, it would be very
13 surprising for me that if I didn't ask for 50.
14 Q. 619 Okay. Okay. Did he open at less than the 25? Did he work his way --
14:54:42 15 A. He thought about it and said something to the effect, that you know, that's a
16 bit high or a bit much or whatever.
17 Q. 620 Did he say 25 and you said okay?
18 A. Whether he said 25 or I said 25. We ended up at 25.
19 Q. 621 Much haggling?
14:54:55 20 A. Not a great deal, no.
21 Q. 622 25. Is that plus VAT?
22 A. Um, I don't think VAT was mentioned.
23 Q. 623 And what would the consequence of that mean, that you'd have to pay the VAT;
24 wouldn't it?
14:55:08 25 A. I would have to issue an invoice plus VAT or issue an invoice without VAT.
26 Q. 624 What was the intention?
27 A. I would have to pay VAT ultimately.
28 Q. 625 Was the intention that you would issue an invoice and then you'd pay the VAT?
29 You've --
14:55:21 30 A. That I can't tell you.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
99
14:55:24 1 Q. 626 But you must know, Mr. Dunlop. You looked for 50. You agreed 25. Is that
2 Mr. Dunlop now knowing I've agreed my fee of 25,000 which will be into my
3 pocket or does it mean that I've to take the VAT out of it, and it's what, five
4 grand?
14:55:49 5 A. 21%.
6 Q. 627 Yeah.?
7 A. In fairness to your question, I don't think the VAT entered into it. I think
8 it was just a straight forward agreement that there would be 25.
9 Q. 628 Okay. That's that.?
14:55:55 10 A. I did not say plus VAT.
11 Q. 629 No?
12 A. He did not say does that include VAT. At least that is as I recall it.
13 Q. 630 Did you talk about invoices?
14 A. No, I don't think we did.
14:56:07 15 Q. 631 All right. Can I take it then that the idea was that you would be paid 25,000
16 which would go into -- which you would either cash or go into your accounts
17 which weren't available?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 632 So VAT didn't come into it?
14:56:22 20 A. No.
21 Q. 633 And tax didn't come into it?
22 A. No.
23 Q. 634 Thank you. All right. And the other calculation that I would imagine would
24 have been important in your own mind would be how much of that was going to go
14:56:37 25 into your pocket having dispersed. So you were there at this meeting for
26 three quarters of an hour having discussed a lot of things. At the back of
27 your mind is what will the agreed fee be. To work-out that out for yourself
28 before you offer the 50 you are saying to yourself how much am I going to have
29 to pay out?
14:56:57 30 A. I would accept that that was part of.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
100
14:57:00 1 Q. 635 It has to be?
2 A. Feeling.
3 Q. 636 It's an expense?
4 A. Correct.
14:57:05 5 Q. 637 It might be 1,000 or 10 or whatever?
6 A. Correct, yeah.
7 Q. 638 Can you tell the Tribunal during that meeting before offering your 50, saying
8 50 or before agreeing your 25, what was can in your mind as to what you'd have
9 to pay out?
14:57:21 10 A. That I did not know. Because, first of all, I knew again anecdotally and from
11 what Mr. Sweeney told me, that Richard and Philip had strong contacts with the
12 politicians in the two main parties. I did not know who I was going to have
13 to talk to. And I certainly did not know who was going to ask me when I
14 approached them to stick with it or vote for what Monarch wanted. So, I
14:57:50 15 suppose, the simple answer to you, Mr. Murphy, as little as possible.
16 Q. 639 Yes. Now, one thing you've touched on there, Mr. Dunlop. I'm not sure that
17 we touched on it earlier. Did Mr. Sweeney say to you or lead you to believe
18 that councillors -- that a substantial sum of money or any sum of money had
19 already been paid by Messrs. Lynn and Reilly to councillors?
14:58:14 20 A. No, there was no reference whatsoever to that.
21 Q. 640 Simply that they had contacts?
23 Q. 641 All right. Did you understand at that stage -- would you have known yourself
24 at this meeting from all you knew about the whole thing, and the way these
14:58:28 25 things work and the way Monarch and Cherrywood worked, would you have known
26 that money had been paid out?
27 A. Known is a very strong word.
28 Q. 642 It is.?
29 A. So therefore the answer is I would not have known.
14:58:38 30 Q. 643 All right.?

www.pcr.ie Day 653
101
14:58:39 1 A. But it would be again. Sorry to use this word again. It would be
2 disingenuous of me to suggest to you that I did not have -- knowing the system.
3 Q. 644 Yes?
4 A. Knowing the nexus.
14:58:50 5 Q. 645 Yes?
6 A. I would -- I would not have been surprised. But the only surprise that I can
7 express to you is what was said in the opening statement as to the level of
8 contributions that were made to politicians.
9 Q. 646 Oh, yes.?
14:59:14 10 A. But as to the detail or the reality, it would be completely disingenuous of me
11 to suggest that I would not have had a suspicion.
12 Q. 647 Yes. And -- right. You suspected that Monarch had already paid councillors?
13 A. Yes.
14:59:34 15
16 Chairman, would it be possible just to rise for five minutes please?
17
18 CHAIRMAN: Yes.
19
14:59:39 20 MR. MURPHY: Thank you.
21
22
23
14:59:55 25
26
27
28 Q. 649 MR. MURPHY: Mr. Dunlop, just in relation to agreeing that 25. You've said
29 so it wouldn't have been -- VAT and tax wouldn't have come into it. It was 25
15:11:38 30 into your pocket. Just one thing about invoices. Would it have been your --

www.pcr.ie Day 653
102
15:11:42 1 does it follow from that, that it wouldn't have been your intention to issue an
2 invoice? I mean, obviously, when -- what you've just said?
3 A. Yeah.
4 Q. 650 Why would you issue an invoice if you're not going to pay VAT and the Revenue
15:11:59 5 aren't going to know about the payment?
6 A. Well there's no invoice extant. Let me just say that first.
7 Q. 651 Yes.?
8 A. And the remittance advice notes or notices from Monarch are to the global
9 amounts, 15 and 10.
15:12:13 10 Q. 652 Yes?
11 A. Without any attribution of VAT.
12 Q. 653 Yes?
13 A. And they are.
15:12:28 15 A. If my memory serves me correctly, within days of the first meeting.
16 Q. 655 Yes. So that means -- so it was never in your intention to issue invoices?
17 A. It would appear not, yes.
18 Q. 656 And I think yesterday we spent some time on this when you were saying there
19 were invoices. And you did issue invoices and I took you through them and
15:12:41 20 there weren't. Can you just reconcile that?
21 A. As I said, my normal practice would be to issue invoices.
22 Q. 657 Would that be except in the cases where you wouldn't issue them?
23 A. Yes. Well if -- sorry for laughing.
24 Q. 658 Yes?
15:12:56 25 A. If you didn't issue invoices, obviously the intention would be that you didn't
26 want -- you weren't going to issue them.
27 Q. 659 Yes.?
28 A. But I -- there are no invoices extant. Therefore, I am saying that no
29 invoices were issued taken in conjunction with the remittance notices that did
15:13:18 30 not contain VAT elements on them.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
103
15:13:20 1 Q. 660 It's just that I remember yesterday Mr. Dunlop, you were saying that you didn't
2 really think Monarch would make payments to you without invoice?
3 A. I don't think they would.
4 Q. 661 It doesn't really add up the whole thing; does it?
15:13:32 5 A. Well insofar as I'm concerned it does. In the context that that's what we
6 agreed. I was paid within a very short time, in two tranches.
7 Q. 662 Now, can I just ask you about that. The agreement was 25,000 and you were
8 paid in a very short time, 11th, 12th March '93 is that right? The two letters
9 ... the 11th and 12th '93?
15:13:57 10 A. Yes, the 11th, 15th and 12th 10.
11 Q. 663 And this meeting was on the 8th?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 664 You were paid really very quickly?
14 A. Yes.
15:14:11 15 Q. 665 As was your custom I think. You tended to get paid very quickly; isn't that
16 right?
17 A. Well if people were in a bind and they were looking for my services, there was
18 one way to concentrate attention.
19 Q. 666 Yes?
15:14:24 20 A. And that was to say pay up.
21 Q. 667 Right. And why then in the private interviews on a number of occasions did
22 you say that you -- you got the money from Monarch with difficulty and it took
23 a long time to get paid and so on?
24 A. Oh, yes I did. There were, subsequently there were difficulties in relation
15:14:45 25 to payments that we subsequently agreed with Mr. Sweeney. And I had on at
26 least one --
27 Q. 668 Yeah?
28 A. If not two. But certainly one.
29 Q. 669 Yep?
15:14:54 30 A. Had to go to Dominic Glenane to seek his help to get payment.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
104
15:15:01 1 Q. 670 The thing is in May 2000 when you were talking to Mr. Gallagher and
2 Mr. Hanratty. The only figure you were talking of was 25,000?
3 A. Yeah.
4 Q. 671 So you knew in May 2000 when you were talking to the two Tribunal counsel that
15:15:16 5 you had been paid in a matter of four days the 25,000 that you had agreed.
6 When you were talking to Mr. Hanratty and Mr. Gallagher where is the delay and
7 serious delay, as you referred to in your interview. Where is that delay that
8 you talked to?
9 A. The only answer that I can give you to that, and that is that one has an
15:15:37 10 appreciation of some difficulties in getting paid by somebody and that was in
11 my mind. And it was in my mind. And it was definitely in my mind that I had
12 difficulties with what --
13 Q. 672 When you spoke to Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Hanratty you were aware that there had
14 been delays in getting paid by Monarch in respect of payments which came after
15:15:56 15 the payment of 25,000 which was paid promptly?
16 A. No, I didn't actually say that in fairness, Mr. Murphy. I did say that it was
17 in my mind when I was talking to Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Hanratty in the private
18 interviews that there were difficulties with Monarch in getting paid. That
19 there is some illusions between the 25 and a delay in getting paid. That
15:16:18 20 obviously does not apply because I got paid relatively quickly.
21 Q. 673 Yes?
22 A. But I'm not saying that at that stage I knew or had come to the conclusion that
23 I was paid more.
24 Q. 674 I'm sorry?
15:16:35 25 A. When I was talking to Mr. Hanratty and Mr. Gallagher, I told them in, private
26 session, I told them that I had got 25,000.
27 Q. 675 Yes?
28 A. Okay. Subsequently, as we discussed yesterday, on the basis of an audit, we
29 recognised payments of 60.
15:16:53 30 Q. 676 Yes. So you don't recall the extra 60 that you were paid, at this meeting

www.pcr.ie Day 653
105
15:17:06 1 with Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Hanratty?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 677 You don't recall the 60 extra that you were paid. But you do recall the delay
4 in it being paid?
15:17:22 5 A. In general I recall in my relationship with Monarch delays in getting payments.
6 Q. 678 Mr. Dunlop, can you just see what I'm saying to you?
7 A. I can't really.
8 Q. 679 In May 2000, you tell the Tribunal that it's 25,000. So on that day you
9 didn't recall the 60,000?
15:17:32 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 680 Now, just one second. Sorry. You didn't recall that?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 681 But yet you are able to tell the Tribunal that you got a delay in being -- that
14 there was a delay in being paid?
15:17:42 15 A. Equally, I didn't tell Mr. Hanratty and Mr. Gallagher in May 2000 in the
16 private session that I got 25,000 within four days. I didn't tell them that
17 either.
18 Q. 682 No. You told them you got 25?
19 A. Yes, I told them I got 25. Because that was the agreement with Mr. Gallagher.
15:17:59 20 Q. 683 And in May 2000 you knew that you had got that 25 immediately. And you also
21 knew that you were paid another 60,000 but you didn't tell the Tribunal?
22 A. No, that's not what I said.
23 Q. 684 I'm suggesting it to you.?
24 A. I would refute the suggestion. The agreement was for 25. I told
15:18:19 25 Mr. Hanratty and Mr. Gallagher that. And in fact, in fact, I think I put that
26 in one of the lists that I made in the box in 2000. But I did say to
27 Mr. Hanratty and Mr. Gallagher that I had experienced delays in payment from
28 Monarch. And that is the truth.
29 Q. 685 Now, just before I forget that. What were the delays you experienced in
15:18:48 30 payment by Monarch?

www.pcr.ie Day 653
106
15:18:49 1 A. Well, subsequently, after the first two payments on the 11th and 12th of March
2 1993 for 15 and 10.
3 Q. 686 Yeah. When is the next one?
4 A. I'll tell -- there is an -- sorry, I beg your pardon, Mr. Murphy. There is an
15:19:22 5 invoice for -- there is an invoice from my office.
6 Q. 687 Could we have page 491, please.?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 688 Have you got that up on your screen, Mr. Dunlop?
9 A. Yep, yes.
15:19:54 10 Q. 689 The lower schedule.?
11 A. The lower schedule.
12 Q. 690 It says 12th of March. One of them is the 11th. That doesn't matter. 15
13 and 10, 25,000. You are paid within four days?
14 A. Yes.
15:20:06 15 Q. 691 The next one is per Tribunal 10,000. And the position is that was the 26th of
16 May. That's the controversial cheque we were talking about yesterday I think;
18 A. Uh-huh.
19 Q. 692 All right. Just leave that for a second. There was an invoice for 15,000 in
15:20:28 20 May. That was the invoice on the 19th of May paid in 7,500 on 2nd of July.
21 And 7,500 on the 17th September, is that the delay you are talking about?
22 A. 19th of May invoice No. 834, 12,396.69 plus VAT at 21%, 15,000.00
23 Q. 693 That's an invoice?
24 A. It's an invoice. It is marked not in my handwriting, but by an officer in the
15:20:56 25 office.
26 Q. 694 Yes?
27 A. Paid 19/5 and either 17 or 19, 9 '93.
28 Q. 695 17.9.93 I understand because that's when 7,500 was paid?
29 A. Yes.
15:21:10 30 Q. 696 What's that other date there. That suggests it was paid on the date of the

www.pcr.ie Day 653
107
15:21:14 1 invoice?
2 A. Yes. That I cannot answer you. Because that would -- if the invoice was
3 sent --
4 Q. 697 Yes?
15:21:22 5 A. I can't understand why, unless ...
6 Q. 698 I mean, on page 491 there, the date for the 7,500 is the 2nd July but on the
7 invoice you have you are saying in manuscript is a May date for the first
8 7,500?
9 A. Correct.
15:21:38 10 Q. 699 Did you write it? Did anybody in your office write it?
11 A. What's written in handwriting is not my handwriting. I know the person whose
12 handwriting that is. it is the person who dealt with the cash receipts book.
13 Q. 700 In your office?
14 A. Yes.
15:21:52 15 Q. 701 Sorry. Doesn't it say -- it gives you the 17th of September date. Let's
16 ignore that. I'm not worried about that. It's the other date. What's the
17 other date?
18 A. Well it says paid 19/5 and it looks look an & not AND but whatever you call it.
19 Either the 17.9.93 or 19.9.93.
15:22:12 20 Q. 702 All right. Now, the first one there, that says it's paid in May. Now, your
21 Coyle & Coyle?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 703 Document, schedule says 2nd of July. I don't know?
24 A. You're looking at the lower.
15:22:28 25 Q. 704 Yes?
26 A. You are looking at the lower matrix.
27 Q. 705 Yes. Mr. Dunlop, I'm just suggesting to you that isn't a huge delay, is it,
28 to be paid your May 15,000 in two tranches in July and September?
29 A. Well, well it depends on your appreciation of what a delay is, Mr. Murphy.
15:22:51 30 You may well be used to that type of delay.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
108
15:22:54 1 Q. 706 I assure you that if you regard that as a serious delay don't come to the bar.
2 A. Mr. Murphy, can I absolutely assure you, that it is not my intention to come to
3 the bar, yet.
4 Q. 707 Now, are you saying to us that that's a serious delay?
15:23:12 5 A. No, what I'm saying to you is --
6 Q. 708 That you mentioned to Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Hanratty?
7 A. Yes, that there were delays in getting payment. Like, it's a question of
8 approach. What you consider to be a delay or not. I'm happy to accept that
9 people at the bar are not paid up front.
15:23:32 10 Q. 709 Okay. There is another payment then that we only agreed to yesterday 2nd of
11 November '93 of 15,000 and 22 December of 15,000. So, in all you got 60,000.
12 Sorry, you got more. Sorry. You got 80,000 in the year '93 having started
13 on the 8th of March. Is that the basis of a whinge to Mr. Gallagher and
14 Mr. Hanratty, that there was serious delay in getting paid by Monarch?
15:23:59 15 A. Well I don't think I used the word "whinge". There were difficulties in
16 getting payment from Monarch. It did eventuate in my going at least once, if
17 not twice, to Dominic Glenane, seeking his assistance in getting payment on
18 invoices sent.
19 Q. 710 Did you go to him -- first of all, tell me the invoice that you went to him
15:24:26 20 about. Secondly, any other payment that there may not have been an invoice.
21 In respect of those eight payments coming to 80,000 in 1993. Identify the
22 payments that you had to go to Mr. Glennane about?
23 A. I can't do that.
24 Q. 711 Of course you can, Mr. Dunlop?
15:24:43 25 A. I can't.
26 Q. 712 If you had serious delay about this you couldn't possibly not remember. We'll
27 rule out the first two because they were paid in four days?
28 A. Correct.
29 Q. 713 So, take the others now. There is one 10, two 7,500's and two 15,000's. Which
15:24:58 30 of those did you go to Mr. Glennane, your employer in Monarch, and say there's

www.pcr.ie Day 653
109
15:25:03 1 a delay?
2 A. Mr. Glennane may well be able to help you in relation to my coming him. As I
3 sit here before you I can't help you. I would like to but I can't. And I'm
4 just making a quick reference to see if there is anything in the diaries. If
15:25:21 5 my recollection is correct, there is one but I can't find it now. Sorry.
6 Q. 714 Sorry, Mr. Dunlop, were you saying something to me?
7 A. No, I may -- I'm -- yes. No, I can't. Much as I would like to help you I
8 can't.
9 Q. 715 All right. You see Mr. Dunlop, can I suggest to you that the reason that you
15:25:58 10 said that to Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Hanratty was because, as appears from the
11 private interviews, in May 2000 there was a confusion in your mind. And you
12 weren't sure did you come into Monarch in the end of '92 or early/March '93 or
13 were you in fact there in May '92 for this particular vote?
14 A. Yes.
15:26:25 15 Q. 716 And the cheques, you getting your payments in March, if you came in in May '92,
16 meant there was a serious delay of a year?
17 A. No. Certainly not as you outline it.
18 Q. 717 Well, now --
19 A. Sorry?
15:26:40 20 Q. 718 What isn't as I outlined it?
21 A. You have outlined it. You said that there was a serious confusion in my mind
22 as to when I became involved in Monarch.
23 Q. 719 Well was there not?
24 A. No, there wasn't. What I did say, that I came in to Monarch sometime in late
15:26:56 25 '92 or early '93.
26 Q. 720 Yes.?
27 A. Correct me if I'm wrong, that is not what I said.
28 Q. 721 598, please. Now, this is just, Mr. Dunlop. I mean, you've told us clearly
29 now it's 8th of March '93. I understand that. I understand you could have
15:27:15 30 had a confusion between the end of '92 and the beginning of '93. The

www.pcr.ie Day 653
110
15:27:19 1 significant thing would be the meeting in May '92?
2 A. The meeting with whom?
3 Q. 722 The meeting --
4 A. Sorry, the council meeting you're referring to.
15:27:28 5 Q. 723 Is there some other meeting?
6 A. No, no, you said the meeting in '92. I'm just wondering which one are you
7 referring to.
8 Q. 724 Yes. Sorry. Page 598. Is that what we have there?
9 A: The motion on that day Mr. Gallagher, from Sean Barrett or was that
15:27:55 10 subsequent.
11 Q: Councillor Barrett.
12 A: I have suspicions that was a subsequent date
13 Q: Councillor Barrett had a motion and it was seconded by Councillor Dockrell
14 that land and map attached to the motion in relation to lands stretching from
15:28:07 15 Glenamuck Road to Cherrywood road be zoned for residential development not
16 exceeding one house her acre
17 A: That is Sean Barrett's
18 Q. 725 Q: That was done at the same meeting. Later at the same meeting, on the 22nd
19 of May 1992.
15:28:19 20 A: Then my involvement would have been earlier than I indicated to you
21 earlier because that was one of the crucial meetings that took place and that I
22 told you was the incident where a motion was withdrawn. It was a compromised
23 motion brought forward by Sean Barrett. As it turns out there now or was it
24 just Sean.
15:28:33 25 Q: that was passed?
26 A: That was passed and that was one house per acre.
27
28 Now, all I'm putting to you is, because I have accepted your statements and
29 interviews were utterly confused as to when you came in. They went more
15:28:47 30 towards the '93 date.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
111
15:28:50 1
2 But there was a significant confusion about whether, how involved you were in
3 May '92. I accept completely that it's the 8th of March '93. But I'm just
4 suggesting to you that maybe you were saying to Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Hanratty
15:29:04 5 that there was a delay in payment because you were so confused maybe you felt
6 you were there for Mr. Barrett's motion in May' 92. You've got your first
7 cheques in March '93 and that was a delay
8 A. No. Let me just say to you. I accept fully the basis on which you make the
9 suggestion and that there may have been confusion in relation to the date,
15:29:26 10 which I said late '92 or early '93. I accept that. What is absolutely clear
11 in my mind is that I was not involved with Monarch at that time. At the time
12 of the May '92.
13 Q. 726 I accept that.?
14 A. Thank you.
15:29:41 15 Q. 727 But is this the reason there was confusion. Really there was never any delay
16 about payment?
17 A. No, no, there is not confusion, because why would I have gone to Dominic
18 Glennane otherwise? Dominic Glennane did not appear on the horizon at all in
19 relation to lobbying, zoning, strategy, or whatever.
15:30:02 20 Q. 728 All right.?
21 A. So there would be no other reason for me.
22 Q. 729 Could it have been some other payment than the 1993 payments that you went to
23 Mr. Glennane about?
24 A. Yes, it could be.
15:30:13 25 Q. 730 For example?
26 A. Well, what other payments that we got. Other payments that we got.
27 Q. 731 For example?
28 A. That I cannot tell you.
29 Q. 732 Well, what are the other payments that you got from Monarch?
15:30:24 30 A. No. The only payments that I got from Monarch are what we have outlined.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
112
15:30:29 1 Q. 733 85?
2 A. 85, that we accepted yesterday, the dispute about the ten. Not re-entering
3 that dispute. They are the only payments that I got from Monarch.
4 Q. 734 Yes?
15:30:44 5 A. The only other issue that is out -- that is outstanding is an invoice for a
6 success fee.
8 A. Which was -- sorry.
9 Q. 736 We'll come to that in a second.?
15:30:57 10 A. All right.
11 Q. 737 All right. There was delay about one of those cheques anyway or two of those
12 cheques as far as you were concerned.
13 A. The basis of that remark to Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Hanratty was that I went to
14 Mr. Glennane at some stage to seek his assistance in getting payment.
15:31:18 15 Q. 738 Mr. Dunlop, that first -- why were you paid in two cheques of 15 and 10?
16 A. Yes. I think that was more to do with Monarch's approach to doing it than
17 anything to do with me. That that is the way that they wanted, that Eddie
18 Sweeney wanted it done.
19 Q. 739 Why?
15:31:43 20 A. I don't know.
21 Q. 740 Did he explain to you?
22 A. No. But that's -- you will note that the payments are within a day of each
23 other. One is on the 11th and one is on the 12th. So it's virtually the
24 same date.
15:31:55 25 Q. 741 Mr. Dunlop, you agreed the 25 at this meeting on the 8th?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 742 You didn't invoice?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 743 You probably said you wanted it by the end of the week?
15:32:05 30 A. Something along those lines.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
113
15:32:06 1 Q. 744 And you got two cheques?
2 A. The meeting was on the 8th and we got the first payment is dated 11th, which is
3 Thursday.
4 Q. 745 All right. Thursday and Friday?
15:32:15 5 A. Thursday and Friday.
6 Q. 746 Okay. And you've agreed this fee of 25 without making up your mind or having
7 much thought about how much you'd have to pay out to councillors?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. 747 Did you often do it that way?
15:32:36 10 A. As I said to you earlier on before the break, it was a calculation that you had
11 to make. It entered into the calculation in relation to any negotiation --
12 Q. 748 Mr. Dunlop, everything you're saying there is obvious?
13 A. All right.
14 Q. 749 Could you please tell me. Is it usual for you when you do these serious
15:32:53 15 negotiations about substantial fees?
16 A. You would think about what -- yes.
17 Q. 750 Why didn't you here?
18 A. In relation to?
19 Q. 751 Yes.?
15:33:09 20 A. I said to you before the break, that yes, it was in my mind.
21 Q. 752 And what conclusion -- Mr. Dunlop --
22 A. But I did not --
23 Q. 753 Nobody in their right mind in this meeting on the 8th of March '93, if the
24 negotiation of the fee comes up would agree that fee without having some idea
15:33:21 25 of the ballpark of the disbursements. Now, please, what? How much on that
26 day. You didn't discuss it with Mr. Sweeney, you've said that umpteen times?
27 A. Correct.
28 Q. 754 But Mr. Dunlop had to have in his mind this is going to cost me a grand or
29 5,000 or 10. Therefor I'll look for 50 and settle for 25?
15:33:43 30 A. As I said to you before the break, as little as possible.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
114
15:33:45 1 Q. 755 Yes?
2 A. Yes, it was in my mind, I said that to you before the break. I also said as
3 little as possible. Bearing in mind I had no discussions with anybody about
4 this proposal.
15:33:57 5 Q. 756 What you would then do, any normal business will do, is I will agree the fee
6 with you after I've had a discussion with Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly as to what
7 councillors they've spoken to and then I'll know who I have to pay?
8 A. No. Certainly, no such discussion took place.
9 Q. 757 Now, how come if you agree a fee of 25,000 on the 8th of March do Monarch pay
15:34:21 10 you 80, 000 by the end of the year and 5,000 a year later?
11 A. Because I went back to Mr. Sweeney to look for more.
12 Q. 758 Well tell us about the arrangement you had with Mr. Sweeney on the 8th of March
13 that allowed to you go back?
14 A. We agreed a fee of 25,000. As you have pointed out and I have agreed, the
15:34:39 15 25,000 was paid in two tranches within four days. Subsequently, I went back
16 to Mr. Sweeney in relation to the project and the advice that I was giving and
17 the support that I was giving and the lobbying that I did. And I said I
18 wanted more.
19 Q. 759 Well, now, tell us about that meeting with Mr. Sweeney?
15:35:06 20 A. Well I can't --
21 Q. 760 Show me the date of it in your diary?
22 A. Well, I can't tell you exactly which one it was. But there are --
23 Q. 761 Mr. Dunlop, how is it that when it comes to something important you can
24 remember nothing?
15:35:20 25 A. That is untrue, as you well know! There are a number of meetings with Eddie
26 Sweeney in his office throughout and up until the end of 1993.
27 Q. 762 Mr. Dunlop --
28 A. So at one of those meetings or some of those meetings.
29 Q. 763 Mr. Dunlop, when did you decide 25,000 isn't enough? Date?
15:35:46 30 A. Can't give you a date.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
115
15:35:48 1 Q. 764 Pardon?
2 A. Can't give you a date.
3 Q. 765 Month?
4 A. Within maybe a month afterwards. I can't give you an exact date.
15:35:57 5 Q. 766 Within a month?
6 A. Could be.
7 Q. 767 Is that what you're saying?
8 A. It could be. I'm not saying definitively.
9 Q. 768 Or it could be within six months?
15:36:05 10 A. Certainly within the period that we looked at for the payments in 1993.
11 Q. 769 You'd say it was sometime in 1993 that you went to Mr. Glennane and said you'd
12 want more; would you?
13 A. In the schedule that we have looked at between the 8th of March 1993 and the
14 end of March of 1993 I was paid a specific amount of money.
15:36:27 15
16 JUDGE FAHERTY: Could we have that again Mr. Murphy. It's 491 I think.
17
18 MR. MURPHY: 491, please. Yes, 491, yes.
19
15:36:44 20 JUDGE FAHERTY: It's here. I just wanted it up while the witness is giving
21 evidence. Thanks.
22 Q. 770
23
24 MR. MURPHY: Mr. Dunlop, I'm not sure what you're saying now?
15:36:53 25 A. With the exception of one.
26 Q. 771 Yeah.?
27 A. Which is the last one.
28 Q. 772 Yeah?
29 A. Which was paid in 1995.
15:36:58 30 Q. 773 Forget about that.?

www.pcr.ie Day 653
116
15:37:00 1 A. Right. Well I'm just making the point.
2 Q. 774 Sorry.?
3 A. A specific sum of money was paid to me in 1993.
4 Q. 775 80, 000?
15:37:10 5 A. Um, depending on how you add it up.
6 Q. 776 Hold on, Mr. Dunlop. We've had all of this. How you add it up is a question
7 of the cheque with the forged signature for ten whether it's included or not.
8 70 or 80, 000 was received by you as a matter of definite in '93?
9 A. Right. So you are subtracting the five in August of 1995 and you get 80.
15:37:36 10 Are you with me?
11 Q. 777 And if you take off the cheque that you're not sure. I don't know. You've
12 told us you paid 10,000 you get 70; is that right?
13 A. Well it depends on the attitude that you adopt in relation to the ten. The
14 cheque was made out to me. It was negotiated by somebody other than me and my
15:38:01 15 signature was on the back.
16 Q. 778 Mr. Dunlop, it most certainly does not depend on what attitude the Tribunal.
17 adopts. It depends on what your attitude is which is A, you got it and B, you
18 didn't. Now, Mr. Dunlop, will you please proceed with the answer to my
19 question?
15:38:11 20 A. Let's proceed. Let's take five off 85 so we have 80. In the period 1993 I
21 got 80. We agreed originally 25. Mr. Sweeney and myself. That is obvious
22 from the payments that were made within the four days. The rest of --
23 Q. 779 Try and avoid the repetition.?
24 A. The rest of the money. I could make the same point.
15:38:32 25
26 CHAIRMAN: Wait now, Mr. Dunlop. It seems to me. It has to be a fairly
27 simple answer. You are paid 10, 15. And then at some stage before the 26th
28 of May you get more money. And then again before July you get more money.
29 In September you get more money.
15:38:53 30 A. Correct.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
117
15:38:54 1
2 CHAIRMAN: So you must have gone back to Mr. Sweeney sometime between March
3 and May.
4 A. Correct.
15:39:02 5
6 CHAIRMAN: Is that correct?
7 A. That is correct. And that's what I said to Mr. Murphy earlier on before we
8 started this --.
15:39:08 10 CHAIRMAN: Could you tell us then how that arose?
11
12 JUDGE FAHERTY: I just want to add an addendum of what the Chairman is putting
13 to you. The first invoice is 19th of May, Mr. Dunlop.
14 A. Yes.
15:39:20 15
16 JUDGE FAHERTY: We know that's not an invoice regarding the 25. Because the
17 25 you say you didn't invoice
18 A. Yes.
19
15:39:26 20 JUDGE FAHERTY: You have already received that by March?
21 A. Yes.
22
23 JUDGE FAHERTY: The first recorded document, as I understand it, referring to
24 extra monies?
15:39:34 25 A. Yes.
26
27 JUDGE FAHERTY: Emanates from yourself. Namely, an invoice which I
28 understand. I don't know what number it is. Is it dated the 19th of May.
29 A. Correct.
15:39:43 30

www.pcr.ie Day 653
118
15:39:43 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: Which you say you were paid in two tranches in July and some
2 other date that's yet -- some confusion about. But they are invoiced, there's
3 no confusion as to the date.
15:39:54 5 As I understand it the first recorded invoice is not referring to the 25,000,
6 which is already paid in the two tranches, is the 19th of May
7 A. Correct.
9 JUDGE FAHERTY: Really what Mr. Murphy is asking you is how did it come about
15:40:08 10 that you sent an invoice to Mr. Sweeney, or whomever you sent it to on the 19th
11 of May?
12
13 MR. REDMOND: Just before Mr. Dunlop answers Judge Faherty's question. I
14 would just like to draw the Tribunal's attention to one matter. To suggest
15:40:19 15 that the fee note of the 19th of May in the sum of 15,000 is in fact the first
16 fee note I don't think is correct.
17
18 There is a fee note for 12, 100 dated 10th of April 1993.
19
15:40:31 20 JUDGE FAHERTY: That's fair enough, Mr. . Well then perhaps Mr. Redmond, if
21 there's one on the 12th of April. We don't know when that was paid.
22
23 If we go with your first. I'll take Mr. Redmond's point on that.
24
15:40:44 25 If we deal with the invoice of the 12th of April then.
26 A. Yes.
27
28 JUDGE FAHERTY: As opposed to the 19th of May chronologically
29 A. Yes.
15:40:51 30

www.pcr.ie Day 653
119
15:40:51 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: That seem's the first recorded document from you after the
2 25,000 was paid?
3 A. Yes.
15:40:57 5 JUDGE FAHERTY: I think that's where Mr. Murphy is coming from. How you
6 arrived at a situation but you were in a position having negotiated a fee, you
7 say, back in March to invoice Monarch for further monies.
8 A. Yes. Sorry. that's why I said to Mr. Murphy perhaps within a month. But I
9 went back to Eddie Sweeney having thought about it, having attempted to get
15:41:22 10 more out of him in the first instance and negotiated 25 and said this will take
11 more.
12
13 CHAIRMAN: And did you --
14 A. I want more. I need more for what I'm doing.
15:41:32 15
16 CHAIRMAN: Did you give an explanation? Can you tell us about how that
17 meeting arose and what was said and what arguments you put forward to support
18 the additional money? Yes. Well, not in specific detail other than to say
19 that having spoken to Richard Lynn and Philip Reilly, having seen what the
15:41:59 20 situation was in relation to Monarch's position, I went back. And as I recall
21 matters, there was very little difficulty with Mr. Sweeney in relation to the
22 matter which allowed me to issue invoices.
23
24 CHAIRMAN: But what prompted you to go back?
15:42:20 25 A. Because I was dissatisfied with the 25.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: Why?
28 A. I didn't think it was enough.
29
15:42:26 30 CHAIRMAN: But your disbursements were small.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
120
15:42:29 1 A. Yes, they were. But a lot of money was going to be made on this development
2 and my role, given the history of it, up to that point, was going to be
3 crucial.
15:42:46 5 CHAIRMAN: But did Mr. Sweeney not say to you we have a deal and I'm not going
6 to give you more money?
7 A. As I've said to you, as I recall matters, there wasn't a great deal of
8 difficulty with Mr. Sweeney in relation to it. He agreed to it and I sent
9 invoices.
15:42:59 10
12 Q. 780
13
14 MR. MURPHY: And what influenced you in looking for more money was this means
15:43:08 15 an awful lot to Monarch, it's a big job, it's big profits; is that right?
16 A. That certainly.
17 Q. 781 And what else?
18 A. Well there was a mess. There was a right proper mess that needed to be
19 resolved.
15:43:21 20 Q. 782 But, Mr. Dunlop, Monarch were going to put their act together, come back to you
21 and say we'll go with the four acres compromise. And now you'll talk to your
22 councillors and do your usual job and get 25,000 for it?
23 A. Who is going to get the blame if this doesn't succeed.
24 Q. 783 And did you -- you knew all of that on the evening of the 8th of March.
15:43:43 25 Everything. You knew how much the importance of this to Monarch, the size of
26 Monarch, the fact that there was a mess. You knew everything. There's
27 nothing knew there unless Mr. Dunlop, you made other disbursements.?
28 A. No.
29 Q. 784 Or you knew you were going to have to make other disbursements. Which is the
15:44:00 30 only rationale explanation for it. Notwithstanding any imputation and

www.pcr.ie Day 653
121
15:44:04 1 rationality in relation to development, the Development Plans in Dublin County
2 Council. That is not the case.
3 A. The case is as I have already said to you. I tried to get more money from
4 Eddie Sweeney on the first occasion. I didn't. We agreed the 25. The 25
15:44:21 5 was paid very rapidly. As I already said to you before the intervention of
6 Judge Faherty, that I went back to him perhaps within a month.
7 Q. 785 All right. So anyway, the idea on the 8th of March was there was no -- the
8 door wasn't left open. It was 25,000 full stop isn't that right?
15:44:41 10 Q. 786 That was the intention?
12 Q. 787 And so you come back to Mr. Sweeney. Do you think you come back to him on the
13 19th of May, the day of your invoice and then hand it to him?
14 A. That I cannot say to you.
15:44:52 15 Q. 788 Just think about it a little bit. Did you have a --
16 A. No, I wouldn't have gone to a meeting with an invoice in my hand, no.
17 Q. 789 No. So you'd have -- would you have?
18 A. I'd have spoke to him, met him or spoke to him on telephone or met him.
19 Q. 790 Okay. So that's the -- that's another 15,000 for you?
15:45:13 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 791 Right. Now, I'm going to leave Mr. Redmond's just for a moment if you don't
22 mind?
23 A. Sorry, which is Mr. Redmond's?
24
15:45:21 25 CHAIRMAN: What?
26
27 MR. MURPHY: Mr. Redmond's invoice. Mr. Redmond was talking about the
28 invoice for April. I'm going to come back to that.
29 A. Yes.
15:45:30 30 Q. 792 But looking at the schedule. We've dealt with the 15 and 10. Now we're

www.pcr.ie Day 653
122
15:45:35 1 dealing with this invoice. And we'll ignore the 10,000 for the 26th of May
2 for a moment. And this invoice is paid in 7,500 twice. Okay?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 793 So we'll drop down to the 2nd of November '93. There's a 15,000 there and a
15:45:53 5 15,000 on the 22nd of December.?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 794 Now, can you explain what happened that you had to turn around in November, at
8 this stage, with the thing coming up that month, the meeting, and look for
9 more?
15:46:06 10 A. No. Not specifically other than that I, my only contact in relation to money
11 with Monarch was with Eddie Sweeney, and that I went back to Eddie on a number
12 of occasions in relation to payments.
13 Q. 795 Okay. We have -- I'm sorry for labouring this, Mr. Dunlop. But it's very,
14 very difficult to get the information from you.?
15:46:26 15 A. You're quite welcome.
16 Q. 796 We've dealt with the 15 and 10, the first 25,000. And we've dealt with the
17 invoice of the 19th of May for 15,000. And that represented another occasion
18 when you went back to Mr. Glennane but you can't really fix dates or anything
19 like that.
15:46:44 20 A. No, hopefully Mr. Glennane can elucidate that.
21 Q. 797 A document and maybe an attendance on you; is that right?
22 A. He may well be. I don't know. I have no evidence -- no knowledge.
23 Q. 798 Sorry. Before we come to the payment on the 2nd of November of 15,000. Tell
24 us what was going on in your mind from a financial point of view for your
15:47:16 25 business from the September on. You now had how much, 15? You now had 40,000
26 and you'd paid out four?
27 A. What do you mean what was going on in my mind?
28 Q. 799 Well what was your thinking? You're going to get another 30,000 before the end
29 of the year?
15:47:25 30 A. Yeah.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
123
15:47:25 1 Q. 800 So you must be saying to yourself I still haven't enough. That?
2 A. Would appear logical, yes.
3 Q. 801 Tell us all about that, Mr. Dunlop.?
4 A. All I can say to you is that it was obvious that I went back to Mr. Sweeney.
15:47:38 5 Q. 802 Mr. Dunlop, you are a businessman. Mr. Sweeney is a businessman. You have
6 already said that Mr. Sweeney had said something to about Phil kind of liking
7 to look after the money etc. Now, how is it that having agreed 25,000 in that
8 full knowledge of everything except what the disbursements will be, you go back
9 for another 15 when you do know what the disbursements will be because you've
15:48:01 10 now met Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly. And that's 40,000?
11 A. No, no, no sorry. Please, let the record show. It is wrong to suggest that
12 I knew what the disbursements would be having met Mr. Reilly and Mr. Lynn.
13 Q. 803 Of course you did?
14 A. Sorry.
15:48:15 15 Q. 804 You said what was outstanding in that equation was you had to talk to Mr. Lynn
16 and Mr. Reilly as to whom they had spoken to. You would then know what
17 councillors you had to bribe.
18 A. Correct. The imputation there is that Mr. Reilly and Mr. Lynn and I spoke
19 about disbursements.
15:48:31 20 Q. 805 No. I'm not saying that?
21 A. Well then let me make it clear that that is not the case. Unless the record
22 shows that it's the case.
23 Q. 806 You made it clear earlier?
24 A. Good.
15:48:41 25 Q. 807 That you didn't talk of disbursements to these gentlemen. They had political
26 connections?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 808 You would find out who they had spoken to and then Mr Dunlop can go home and
29 sit at his desk and make out his list at his desk and make out his team that he
15:48:50 30 has to talk to and pay. And the meeting with Lynn and Reilly was the

www.pcr.ie Day 653
124
15:48:54 1 following day, the 9th of March?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. 809 So you now -- and the invoice we were looking at is the 19th of May. So
4 sometime in the next two months you talk to Mr. Glennane and you say that you
15:49:07 5 are unhappy. And he says that's great. We'll pay you another 15,000. And
6 that comes in two seven and a halves. So now you've probably made all of your
7 payments. We'll look at that in a moment. You've made your disbursements.
8 You know what it's costing you. And you're going back for another 30,000.
9 So could you please tell me when you made up your mind that the 40 wasn't
15:49:32 10 enough and why?
11 A. Sorry to correct you, Mr. Murphy you said I went back to Mr. Glennane.
12 Presumably you mean that I went back to Mr. Sweeney. Sorry. But again, very
13 conscious of the attitude and approach that you take. Therefore, if you say
14 something I need to make it correct. You said I went back to Dominic Glennane
15:49:51 15 and spoke to him and I need more money. I did not go back to Dominic
16 Glennane. I only when to Dominic Glenane when there was a delay in payment.
17 I went back to Mr. Sweeney. Let the record show that you said Mr. Glennane.
18 Do you accept that, that you said that?
19
15:50:06 20 CHAIRMAN: No, no, it doesn't matter.
21
22 MR. MURPHY: I don't care, Mr. Dunlop
23 A. Well I do. Because you are the very person who will come along subsequently
24 and say X, Y or Z that I said.
15:50:19 25 Q. 810 Mr. Sweeney?
26 A. There you go again.
27 Q. 811 Mr. Dunlop, you went back to Mr. Sweeney. This is manufacturing distractions,
28 Mr. Dunlop.
29
15:50:28 30 CHAIRMAN: Sorry.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
125
15:50:29 1
2 MR. MURPHY: Chairman
4 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dunlop, can you tell us how many times you went back in 1993?
15:50:38 5 Give us some idea about how you broached the subject. Explain to us what sort
6 of arguments you used for more money. Given the fact that your disbursements,
7 whenever they took place, were very small.
8 A. Yeah.
15:50:53 10 CHAIRMAN: Did you discuss those disbursements with Mr. Sweeney or anyone
11 else. We just want to know how more money was paid, what arguments you used
12 to extract more money from Monarch. What their attitude was and what
13 information was exchanged between you in support of further payment.
14 A. Yes, Chairman. That's very clear. My diary records that I went back to
15:51:23 15 Mr. Sweeney. I had a number -- including a meeting I had with Mr. Sweeney on
16 the 8th of March. If my counting is correct here, I had 13 diaried meetings
17 with Mr. Sweeney during the period 8th of March 1993 to the end of December
18 1993. So that is, I'll count them again just to make doubly sure but I'm just
19 doing a quick flick. I went back to Mr. Sweeney on a number of occasions in
15:51:57 20 relation to more money. And I said to him that, in general terms, said to him
21 it's bigger than I thought it was going to be. It's more difficult than I
22 thought it was going to be. I never said to him that I need more money to pay
23 more councillors. He never suggested that that was the reason why I was going
24 back to him. Each occasion that I asked and subsequently issued invoices, he
15:52:16 25 agreed. On the basis that he apparently was happy with what I was doing or
26 the progress that was being made. I'm not suggesting that I was gilding the
27 Lily a little bit in saying that this was an enormous project. But certainly
28 as I have said to Mr. Murphy, one of the factors that did come into my mind was
29 that the agreed fee of 25 having been paid, the recognition of the benefit that
15:52:52 30 would accrue to Monarch and also the difficulties that might result if it

www.pcr.ie Day 653
126
15:53:01 1 didn't succeed.
3 I made various arguments along those lines with Mr. Sweeney. I have to say
4 that I never had a difficulty, other than a short negotiation with Mr. Sweeney,
15:53:11 5 in relation to money. It was, as I said in my private interviews, as I tried
6 to explain to Mr. Murphy, on a number of occasions, at least one, I had to go
7 to Mr. Glennane to get payment on foot of an invoice.
9 That is as simple an outline of the scenario as I can give it to you.
15:53:32 10 Q. 812
11 MR. MURPHY: Mr. Dunlop, 8th of March. Your first meeting. You look for
12 50,000. Mr. Sweeney negotiates you down to 25?
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. 813 That's the end of the matter. In May you have decided it's a much bigger,
15:53:50 15 much more value to Monarch, it's a bigger job, I need more. You go to
16 Mr. Sweeney?
17 A. Uh-huh.
18 Q. 814 Without difficulty. Without any difficulty. Without any negotiation it's
19 another 15,000. We're at 40. The same thing happens again and we're leaving
15:54:06 20 out the 10 now that we're not -- that particular cheque. The same thing then
21 happens in November for another 30,000 when the job is done -- I mean, you must
22 have done your work at that stage. There couldn't conceivably be another
23 calculation that you'd have to take into account. But you're back to
24 Mr. Sweeney. And once again without any difficulty there's 30,000?
15:54:29 25 A. Yes. And to further give something of a flip to the point that you're making.
26 I get another five in August of 1995 and I issue an invoice for a success fee
27 on foot of Mr. Sweeney saying to me send it in and let's see how far you can
28 get.
29 Q. 815 Mr. Dunlop, the extra five was a different matter. It was a balance off the
15:54:59 30 other?

www.pcr.ie Day 653
127
15:54:59 1 A. Correct.
2 Q. 816 So that's not a very good point.?
3 A. Well --
4 Q. 817 Mr. Dunlop --
15:55:04 5 A. The payment was made.
6 Q. 818 I exclude the Judges from this. I suggest to you that there isn't a person in
7 this room who believes what you are saying.?
8 A. Well that's a difficulty for them.
9 Q. 819 Because it doesn't make sense.?
15:55:16 10 A. Well that is the amount of money that I got. That is the basis on which I got
11 it. And the only person who can attest to it is the man that I negotiated
12 with it.
13 Q. 820 Mr. Sweeney.
14 A. Correct. Who if my reading of his submission to date is such that he has a
15:55:38 15 very hazy idea of how I was even employed.
16 Q. 821 Mr. Dunlop, you are saying that Mr. Sweeney as, what was his position in
17 Monarch?
18 A. I don't know what his exact title was.
19 Q. 822 He was a high up person there, a senior person?
15:55:53 20 A. He was a member of the Board, an executive director of Monarch Properties.
21 Q. 823 You are saying that for this crucial thing for Monarch, which has failed in
22 May' 92. You come in in March '93. He negotiates you for 25. And he has
23 no problem with you coming back to him a few times during the year to increase
24 that to 85?
15:56:13 25 A. That is obvious from the level of meetings that I had with him.
26 Q. 824 Yeah?
27 A. And from the invoices that were sent out.
28 Q. 825 It wasn't because you are needing money to pay somebody or anything like that,
29 Mr. Dunlop, was it?
15:56:45 30 A. By "somebody" who do you mean? No is the answer, sorry.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
128
15:56:49 1 Q. 826 Okay.?
2 A. But I don't know what you mean by "somebody".
3 Q. 827 Now, page 4839, please. Mr. Dunlop, you agreed with me yesterday that in --
4 you accepted that in private interview you told Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Hanratty
15:57:25 5 that you did not - - that there was no success fee?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. 828 Now, can you please explain the invoice dated 14th of December '93. Invoice
8 No. 1251 for a success fee for 50,000 and VAT?
9 A. Yes. I obviously had a discussion with Eddie in relation to a success, which
15:57:51 10 it was, as the end result. And this was sent on foot of a conversation with
11 him and my recollection is, as I recall matters, was that he said send it in
12 and see how far you get. It's an invoice for 50,000 plus VAT.
13 Q. 829 Why is VAT included?
14 A. Well VAT is included on some of the invoices.
15:58:19 15 Q. 830 Why?
16 A. Well, I can't explain the rationale of that.
17 Q. 831 You didn't pay it sure you didn't?
18 A. Well I didn't get it.
19 Q. 832 Well, in the other ones, Mr. Dunlop?
15:58:30 20 A. Well if they went through the company, yes, it was paid.
21 Q. 833 I see.
22 A. But I wasn't paid this 50,000.
23 Q. 834 Now, could you tell me again, let's have it, the meeting. The detail of the
24 meeting that you went to. You've had a success now I'd say. You're in good
15:58:46 25 form and Monarch are in good form. You now, do you ring up Mr. Sweeney and
26 say I'd like to talk to you about a success fee which we never agreed. It's
27 going to be 50,000 plus 10 and a half. In fact it's going to be 60,500 and
28 I'm going to talk to you about it?
29 A. I'll tell you all about it in this way. That it could not have been sent to
15:59:12 30 Monarch Properties without a prior agreement. Sorry. Prior discussion with

www.pcr.ie Day 653
129
15:59:17 1 somebody. It wouldn't have been sent out of the blue.
2 Q. 835 Who was the discussion with?
3 A. I believe on this occasion.
4 Q. 836 Mr. Monahan?
15:59:29 5 A. No, no, no, Mr. Monahan wasn't involved.
6 Q. 837 Who was it?
7 A. No.
8 Q. 838 Everything else was Mr. Sweeney. Who was it?
9 A. On this occasion I cannot absolutely categorically say to you that I discussed
15:59:42 10 this with Mr. Glennane. But the comment was made to me either by Mr. Sweeney
11 or Mr. Glennane 'send it in and see how far you'll get'
12 Q. 839 You don't know which it was?
13 A. I'm not 100 percent certain. But certainly it was one or other of them.
14 Q. 840 Why would it be Mr. Glennane. A moment ago you fought with me because I
16:00:03 15 suggested you went to him for a bit more money. Now apparently you might have
16 gone to him?
17 A. No, there is no disparity. What I'm saying to you is that I cannot absolutely
18 categorically say to you that this conversation took place with Mr. Sweeney.
19 There were discussions with Mr. Glennane about payments, delayed payments.
16:00:23 20 Q. 841 All right. Now, Mr. Dunlop -- we don't need those. As a matter of sworn
21 evidence, Mr. Dunlop, you discussed a success fee in the sum of 60,500 with
22 either Mr. Glennane or Mr. Sweeney?
23 A. Yes, and I sent in the invoice.
24 Q. 842 All right. On the phone did you discuss it?
16:00:40 25 A. I can't specifically say to you whether it was on the phone or at a meeting.
26 Sorry, I can't say.
27 Q. 843 Have a look at your diary.
28 A. What date would you like me to look at.
29 Q. 844 What time do you think?
16:01:01 30 A. I would say sometime in the beginning of December.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
130
16:01:03 1 Q. 845 Uh-huh.?
2 A. Sorry. In December, we have October. December the 10th.
3 Q. 846 Do you have --
4 A. Sorry, I beg your pardon. December the 10th. No, sorry. There is a
16:01:34 5 reference to Monarch on December 10th but it relates to somebody else. It
6 says Monarch receipt. It's actually a shortened for Monarch reception. It
7 was their Christmas party or their drinks party, sorry. There is a meeting
8 with Eddie Sweeney on --
9 Q. 847 Were Monarch very pleased with you, Mr. Dunlop?
16:02:04 10 A. I think they were. I think they were very satisfied. I certainly didn't get
11 any complaints from them.
12 Q. 848 Did they take you out to dinner or anything like that?
13 A. No, I never had -- other than ad hoc occasional sandwich with ...
14 Q. 849 Would it be fair --
16:02:22 15 A. Richard Lynn or Philip Reilly.
16 Q. 850 Would it be fair to say that their success was due to you?
17 A. Partly.
18 Q. 851 Largely?
19 A. Well there were other people involved.
16:02:32 20 Q. 852 Who?
21 A. Phil -- Richard Lynn and Philip Reilly.
22 Q. 853 Their efforts had failed in May '92?
23 A. Not through any efforts -- not through any difficulty in relation to their
24 efforts.
16:02:43 25 Q. 854 The success in November '93 largely due to you?
26 A. I would say it was to a large part, yes.
27 Q. 855 They would have been very pleased with you?
28 A. I think so. They never expressed any dissatisfaction either verbally or in
29 writing.
16:02:57 30 Q. 856 Did they express satisfaction?

www.pcr.ie Day 653
131
16:03:09 1 A. I don't recall anybody sort of coming along and clapping me on the back and
2 saying well done Frank or without you we wouldn't have -- it wouldn't have
3 happened. I don't recollect any of that.
4 Q. 857 Are you serious?
16:03:14 5 A. I am.
6 Q. 858 Mr. Monahan, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Lynn. None of those gentlemen said
7 'brilliant job, Frank, great job, you did it'?
8 A. Never had any contact with Mr. Monahan other than the meetings I alluded to his
9 being at one meeting and coming into the room at the other. The only people I
16:03:38 10 dealt with in relation to Monarch were Eddie Sweeney, on occasion Dominic
11 Glennane for non-payment, Richard Lynn --
12 Q. 859 Why are you listing these people?
13 A. And Philip, these are the only people.
14 Q. 860 None of those people congratulated?
16:03:57 15 A. There was general -- there was general satisfaction all around.
16 Q. 861 All right. Your diary is saying, excuse me, Mr. Dunlop. I understand that
17 there is a witness for four o'clock.
18
19 Will I continue or?
16:04:12 20
21 CHAIRMAN: I don't know if the witness is here.
22
23 MR. MURPHY: Maybe not here yet.
24
16:04:17 25 CHAIRMAN: But we'll just finish this.
26
27 MR. MURPHY: Yes.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: Topic and then we'll rise.
16:04:23 30

www.pcr.ie Day 653
132
16:04:23 1
2 Q. 862 MR MURPHY: Mr. Dunlop, just back to your diary there for a second. Sometime
3 before the 14th of December. Is there a note of?
4 A. Yes, there is. There is a meeting listed in my diary for Tuesday November 9th
16:04:41 5 at 11 o'clock Monarch - Eddie.
6 Q. 863 Could we have that page, please?
7 A. The page in my diary.
8 Q. 864 The page number in the top right hand corner?
9 A. I'm not dealing with the Tribunal documentation. I'm dealing with my diary.
16:04:56 10 Q. 865 Oh, right.?
11 A. My own diary. You have it there somewhere if you can work-out.
12 Q. 866 What's the date?
13 A. Tuesday the 9th of November.
14 Q. 867 Tuesday what?
16:05:06 15 A. The 9th of November.
16 Q. 868 What's the relevance of that?
17 A. You asked me.
18
19 CHAIRMAN: Mr.
16:05:17 20 A. Are you with me at all?
21
22 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dunlop is trying to identify a possible date when there was a
23 discussion about the fees.
24
16:05:26 25 MR. MURPHY: Chairman, I know that. We're talking about December '93.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: He has gone back to now to -- he has picked out a date.
28 Q. 869
29
16:05:32 30 MR. MURPHY: Mr. Dunlop, why on earth would you go back to a date before the

www.pcr.ie Day 653
133
16:05:37 1 motion.
2 A. Sorry.
3 Q. 870 Mr. Dunlop, would you please point, take your diary.
16:05:41 5 CHAIRMAN: Wait now. Wait now. What's the purpose of referring to the 9th
6 of November?
7 A. Because Mr. Murphy asked me was there any reference in my diary to a meeting
8 with Mr. Sweeney or any representative of Monarch prior to the issuing of the
9 invoice of the 14th of December 1993. And he asked me then when did I think
16:06:05 10 and I said let's look at it from the beginning of December. Isn't that what I
11 said?
12 Q. 871 Yes.?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 872 What are you looking at?
16:06:13 15 A. Sorry. Would you just wait for one minute. I went back and I looked at
16 December. There is nothing in December. There is a reference, which I have
17 already alluded to for Monarch on the 10th of December. I've ruled that out
18 because it was a reception party. I then went back and I had a meeting. The
19 next meeting. The next reference to anybody of any substance in Monarch is
16:06:38 20 Mr. Sweeney on the 9th, Tuesday the 9th of November 1993.
21 Q. 873 Mr.--
22 A. At eleven o'clock.
23 Q. 874 So, Mr. Dunlop, after the day of the motion, which is the big success and
24 nobody knows what's going to happen until then. On the 11th of November
16:06:52 25 there's nothing in your diary before this invoice on whatever date it is?
26 A. The 14th.
27 Q. 875 The 14th of December. Nothing apart from the reception?
28 A. Other than a reference to Richard Lynn on the 16th of November.
29 Q. 876 A reference to Mr. Lynn. You didn't deal with him?
16:07:11 30 A. Never discussed money with Mr. Lynn.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
134
16:07:12 1 Q. 877 No. Are you sure you didn't discuss it at the party? Are you being fair to
2 yourself. Maybe you'd have said to Mr. Glennane or Mr. Sweeney at the
3 Christmas party that you would like a success fee?
4 A. That would be well nigh impossible because I wasn't there. Didn't go to the
16:07:29 5 party.
6 Q. 878 So you didn't meet Mr. Glennane or Mr. Sweeney with a view to discussing a
7 success fee if your diary is correct?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. 879 Does that mean you discussed it on the phone?
16:07:42 10 A. It probably is, correct.
11 Q. 880 And which of them was it?
12 A. That I've already said I cannot absolutely definitively say to you which of
13 them it was. The normal. The normal, because of my relationship with
14 Monarch. And because of the fact that I discussed fees with Mr. Sweeney,
16:08:06 15 would have been Mr. Sweeney.
16 Q. 881 And all previous applications for an increase in the fee, which were much
17 smaller amounts, you went physically to Mr. Sweeney and discussed it with him?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 882 But for 60,500 you ring one or other of them and discuss it?
16:08:23 20 A. Yes, yes.
21 Q. 883 And tell us about the telephone conversation.?
22 A. I've already given you -- because of the success and because of what had
23 happened, issue -- I was going to issue an invoice for 50,000. And either
24 Mr. Sweeney or Mr. Glennane said 'well send it in and we'll see how far you'll
16:08:44 25 get'.
26 Q. 884 And previously no difficulty at all?
27 A. Correct.
28 Q. 885 Suddenly a success fee of 65,000, send it in and see how far you get?
29 A. Correct.
16:08:53 30 Q. 886 No promise, no hope, no encouragement or ...?

www.pcr.ie Day 653
135
16:08:57 1 A. Correct.
2 Q. 887 All right. So you went back and you sent it in; did you?
3 A. The invoice was sent.
4 Q. 888 It was sent. What's okay on it?
16:09:06 5 A. Sorry?
9 A. That's not my handwriting.
16:09:17 10 Q. 890 Well I would have assumed that would be a Monarch handwriting. Would you not
11 think so, Mr. Dunlop? Why would you say "okay"?
12 A. Exactly. I don't know whose handwriting it is. It's not mine.
13 Q. 891 What does it suggest to you?
14 A. It suggests that it is okay E.
16:09:33 15 Q. 892 Okay what?
16 A. The signature or at the back is E.
17 Q. 893 By any chance would that be Eddie Sweeney?
18 A. It could well be.
19 Q. 894 Is it, Mr. Dunlop?
16:09:43 20 A. I don't know.
21 Q. 895 Have you never seen his initial?
22 A. No.
23 Q. 896 Never once have you seen his initial?
24 A. Don't know how he writes.
16:09:49 25 Q. 897 You what?
26 A. I don't know how he writes. How would I know how he writes? For goodness
27 sake.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: All right. I think we'll leave it there this afternoon.
16:09:59 30

www.pcr.ie Day 653
136
16:09:59 1 We'll sit tomorrow at .... have we another witness tomorrow?
3 MS. DILLON: There's one witness at two o'clock. Who was confirmed for
4 tomorrow afternoon, Ms. Mary Harney.
16:10:11 5
6 Other than that it will be Mr. Dunlop.
8 CHAIRMAN: All right. Well, we'll sit at 10:15. 10:15 tomorrow. I know
9 we're going to rise now briefly to await another witness.
16:10:28 10
11 MS. DILLON: Yes, Sir.
12
13 CHAIRMAN: All right?
14 A. Sorry. I beg your pardon. Sorry. All right. Friday is the difficulty.
16:10:41 15
16 CHAIRMAN: 10:15 tomorrow. And we'll sit again in a few minutes when this
17 other witness comes.
18
19
16:10:55 20
21
23
24
16:10:59 25
26 MR. AHERN, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS QUESTIONED BY MR. QUINN AS FOLLOWS:
27
28
29 MR. QUINN: Thank you, Mr. Ahern.
16:20:50 30

www.pcr.ie Day 653
137
16:20:50 1 CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon. Dermot Ahern
2 Q. 898
4 MR. QUINN: Thank you, Mr. Ahern. Mr. Ahern, you were written to through your
16:21:06 5 solicitors by the Tribunal in April of this year. And you supplied a
6 statement which is to be found at pages 8117 and 8118 of the brief.
7 If I could have 8117, please.
9 You say you set out the circumstances surrounding the receipt by Fianna Fail of
16:21:25 10 3,000 from Monarch Properties Limited and locally referred to as Wilton House
11 in June 1989. You say in a General Election was held on 15th of June' 89.
12 You say this was a keenly fought election. Fianna Fail Comhairle Dail
13 Ceantair made a determined effort to engage in a fund-raising campaign to
14 ensure the best possible campaign for its' three candidates, all members of the
16:21:47 15 Oireachtas, and you then name the three candidates. You say following the
16 normal practice the director of elections, former TD and Senator Joe Farrell,
17 assembled three candidates to draft and jointly sign a letter which was then
18 sent to known party supporters and previous donors in County Louth seeking
19 contribution to the General Election campaign.
16:22:05 20
21 You say you do not have a copy of this letter but you attach a copy of a
22 similar letter which is impressed the stamp of one of the candidates. You
23 believe such a letter was sent to Mr Philip Monahan or Monarch Properties,
24 Wilton house on behalf of all three candidates.
16:22:20 25
26 And I think we can see that letter, that copy letter. If we look at 8584 and
27 it was subsequently supplied to the Tribunal by your solicitor on 7th of June,
28 2006.
29
16:22:32 30 I think what you are saying is that a letter similar to the one now on screen

www.pcr.ie Day 653
138
16:22:35 1 would have been sent to Mr. Monahan; is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 899 Now, you said that such a letter would have gone either to a previous donor or
4 a known party supporter. Can I ask you into which category Mr. Monahan fell?
16:22:49 5 A. Well both. He was a previous donor and he was also a known party supporter in
6 that he attended party functions.
7 Q. 900 You say that the practice was that these letters would be followed up by a
8 phone call and calls by the director of elections in the area or a member of
9 the organisation on his behalf. Normally the director of elections made as
16:23:14 10 many calls as he could himself and if possible when making calls was
11 accompanied by the election candidate in the relevant area. Accordingly, he
12 requested me to accompany him to Mr. Monahan's office.
13
14 Is that because you were the election candidate in the area, Mr. Monahan's
16:23:28 15 area?
16 A. That's right. If you recall that election was called very suddenly by the
17 then Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey. It's 17 years ago. But he called it just after
18 he came back from Japan. Normally, when you run into an election you have
19 some time in order to prepare, and normally, the candidates would meet and
16:23:46 20 discuss with the Director of Elections the issue of division of the
21 constituency from the voting point of view during the election. Also,
22 election literature, posters, how many to buy, how many to get, what to put on
23 them. And one of the issues that normally would be looked at also is the
24 issue of sending out a letter to known party supporters signed by the election
16:24:13 25 candidates. And as I said in the narrative, it was always the way that the
26 director of elections would ask the candidates to call on a number, as many as
27 possible of those people that had been written to. Obviously, as this was in
28 the teeth of the election we weren't able to call to everybody.
29 Q. 901 I think if we look at 2116. We see that the election was called on 25th of
16:24:40 30 May of that year; isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 653
139
16:24:43 1 A. Yes, in and around that. It's normally three weeks before the election.
2 Q. 902 The election itself took place I think on 15th of June?
3 A. That letter that you put up being a copy we think of the type of letter that
4 was sent. It refers to the fact that the election was on 15th of June. Even
16:25:00 5 though the letter is undated. I'm nearly sure that's a letter from that
6 particular election.
7 Q. 903 If I could go back then to your statement at 8117. You say we discussed the
8 election, the economic climate in Dundalk and desire to make a big effort in
9 terms of posters and bill boards during the campaign. Although I was the
16:25:19 10 sitting TD, Mr Farrell was a long-term friend of Mr Monahan and in general
11 conducted the meeting.
12
13 You say, Mr. Monahan agreed that he would make a donation. The donation was
14 sent to me as TD and addressed to my constituency office at Dublin street,
16:25:33 15 Dundalk. I think we have a copy of that letter enclosing the cheque.
16
17 If we could have 8119. I think it's addressed to you care of your
18 constituency office at 6 Dublin Street, Dundalk
16:25:44 20 Q. 904 It refers to the meeting on the 6th of June?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 905 The letter the 30th of May. That letter would have gone out five days after
23 the election being called?
24 A. That's right.
16:25:54 25 Q. 906 If I go back to 8117. You say that Mr. Monahan agreed he would make a
26 donation. The donation as I say was sent to you. In accordance with your
27 fixed practice in relation to political donations you sent both the original
28 letter and cheque to the joint treasurers of Fianna Fail Comhairle Dail
29 Ceantair with instructions to lodge the monies to the appropriate Fianna Fail
16:26:16 30 account and to issue receipt to the donor directly in due course. You

www.pcr.ie Day 653
140
16:26:20 1 exhibited a receipt dated 29th of July 1989 of 3,000 pounds by Seamus Kirk.
3 If we could have 8121. I think that's the received stamped by Allied Irish
4 Banks and it is for Louth CDC FF
16:26:39 5 A. What you put up there is the lodgement docket.
6 Q. 907 Sorry. The receipt is at 8120.?
7 A. Yeah, I have the original here if the judges wish to see.
8 Q. 908 I think it is signed by the joint honorary treasurer?
9 A. It is signed by Seamus Keelan and Jimmy McShane, who is now deceased. Seamus
16:26:51 10 Keelan is an accountant by profession and it is in the name of Wilton House
11 Limited.
12 Q. 909 Do you believe that the cheque was in the name of Wilton House limited?
13 A. Absolutely. Seamus Keelan being an accountant, he was meticulous. As you
14 can see, the documentation that I provided is meticulous from the point of view
16:27:17 15 of the lodgement docket. I have the lodgement docket here if anybody wants to
16 see it. And also I have a copy of a letter, which is same copy of a letter
17 dated 6th of June 1989 that you sent to me originally. We actually, when I
18 say "we", Fianna Fail Dail Ceantair had a record also when I checked with the
19 treasurers when you originally wrote to me in April.
16:27:45 20 Q. 910 If I could have 2866 please. I think this is the copy letter that you are
21 referring to?
22 A. Yes, I have a copy here which indicates quite clearly that in the handwriting
23 of Seamus Keelan how that 4,020 lodgement is made up. It includes reference
24 to Wilton House, 3,000.
16:28:02 25 Q. 911 If I could have 8119?
26 A. I don't know if you have a copy of that. Yes, that's it there.
27 Q. 912 I have the letter?
28 A. That's it there.
29 Q. 913 And are you saying that the manuscript writing on the bottom right hand corner
16:28:12 30 of that letter is in Mr. Keelan's writing?

www.pcr.ie Day 653
141
16:28:15 1 A. I believe it to be.
2 Q. 914 That makes up the 4,020 which I put up at 8121 which appears to have been
3 lodged to the bank account?
4 A. That's right. I also have with me but I didn't produce it. I didn't have it
16:28:28 5 when I made the statement, a copy of the actual account six days after.
6 Q. 915 That's a lodgement of 4,020 pounds?
7 A. I have it here if you want to see it.
8 Q. 916 You go on to say that I also exhibit the lodgement docket and we've seen the
9 lodgement docket. You say the 3,000 pounds was received from Monarch
16:28:48 10 Properties/Wilton House, formally formed part of this lodgement. I exhibit a
11 copy of the original letter to me dated 6th of June with a list of other donors
12 in the handwriting of one of the local officials, totalling the aforementioned
13 amount of 4,020 pounds. You say at no time did Mr. Farrell or myself or Mr.
14 Monahan have a discussion in relation to the lands at Cherrywood, Cabinteely or
16:29:07 15 indeed for that matter any other developments that day. I did not have any
16 contact or conversations or otherwise with Mr. Monahan or persons related to
17 lands at Cherrywood, Cabinteely, County Dublin at that time or at all.
18
19 Just in relation to your meeting. It took place on the 6th of June 1989,
16:29:24 20 isn't that right ?
21 A. The letter was dated 6th of June '89. It would have been in and around that
22 time.
23 Q. 917 I think the letter talks about the meeting that day; isn't that right?
24 A. Yeah.
16:29:33 25 Q. 918 Did you know when you met Mr. Monahan on that date, that he had had a meeting
26 with Mr. Flynn on the 24th of May, '89? If I could have 7661.
27 A. No, I didn't.
28 Q. 919 He didn't make any mention to you of having met anybody else on a previous
29 occasion?
16:29:48 30 A. Not that I recall. I mean, the meeting was a follow-up from the letter. But

www.pcr.ie Day 653
142
16:29:53 1 also I do recall that headquarters had issued an instruction to TDs in every
2 constituency because they were going to produce what are called 8 by 4 posters.
3 This was a new way of postering the county. They asked us to try and get, I
4 think, in the constituency, 12 sites where these 8 by 4 foot large posters
16:30:18 5 could be put. Mr. Monahan had quite a lot of property around Dundalk which
6 was in effect derelict. And there were one or two sites which myself or Joe
7 Farrell had identified. The reason we went, apart from the follow-up of the
8 letter, was to discuss the possibility of putting up posters. It was in that
9 context, as I say, that we met. There was no other discussion, to the best of
16:30:43 10 my knowledge. To be fair to Mr. Monahan, over the two years from '87, I was
11 first elected in '87. '89 was what was known as a for sale town. There were
12 huge queues going into Newry every day of the week, not only from Dundalk but
13 also from further afield. Phil Monahan any time I met him used to refer to
14 socially -- refer to the fact that Dundalk needed something. Fianna Fail
16:31:10 15 brought in the 48 hour rule. Ray Mc Sharry was the Minister for Finance and
16 literally overnight the queues stopped. Mr. Monahan was the owner at the time
17 of the shopping centre. He was always very conscious that something needed to
18 be done to stem the tide across the border. So he was very complimentary of
19 the fact that Fianna Fail had taken in the 48 hour rule.
16:31:32 20 Q. 920 Did not speak to you on that occasion concerning his lands at Cherrywood. Did
21 he ever speak to you concerning the lands in Cherrywood?
22 A. No. In fact until you wrote to you me on the 28th of April I had never heard
23 of lands at Cherrywood and I don't even know where they are.
24 Q. 921 Mr. Monahan had as part of his team Mr. Eddie Sweeney. Now, Mr. Sweeney has
16:31:51 25 included you, if I could have 2191, amongst people he says that he would have
26 contacts with. He gives a whole series of politicians there. You are
27 included. Do you recall ever speaking to Mr. Eddie Sweeney? I suppose I
28 should ask you in the first instance did you know Mr. Sweeney?
29 A. I knew Mr. Sweeney vaguely. I would have had -- I mean, he was a personal
16:32:21 30 friend of my brother's from drama circles. I didn't really know him. To the

www.pcr.ie Day 653
143
16:32:21 1 best of my recollection, the only involvement I had with Mr. Sweeney was from a
2 legal point of view when I would have been acting for clients in Dundalk who
3 would have had perhaps disputes with Monarch Properties.
4 Q. 922 Yes.?
16:32:30 5 A. But I see from this list. I haven't seen it before. He has more or less
6 spoken to every major politician in County Louth.
7 Q. 923 Mr. Richard Lynn. Did you know Mr. Lynn?
8 A. I, did, yes. Mr. Richard Lynn was the town clerk for a number of years in
9 Dundalk. I had dealings with him when he was town clerk. But I had no
16:32:50 10 dealings with him once he left the employment of Dundalk Urban District
11 Council. I wasn't a member of Dundalk Urban District Council. I was a
12 member of Louth County Council. Obviously as TD I would have had dealings with
13 Mr. Lynn obviously in relation to constituency matters.
14 Q. 924 If I could have 2864 just for completeness. I think Mr. Monahan did write to
16:33:14 15 Mr. Frank Wall who would have been the Fianna Fail, would he have been the
16 Director of Elections or Treasurer?
17 A. He was the General Secretary.
18 Q. 925 General secretary. On the 9th of June, which would have been three days
19 later. And I think he advised Mr. Wall whilst enclosing a cheque for 16,000
16:33:30 20 pounds towards the election campaign, that he had paid you 3,000 pounds; isn't
21 that right?
22 A. Yeah.
23 Q. 926 And enclosed the correspondence?
24 A. I didn't know anything about that letter until it was sent to me by the
16:33:42 25 Tribunal recently. I didn't know anything about the circumstances of that.
26 Q. 927 Thank you very much, Mr. Ahern.?
27 A. Thank you.
28
16:33:49 30 A. Thank you very much.

www.pcr.ie Day 653
144
16:33:50 1
2 CHAIRMAN: A quarter past ten.
6 THURSDAY, 15TH JUNE, 2006, AT 10:15 A.M..
16:34:32 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 653
1
09:30:12 1 THE TRIBUNAL RESUMED AS FOLLOWS ON TUESDAY,
2 THE 20TH JUNE, 2006, AT 10:30 A.M.:
10:36:09 5
8 MS. DILLON: Good morning.
10:36:13 10 Before the cross-examination of Mr. Dunlop commences if I could just update
11 you on some housekeeping matters.
12
13 Counsel for Mr. Tony Fox is unable to be here today and Mr. Fox is listed to
14 give his own evidence on Friday and it -- the Tribunal has been requested to
10:36:29 15 adjourn the cross-examination of Mr. Dunlop by Mr. Gordon until after Mr. Fox
16 gives evidence.
17
18 I think that the Tribunal has similarly acceded to a request I think from
19 Mr. Lydon in relation to Mr. Lynn and in those circumstances, it might be
10:36:46 20 appropriate to defer the cross-examination of Mr. Dunlop by Mr. Gordon to the
21 same date as the cross-examination by Mr. Shipsey on behalf of Mr. Sweeney.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: All right. That's granted.
24
10:37:00 25 MS. DILLON: Now, in relation to that cross-examination or the resumption of
26 that cross-examination, we had understood on Thursday that Mr. Sweeney's legal
27 team would indicate to the Tribunal this morning the date upon which
28 Mr. Shipsey would be available to commence his cross-examination of Mr. Dunlop
29 but unfortunately it appears to be the position that that information is not
10:37:19 30 yet available.

www.pcr.ie Day 655
2
10:37:20 1
2 It wouldn't really be fair to ask Mr. Dunlop to hold himself in readiness over
3 the next four or five weeks until such date as it's indicated to the Tribunal
4 that Mr. Shipsey will be available to cross-examine.
10:37:32 5
6 So, perhaps, the Tribunal might be minded to request the legal team for
7 Mr. Sweeney to, say, by tomorrow evening indicate a date or series of dates
8 when they will be available to cross-examine Mr. Dunlop so that Mr. Dunlop can
9 make whatever plans he wants to make for the next four or five weeks
10:37:50 10
11 CHAIRMAN: Well, even better again, perhaps it could be done today. Is there
12 a member here from?
13
14 SOLICITOR: Yes, I appear.
10:37:57 15
16 CHAIRMAN: Perhaps you might talk to Mr. Shipsey today.
17
18 SOLICITOR: He should have a better idea this evening.
19
10:38:04 20 CHAIRMAN: Because we would be keen to organise that today before we finish at
21 four or thereabouts.
22
23 SOLICITOR: Okay.
24
10:38:15 25 MS. DILLON: I think that Mr -- counsel for Mr. Lydon is going first I
26 understand.
27
29
10:38:24 30 MS. DILLON: Mr. Dunlop.

www.pcr.ie Day 655
3
10:38:26 1
2 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dunlop.
4 CONTINUATION OF QUESTIONING OF MR. FRANK DUNLOP AS FOLLOWS:
10:38:40 5
6 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Mr. Dunlop.
7 A. Good morning, Judges.
9 MR. HUMPHREYS: Good morning, Members of the Tribunal.
10:38:47 10
11 Good morning, Mr. Dunlop.
12 A. Good morning, Mr. Humphreys.
13 Q. 1 I appear for Senator Lydon. I just have some questions arising out of the
14 examination that has taken place to date.
10:39:01 15
16 I want to deal firstly with the Manager's motion which was defeated 35 to 33.
17 And that was referred to on Wednesday, the 14th of June last, at page 63.
18
19 If I could have page 63.
10:39:14 20
21
22 A. Yep.
23 Q. 2 Can it come up on the screen?
24
10:39:31 25 CHAIRMAN: It will come up now.
26
27 MR. HUMPHREYS: Page 63. Question 338.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: What's the page number?
10:39:56 30

www.pcr.ie Day 655
4
10:39:56 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: I think it's day 353. Is it last Wednesday's evidence you're
2 looking for Mr. Humphreys?
3 MR HUMPHREYS: That's correct, Judge, I am looking for Wednesday, 14th of June,
4 2006 page 63 of my transcript. Question 346 is what I'm looking for.
10:40:36 5
6 CHAIRMAN: What's the question again?
8 MR. HUMPHREYS: Question 346.
11 Q. 3 MR. HUMPHREYS: And that says that the Manager's motion was defeated 35 to 33.
12 And if you could just move down to question 351. It states there "did
13 Mr. Lydon propose that?" and your answer, Mr. Dunlop, was "my understanding is
14 that he did, my understanding is that Mr. Lydon spoke on the floor".
10:41:10 15
16 Can I take it, Mr. Dunlop, that if it's your understanding, that you didn't
17 actually see him on the floor on that day?
18 A. Yes, I did see him on the floor on that day but I cannot absolutely attest to
19 say that he actually spoke on the floor.
10:41:27 20 Q. 4 All right. Sorry. Question 351. Did Mr. Lydon propose that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 5 And your answer is "it is my understanding is that he did". Your answer is
23 that "I was there, I saw him, I heard him?"
24 A. No, my answer is -- my understanding is that he did, my understanding is that
10:41:45 25 Mr. Lydon spoke from the floor.
26 Q. 6 It's only an understanding?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 7 All right. That's fine. Now, if we could just move on but just can I take
29 it from it that it's only an understanding, that you weren't actually
10:42:05 30 physically present in the chamber when that proposal was made?

www.pcr.ie Day 655
5
10:42:05 1 A. I was in and out of the chamber on that particular day.
2 Q. 8 Just answer the question. Were you there in the chamber when that proposal
3 was made. The answer is yes or no?
4 A. I was there when the matter was being discussed and I was there when the
10:42:15 5 confusion occurred.
6 Q. 9 All right. The question that you were asked at 351 was "did Mr. Lydon propose
7 that?" and your answer is "it is only an understanding."
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. 10 Now. Thank you. If I could just move on to question 356 and if you would
10:42:41 10 just go to question 355 and if you could just read your answer, please?
11 A. Sorry.
12 Q. 11 Question 355?
13 A. Sorry. I beg your pardon. 355. Yes, yeah. That's because -- they
14 happened to be not in the chamber, nearby at the time.
10:43:03 15 Q. 12 And if you just continue on question 356?
16 A. Yes and I have not direct -- because I wasn't in the chamber. I have a an
17 immediacy in relation to the re-action that took place at that particular time
18 as a result of what happened on the floor.
19 Q. 13 If you just go back to the first part of that question. The answer at 355 is
10:43:19 20 that you were nearby, not in the chamber?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 14 All right. "I have not direct" now what were you going to say there before
23 you changed to "because I wasn't in the chamber". I suggest to you that you
24 were going to say because I have not direct evidence or not knowledge. Would
10:43:35 25 that be correct?
26 A. Well, I can't say to you what I was going to say in relation to that particular
27 question, Mr. Humphreys.
28 Q. 15 Well it's your answer.?
29 A. Yeah.
10:43:47 30 Q. 16 And "I have not direct" and then "because I wasn't in the chamber?"

www.pcr.ie Day 655
6
10:43:52 1 A. Yeah.
2 Q. 17 Well, I suggest to you that you were going to say I have no direct evidence or
3 no direct knowledge because I wasn't in the chamber?
4 A. No, I'm not going to say yes or no to that because what I have said is what I
10:44:05 5 have said to you. I was in the council at the time.
6 Q. 18 That's precisely the point I'm getting to. Is that you were nearby, you were
7 not in the chamber. Isn't that your evidence?
8 A. No, what I said to you. I was in and out of the chamber. I said to you
9 earlier on.
10:44:23 10 Q. 19 Well, I have to suggest to you, because evidence that is stated later that it
11 was very difficult to get in and out of the chamber and that it wouldn't be
12 possible to get in and out of the chamber, is that your evidence that you gave
13 last Thursday?
14 A. Not only the evidence that I gave last Thursday but on many other occasions.
10:44:39 15 Q. 20 I am not interested in many other occasions, Mr Dunlop, this is difficult
16 enough. I just want to zero in on this particular point and on this particular
17 day?
18 A. Uh-huh.
19 Q. 21 I asked you about the proposal and you said it was your understanding that he
10:44:49 20 made the proposal. You then say that because of your role in other
21 developments you happened to be in there. And then you say "not in the
22 chamber. Nearby at the time" isn't that your answer?
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. 22 And then you were going to go on and say "And I have not direct, because I
10:45:06 25 wasn't in the chamber?"
26 A. No, that's your interpretation, Mr. Humphreys.
27 Q. 23 All right. That's what you said?
28 A. Yeah.
29 Q. 24 "I have not direct, because I wasn't in the chamber". That's what you said.
10:45:17 30 Read the answer again. The first line of it at question 356?

www.pcr.ie Day 655
7
10:45:21 1 A. Yeah, well I don't think it needs replication.
2 Q. 25 Please read it.?
3 A. "I have not direct because I wasn't in the chamber but I have an immediacy in
4 relation ..."
10:45:31 5 Q. 26 That's fine. You weren't in the chamber. Now, Mr. Lydon's evidence will be
6 that, in respect of this particular time, that he nodded to Mr. Lynn and not
7 Mr. Lynn to him. Is that possible?
8 A. Well, anything is possible. Yes, it's possible.
9 Q. 27 Well, your evidence was that it was Mr. Lynn who nodded to Mr. Lydon to come
10:45:55 10 outside the chamber. Now, I'm putting it to you that Mr. Lydon's evidence
11 will be that he nodded to Mr. Lynn to come outside the chamber.?
12 A. Well, all I can say is if that's what Mr. Lydon is going to say about nodding
13 to Mr. Lynn or Mr. Lynn nodding to him, I can't say anything against that.
14 Q. 28 Well did you see Mr. Lydon nod?
10:46:18 15 A. I saw the communication between the two of them. I can't attest to it.
16 Q. 29 Well which was it? If you saw it who nodded first?
17 A. Um, there was a communication between Mr. Lydon.
18 Q. 30 That's not the question that I asked you. I asked you who nodded first and
19 you said you saw it.?
10:46:38 20 A. I'm telling you that there was a communication between Mr. Lynn and Mr. Lydon.
21 And ...
22 Q. 31 That was a non-responsive answer. You are not answering the question. The
23 question is specific. Mr. Lydon is saying that he nodded first to Mr. Lynn.
24 You're talking about a communication. You said you saw it. Now, you either
10:47:06 25 saw it or you didn't see it?
26 A. I saw communication between the two of them and they both left.
27 Q. 32 All right. No useful purposes is served by this answer. The answer is
28 non-responsive.
29
10:47:11 30 Now, if I could move on. We might revert to it.

www.pcr.ie Day 655
8
10:47:18 1
2 If I could have the transcript of the 11th of May, 2000. It's Tribunal
3 reference 544545. Pages 544 and 545.
10:47:31 5
6 CHAIRMAN: What's the day number?
8 MR. HUMPHREYS: It's Book Two of the brief. The reference is Cherrywood.
9 It's page No. 544.
10:47:48 10
11 CHAIRMAN: That's the important part.
12
13 MR. HUMPHREYS: And that would be -- it's the transcript of the 11th of May
14 2000.
10:47:57 15
16 CHAIRMAN: It's brief No. 544.
17
18 MR. HUMPHREYS: Thank you, Chairman.
19 Q. 33 Now, Mr. Dunlop. If you could go to the bottom of that page. This, I think,
10:48:36 20 is the private sessions on the 11th of May, 2000. It's the transcript. Can
21 you see that at the bottom of the page?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 34 And just it was suggested it might be eight and it was settled at four. If
24 you could just read that paragraph to the bottom of the page, please?
10:48:53 25 A. Beginning with my answer?
26 Q. 35 Yes.?
27 A. Yeah. Right. "I think it was Sean Barrett who put the ultimate motion which
28 actually was the one that popped the thing through. But there would have been
29 quite a deal of toing and froing. To go back to the point -- to go back to
10:49:09 30 the point, I was called in by Eddie Sweeney and Richard Lynn because people

www.pcr.ie Day 655
9
10:49:13 1 were going off side. Because, like all groupings in society there are the
2 intelligent ones and the stupid ones. Unfortunately they used Don Lydon who
3 is a psychiatrist or psychologist".
4 Q. 36 If you could stop there. I don't want to go onto the next page unless
10:49:30 5 necessary. You go on to make remarks that are prejudicial about Senator
6 Lydon, isn't that correct?
7 A. If you want to interpret them as prejudicial, yes.
8 Q. 37 Well you go on. Well let's go to another. Let's go to another piece if
9 that's the approach.
10:49:46 10
11 If you could go to page 564, please. That would be the Tribunal reference No.
12 page 564.
13
14 All right. Now, if you could just begin there. You see at the second half
10:50:10 15 of the page after Mr. Alan, it comes to Mr. Hanratty?
16 A. Uh-huh.
17 Q. 38 And again, if you could read there to the bottom of the page.?
18 A. Mr. Hanratty: "and when you were being brought in to kind of clear up the mess
19 it was pretty well towards the end. It was very much towards the end.
10:50:28 20 A: Yes.
21 Q: And what information or instructions were you given with regard to what
22 Lydon had already done?
23 A: To unscramble as much of the damage as he had possibly done within Fianna
24 Fail in the first instance, which he had because I suppose this very very
10:50:45 25 unfair -- because I suppose this very, very unfair and personal and maybe
26 wouldn't say it. Maybe we wouldn't say it. I mean notwithstanding his
27 professional capacities and degrees and whatever everybody considered him to be
28 totally mad
29 Q. 39 If you just to stop there. you go on to make remarks in that vein thereafter.
10:51:04 30 You say there that it was very unfair and personal. Now I will come back to

www.pcr.ie Day 655
10
10:51:09 1 the question that I asked you one minute ago. They are remarks that are
2 prejudicial to my client; isn't that right?
3 A. I don't accept that.
4 Q. 40 You don't accept that. You don't accept that referring to somebody as being
10:51:18 5 totally mad and in the context of the stupid ones. You don't consider those
6 remarks to be prejudicial?
7 A. In the circumstances we are outlining, no.
8 Q. 41 All right. Mr. You Dunlop, you suffered a financial loss as a result of the
9 vote that was taken in respect of the Baldoyle Lands by my client amongst
10:51:37 10 others; isn't that right?
11 A. I suffer a financial loss, yes.
12 Q. 42 I'm putting it to you that you had a certain attitude towards my client which
13 is evident by these remarks here; isn't that correct?
14 A. No.
10:51:47 15 Q. 43 Alright you are saying -- your evidence to this Tribunal are that the
16 derogatory remarks that you make about my client are neither prejudicial to my
17 client nor reveal any kind of bias or animosity towards my client?
18 A. No.
19 Q. 44 Thank you very much, Mr. Dunlop.
10:52:01 20
21 Now, if we could move on. If I could move on to Tribunal reference No. page
22 425.
23
24 Now, if you could just move to the last paragraph at that page. And beginning
10:52:29 25 with "I spoke". Now, if you could just read the line down as far as the
26 remarks that are made about Senator Lydon
27 A. Beginning of the paragraph?
28 Q. 45 Yes, please?
29 A. "I spoke with both councillors Colm McGrath and Tony Fox regarding Monarch's
10:52:42 30 Cherrywood proposal. Internally in Fianna Fail there appeared to be disparate

www.pcr.ie Day 655
11
10:52:53 1 views as to what could be achieved. Councillors McGrath and Fox maintained a
2 strong line for as much rezoning as possible while others such as Councillor
3 Betty Coffey expressed caution. Senator Don Lydon appeared to be willing to
4 do whatever the majority of councillors recommended."
10:52:58 5 Q. 46 Thank you. Now, if I could just -- next I want to go to -- I think it's the
6 transcript of the 13th of June.
8 CHAIRMAN: Is there a day No.?
10:53:19 10 MR. HUMPHREYS: Sorry, Chairman. I just want to get that for myself. Yes.
11 It's the transcript of the 13th of June. And it's page 13 on my book. And
12 it's question 100. If I could have question 100.
13
14 JUDGE FAHERTY: Day 562.
10:53:42 15
16 MR. HUMPHREYS: Thank you very much.
17
18
19 JUDGE FAHERTY: Day 652.
10:54:26 20
21 CHAIRMAN: Is it a short extract because if it's short you can ...
22
23 MR. HUMPHREYS: Well, actually I want to move back to the question again.
24 I'll move to another area if that's okay and I'll come become to that at the
10:54:38 25 end.
26
27 If I could just go back to what I began my questioning with and that is, I
28 think it's Wednesday the 14th. I'll just get the reference. All right.
29
10:55:16 30 If I could -- the extract what I want to go to approach -- I want to approach

www.pcr.ie Day 655
12
10:55:22 1 it from a different angle. If I could go to Thursday the 15th of June, 2006.
2 That's the last day of the Tribunal.
4 CHAIRMAN: 654.
10:55:32 5
6 MR. HUMPHREYS: And if I could go to page 8. If that could come up.
8 And it's before question 32 is what I'm looking for.
9 A. Question what, Mr. Humphreys?
10:55:46 10 Q. 47 Just before question 32. I am trying to assist the person operating the
11 machine. Yeah. Okay.
12
13 Now, if that could just move up to the intervention by the Chairman, I don't
14 think it has a reference number. It would be line one I think. Yes.
10:56:04 15
16 Now, I just want you to read three short paragraphs, Mr. Dunlop.
17
18 If you begin with "Chairman" there: On line one. On the top of the page on
19 the screen
10:56:16 20 A. "Chairman, we were only interested in what you saw happen that particular day,
21 not what you assume happen or think should have happened, I accept that ..."
22 Q. 48 Sorry, just to put it in context. We're talking about the day of the motion of
23 the manager's motion and the question that I began with in respect of the
24 proposal made by ...
10:56:32 25 A. Right.
26 Q. 49 Senator Lydon and you say your understanding was that he made a proposal?
27 A. Yes. Okay. "Chairman we're only interested in what you saw happen on that
28 particular day not what you assume happen or think should have happened. I
29 accept that. Chairman, now can you clarify the position did you see Mr. Lynn
10:56:49 30 calling out Mr. Lydon or did you not see --

www.pcr.ie Day 655
13
10:56:52 1 Q. 50 Just a little bit slower. Yeah. Thanks.?
2 A. Right. "Did you see Mr. Lynn calling out Mr. Lydon or did you not see or can
3 you remember one way or the other?
4 A: Well the simple answer to that is yes.
10:57:06 5 Chairman: Yes.
6 A: I did see Mr. Lynn signalling to Mr. Lydon to come out.
7 Chairman: All right. We can deal with it in cross-examination."
8 Q. 51 All right. Very good.
10:57:16 10 Now, if I could go back to page three of that same day.
11 A. Question?
12 Q. 52 Question 12. If you just read out question 12 and question 13 and the answers
13 thereto for me, please?
14 A. Right. "And what about contact between Mr. Lynn and Mr. Lydon.
10:57:43 15 A: Yes I would see there was contact.
16 Q: Did you see it.
17 A: No, I can't say I definitely saw it, no."
18 Q. 53 Sorry, you were asked there and "what about contact between Mr. Lynn and
19 Mr. Lydon. A: Yes, I would say there was contact". You were asked did you
10:57:57 20 see it and you said "no I can't" ".
21
22 Now, do you accept there's a contradiction in your evidence on foot of that?
23 A. There would appear to be, yes.
24 Q. 54 Well, I have to put it to you that there is a contradiction and you are telling
10:58:18 25 the Chairman at one stage that you did see it and you're saying there that you
26 didn't see it. Isn't that correct?
27 A. Yeah.
28 Q. 55 Thank you, Mr. Dunlop.
29
10:58:27 30 Now, is it possible to go back to the 13th of June, 2006?

www.pcr.ie Day 655
14
10:58:34 1
2 JUDGE FAHERTY: 652. Day 652.
3 A. 13th?
10:58:44 5 MR. HUMPHREYS: . And if I could go to question 100.
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. 56 And it is question 100. I just want to put it in context, Mr. Dunlop, so that
8 you know the context in which the question is being asked.
10:59:07 10 Question 100. Mr. Dunlop, I think you have provided the Tribunal with two
11 statements to date in the Monarch Module. The first being October 2000 and
12 the second being September 2003. Is that right?
13 A: That's correct, yes.
14 And then you are asked at question 103,
10:59:26 15 Q: Did you read them or whatever? And you said
16 A: thank you.
17 Q: Did you read the private interviews that you had with the Tribunal in May
18 2000? And you said
19 A: Yes.
10:59:34 20
21 Now, I want you now to move on to question 100.
22
23 And I just want you to read from question 110 to question 114 with the answers
24 and then I'll ask you a question.
10:59:49 25 A. From question 110 to?
26 Q. 57 114 and the answers there to?
27 A. All right. Question.
28 Q. 58 Slowly now, yeah.?
29 A. Q: 110, would you, do you agree, Mr. Dunlop that you have grossly under stated
11:00:06 30 to the Tribunal the amount of money that you received from Monarch?

www.pcr.ie Day 655
15
11:00:10 1 A: Yes.
2 Q: Do you agree that you told in private, the Tribunal, in private interview,
3 that the agreement in relation to a fee did not include a success fee and that
4 you subsequently, you invoiced Monarch in the sum of in for a success fee in
11:00:30 5 the sum of 50,000 plus VAT?
6 A: Correct, yes.
7 Q: Do you agree that in private interview you named two councillors as
8 councillors to whom, as councillors whom you bribed?
9 A: Correct.
11:00:47 10 Q: And that when it came to your -- in the two statements I have referred to,
11 you dropped those two councillors and replaced them with a different two?
12 A: Correct.
13 Q: 114. Would you agree with me, Mr. Dunlop, that all of that amounts to a
14 gross misleading of the Tribunal?
11:01:06 15 A: No."
16
17
18 Q. 59 All right. And we're talking about the situation I think where the statement
19 you made in private interview to Mr. Hanratty and Mr. Gallagher in May 2000;
11:01:20 20 isn't that correct ?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. 60 And the statement that you then made the following October?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. 61 Isn't that correct?
11:01:25 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 62 Now, if I could just go and listen carefully to my question now. At question
27 113. And that when it came to your, obviously that refers to the public
28 statement as opposed to the one in private interview. You dropped those two
29 councillors and replaced them with a different two and you said correct.
11:01:44 30 Isn't that correct?

www.pcr.ie Day 655
16
11:01:45 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 63 Now, my question is this. When you told Mr. Hanratty and Mr. Gallagher and
3 gave two different names, that they say hold on, Mr. Dunlop, you're after
4 dropping two councillors and naming another two. We've a problem here. Did
11:02:01 5 they say that to you?
6 A. No.
7 Q. 64 Did they confront you --
9 MR. REDMOND: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mr. Dunlop. This makes no sense.
11:02:10 10 The replacement occurred in the statement when Mr. Hanratty was not involved.
11
12 There was no change on the day in front of Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Hanratty
13
14 CHAIRMAN: The subsequent statements came in, where different people were
11:02:22 15 named were sent in by Mr. Dunlop or sent in by his solicitors. They did not
16 arise in a face-to-face interview with Counsel for the Tribunal.
17
18 MR. HUMPHREYS: But, Chairman, it is a matter for the Tribunal and it is a
19 question that's been properly put to Mr. Dunlop. I'm asking him what action,
11:02:42 20 what action that the Members of the Tribunal legal team took in respect of what
21 was two contradictory statements naming two individuals. One in private
22 session and one in public session.
23
24 CHAIRMAN: Yeah, well what do you mean what action? He named two people in
11:03:00 25 private and that remained the position until he changed the names in subsequent
26 statements which were made outside the Tribunal and furnished to the Tribunal.
27 And then he was subjected to cross-examination in relation to those by
28 Mr. Murphy last week.
29
11:03:24 30 MR. HUMPHREYS: That's precisely the point. And the point is this. It

www.pcr.ie Day 655
17
11:03:27 1 wasn't on foot of Mr. Dunlop's reply there now until last week, some six years
2 later, after the statement was made that the opportunity arises in respect of
3 the contradictory evidence.
11:03:39 5 But we've been here for three years at this Tribunal. And this evidence goes
6 to his credibility and in the submission or the evidence that went before in
7 the Callaghan case that went before the Supreme Court, there's reference made
8 to what the then Chairman said which was and I'm quoting from page 19 of that
9 judgement "the Tribunal wouldn't concede from interested parties information
11:04:01 10 which would suggest that there is a glaringly inconsistency between an account
11 given on a previous occasion privately to the Tribunal and one given publicly
12 because that would clearly be wrong".
13
14 CHAIRMAN: Yes. But that was in relation -- that wasn't in relation to
11:04:18 15 Monarch.
16
17 Those submissions to the Supreme Court were in relation to what happened in a
18 different Module.
19
11:04:22 20 MR. HUMPHREYS: But, Mr. Chairman, it goes to credibility.
21
22 CHAIRMAN: Yes.
23
24 MR. HUMPHREYS: And it's the credibility of this witness. We should be in a
11:04:29 25 position to be able to confront the witness because there is a credibility
26 problem.
27
28 CHAIRMAN: If you reed read the details of the case before the Supreme Court
29 it was and it was always the position of the Tribunal that we were dealing with
11:04:40 30 it on a Module by Module basis and we would deal with inconsistencies in

www.pcr.ie Day 655
18
11:04:46 1 relation to evidence given on a Module by Module basis.
3 So, at the time that the case went to the Supreme Court the Monarch Module
4 hadn't happened.
11:04:56 5
6 So even by applying our own procedures, as they existed before the O'Callaghan
7 case, we would never have considered cross-examining Mr. Dunlop in relation to
8 statements made in a Module that hadn't yet been heard in public.
11:05:19 10 I mean, that is the position if you read it. But that's more, if you want to
11 make it a criticism, you are entitled to it, that's a criticism of the
12 Tribunal. It's not a criticism of Mr. Dunlop.
13
14 MR. HUMPHREYS: That's correct. I'm not criticising Mr. Dunlop. Mr. Dunlop
11:05:35 15 gave the answer that I in fact sought.
16
17 But the point about it is this. It's my respectful submission that the
18 credibility of a witness cannot be divided into a Module. Now, a witness is
19 either credible or not credible.
11:05:47 20
21 CHAIRMAN: But Mr.-- wait now. It was never divided into a Module by Module
22 basis.
23
24 We said that we would deal with the credibility of Mr. Dunlop and other
11:05:56 25 witnesses who were common to a number of modules over the entire of the public
26 hearings relating to those modules. But that we would only deal with them on
27 a Module by Module basis. But that there would be no decisions as to
28 credibility until all of the evidence was heard in relation to those modules.
29
11:06:14 30 MR. HUMPHREYS: I accept that. And I hear what you're saying. It still

www.pcr.ie Day 655
19
11:06:19 1 remains a matter as to how the Tribunal and the legal team actually conduct the
2 actual inquiry.
4 I say that that, I respectfully submit is fundamentally flawed. That is my
11:06:27 5 submission.
7 CHAIRMAN: That's perfectly -- these are submissions. But your position now
8 is that you are cross-examining Mr. Dunlop. I mean, if you want to make
9 submissions to the Tribunal as to the way it has conducted its affairs, you are
11:06:42 10 certainly entitled to do so. But not as part of a cross-examination of a
11 witness.
12
13 MR. HUMPHREYS: Well, my reply is in response to the interjection by counsel
14 for Mr. Dunlop and I say it was a question I am entitled to put to him which is
11:06:55 15 that this was only corrected some six years later, last week. I put the
16 question, I got the answer required.
17
18 CHAIRMAN: But wait now. It was the whole purpose behind the O'Callaghan
19 decision from the court's point of view was to correct a procedural flaw that
11:07:11 20 it identified in the work of the Tribunal. But it was never the position
21 prior to O'Callaghan, prior to the O'Callaghan case that evidence in relation
22 to the future modules, including evidence relating to the credibility of
23 witnesses, would be dealt with in those modules until they actually came on for
24 public hearing.
11:07:31 25
26 That was the admitted position of the Tribunal at all times. The O'Callaghan
27 decision effectively took a different view and the position is now all the
28 parties have been furnished with all of the relevant statements, including the
29 private interviews and people like Mr. Dunlop are here to deal with issues
11:07:57 30 relating to inconsistencies.

www.pcr.ie Day 655
20
11:07:59 1
2 MR. HUMPHREYS: Yeah. And my submission -- and my question was in respect of
3 what action the legal team for the Tribunal took in respect of an inconsistency
4 that emerged, unknown to us, some six years ago. I've made my submission.
11:08:14 5 Anyway --
7 CHAIRMAN: I want to make it clear. I mean, the Tribunal did not deal with
8 inconsistencies in the way that they would do now post O'Callaghan. It was
9 never the practice of the Tribunal to raise inconsistencies in relation to
11:08:29 10 Tribunals -- or in relation to modules that hadn't yet come on for public
11 hearing. That was the stated position that was argued before the Supreme
12 Court.
13
14 MR. HUMPHREYS: I accept what you're saying in respect of that but it still
11:08:46 15 comes back to the issue that this witness, some six years ago, named two
16 councillors and then changed that. And that matter wasn't pursued. And it
17 wasn't in effect corrected until some six years later, today.
18
19 CHAIRMAN: But it was never the practice or the intention of the Tribunal that
11:09:02 20 it would be corrected until Mr. Dunlop was giving evidence in relation to the
21 issue.
22
23 That's why he's here. That's why he's here to be cross-examined. There is
24 clearly an inconsistency, very serious inconsistency here.
11:09:18 25
26 MR. HUMPHREYS: That is so and the purpose of my cross-examination has been as
27 to the credibility of the witness. I have no further question. Thank you,
28 Mr. Chairman. I will make any further comments in respect by way of
29 submissions. Thank you, Mr. Dunlop.
11:09:30 30 A. Thank you.

www.pcr.ie Day 655
21
11:09:30 1
2 CHAIRMAN: Now, who would like to? Who is next in the queue to cross-examine?
3 Connor Creegan, Chairman, for Cathal Boland. I have one question. Just a
4 simple matter of clarification, for Mr. Dunlop.
11:09:45 5
6 CHAIRMAN: Sorry, just before you go, Ms. Dillon, did you want to say
7 something?
8 MS DILLON: In relation to the submission that was made by Mr. Humphreys?
9 CHAIRMAN: Yes.
11:09:55 10 MS DILLON: No, Sir, other than that as Mr. Humphreys well knows what the prior
11 procedure of the Tribunal had been and indeed in relation to his own client's
12 inconsistencies. The same position has been adopted in the past. He will be
13 familiar with his client's position in the Ballycullen Beechill modules and
14 dealing with inconsistencies there.
11:10:15 15
16 Nothing further.
17
18 CHAIRMAN: All right. Now, sorry ...
19
11:10:18 20 THE WITNESS WAS QUESTIONED BY MR. CREEGAN AS FOLLOWS:
21
22 Q. 65 Good morning, Mr. Dunlop
23 A. Good morning, Mr. Creegan.
24 Q. 66 I just have one question, Mr. Dunlop?
11:10:25 25 A. Yeah.
26 Q. 67 I wonder if I could have day 653. Page 22, question 98: That's the 14th
27 June just?
28 A. 14th the 14th of June.
29 Q. 68 Last Wednesday.?
11:10:53 30 A. What, yes?

www.pcr.ie Day 655
22
11:10:54 1 Q. 69 Question 98.?
2 A. Okay. Yeah. Got it, yeah.
3 Q. 70 I think we're on the screen, we're on the 13th of June, Chairman.?
4 A. Yeah.
11:11:10 5 Q. 71 Question 98?
6 A. Yes, Mr. Creegan, got it, yeah.
7 Q. 72 I'm just waiting for it myself?
8 A. I beg your pardon. I have it in my own.
9 Q. 73 I've got it now.
11:11:26 10
11 Mr. Murphy said to you "and the opening that you went to with Mr. Boland" just
12 hold it there. I just want to clarify with you. That's in relation to
13 Mr. Boland's evidence or statement, I should say, that he was invited to two
14 cinema openings. He said by you but by your PR company who were acting for
11:11:47 15 UCI; am I correct?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. 74 I just want to clarify. He didn't go with you?
18 A. No.
19 Q. 75 But he was merely an attendee like many others that you invited?
11:11:57 20 A. That's language. You're absolutely correct, yes.
21 Q. 76 Much obliged, Mr. Dunlop.
22
23 Thank you Chairman
24
11:12:04 25 CHAIRMAN: Okay. Who is next?
26
27 MR SANFEY: I think that means I'm up, Mr. Chairman.
28
29 Mr. Dunlop, my name is Mr. Sanfey.
11:12:16 30

www.pcr.ie Day 655
23
11:12:16 1 THE WITNESS WAS QUESTIONED BY MR. SANFEY AS FOLLOWS:
3 Q. 77 Just so as you are clear. I represent Monarch Properties Limited and all of
4 the various Monarch companies. Richard Lynn, Paul Monahan, Dominic Glennane,
11:12:24 5 Noel Murray, Phil Reilly and the Estate of Mr. Philip Monahan.
6 A. Grand.
7 Q. 78 Chairman, before I begin my cross-examination of Mr. Dunlop. Can I just say
8 one thing.
11 MR SANFEY: Much of Dunlop's evidence concerned Mr. Eddie Sweeney. I think,
12 in fact it would be fair to say that many of the remarks, of which we would be
13 most concerned, concerned Mr. Sweeney rather than other Monarch people.
14
11:12:50 15 Mr. Sweeney is a director of Monarch. But as you are aware, Mr. Chairman, he
16 is separately represented by Messrs. William Fry and Mr. Bill Shipsey in
17 particular.
18
19 Because of that, I obviously have had no opportunity to speak to Mr. Sweeney,
11:13:07 20 nor would it be proper for me to do so. He has his own representation.
21
22 I just wanted to say two things really. To the extent that I do not deal with
23 matters which in Mr. Dunlop's evidence which pertain solely to Mr. Sweeney. I
24 would just like to point out that no adverse inference should be drawn by
11:13:29 25 Monarch by my failure to do that. Mr. Shipsey, obviously, is going to take up
26 anything that deals with Mr. Sweeney.
27
28 CHAIRMAN: Yes. That's a fair enough point. If something arises in the
29 course of cross-examination or on behalf of Mr. Sweeney by his own counsel that
11:13:47 30 you feel you, as, insofar as it might effect the interests of your clients, who

www.pcr.ie Day 655
24
11:13:52 1 do not include Mr. Sweeney, then you will have an opportunity to further
2 cross-examine Mr. Dunlop. Hopefully, briefly.
3 A. Uh-huh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was my second point. I would just
4 like to reserve my position in the event that anything came up.
11:14:11 5
8 Q. 79 MR SANFEY: Mr. Dunlop, can I also start with the meeting of the 27th of May at
9 the council. This was the motion to approve the County Manager's proposals.
11:14:22 10 The one that was defeated by 35 votes to 33.
11
12 And I think Mr. Humphreys has also referred to some of the evidence that you
13 gave the last day and I think you'll agree that was it was somewhat
14 contradictory?
11:14:34 15 A. In what way?
16 Q. 80 Well, I'll take you through it now. I think you did accept when Mr. Humphreys
17 put it to you that was there was a contradiction and you weren't sure whether
18 you had --
19 A. I beg your pardon, Mr. Sanfey, yes.
11:14:48 20 Q. 81 Perhaps could we just look at a portion of the transcript. It's day 654.
21 It's last Thursday and I'm looking for page 3 of that.
22
23 Now, at question 14.
24 A. Question 14? Yeah.
11:15:14 25 Q. 82 Perhaps I'll read it out just for ease of reference, Mr. Dunlop?
26 A. Yeah.
27 Q. 83 Mr. Murphy asked you was "Mr. Lynn in the chambers all of the day or in the
28 environs all of the day or in and out?" And the answer was.
29 A: That I can't attest to because for one simple reason and I'm subject to
11:15:29 30 correction on this, I think the public gallery on that particular chamber

www.pcr.ie Day 655
25
11:15:33 1 format, as it existed then, I think at maximum held ten people and the press
2 gallery which is right beside it inside the door can facilitate at a maximum 6
3 or 7 people. So if you wanted to be in the chamber, and I can only give you
4 my experience, on occasion, it was necessary to be the chamber.
11:15:51 5 Q: Yes
6 A: And if you wanted to be in the chamber You got in there. You took your
7 place, you sat there and you didn't come out because if you came out you
8 couldn't get back in.
9 Q: I see. You would know if he was stuck in the chamber for the whole day
11:16:04 10 or stuck in and around the chamber for the whole day or whether he was ...
11 A: The only way I can answer that, Mr. Murphy, is that if I had a motion of
12 enormous importance going through council, that I was controlling or attempting
13 to control, I would be in the chamber."
14
11:16:18 15 Could I ask you few questions about that, Mr. Dunlop. Your engagement by
16 Monarch didn't come until the following March; isn't that correct?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. 84 And your general experience as you relate there is that -- just stop me if I'm
19 not paraphrasing this correctly. There was very little space in the council
11:16:42 20 chamber. You had to get in early. And by and large if you lost your seat
21 you did so at peril of not being able to get back in?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. 85 And when Mr. Murphy was asking you whether Mr. Lynn was stuck in the chamber.
24 I take it that you couldn't answer that because the answer that you gave was to
11:16:59 25 say the only way I can answer that is that if I had a motion of enormous
26 importance going through the council that I was controlling or attempting to
27 control I would be in the chamber?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 86 Do I infer that that you certainly can't say that you saw Mr Lynn in the
11:17:14 30 chamber all day but your estimation is that he certainly would be there because

www.pcr.ie Day 655
26
11:17:17 1 it was of enormous importance to you?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. 87 Now, in cross examining Mr. O'Herlihy I put Mr. Lynn's position to
4 Mr. O'Herlihy, which was that for that very reason he was in the chamber all
11:17:30 5 day and he gave the very reasons that you instance there in relation to the
6 restricted space and the desirability of not leaving the chamber, the
7 importance of it and so on. I take it that comes as no surprise to you?
8 A. No, it doesn't.
9 Q. 88 All right. Now, can I just move on two pages in that transcript. At
11:17:52 10 number -- page No. 6.
11
12 The Chairman intervened in view of what appeared to be a somewhat contradictory
13 position you'd taken, Mr. Dunlop. And once again I'll just read it out.
14 Chairman, sorry just before because this is important. Are you saying, Mr.
11:18:12 15 Dunlop, that you recollect this occurring on this occasion, the occasion of
16 this particular motion?
17 A: In the circumstances that obtained that day, yes, with the confusion in
18 the melee that took place in the chamber and outside
19
11:18:32 20 CHAIRMAN: Are you saying that on that you did of that occasion see Mr. Lydon
21 being signaled to by Mr. Lynn to come out?
22 A. Yes.
23
24 CHAIRMAN: So you do recollect it?
11:18:36 25 A: I do recollect it, yes".
26
27 Now, Mr. Humphreys has already examined you in relation to who beckoned who and
28 so on. Mr. Lynn concurs with Mr. Senator Lydon's version. Because of the
29 way the chamber was configured Senator Lydon was facing front so it would have
11:18:54 30 had to have been him who turned around and beckoned to Mr. Lynn. In any

www.pcr.ie Day 655
27
11:18:59 1 event, Mr. Lynn will say that he was motioned out by Mr. Lydon who told Mr.
2 Lynn that in fact there was no point in going ahead with Mr. Lydon's own motion
3 because it wouldn't you succeed given the way the Manager's motion had gone on.
4 Can I put it to you Mr Dunlop, that you did see them conferring as such?
11:19:17 5 A. Communicating, yes.
6 Q. 89 And you do have that recollection?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 90 You are clear about that. Whatever contradiction there may have been in your
9 evidence initially. That's your firm position now?
11:19:27 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 91 All right.
12
13 Could we have a look at page 589 of the brief.
14
11:19:48 15 You are being asked about various occasions in the council chamber I think.
16 And just at the end of page 588 you're asked "were you present on those
17 occasions?" and the answer is "I would have been present, yes"
18 A. Sorry, Mr. Sanfey. Where are you? What question are you on?
19 Q. 92 I'm just looking at the last line?
11:20:08 20 A. Yes, I have you yes.
21 Q. 93 An introduction.
22 A: I would have been present, yes
23 Q: Was Mr. Lynn present?
24 A: Always. Always present. Not Phil Reilly but not always but Richard
11:20:21 25 Lynn always."
26
27 Can I ask you what you meant by that? Mr. Lynn always being present?
28 A. Always being present. In relation to the Monarch proposals, in relation to
29 the Cherrywood development, Mr. Lynn was the lead man on behalf of the company.
11:20:40 30 And was in evidence in the -- in the environs of the council, the council lobby

www.pcr.ie Day 655
28
11:20:46 1 and the chamber as often as I was in the context of any time I was there
2 because I had other matters to deal with in relation to lobbying councillors.
3 But that's what I meant. He would have been present -- if the Monarch
4 proposal was coming forward on any given day, as per an agenda, the -- it would
11:21:08 5 be surprising if Richard wasn't there.
6 Q. 94 Can I take it from the evidence that you gave the other day, that you would
7 also find it surprising if Mr. Lynn absented himself from any portion of such a
8 meeting dealing with the Cherrywood proposals?
9 A. Yes, I would. And in the context of the -- the configuration of the room, in
11:21:27 10 which the meeting was taking place and the configuration of the council itself.
11 Q. 95 Yes. Thank you, Mr. Dunlop.
12
13 Now, can I have a look at page 425 of the brief, please.
14
11:21:38 15 Now, do you have that, Mr. Dunlop?
16 A. Yes, yep.
17 Q. 96 In the second paragraph thereabouts, five or six lines from the end "neither
18 Messrs Lynn nor Reilly ever discussed with me any payments to any specific
19 councillor nor party with regard to Monarch's proposal.
11:22:12 20
21 You've said something similar in your private interviews and evidence in the
22 last few days. I take it that you stand over that now?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 97 Can I have a look at page 561 of the brief, please.
11:22:23 25
26 Just once again I'd like to give you an opportunity to comment on this, Mr.
27 Dunlop?
28 A. Uh-huh.
29 Q. 98 There is a reference to Mr. Lynn taking a call in John of God's about a motion.
11:22:50 30 And then Mr. Gallagher said "sorry did you believe that or did you have any

www.pcr.ie Day 655
29
11:22:54 1 knowledge of whether or not Richard Lynn was paying any monies."
2 A: I had no knowledge. I definitely have no knowledge because I was never
3 present and I never saw any transactions taking place".
11:23:07 5 I take it that you stand over that?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 Q. 99 If we could have a look at the last day's evidence. It's day 654. Page 157.
9 Question 1028.
11:23:39 10
11 In fact, I can read it out. I don't intend to refer to this at length.
12
13 CHAIRMAN: Okay.
14 A. Yes, I have it, Mr. Sanfey, yeah.
11:23:56 15 Q. 100 You were talking about councillors being facilitated and Mr. Murphy asked you
16 who is an alleged facilitator?
17 A. Yeah.
18 Q. 101 I think this may be in fact from ...?
19 A. This is the private interview.
11:24:10 20 Q. 102 Private interview, yes. At 1027 it says "isn't that right.
21 A: He is the facilitator to Monarch and councillors
22 Q: Facilitator means paying money doesn't it?
23 A: I have, well I have no and I don't think I'm saying there, I have no
24 evidence ever or that Mr. Lynn gave money to councillors"
11:24:30 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 103 And you stand over that as well?
27 A. Yes. When I say "yes" I mean I'm agreeing with what I said previously, in
28 case there is any misunderstanding, Mr. Sanfey. I have no such knowledge or
29 evidence.
11:24:58 30 Q. 104 At page 582 of the brief. There is a question in relation to Mr. Lynn. "Do

www.pcr.ie Day 655
30
11:25:07 1 you believe or did he tell you that he had actually given money to Don Lydon?
2 A: No. He never said that he had actually given money to Don Lydon." .
4 And that would appear to be consistent with your evidence in the last few days
11:25:20 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 105 Richard Lynn, as far as you are aware, never gave money to Don Lydon?
7 A. Richard Lynn -- never told me that he had received money from Richard Lynn.
8 Q. 106 All right. Now, once again, if I could look at the transcript for day 654.
9 Towards the end. It's page 158.
11:25:41 10
11
12 A. What's the question? What number question and I might be able to get it I
13 quicker, Mr. Sanfey.
14 Q. 107 It's question 1031?
11:26:10 15 A. Yes, I have it.
16 Q. 108 Just the three questions there. Now just "you're not suggesting that Mr. Lynn
17 facilitated Mr. Lydon:
18 A: With money is that what you're asking me, is that what the core of this
19 question is, is that what you're asking me?
11:26:23 20 Q: Is that your answer. You're not suggesting Mr. Lynn facilitated
21 Mr. Lydon with money.
22 A: I have no evidence that Mr. Lynn ever gave money to Mr. Lydon
23 Q: so what did you mean when you said you had no doubt that Richard Lynn was
24 facilitating both certainly Lydon, certainly no doubt about this?
11:26:40 25 A: Mr. Lynn and Mr. Lydon had a close relationship as is obvious if you look
26 at the record of Dublin County Council and what Senator Lydon did or tried to
27 do. To infer further from that, as I have said on a variety of occasions on
28 the last three days,
29 Q: Has it been three days, yes?
11:26:55 30 A: During the course of the last three days that was a close relationship

www.pcr.ie Day 655
31
11:26:59 1 between Mr. Lynn and Mr. Lydon. After the meeting with Mr. Lynn and
2 Mr. Lydon, it was agreed that it would continue to have that close
3 relationship. What went on between them, I don't know."
11:27:10 5 Q. 109 Am I right in inferring, Mr. Dunlop, that what you were saying was that as a
6 result of the initial strategy meeting it was agreed that because Mr. Lynn was
7 the one who had been dealing with Mr. Lydon, that he should continue to do so
8 but you say what went on between them I don't know
9 A. Correct.
11:27:28 10 Q. 110 And there's certainly no suggestion in your evidence that money changed hands
11 between them?
12 A. And I never made any such imputation, directly or otherwise.
14
11:27:39 15 Now, as I understand your evidence, Mr. Dunlop. You are fairly clear that
16 nobody on the Monarch side ever said to you or made a specific reference to you
17 paying money to councillors or that money had been paid by Monarch people to
18 councillors. I'm talking about a specific reference?
19 A. When you say specific reference. Do you mean the word "payment, money and
11:28:12 20 councillors" all in the one sentence?
21 Q. 112 Yes.
22 A. No is the answer.
23 Q. 113 Could we have a look at page 565, please.
24
11:28:21 25
26 A. Day, Mr. Sanfey? Which day? Oh, yes.
27 Q. 114 Private interview, Mr. Dunlop?
28 A. Oh, yes.
29 Q. 115 Now, yes. You do, however, attribute a number of remarks to Mr. Lynn from
11:28:47 30 which you drew certain inferences?

www.pcr.ie Day 655
32
11:28:50 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 116 I'd like to deal with those now, if I may.
4 At question 82 on page 565.
11:28:57 5
6 The question was and this is Mr. Hanratty. "Well, what were you told by
7 Richard Lynn when you were being brought in to clean-up the mess as to what he
8 had done with regard to looking after the councillors up to that point in time?
9 A: In relation to specific people, nothing." And that's consistent with
11:29:16 10 everything you've said to date
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 117 " in general, that a phrase "when you think of the amount of money that is
13 being spent you think that these idiots would get their act together"
14 Q: well were you given any information as to how much money they had spent up
11:29:34 15 to that point.
16 A: None at all" And then Mr. Gallagher intervened and said "did you
17 understand that to mean that Monarch or somebody on behalf of Monarch had paid
18 substantial monies to councillors to achieve whatever rezoning Monarch was
19 seeking to achieve?
11:29:45 20 A: My interpretation of the phrase that was used, that I have just used, was
21 my personal interpretation of it. I never saw Lynn, Sweeney, Murray, Phil
22 Monahan, notwithstanding the widespread anecdotal about Phil carrying large
23 bundles of cash in the boot of his Mercedes for distribution". You go on to
24 talk to Mr. Monahan in that regard. If I may say so, you never finished that
11:30:12 25 sentence. Notwithstanding the widespread anecdotal stories etc.. You never
26 saw Lynn, Sweeney, Phil Murphy doing what
27 A. You were present at those private meetings. You wouldn't be surprised at some
28 of the sentences not being concluded either, Mr. Sanfey. Sorry, that's just a
29 passing remark. In the context of the question that is being asked of me and
11:30:31 30 in the answer that I am giving is that I never saw any of those named

www.pcr.ie Day 655
33
11:30:34 1 individuals giving money to councillors for politicians.
2 Q. 118 All right. Thank you.
4 Now, when Mr. Gallagher presses you about the remark that you allege that Mr.
11:30:46 5 Lynn made ....
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. 119 You say "my interpretation of the phrase that was used that I just used was my
8 personal interpretation of it"?
9 A. Correct.
11:30:55 10 Q. 120 So that's the inference that you drew from that remark?
11 A. Correct.
13
14 Mr. Lynn will say that he did not say this. That he wouldn't have said it.
11:31:11 15 And with the greatest of respect Mr. Dunlop, he most certainly wouldn't have
16 said it to you. I have to put that to you. What do you have to say to that?
17 A. Why wouldn't he say it to me above anybody -- over and above anybody else? If
18 Mr. Lynn -- there are certain phrases -- there are certain thing that people
19 say to you from time to time that stick in your mind. I can understand Mr.
11:31:37 20 Lynn saying, using the remark in the context of the amounts of money that
21 Monarch, as we now know, spent in relation to the whole project, the whole --
22 the process, the buying of the land and giving contributions to political
23 parties and politicians. But I have given you my personal interpretation of
24 it and I do not, by any means, mean to impute anything of a derogatory nature
11:32:08 25 to Mr. Lynn. I was being asked what I recollected about my relationship with
26 various people from Monarch.
27 Q. 122 All right. Thank you, Mr. Dunlop. That's most helpful.
28
29 In general in relation to Mr. Lynn. He will say that he really didn't have
11:32:27 30 very much contact with you at all. And I'll tell you what he will say about

www.pcr.ie Day 655
34
11:32:31 1 his contacts with you.
3 You implied, I think, in your evidence that there had been contact between
4 yourself on the one hand and Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly prior to your engagement
11:32:44 5 in March '93 when you would bump into each other at the council meetings. And
6 you seemed to imply that you would perhaps swap war stories or swap ideas on
7 strategy about your respective motions. Did I understand that correctly?
8 A. Yes, in broad brush terms, in general terms, yes, that is correct, yes.
9 Q. 123 Yes. Well just two points about that. Mr. Lynn will say that certainly as
11:33:09 10 anybody who had been around the council offices at that time would have done,
11 he certainly would have bumped into you from time to time and had words with
12 you?
13 A. Uh-huh.
14 Q. 124 But he has no recollection of any chats about strategy or anything substantial
11:33:20 15 in that regard?
16 A. Prior to my being engaged?
17 Q. 125 Prior to your being engaged. Would you agree with his recollection of that?
18 A. So that we're not misunderstanding one another. What I said it Mr. Murphy,
19 and the record can, the transcript can show it if necessary. Is that because
11:33:37 20 we both had contact with councillors during the course of the Development Plan,
21 and the coincidence of those contacts, motions and lobby exercises, yes, I
22 would have met Richard and Phil Reilly and yes, we would have sat down over a
23 cup of coffee or a drink in one of the local hotels or pubs, because that's
24 where most of the councillors relaxed, and, but to suggest that we would have
11:34:07 25 had detailed strategy conversations in relation to what Monarch was doing, no,
26 we would have conversations about the course of the Development Plan, what was
27 happening, how difficult it was to get things moving or to keep things going.
28 All of those in general broad brush terms. But not -- Mr. Lynn or Mr. Reilly
29 never specifically sat me down and said Frank, we seek your advice in relation
11:34:34 30 to the strategy we're following. On the other side of the coin, I never

www.pcr.ie Day 655
35
11:34:45 1 contacted Richard or Phil and said listen, boys, I want to contact you and
2 advise you about your strategy, it's good, bad are or otherwise. There would
3 have been interaction between you us and others who would have been there at
4 the time.
11:35:00 5 Q. 126 Mr. Dunlop, one thing that's slightly puzzled the person whom I represent about
6 your evidence. Is that you appeared to more or less lump Mr. Reilly and Mr.
7 Lynn in together. Although you did expressly concede that Mr. Reilly was less
8 involved than Mr. Lynn. Mr. Reilly will say that he has no recollection of
9 meeting you, certainly in the council offices, or discussing the matter with
11:35:25 10 you prior to March 1993 at all. And he will say that his involvement in the
11 project was limited to involvement in some of the road shows and in particular
12 bringing people to see the Tallaght development, because, as I think you are
13 aware, Tallaght was his particular ...
14 A. Yes.
11:35:43 15 Q. 127 As it were?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 128 So certainly Mr. Reilly is a bit perplexed at the notion that he would have met
18 you or discussed the thing at all prior to March 1993?
19 A. Let me put it the other way in answer to that and without implying or imputing
11:36:00 20 anything other than what I recollect. And that is the first time I ever met
21 Mr. Reilly was in Dublin County Council. I don't ever recollect having met
22 Phil Reilly prior to that time but in Dublin County Council. That's where I
23 first met him.
24 Q. 129 Yes. You would accept I think that Mr. Reilly was at the time the centre
11:36:25 25 Manager for The Square in Tallaght. And that you he had no involvement with
26 the Cherrywood project other than to do some ad hoc campaign work on it, as it
27 were?
28 A. Well I can tell you what I know now as distinct from what I knew then. What
29 I'm saying to you is I first met him in those particular environs in the
11:36:46 30 context of Monarch's proposals. What he then was or and what his role was I

www.pcr.ie Day 655
36
11:36:52 1 subsequently -- I know from a variety of comments, statements that have been
2 made for the brief.
3 Q. 130 Would you at least agree with me to this extent, Mr. Dunlop, that Mr. Reilly
4 was somebody who was very much less involved than Mr. Lynn?
11:37:09 5 A. Oh, I accept that, yes. And I think I have indicated that on a number of
6 occasions, including in the private interviews. I think in the one that you've
7 just shown I just said to a lesser extent Mr. Reilly.
8 Q. 131 I'm glad to have you acknowledge that, Mr. Dunlop. One might have inferred
9 from your evidence that it was Mr. Lynn, Mr. Reilly as a sort of double act
11:37:31 10 almost?
11 A. Well, certainly -- let's not back ourselves into a cul-de-sac here. Certainly
12 in the course of my direct involvement with Monarch, as per March, from March
13 1993. Certainly Mr. Reilly was present with Mr. Lynn. But as I keep saying,
14 not always.
11:37:51 15 Q. 132 Yes. Mr. Lynn recalls one meeting in Harcourt Street where he met you. And
16 two meetings in your office?
17 A. Yeah.
18 Q. 133 And as far as Mr. Lynn can recall, they are the only actual meetings that he
19 had with you?
11:38:04 20 A. Yes. I think Mr. Lynn is right in the context of one meeting in Harcourt
21 Street. I um, I -- I believe he's right in that. There were other meetings
22 diaried by me with either Richard or Richard and Philip together. But for
23 ease of progress, I would say that Richard is right in the context of the one
24 meeting in Harcourt Street.
11:38:34 25 Q. 134 But I think Mr. Lynn's point would be that to a large extent he had very little
26 to do with you. That you were doing your thing. He was doing his thing.
27 It wasn't a question that you were conferring weekly or fortnightly or evening
28 monthly in relation to the matter.?
29 A. No, I think that would be a wrong inference Mr. Sanfey. I think they were --
11:38:55 30 there was a lot of contact between us. After all, we were on the same ship.

www.pcr.ie Day 655
37
11:39:01 1 We were um, as the famous phrase in the Godfather films as you know 'all our
2 ships must sail in the one direction'. And we were all going in the one
3 direction. We all had the same objective. And it would have been ludicrous
4 for anybody to suggest that we weren't having contact with one another. How
11:39:22 5 would we know that we weren't countermanding what other people were doing?
6 Q. 135 Well that brings us back to a point that I think the Chairman alluded to at one
7 point. You are steadfast in saying that none of the Monarch people ever spoke
8 openly about making contributions to anyone?
9 A. Correct, yes.
11:39:46 10 Q. 136 And yet you say that you were working together and effectively strategising
11 together to make sure that presumably the division of labour was appropriate
12 and so on?
13 A. Yes. I think we, maybe strategise is a grandiose word. But certainly we
14 were consulting with one another and telling one another, you know, on a
11:40:02 15 regular basis as to what was happening or not happening in our particular
16 sphere.
17 Q. 137 Well, if Monarch were aware that you were paying money to councillors, would
18 they not have referred to that fact in the numerous strategy meetings, whatever
19 it is, whatever you wanted to call it, meetings that you had?
11:40:17 20 A. Well certainly I wouldn't have expected them to refer to it or allude to it and
21 they never did.
22 Q. 138 But why not?
23 A. Well why would they? Sorry, I don't mean to be asking you a question,
24 Mr. Sanfey. But the fact of the matter is that they didn't.
11:40:35 25 Q. 139 You were brought in. Your sense of it is that Monarch, if I could use the
26 term for the entity, the collective term?
27 A. Yeah.
28 Q. 140 Knew that you were paying money to councillors but it was never preferred to in
29 all of the meetings that you had with them?
11:40:53 30 A. No, no. Sorry, Mr. Sanfey. What I said in relation to -- and I bear in mind

www.pcr.ie Day 655
38
11:40:58 1 the remarks that you made to the Chairman at the outset. And therefore I just
2 want to be careful. I made a remark. I made a statement in relation to a
3 specific remark or a specific conversation that took place between myself and
4 another representative of Monarch that you are not representing.
11:41:16 5 Q. 141 Mr. Sweeney?
6 A. Yes. No other representative of Monarch either directly or indirectly,
7 referred to or alluded to payments to politicians of any sort other than the
8 comment that I attribute to Mr. Lynn about you think the amount of money that's
9 being spent, you'd think these idiots would get their act together. For
11:41:41 10 absolute clarity. Any of the people that I dealt with, Richard Lynn, Phil
11 Reilly, and to a far lesser extent on the odd occasion that I met other people
12 in representing Monarch that you represent, no such references or illusions
13 were made, either by them or me.
14 Q. 142 Very good. Thank you.
11:41:59 15
16 Could we have a look at page 575 of the brief, please.
17
18 Yes. In fact, the top of page 576.
19
11:42:25 20
21 Q. 143 Now, you say there "Eddie Sweeney told me that disbursements had already been
22 made and you asked me specifically about Richard Lynn. And Richard Lynn did
23 tell me that disbursements had already been made, did not specific but lots of
24 money had been spread around".
11:42:49 25
26 Can I take it from the evidence that you have given once again this morning,
27 that was not said specifically
28 A. No, no, it was not said specifically in relation to disbursements or payments
29 to politicians for their vote.
11:43:01 30 Q. 144 Yes. Well did he say it or not say it?

www.pcr.ie Day 655
39
11:43:06 1 A. Mr. Lynn?
2 Q. 145 Yes.?
3 A. Yeah, Mr. Lynn in the context of the -- of the whatever, what I'm saying to the
4 Tribunal in that private session that -- in the comment that I made to you
11:43:20 5 already. When you think of the amount of money that's being spread around
6 you'd think these idiots would get their act together.
7 Q. 146 So when you say Richard Lynn did tell me that disbursements had already been
8 made. You're referring to the inference that you drew from the idiots remark?
9 A. Yeah. I'm not -- I'm not -- and I accept that it seems -- it's likely
11:43:43 10 infelicitous language. I'm not suggesting, I am not saying that Mr. Lynn told
11 me ever in specific terms or in general terms or ever, that any individual or
12 collective group of politicians were paid monies before -- for the purposes of
13 their vote.
14 Q. 147 Right. Now, if --
11:44:01 15
16 CHAIRMAN: Well if you look, Mr. Dunlop, at the next paragraph. You say
17 there was a period at which, for example, I remember a conversation in which he
18 said, presumably that's Mr. Lynn, he said "people have just got too greedy and
19 we cannot meet it any more". What was that a reference to?
11:44:20 20 A. Well I think that was a reference in -- along the lines of the comment that Mr.
21 Lynn had already made in relation to the amount of money that's being spent
22 that you'd think these idiots would get their act together.
23
24 I mean, it's my interpretation of the comments.
11:44:42 25
26 CHAIRMAN: But, I mean, that's -- but is that not saying -- I mean. The
27 reference to being "too greedy"?
28 A. Yeah.
29
11:44:58 30 CHAIRMAN: Would suggest that the money being spread around was not by way of

www.pcr.ie Day 655
40
11:44:58 1 political donation.
2 A. Well, I .... it may well be capable of interpretation.
4 CHAIRMAN: Isn't that what -- but isn't that obvious from what you say there?
11:45:09 5 I mean, it was -- you were saying there that Mr. Lynn had commented or made
6 comments to you to the effect that these people were having to be paid and that
7 they were looking for too much money and that they were too greedy.
8 A. Yeah.
11:45:23 10 CHAIRMAN: Well, now are you saying now that that was only a reference to him
11 making political donations?
12 A. I'm saying -- I cannot say specifically to you that it is directly in relation
13 to political donations or in relation to disbursements. I am just saying to
14 you that it is a comment along the lines of various conversations that I have
11:45:43 15 had and given evidence in relation to with Mr. Lynn vis-a-vis politicians. I
16 did not know then whether -- I did have my suspicion, whether Monarch had given
17 monies to politicians legitimately or otherwise. I now know from the brief
18 statement, the statement in the brief, in the context of what was paid by
19 Monarch to politicians.
11:46:12 20
21 CHAIRMAN: What did you mean when you say "I remember a conversation in which
22 he said people have just got too greedy and cannot -- and we cannot meet it any
23 more". You were attributing this comment to Mr. Lynn?
24 A. Yes.
11:46:26 25
26 MR. HUMPHREYS: Chairman, in fairness, if you read on. Mr. Colm Alan who was
27 representing Mr. Dunlop insisted that Mr. Dunlop specify exactly what was said,
28 not just the essence of what was said. Being put on the spot like that Mr.
29 Dunlop said exactly what was said was "people are getting very greedy". I
11:46:45 30 think there is a difference between that and what comes in the previous

www.pcr.ie Day 655
41
11:46:49 1 paragraph.
2 A. Uh-huh.
4 CHAIRMAN: Well "too greedy" and" very greedy" is the difference.
11:46:58 5 Q. 148
7 MR. HUMPHREYS: Well, I'd like Mr. Dunlop to address what he actually said.
8 I assume he is plumping for people are getting very greedy. And he has
9 proffered as a possible inference, as an alternative to his own inference, the
11:47:11 10 possibility that that referred to political donations as opposed to bribes as
11 such. I take it I understand that correctly, Mr. Dunlop?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 149 All right. Mr. Lynn will deny that that remark was made anyway.
14
11:47:26 15 In fact, in relation to that. He -- you referred to there being regular
16 meetings in the Royal Dublin or Conways. Just Mr. Lynn has no recollection in
17 the Royal Dublin or Conways. Just the meetings that I have referred you to.
18 Just the one I referred you to in Harcourt Street and the two in your office
19 A. By that am I to infer that myself and Mr. Lynn never met each other in the
11:47:51 20 Royal Dublin or Conways, even casually?
21 Q. 150 No. What he is saying is that there were not not regular meetings in the Royal
22 Dublin or Conways.?
23 A. I see.
24 Q. 151 You disagree with that?
11:48:02 25 A. I'm just saying to you that whether you call them regular, irregular, frequent,
26 or whatever, the -- apart from the meeting in Harcourt Street, of which I agree
27 with Mr. Lynn, and apart from the meeting that were either in my office, or
28 elsewhere, that the only other place that I ever met Richard Lynn was in the
29 environs of Dublin County Council, which I've always loosely described as being
11:48:28 30 in the lobby of the chamber -- the lobby of the building or the Royal Dublin or

www.pcr.ie Day 655
42
11:48:32 1 Conways.
2 Q. 152 All right. Perhaps nothing turns on it.
4 Can I direct you to the transcript of day 645. Page 71. That's last
11:48:43 5 Thursday.
8 A. That's the private session.
9 Q. 153 No you have it on your screen there, Mr. Dunlop. Do you see it?
11:49:15 10 A. Yes. Which question?
11 Q. 154 Question 474?
12 A. Yep.
13 Q. 155 You were being asked about -- in fact. If you go back to question 470 it says
14 did Mr. Lynn or Mr. Reilly ever tell you directly or indirectly that expressly
11:49:33 15 or implicitly that they paid money to councillors and you said no. Once
16 again, that's in line with your evidence to date.
17
18 Now, if you move on at question 474. Your answer to a question is another
19 comment that was made to me by Mr. Lynn was, "you know, these are costing so
11:49:50 20 much"
21 A. Yeah.
22 Q. 156 Now, is this a new comment separate to the idiots comment or the greedy
23 comment, if I could term them that or are you sort of rolling your
24 recollection into one?
11:50:11 25 A. No, I'm just looking at the lead up to that question, Mr. Sanfey. Sorry.
26 Q. 157 Take your time, Mr. Dunlop.?
27 A. No, I -- what I -- what I am trying to do in reply to Mr. Murphy is to give a
28 sense of the conversation. A number of the conversations that I've had with
29 Mr. Lynn in which remarks, such as this, were made. I cannot absolutely say
11:50:45 30 to you that it is the same comment or at the same day or at the same time in

www.pcr.ie Day 655
43
11:50:51 1 relation to when you consider how much money is being spent you'd think these
2 idiots would consider getting their act together.
3 Q. 158 Do you have a recollection?
4 A. I'm -- I'm -- I'm virtually certain that these were separate occasions. They
11:51:07 5 were separate comments.
6 Q. 159 Three separate comments?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 160 So there was the idiots remark, the people are getting very greedy remark?
9 A. Yes.
11:51:16 10 Q. 161 And then there was these people are costing us so much?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 162 Now, you gave a private interview in May 2000, Mr. Dunlop. And you made a
13 statement in October 2000. And then you made a statement again in September
14 2003. And I assume you have prepared very carefully for giving your evidence
11:51:33 15 here?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 163 Would that be fair enough? Now, what I'm wondering is why there is now a third
18 remark added to the two remarks which we knew about from September 2003
19 onwards. Why has this "these are costing so much" remark only surfaced now,
11:51:50 20 last Thursday?
21 A. Um, I just can't answer that question, to be honest with you, Mr. Sanfey.
22 Other than to say that is as I recall matters.
23 Q. 164 In your private interview you were repeatedly questioned by Mr. Gallagher and
24 Mr. Hanratty about Mr. Lynn and the payment of councillors?
11:52:08 25 A. Uh-huh.
26 Q. 165 In fact, if we go through the private interview. They led you back to that
27 topic again and again, I think it's fair to say.
28
29 Now, why did that -- this remark, not occur to you then? Why did you not
11:52:23 30 reproduce it then eight years after the events, well seven years after the

www.pcr.ie Day 655
44
11:52:26 1 events you describe, as opposed to 13 years, at which point we are at now
2 A. That I can't account for.
3 Q. 166 Are you making it up as you go along?
4 A. I don't think so. I think I'm being very helpful to your client, as you
11:52:40 5 indicated.
6 Q. 167 There certainly are measures of agreement between yourself and my clients and
7 Mr. Dunlop.?
8 A. A lot of agreement between your client and myself.
9 Q. 168 They are perturbed to hear a remark being made for the first time last Thursday
11:52:54 10 which they utterly deny making. Or Mr. Lynn utterly denies making and which
11 emerged for the first time 13 years after the events described?
12 A. I see.
13 Q. 169 Do you have any recollection of the circumstances in which this was made?
14 A. No. Other than in the context that I have outlined to you earlier on in
11:53:13 15 relation to the meetings with Mr. Lynn in the context of Dublin County Council.
16 And comments in relation to what was and was not happening in relation to the
17 particular project.
18 Q. 170 Is it possible that you are confusing it with the other two remarks?
19 A. Yes --
11:53:28 20 Q. 171 Or is it a general remark --
21 A. I wouldn't for one second Mr. Sanfey, deny that. It is -- it is possible.
22 And as we know, lots of things are possible, as we proceeded through this
23 Tribunal in this room over the years. Yes, it is quite conceivable and
24 possible.
11:53:46 25 Q. 172 All right. Thank you.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: All right. Mr. Sanfey, I'm going to break for ten minutes.
28 MR SANFEY: Yes.
29

www.pcr.ie Day 655
45
11:54:03 1
12:11:01 5
6 MR. HUMPHREYS:
7 Q. 173 Now, Mr. Dunlop. Before I go on with this. I would just like to address
8 something that was said just before the break.
12:11:08 10 I think there may have been an unfortunate reference to, on my part, to a
11 measure of agreement between my client and yours. I'm sure the members of the
12 Tribunal and everybody understands that, that that is a reference purely to
13 matters that I've put to you in evidence. And with which, where you've agreed
14 with what I've been putting to you. I take it that you accept that. There
12:11:36 15 is no suggestion of and agreement between yourselves.
16 A. No, I fully understand what you are saying, Mr. Sanfey. That I think I've
17 already given evidence to the fact that I have not met Richard Lynn for many
18 years.
19 Q. 174 You've had no contact?
12:11:57 20 A. The first time I saw him in a long time was when I walked in here last Tuesday
21 morning.
22 Q. 175 Thank you Mr. Dunlop.
23
24 I wonder could I have day 654. At page 71.
12:12:00 25
26 Oh, I'm terribly sorry. It's question 480. It's page 71.
27
28 You were talking about, um, Mr. Lynn and Mr. Murphy asked you, at question 480,
29 he said,
12:12:31 30 "Q: And so you took that understanding from Mr. Reilly and Mr. Lynn?

www.pcr.ie Day 655
46
12:12:35 1 A: Mr. Lynn is the only person's name I've mentioned so far.
2 Q: I beg your pardon. From Mr. Lynn?
3 A: Yes.
4 Q: You didn't get that understanding from Mr. Reilly?
12:12:44 5 A: No I did not.
6 Q: How is he different?
7 A: I don't -- he never a comment like that to me.
8 Q: All right.
9 A: But I have --
12:12:54 10 Q: Would Mr. Lynn have made the comment in Mr. Reilly's presence?
11 And your answer to that I think is "no".
12
13 This is the alleged comment about --
14 A. Oh, yes, sorry. Agreed, yes.
12:13:08 15 Q. 176 Can I infer from that, that Mr. Reilly certainly never said anything about
16 payments to Councillors whatsoever?
17 A. No.
18 Q. 177 Or --
19 A. Sorry, you can infer. I beg your pardon.
12:13:21 20 Q. 178 I can infer?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 179 Or that there was nothing that could be construed by you as to referring to
23 that?
24 A. Yes, correct.
12:13:30 25 Q. 180 I think I've already said to you, Mr. Dunlop, but I'll say it again.
26 Mr. Reilly will say that he is the head person in The Square in Tallaght, he is
27 the Centre Manager?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 181 And his involvement with this project, Mr. Reilly, would term as fairly
12:13:46 30 minimal, limited to participation in the various road shows in Mr. O'Herlihy's

www.pcr.ie Day 655
47
12:13:50 1 campaign and canvassing some of the Councillors he knew personally coming up to
2 the November '93 vote. Would you accept that?
3 A. Yes. Certainly I don't know anything about the road show. But certainly I
4 would agree in relation to his personal relationship with a small number of
12:14:05 5 Councillors.
6 Q. 182 Yes. In particular, he is friends with Councillor Therese Ridge?
7 A. Correct, yes.
8 Q. 183 Who is Fine Gael?
9 A. Yes.
12:14:12 10 Q. 184 And through Councillor Ridge he knows some of the colleagues that Ms. Ridge
11 associates with and so on?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 185 Mr. Reilly will say that that was all he undertook to do. He has no Fine Gael
14 connections. He's never been a member of the Fine Gael Party. And that all
12:14:29 15 he undertook to do was to speak to the Fine Gael Councillors that he knew
16 through Ms. Ridge.
17 A. Fine.
18 Q. 186 Could I have a look at Day 653, please. Page 84.
19
12:14:46 20 You see question 519, Mr. Dunlop?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 187 Perhaps to just read that.
23
24 "Q: So you were brought on then for the second purpose. The first purpose I
12:15:18 25 think relates to some difficulty with Mr. Monahan, or something like that.
26 You were brought on then for the second purpose, which is your normal purpose
27 in these matters, to do the lobbying?
28 A: I was brought on for the specific purpose to add again, to use a phrase
29 from the descriptive purposes, to add value to what Richard and Philip were
12:15:36 30 doing. I wasn't directly brought on to lobby every councillor, which I did

www.pcr.ie Day 655
48
12:15:37 1 not do. But I was brought on to add, to supplement what Richard and Philip
2 were doing.
3 Q: And they had done very well.
4 A: In my estimation, yes
12:15:46 5 Q: Sorry. When you were brought on. It's not to do with Mr. Monahan, it's
6 to do with your normal lobbying of councillors.
7 A: Yes, correct.
8 Q: And it is well known in March '93 to Councillors and to people in Monarch,
9 that you at that time were paying money to Councillors for their vote" which I
12:16:02 10 think is what is known in our business as a leading question.
11 "A: Well that is a supposition that you are making. I don't know. Again,
12 as I have said five minutes ago, I don't know what the extent of that
13 information was of people. Certainly the only comment that I can allude to
14 relates to Mr. Sweeney".
12:16:22 15
16 Now, can I infer from that, that leaving Mr. Sweeney aside. I'm not dealing
17 with Sweeney, as you know. Can I infer from that, that you simply don't know
18 whether Monarch people, other than Mr. Sweeney, were aware that your modus
19 operandi was to pay Councillors?
12:16:40 20 A. First of all, I never knew what a lead question was, and thank you for
21 explaining that to me, Mr. Sanfey. And the answer to your question is yes.
22 Q. 188 Very good.
23
24 Just bear with me a moment please, Mr. Dunlop.
12:17:21 25
26 A. No problem.
27 Q. 189 Yes. Sorry.
28
29 If you could just go on then to question 525, following on from that.
12:17:34 30

www.pcr.ie Day 655
49
12:17:34 1 A. 525.
2 Q. 190 I think once again in your -- your answer to that. You reiterate that you
3 never had a conversation with Richard Lynn about specific payments to specific
4 politicians?
12:17:44 5 A. Yeah.
6 Q. 191 533.
8 Can I just ask you about this.
12:17:47 10 Mr. Murphy asked you:
11 "You had a significant relationship with councillors, or certainly with a
12 number of councillors; isn't that right?
13 A: Yes.
14 Q: That would have been widely known?
12:18:03 15 A: Yes, I think I would accept that, yes
16 Q: Yes. And you had a special sort of expertise. Sorry. Your role was to
17 lobby councillors and you were good at it. Would that be fair now?
18 A: That's fair, yes.
19 Q: And you were recognised to be good at it?
12:18:16 20 A: Uh-huh
21 Q: Yes
22 A: Yes, I would say that.
23 Q: And you were recognised to have been successful?
24 A: Yes.
12:18:23 25 Q: At lobbying councillors?
26 A: Yes.
27 Q: And an integral part of that would be paying money. Not would be but was
28 paying the money; isn't that right?
29 A: Yes.
12:18:33 30 Q: All right. And you were brought onto the Monarch team for the purpose of

www.pcr.ie Day 655
50
12:18:36 1 lobbying councillors?
2 A: And I don't mean to quibble with you, Mr. Murphy.
3 Q: Yes.
4 A: Because I'm as anxious as you to move on.
12:18:45 5 Q: Yes.
6 A: But not specifically to add support to what Philip and to Richard and
7 Philip were doing.
8 Q: Yes?
9 A: Now, I knew because I had a meeting. I met Philip and Richard and they
12:19:02 10 outlined to me.
11 Q: Yes?
12 A: In some detail what their concerns were and who were they were talking to
13 and who they weren't talking to.
14 Q: Yes. But what would adding support to their work mean if it wasn't
12:19:13 15 meaning you talking to councillors and paying councillors?
16 A: Well that's a matter for, in the first instance, for them to answer"
17
18 And then you go on to deal with Mr. Sweeney and so on.
19
12:19:23 20 Can I infer that what you are saying here is I was hired to add support, to add
21 value, to use your own phrase, to what Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly were doing.
22 And whether they knew that involved paying councillors is something you have to
23 ask them, you don't know?
24 A. Yes.
12:19:42 25 Q. 192 All right. Um, for what it's worth, and you may not have a value -- you may
26 not have a view on this. Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly will say that they had no
27 idea that you were paying councillors. They will say that you were the top
28 lobbiest in local politics, a man with a great reputation for getting things
29 done. As far as they were concerned, you coming on board was simply Monarch
12:20:07 30 getting the heaviest gun available. But they will say that they didn't know

www.pcr.ie Day 655
51
12:20:12 1 that you were paying money to councillors.
2 A. Okay.
3 Q. 193 That's probably not something that you'd --
4 A. Yeah, well that is an expression of an opinion by them. It's up to them in
12:20:23 5 examination and cross-examination to say what they believed to be the case.
6 Q. 194 Yes. In the event of the 85,000 pounds you got, only 4,000 pounds, according
7 to your evidence, was paid to councillors. Is that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 195 Who did you lobby as such, can you recall?
12:20:41 10 A. Yes. Well we went down through that with Mr. Murphy on, um, what day was it,
11 Thursday?
12 Q. 196 Yes.
13 A. Thursday or Friday. There was some confusion as to what the question was, if
14 I remember correctly. But I, various lists were put up on the screen and I
12:21:00 15 identified various people that I made contact with and who -- and with whom I
16 didn't have contact, if my memory serves me right, as to what happened on
17 Thursday. I think I said, at question, um -- well certainly I said at, in
18 answer to a question from Mr. Murphy and with the intervention of Mr.-- the
19 Chairman, that I identified people in Fianna Fail whom I did not have contact
12:21:32 20 with. And then I was asked by the Chairman of the non-fianna Fail members
21 whom did I actually lobby or speak to. And I identified those.
22 Q. 197 All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Dunlop.
24
12:21:56 25 CHAIRMAN: All right. Are there other parties here who want to take up the
26 battle with Mr. Dunlop?
27
28 MS. DILLON: I had understood from Mr. Murphy that Mr. O Dulachain wanted to
29 ask some questions.
12:22:15 30

www.pcr.ie Day 655
52
12:22:15 1 MR. REDMOND: If I can be of assistance, Mr. Chairman, on behalf, well not on
2 behalf of Mr. O Dulachain. I am aware of the fact that he is not available
3 today. That's just from person knowledge. I was not asked particularly to
4 convey it to the Tribunal but I know that he won't be here.
12:22:36 5
6 CHAIRMAN: Sorry. Is his solicitor here?
8 SOLICITOR: Yes, indeed Mr. Chairman, that's my understanding.
9 Mr. O'Dulachain couldn't be here today. And I understood that that had been,
12:22:42 10 that information had been given to the Tribunal. But I didn't realise until
11 now it hadn't, Mr. Chairman.
12
13 CHAIRMAN: Well does he want to cross-examine?
14
12:22:50 15 SOLICITOR: I understand he does, Mr. Chairman.
16
17 MR. MURPHY: Sorry, Chairman. Just to clarify. It may not have been
18 conveyed to you, which was my fault.
19
12:22:58 20 Mr. O'Dulachain rang me yesterday afternoon. And he had other commitments.
21 He was hoping to get here by lunch hour. I told him if he could, great. And
22 if not the Tribunal would accommodate him.
23
24 CHAIRMAN: Well we won't be accommodating him today. I think there are no
12:23:14 25 other witnesses today, Ms. Dillon; isn't that right?
26
27 MS. DILLON: Yes, Sir, that's the position. There are no other witnesses
28 today.
29
12:23:20 30 CHAIRMAN: Okay. We'll adjourn then until half ten tomorrow.

www.pcr.ie Day 655
53
12:23:24 1
2 The legal team for Mr. Sweeney might indicate, contact the Tribunal in the
3 afternoon and organise a date for Mr. Dunlop's return, which can be done in --
4 between the Tribunal and Mr. Dunlop's solicitor.
12:23:42 5
6 MR. REDMOND: Mr. Redmond, on behalf of Mr. Dunlop.
8 I would be grateful if in reporting to the Tribunal as to the date for
9 cross-examination, that they give a selection of dates which would be of
12:23:52 10 assistance.
11
12 CHAIRMAN: Hopefully. These things usually can be arranged by mutual
13 consent. So hopefully that can be arranged.
14
12:23:59 15 I'm just making the case that the parties who still have to cross-examine Mr.
16 Dunlop should try and approach the Tribunal today rather than after today and
17 make some arrangements so that Mr. Dunlop, and his legal team will know what
18 awaits them in the weeks ahead.
19
12:24:19 20 MS. DILLON: Yes.
21
22 And Mr. Fox, in the meantime, his evidence which was scheduled to take place on
23 Friday ...
24
12:24:24 25 CHAIRMAN: That can go back.
26
27 MS. DILLON: Yes.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: So half ten tomorrow morning?
12:24:29 30

www.pcr.ie Day 655
54
12:24:30 1 MS. DILLON: May it please you, Sir.
12:27:46 5 WEDNESDAY, 21ST JUNE, 2006, AT 10:30 A.M..
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 655
1
09:22:51 1 THE TRIBUNAL RESUMED AS FOLLOWS ON TUESDAY 6TH JUNE 2006
2 AT 2 PM:
4 MR. QUINN: Mr. Padraig Flynn please.
14:04:41 5
6 MR. MORAN: Before the witness is sworn, is it appropriate to seek
7 representation at this stage in relation to this Module?
9 CHAIRMAN: Yes certainly, granted.
14:04:58 10
11 MR. MORAN: Thank you.
12
13 MR. PADRAIG FLYNN, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS QUESTIONED AS FOLLOWS
14 BY MR. QUINN:
14:05:26 15
16 CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon Mr. Flynn.
17 A. Good afternoon Chairman.
18 Q. 1 Good afternoon Mr. Flynn. Mr. Flynn, in April of this year the Tribunal wrote
19 to you, I think through your solicitors, and gave you an enclosed extracts from
14:05:41 20 your ministerial diary which appeared to show or highlight a series of meetings
21 you may have had with Mr. Phillip Monahan. And you were asked to provide a
22 detailed narrative statement describing the circumstances which caused these
23 meetings to be arranged and the reasons therefore. And you were also asked to
24 identify the individuals present and whether or not any minutes or notes were
14:06:02 25 taken and you were asked to elaborate on the topics discussed and whether they
26 referred to the Shanganagh Sewage System.
27
28 On the 16th May 2006, if I could have page 8129 please? You signed a narrative
29 statement which was received by the Tribunal on the following day, that is the
14:06:21 30 17th May, wherein you set out your replies to the queries raised and I propose

www.pcr.ie Day 648
2
14:06:28 1 to read that statement to you and ask you one or two questions arising from it
2 if I may.
4 And you refer to the correspondence which I have just referred to in your first
14:06:36 5 paragraph and then you went on to say that you have been provided with the copy
6 diary extracts etcetera, enclosed with the letter of the 27th. You confirmed
7 that the diary entries highlighted, did appear to you to refer to the late
8 Mr. Phillip Monahan. You said that the diary entries concerned are confirmed
9 to indicate the attendance of the late Mr. Monahan at the Department of the
14:06:57 10 Environment on the 24th of May 1989, 22nd of November '89 and 12th of February
11 '91.
12
13 You say that, "you do not have in your possession or power of procurement any
14 notes or records created during the course of the attendance referred to and
14:07:10 15 you didn't believe any such notes or records were created by you at the time of
16 the attendances."
17
18 You go on to say that, "you did not remember whether Mr. Monahan was
19 accompanied at any such attendances and to the best of your recollection
14:07:22 20 Mr. Monahan was not accompanied by any other person." You say, "you did not
21 know whether any department official was present during the attendances nor did
22 you know whether your private secretary attended and therefore did not know
23 whether any formal departmental notes or minutes were created."
24
14:07:37 25 You say, "you did not remember any dealings that the department may have had
26 were concerning relative to the Shanganagh Sewer System and you had no personal
27 recollection of the Shanganagh Sewer System."
28
29 You say, "you had no recollection of receiving an invitation -- sorry, you did
14:07:50 30 have a recollection of receiving an invitation from the late Mr. Monahan to

www.pcr.ie Day 648
3
14:07:54 1 view the Tallaght Town Centre, which invitation you accepted, but you could not
2 recollect when you viewed the Tallaght Town Centre pursuant to that
3 invitation."
14:08:06 5 You say, "You do further remember receiving an invitation from Mr. Monahan to
6 attend the official opening of the centre. And you confirm that you attended
7 the official opening."
9 Now Mr. Flynn, I think you were in fact the Minister for the Environment from a
14:08:21 10 period stretching from March 1987 right through to November 1991, is that
11 correct?
12 A. That's correct, Mr. Chairman.
13 Q. 2 And I think that there was an election called on the 25th of May 1989, isn't
14 that correct?
14:08:37 15 A. In July.
16 Q. 3 25th of -- sorry 25th of May 1989, if I could have 2661 please? Do you see in
17 the first paragraph there for 1987, sorry for 1989, 25th of May 1989, being the
18 date of the order for the 1989 election?
19 A. That was the day of the order.
14:09:02 20 Q. 4 Yes and the election itself took place on the 15th June?
21 A. Quite so.
22 Q. 5 So the election was called on the 25th of May, isn't that right?
23 A. That's right yes.
24 Q. 6 And on the day prior to that election being called, which I think was the 24th
14:09:15 25 of May, one of the diaries furnished to you discloses a meeting, a 5 pm
26 meeting, if I could have document 7661, with Mr. P Monaghan: I think in a
27 previous Module you have given evidence of a meeting which you had on the 23rd
28 of May with Mr. Gilmartin, isn't that right?
29 A. I don't know about that but I, I see here this is not my diary.
14:09:44 30 Q. 7 You say this is not your diary?

www.pcr.ie Day 648
4
14:09:46 1 A. This is some other diary I don't know where it is. But you did submit to me a
2 copy of my own diary, my own personal diary.
3 Q. 8 Yes for a later date, in other words where we had both your diary and the
4 department diary, if I could have 7662, this is the diary entry for the 22nd of
14:10:05 5 November 1989.
6 A. Yes that's, that is my diary.
7 Q. 9 That's your diary, that's for a later meeting which I will deal with in a
8 moment, but if I go back to the, 7661, this diary was supplied to the Tribunal
9 by the, as a ministerial diary for you during your period as Minister for
14:10:27 10 Environment.
11 A. Yes, obviously that's so, I have no reason to doubt it.
12 Q. 10 Okay, do you recall having a meeting with Mr. Monahan on the eve of the calling
13 of the 1989 General Election?
14 A. No, I can't recall the exact date of the meeting, any meeting with Mr. Monahan.
14:10:44 15 But if it's in the diary and I have no reason to doubt it.
16 Q. 11 Just on that point, you knew Mr. Monahan?
17 A. I met Mr. Monahan on a few occasions, not very often, I met him a few
18 occasions, yes.
19 Q. 12 Mr. Monahan, I think, had been involved in Tallaght, is that right?
14:11:01 20 A. Yes he was the developer for Tallaght Town Centre.
21 Q. 13 And I think you have, in your statement, referred to being in attendance at the
22 opening of the Tallaght Town Centre, which I think was on the 23rd of October
23 1990?
24 A. Yes it was, the end of 1990 and did I attend.
14:11:18 25 Q. 14 Yes. Can you recall any of the various meetings which you think you had with
26 Mr. Monahan, can you recall any of those meetings?
27 A. No I have no recollection of what we discussed at any of the meetings.
28 Q. 15 Or what the subject matter of the various meetings?
29 A. No I have no recollection of what conversations I had with Mr. Monahan on those
14:11:40 30 occasions.

www.pcr.ie Day 648
5
14:11:42 1 Q. 16 Did you know that Mr. Monahan, for example, was involved with Monarch
2 Properties and that Monarch Properties was involved in the development of lands
3 in and around the country?
4 A. I knew that Mr. Monahan was a developer and had been involved in developing
14:11:58 5 certain projects, I knew particularly that he was involved in the Tallaght Town
6 Centre development.
7 Q. 17 Did you know that by 1989, for example, that he was involved or that his
8 company was involved in the acquisition of lands in Cherrywood?
9 A. No.
14:12:13 10 Q. 18 Your department I think, it was a matter of public knowledge, if I could have
11 8510, your department have discovered to the Tribunal from within their
12 records, an extract from the Irish Times of the 12th of May 1989, which
13 appeared to give some publicity to the acquisition by Monarch of the lands in
14 Cherrywood?
14:12:39 15 A. That may be so, but I have no knowledge of same.
16 Q. 19 This would have been approximately 12 days before your meeting with
17 Mr. Monahan.
18 A. That may be so, but I have no recollection.
19 Q. 20 And you have no recollection of what you might have discussed with Mr. Monahan?
14:12:53 20 A. No, the only thing I could offer would be that we would have discussed
21 Tallaght.
22 Q. 21 Yes. He had just acquired or his company had just acquired the Cherrywood
23 lands some 12 days prior to his meeting with you, do you think its probable
24 that he might have discussed with you the newly acquired lands in Cherrywood?
14:13:12 25 A. I have no recollection of that being discussed.
26 Q. 22 Yes. Would it be usual for people within your department to brief you on
27 upcoming meetings with visiting developers or --
28 A. If the individual involved had sent in a, requesting a particular matter to be
29 discussed then they may very well have provided a brief, but I have no
14:13:34 30 recollection of any brief or any agenda with Mr. Monahan, they were courtesy

www.pcr.ie Day 648
6
14:13:39 1 visits.
2 Q. 23 You think that this was a courtesy visit by Mr. Monahan?
3 A. Well I have no recollection otherwise.
4 Q. 24 Could Mr. Monahan, for example, have visited you in your capacity as the
14:13:48 5 Minister for the Environment in circumstances where his lands were being
6 considered in the review of the Development Plan?
7 A. I have no idea, but certainly I have no recollection of discussing this or any
8 other matter concerning these particular lands with Mr. Monahan. I would have
9 had no involvement there anyway.
14:14:08 10 Q. 25 It would appear that on the 1st of May, the Council had been advised by your
11 department that the Shanganagh sewer was approved for preliminary report, if we
12 could have 8509 please? That is on the 1st of May 1989, did you know that your
13 department had appeared to have approved a preliminary report and preparation
14 of contract documents for Carrickmines Valley Sewer Scheme?
14:14:36 15 A. No.
16 Q. 26 This is obviously something you would accept that would have been of importance
17 to Mr. Monahan because he had acquired lands which was going to be affected by
18 the construction of this sewer?
19 A. It may have been important to him, but it would have been County Council
14:14:55 20 business and they would have been carrying on their ordinary correspondence
21 about that matter with the department.
22 Q. 27 And you say that, can you recall if Mr. Monahan raised the issue with you at
23 all at that meeting on the 24th?
24 A. No I have already told that you I have no recollection of that being discussed
14:15:09 25 with Mr. Monahan.
26 Q. 28 Are you saying that Mr. Monahan never discussed his rezoning proposals with you
27 at any of the meetings?
28 A. I have no recollection of him doing so.
29 Q. 29 You think this was just a courtesy meeting that he had with you shortly after
14:15:25 30 he acquired the Carrickmines site?

www.pcr.ie Day 648
7
14:15:26 1 A. I don't know that, but I know that Mr. Monahan was very much involved with the
2 Tallaght project and it was a very large development.
3 Q. 30 Did you know that the Council had viewed the approval by your department of the
4 preparation of those contract documents with surprise, if I could have 2850
14:15:46 5 please?
7 This is a minute of a meeting held on the 6th of June 1989, attended by
8 Mr. McDaid, Mr. Morris, Mr. Farrell and Mr. McEvoy, the last two
9 representatives were independent contractors to the Monarch Group who had met
14:16:06 10 with engineers with Dublin County Council, and if you see the fourth last
11 paragraph, "DCC -- which is Dublin County Council -- engineers have been
12 instructed to prepare tender documents for approval by the Department of the
13 Environment. J McDaid and Barry Morris stated that they had been surprised by
14 the instruction, as it was not on the priority list. They expect to be
14:16:26 15 complete in four to five months from now."
16
17 Did you know that the council engineers were surprised that the Carrickmines
18 scheme had been given a priority?
19 A. I have no knowledge of that Mr. Chairman.
14:16:39 20 Q. 31 Now, I think that Mr. Monahan also met with other members of your party and
21 contributed to the party in or around the same time he met you, I don't know if
22 you have seen in the documents supplied to you at 2864, a letter addressed to
23 Mr. Wall from Fianna Fail of the 9th of June 1989, where Mr. Monahan
24 contributed a sum of 16,000 pounds towards the election campaign and he had
14:17:05 25 also advised Mr. Wall of two other contributions he had made to other
26 contestants in that election, Mr. Ahern and Mr. Haughey, do you see that?
27 A. Yes I see it. Yes.
28 Q. 32 Did you know that it was Mr. Monahan's intention to contribute to the party in
29 the upcoming election when you met with him in May 1989?
14:17:27 30 A. No.

www.pcr.ie Day 648
8
14:17:28 1 Q. 33 Did he, did you seek any funds on behalf of the party from Mr. Monahan when you
2 met with him in May 1989?
3 A. No Mr. Chairman.
4 Q. 34 Did you have any role within the party in May 1989, in relation to fundraising?
14:17:45 5 A. I was the Honorary Treasurer for a period in the party.
6 Q. 35 Were you the Honorary Treasurer in May 1989?
7 A. I think I may have been. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
8 Q. 36 And as Honorary Treasurer, were you concerned with raising funds for the party?
9 A. I had nothing to do with the raising of funds other than attending certain
14:18:15 10 meetings that were arranged by headquarters.
11 Q. 37 Was funding an issue that will arise at those meetings attended by you as
12 Honorary Treasurer?
13 A. On occasions, yes.
14 Q. 38 Now, it would appear that two issues which were of concern to the Monarch
14:18:32 15 interests in relation to the lands at Cherrywood, were the location of the
16 Southern Cross route and the development of this Carrickmines sewer, you will
17 have seen that from the documents supplied to you, isn't that right?
18 A. Yes, there was reference in the documents to those two projects.
19 Q. 39 Now you had a further meeting, I think, with Mr. Monahan on the 22nd of
14:18:54 20 November 1989, if I could have 7663 please? And both your private diary and
21 the departmental diary has been furnished to you. Your private diary is I
22 think at 7662. Do you recall receiving this?
23 A. Yes I did.
24 Q. 40 Do you accept that you had a meeting with Mr. Monahan on the 22nd of November
14:19:24 25 1989?
26 A. I believe because it's recorded in my personal diary that it probably did take
27 place, yes.
28 Q. 41 Can you tell the Tribunal what was discussed at that meeting?
29 A. I have no recollection Mr. Chairman.
14:19:36 30 Q. 42 Could it have anything to do with either the line of the motorway or indeed the

www.pcr.ie Day 648
9
14:19:42 1 Carrickmines Valley Sewer?
2 A. I have no recollection that either of those projects were discussed with
3 Mr. Monahan at any meeting.
4 Q. 43 We know that working with Mr. Monahan at this time was a Mr. Eddie Sweeney and
14:19:55 5 Mr. Richard Lynn. Now, Mr. Sweeney has told the Tribunal that he, amongst the
6 people that he met in relation to the Carrickmines and Monarch interest, was
7 yourself. Again you will have seen that in the, if I could have 2191? He has
8 identified a whole series of politicians and councillors that he says he met
9 and he had contact with.
14:20:22 10 A. I can't recall this document having been submitted to me.
11 Q. 44 It is at page 2191 of the brief, but in any event, can you tell the Tribunal
12 whether or not Mr. Sweeney had any contact with you or indeed anybody else
13 other than Mr. Monahan from the Monarch interest?
14 A. No, I have no recollection of that.
14:20:42 15 Q. 45 Okay.
16 A. I didn't receive this document, at least Mr. Chairman --
17
18 CHAIRMAN: Well I think what Mr. Quinn is saying is that it was in the brief
19 of documents or certainly should have been that went to possibly your
14:20:56 20 solicitor, but so I assume it did go unless there was some error.
21 Q. 46 With a letter of the 12th May 2006 --
22
23 CHAIRMAN: Sorry Mr. Madden.
24
14:21:12 25 MR. MORAN: If there is an issue in relation to this it would certainly be my
26 immediate reaction that this document was not briefed.
27
29
14:21:21 30 MR. QUINN: I understand from Mr. King that there is a letter of the 12th of

www.pcr.ie Day 648
10
14:21:25 1 May 2006 forwarding both a CD ROM and hard copy brief to Mr. Moran, in any
2 event you say --
3 A. I can't recall if it's of any particular interest, I can't recall seeing this
4 particular document.
14:21:39 5 Q. 47 Did you know that Monarch had concerns about the construction of the motorway,
6 the South Eastern Motorway, and had a problem in relation to the construction
7 of the Carrickmines Valley Sewer in relation to the lands in Carrickmines?
8 A. No, I have no knowledge of that.
9 Q. 48 Its just that, if I could have 2956? This is a meeting at Monarch Properties
14:22:05 10 on the 24th of January 1990, where there is discussion in relation to which
11 particular route of the sewer, sorry of the South Eastern Motorway would be
12 constructed, at paragraph four it says.
13
14 "It was stated by ES," whom I understand was, may have been Mr. Sweeney,
14:22:24 15 although he is described in the top as GS but it is Eddie Sweeney, "that the
16 political decision has been made to align the motorway on the western edge of
17 the site. Although the forward planners in roads and the planners were
18 continuing meetings/discussing options."
19
14:22:42 20 Did you have any involvement, first of all, in aligning the motorway on the
21 western edge of the Carrickmines Valley?
22 A. None. And I can't recall either receiving this particular document
23 Mr. Chairman, but however, be it as it may, I still can't recall the matter
24 that you have referred to.
14:22:58 25 Q. 49 All of these documents, Mr. Flynn, would have been contained in the brief of
26 documents which the Tribunal understands were forwarded.
27
28 MR. MORAN: Forgive me for interrupting, Mr. Chairman, I must clarify this
29 point. The CD ROM was certainly sent, Mr. Chairman, it was immediately
14:23:12 30 followed by a request for a hard copy of the documents and they were never

www.pcr.ie Day 648
11
14:23:16 1 delivered.
3 CHAIRMAN: Well if -- I don't know whether there is any real point in doing
4 so, but certainly if Mr. Flynn needs to see any of these documents before they
14:23:26 5 are put to him, he should have that opportunity.
7 MR. QUINN: I certainly don't want to take advantage of Mr. Flynn in anyway in
8 relation to these matters. I understood he had both CD ROM and the hard copy,
9 and indeed I don't know if there was any follow up, if the hard copy hadn't
14:23:41 10 been received, seeking copies. I don't know if Mr. Moran had sought additional
11 copies or not, if Mr. Flynn would like, I have no objection to --
12
13 MR. MORAN: If the witness is comfortable to deal with matters as they come
14 before him, so be it, but just to clarify the point, Mr. King will no doubt
14:24:01 15 confirm the request for the hard copy, Mr. King will no doubt confirm that that
16 request has not been satisfied. If Mr. Flynn is comfortable to deal with the
17 issues as they are raised before him, obviously I have no difficulty with that.
18
19 CHAIRMAN: Assuming Mr. Flynn continues for the time being, if afterwards he,
14:24:19 20 having consulted with you, he wants to clarify or raise any of these issues
21 again, an opportunity will be afforded to him to return to the witness box.
22
23 MR. MORAN: Obliged Mr. Chairman.
24 A. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I am quite happy to continue.
14:24:33 25
26 MR. QUINN: I understand just for completeness Mr. Flynn, it may be a break
27 down in communication, but from the Tribunal's point of view, on the 12th of
28 May 2006, a CD ROM was forwarded to your solicitors and on the 19th of May a
29 hard copy of the brief was forwarded. Now I can't say it was received as I
14:24:51 30 speak with you but as far as --

www.pcr.ie Day 648
12
14:24:53 1 A. Okay, I am quite happy to continue, Mr. Chairman, and the answer is the same
2 insofar as that paragraph four is concerned.
3 Q. 50 And certainly no reminder has been received after the 19th May that the matter
4 not been received.
14:25:06 5 A. Okay.
6 Q. 51 Do you know how Mr. Sweeney might have been able to tell a meeting on the 24th
7 of January 1990, that a political decision had been made which, it would
8 appear, wasn't known to the Council officials?
14:25:21 10 Q. 52 Any political decision in relation to environmental matters presumably would
11 have been made by you as Minister for Environment in 1990?
12 A. Certain political decisions would be made, but not on mundane day to day
13 arrangements for re alignments of roads or that kind of thing. That would be
14 done departmentally.
14:25:41 15 Q. 53 Yes, do you know why Monarch or the Monarch interest would approach you in
16 relation to matters, would feel that they were entitled to approach you, as
17 Minister, in relation to matters?
18 A. I have no recollection of Monarch approaching me on any matters of that nature.
19 Q. 54 On the 3rd of May 1990, if I could have 2980 please? There is a meeting held
14:26:05 20 in Tallaght in relation to Cherrywood, which is attended by the late Dr. Brian
21 Meehan, who was a planning consultant, Mr. Fergal McCabe, Mr. Edward Sweeney
22 and Richard M Lynn, both of whom worked for Monarch at this stage. And if you
23 look at the fourth paragraph under the heading "Carrickmines Valley Sewerage
24 Scheme." It says:
14:26:28 25
26 "It was agreed that a political input was required to ensure that the
27 Carrickmines Valley Sewerage Scheme went ahead as soon as possible and F MacC,"
28 which is Fergal McCabe," indicated that an individual," there named, "would
29 accompany ES," who was Eddie Sweeney, "to see Minister Flynn to indicate an
14:26:45 30 overall need in the area."

www.pcr.ie Day 648
13
14:26:47 1
2 Now first of all, would you accept that it was being discussed in May 1990,
3 within Monarch, that there was a necessity to see you in relation to a matter
4 which affected Monarch?
14:26:57 5 A. It would appear so from that document.
6 Q. 55 And which Monarch believed required a political input?
7 A. It would appear so from that document, yes.
8 Q. 56 Did you sometime, after the 3rd of May 1990, meet with representatives of
9 Monarch in relation to the Carrickmines Valley Sewage Scheme?
14:27:15 10 A. I can't recall that I did and I don't think there is anything in my diary,
11 personal or otherwise to suggest that.
12 Q. 57 No, I cannot produce a diary for 1990, which shows a meeting with Monarch,
13 although we'll in a moment come to a meeting in 1991.
14 A. In another diary though, not in my personal diary.
14:27:34 15 Q. 58 Yes, but you are not denying the entries in the ministerial diary, are you
16 Mr. Flynn?
17 A. I'm not denying that they are recorded in the diary, but I didn't have copy of
18 my own diary, Mr. Chairman, to counter check it because it's here with the
19 Tribunal. I figure that if the Tribunal just sent me the one diary entry in my
14:28:00 20 own diary, then that is the only one that is recorded accordingly, that's what
21 I figured.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: Who would keep the ministerial diary?
24 A. There would -- I think there might have been two, Mr. Chairman, from
14:28:14 25 recollection. There would have been the ministerial office, that would be kept
26 by my private secretary, the internal ministerial -- which would be the day to
27 day business that would be needed to be attended to by the private secretary,
28 his staff and myself. Sometimes people turned up sometimes they didn't. Then
29 there might have been another diary, a ministerial diary separate to that, now
14:28:35 30 I don't know which we are talking about you see.

www.pcr.ie Day 648
14
14:28:37 1
2 CHAIRMAN: But if there is a note of anything in the ministerial diary, no
3 matter which one it is, is it reasonable to assume that it was put there for a
4 purpose?
14:28:50 5 A. Oh, yes of course. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the meeting took
6 place. I would be more happy to rely on my own personal diary because that
7 would mean that I would -- my private secretary, Mr. Chairman, and I, had a
8 meeting once every week, Friday, to check out what was on the agenda for the
9 following week and I always put in in my own personal diary what was necessary,
14:29:14 10 sometimes people didn't turn up and they weren't stroked out, so I can't be --
11
12 CHAIRMAN: But if it was in the ministerial diary, presumably it was accurate
13 to the extent that at some stage somebody had penned in a meeting --
14 A. That is true, quite so.
14:29:29 15
16 CHAIRMAN: -- with whoever.
17 A. Yes quite so.
18
19 CHAIRMAN: And you are saying that without your personal diary, you don't know
14:29:41 20 whether that meeting actually went ahead?
21 A. Well I would be in a much stronger position to say to you, Mr. Chairman, if I
22 had the two diaries, do you understand? And they both recorded the meeting as
23 having taken place, then I would be able positively to say it was my opinion
24 that that meeting did take place, but when it doesn't I'm sorry. Now maybe it
14:29:52 25 is that my personal diary wasn't submitted to me and that you can let me see it
26 now for the dates involved.
27
28 CHAIRMAN: Well presumably just to clarify this, your personal diary would
29 simply indicate that a meeting was intended to take place on a certain date?
14:30:07 30 A. Correct.

www.pcr.ie Day 648
15
14:30:08 1
2 CHAIRMAN: That wouldn't in itself confirm if the meeting had taken place?
3 A. Correct. But I certainly, just to repeat for you, Mr. Chairman, to help you
4 insofar as there was, as I say, a diary in the private secretary's office and
14:30:27 5 that one -- I don't think the one that you have submitted to me with the dates
6 aforementioned, is that diary.
8 CHAIRMAN: But whose -- how come there was another diary?
9 A. I don't know. I don't know.
14:30:42 10
11 CHAIRMAN: Do you recognise the handwriting?
12 A. No, except that I feel that its not Gerry Rice's, that's all I'm saying, my
13 private secretary. But then there were several people in the office. But
14 certainly there was a ministerial diary in the private secretary's
14:31:00 15 responsibility and I don't think it's that one. But anyway it's just a moot
16 point.
17
18 MR QUINN: Just on that point, if I may Mr. Flynn, if I could go back please to
19 7662? This is the diary entry for the 22nd of November 1989.
14:31:15 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 59 Now that's your private diary, isn't that right?
22 A. Correct. Yes it is.
23 Q. 60 Is the writing for the 22nd in your handwriting?
24 A. It is certainly.
14:31:24 25 Q. 61 And you are saying that because the entries, as we see them there, appear in
26 your handwriting, you can confirm that you had those meetings?
27 A. Yes, I feel that those meetings took place.
28 Q. 62 But would you agree with me that you might have had meetings which appear in
29 the official diary but don't appear in your personal diary?
14:31:43 30 A. That is a possibility.

www.pcr.ie Day 648
16
14:31:44 1 Q. 63 Because if we look at 7663, and we look at an entry for 21st, which is the
2 previous day, I think you have already given evidence of a meeting with the
3 person referred to there on the 21st, although if we look at 7662 again, he
4 doesn't appear in your private diary, isn't that right?
14:32:03 5 A. Listen, they don't correspond, I understand all of that. All I am saying, I am
6 make nothing issue about it Mr. Chairman, except to say I did know Mr. Monahan
7 and I did meet him on a few occasions.
8 Q. 64 We understand that there is no ministerial diary for 1989 and 1991 -- sorry we
9 only have ministerial diaries, I understand, for 1989 and 1991, we have no
14:32:29 10 ministerial diaries for 1990?
11 A. Oh I see.
12 Q. 65 And no personal diaries for 1990?
13 A. Yes, well I gave you all the diaries I had relevant to the time.
14 Q. 66 So when I say I can't produce a diary entry for a meeting in 1990, I am
14:32:43 15 effectively telling you, Mr. Flynn, that I don't have a diary for 1990?
16 A. Ministerial diary.
17 Q. 67 Ministerial or personal?
18 A. Oh I see, okay.
19 Q. 68 Do you think you might have met representatives of Monarch throughout 1990 or
14:32:57 20 at some stage in 1990?
21 A. No, I have no recollection of having done so Mr. Chairman.
22 Q. 69 But it certainly, you would agree with me, if we go back to 2980, that at that
23 meeting on the 3rd of May 1990, it was the intention of representatives of
24 Monarch to have a meeting with you, isn't that right?
14:33:12 25 A. That's what that document says, yes.
26 Q. 70 Not alone that, but if we go to the next page at 2981, there was to be a
27 meeting with the planners by representatives of the planners retained by
28 Monarch and that that meeting was to take place after the meeting with you, do
29 you see under the last paragraph, under the heading, "meeting with planners."
14:33:34 30 "It was agreed that F McCabe and Dr. Brian Meehan would meet with the planners

www.pcr.ie Day 648
17
14:33:40 1 on the documents already submitted, after the meeting with the Minister had
2 taken place." Do you see that?
3 A. I see that, yes. But I am not aware of any of this at all, of course. I see
4 it here, but I have no -- there is no note in my private, or personal diary.
14:33:59 5 Q. 71 We don't have them Mr. Flynn.
6 A. Sorry, of course. At the time you are talking about, well if you don't have
7 them, have you the ministerial ones for that time?
8 Q. 72 No, we don't have the ministerial --
9 A. I see. Then I can't be of any help to you. I have no recollection of meeting
14:34:15 10 these people.
11 Q. 73 But you agree with me that it was certainly the intention of representatives of
12 Monarch to meet with you and having met with you, to meet with the planners,
14 A. Well I tell from you my experience Mr. Chairman, a lot of people would like to
14:34:28 15 see Ministers about a lot of things, sometimes it happens and it sometimes
16 doesn't happen.
17 Q. 74 Well by this stage we have at least two documented meetings between you and
18 Mr. Monahan, isn't that right?
19 A. That's right.
14:34:38 20 Q. 75 We have had the meeting on the 24th of May and we've had the meeting in
21 November, isn't that correct?
22 A. Quite so.
23 Q. 76 Now, on the 5th July 1990, we have a further memorandum of a meeting held in
24 Tallaght concerning the Cherrywood lands, if I could have 2985 please? Present
14:34:54 25 at this meeting is Mr. Edward Sweeney and Mr. Lynn, did you know Mr. Sweeney?
26 A. Mr. Chairman I knew Mr. Monahan. On the occasion that I visited Tallaght there
27 were others with Mr. Monahan, I think a Mr. Murray --
28 Q. 77 Yes, a Mr. Noel Murray.
29 A. Well yes Mr. Murray. And I think Mr. Phil Reilly.
14:35:25 30 Q. 78 Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 648
18
14:35:26 1 A. I can't recall the names that you have mentioned to me now, but that's not to
2 say that I didn't meet them at one of those official functions.
3 Q. 79 But unless you met them at an official function you wouldn't have met them
4 separately?
14:35:36 5 A. I cannot recall.
6 Q. 80 You have no recollection of meeting them in your office in relation to Monarch
7 or Cherrywood?
8 A. I have no recollection of that matter.
9 Q. 81 Well if I deal with this meeting on the 5th of July 1990, again the Cherrywood
14:35:49 10 lands are being discussed, but if we go to the second page at 2986, under the
11 heading "Access to Site," if I tell you that RML is Mr. Lynn, it says,
12 "Mr. Lynn indicated that it was not alone necessary to have the line of the
13 motorway established but to have it actually constructed to facilitate the
14 development and recommended that contact be made at the highest level, i.e.
14:36:12 15 ministerial level to ascertain the position".
16
17 Now the construction of a highway, I would I suggest to you, would have fallen
18 into one of the issues which would be taken care of by the Department of the
19 Environment, isn't that right?
14:36:25 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 82 And therefore checking out the situation in relation to the construction of a
22 motorway would be something that would be brought to the attention of the
23 department, isn't that right?
24 A. In the normal circumstances, yes.
14:36:40 25 Q. 83 And you would have been the Minister, isn't that right?
26 A. Correct.
27 Q. 84 So would you agree with me that it's a fair interpretation of what's contained
28 there, that it was the intention of representatives of Monarch to check with
29 you, the Minister, what the position was in relation to the construction of
14:36:54 30 this motorway?

www.pcr.ie Day 648
19
14:36:55 1 A. I cannot recollect any meeting dealing with that matter but it would obviously
2 be normal for developers and others to seek clarification about motorway lines
3 and road lines and all that kind of thing, without necessarily having the
4 matter dealt with by the Minister. In fact the Minister would have no
14:37:13 5 involvement in that kind of thing.
6 Q. 85 But you would agree with me that it was the intention of Monarch to check with
7 you what the position was in relation to the line of the motorway, isn't that
8 right?
9 A. What their intention was I cannot speculate on.
14:37:26 10 Q. 86 Yes, it wasn't a question of writing to the department to find out what the
11 situation was, they were going to raise it at ministerial level, presumably
12 raise it with you?
13 A. Well I would put it to you, Mr. Chairman, that if that was the case and if the
14 Tribunal has sought documentation or correspondence from the department, then
14:37:44 15 in the normal circumstance, people would seek by letter to have, they would
16 seek a meeting either at official level or whatever to discuss the matter and
17 I, I have no recollection of ever seeing any brief whereby a letter asking for
18 a deputation to be received or otherwise in this matter. So in those
19 circumstances I can only surmise that it did not take place. I have no
14:38:11 20 recollection of it anyway.
21 Q. 87 We have nothing in the brief in relation to the other meetings as to what the
22 agenda was and you haven't been able to tell us what the agenda was for the
23 other meetings, isn't that right?
24 A. That's so. But I just want to repeat to you, people don't come in off the
14:38:27 25 street to seek a meeting with the higher officers of the department and
26 particularly with the Minister or the Minister's of State, there would always
27 be correspondence.
28 Q. 88 So you are --
29 A. Excuse me until I finish.
14:38:38 30 Q. 89 Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 648
20
14:38:39 1 A. It would always be recorded that a meeting was sought and if a meeting was
2 sought, it would be brought to the notice of the private secretary and either
3 he or through the individual Minister an agreement would be reached as to
4 whether a meeting should take place or not. I don't see any evidence of that
14:38:54 5 here.
6 Q. 90 Okay. Are you surprised that that evidence isn't been found in the
7 departmental files, in relation to the meetings which I have dealt with
8 already?
9 A. I suggest that's a matter for you and the Tribunal.
14:39:05 10 Q. 91 No, but you seem to suggest that such material ought to be available?
11 A. No, what I said was, the normal practice --
12 Q. 92 Yes, but was it --
13 A. -- for somebody seeking a meeting with the Minister, would be to request it in
14 writing.
14:39:18 15 Q. 93 So either such a request did come in in writing and it's no longer on the files
16 or alternatively there was a departure from the normal practice?
17 A. I am not aware of any departure from normal practice in dealing with these
18 matters.
19 Q. 94 I just want to clarify one issue, just to be fair to you Mr. Flynn, I suggested
14:39:36 20 to you that we didn't have your 1990 diary, I understand that I was, that we do
21 not have your -- we don't have your personal 1990 diary, but we do have a
22 ministerial 1990 diary, sorry about that.
23 A. I see, that's all right, no problem.
24 Q. 95 There was a meeting I think on the 12th of February 1991, which is at 7664 and
14:40:04 25 again this is the ministerial diary.
26 A. Okay.
27 Q. 96 Do you accept that you might have met Mr. Phil Monahan at 3 pm on the 12th of
28 February 1991?
29 A. On the understanding that it's in this diary, but that I have no corresponding
14:40:17 30 reference to my own personal diary in the matter.

www.pcr.ie Day 648
21
14:40:21 1 Q. 97 Do you have any recollection of what that meeting was about?
2 A. No.
3 Q. 98 Could it have been about rezoning?
4 A. I have no recollection of the meeting, so I can have no recollection of what
14:40:31 5 transpired at it.
6 Q. 99 What has been discovered to the Tribunal is a document, if I could have 8511
7 please? It's an internal department document, which appears to have been
8 created on the 6th of December 1990, and I will just read the document to you.
14:40:47 10 "Further to our telephone conversation in relation to Mr. P Monahan and Monarch
11 Property. I enclose previous material requesting a PQ," which I presume is a
12 Parliamentary Question, "in relation to industrial lands at Ballyogan Road and
13 a press cutting regarding the purchase of the lands in Cabinteely. We are
14 awaiting the submission of contract documents CD by Dublin County Council for
14:41:09 15 the Carrickmines Valley Sewerage Scheme. The work on these is substantially
16 complete and the CD," which is the contract documents, "should be received at
17 the latest by January 1991. A branch sewer to service the Cabinteely area will
18 service the lands acquired by Monarch Properties. This will link with the
19 Shanganagh Treatment Works, which is currently working at 50 per cent
14:41:31 20 capacity."
21
22 That appears to be information being compiled within the department in relation
23 to an upcoming meeting with you.
24 A. I am not aware of that.
14:41:41 25 Q. 100 Okay. What I really want to direct your attention to is the final post script
26 to that letter it says, "Material required in relation to the meeting of P
27 Monahan and Minister in relation to rezoning of lands". Would you agree with
28 me that that gives the impression that, within the department, it was viewed
29 that the upcoming meeting was a meeting in relation to the rezoning of lands?
14:42:03 30 A. I have never -- I have had no sight of this document until just now,

www.pcr.ie Day 648
22
14:42:08 1 Mr. Chairman.
2 Q. 101 Yes?
3 A. But from the reading of that I don't know what Mr. Monahan was seeking the
4 material for, this is --
14:42:15 5 Q. 102 No, no, sorry Mr. Flynn, just to be absolutely fair to you, this document was,
6 is just now being added to the brief and was given to you just before you gave
7 evidence, you may or may not have had an opportunity to consider it, but it is
8 not a document that was given to Mr. Monahan, it was an internal department
9 note as I understand it, to brief you in relation to an upcoming meeting?
14:42:37 10 A. Well I am not aware of the contents of that and I have no recollection of the
11 contents of that matter, that is referred to there, being discussed with me.
12 Q. 103 Okay. But can I suggest to you that it would appear from that internal
13 documentation or that internal document created on the 6th of December, that
14 the subject matter of the upcoming meeting, as far as your staff within the
14:42:59 15 department was concerned, was in relation to the rezoning of lands?
16 A. The only difficulty which have that Mr. Chairman is that the Minister, and
17 that's myself at the time, had nothing to do whatsoever with the rezoning of
18 land anywhere.
19 Q. 104 That's exactly the point I am coming to Mr. Flynn, that as far as your
14:43:17 20 departmental staff were concerned, there was a meeting to take place between
21 you and Mr. Monahan in relation to land rezoning, isn't that right, isn't that
22 what appears from that document?
23 A. Wait a moment now. I had nothing to do with rezoning of land either for
24 Mr. Monahan or for anybody else, and I have no recollection of having discussed
14:43:35 25 rezoning of land with Mr. Monahan or anybody else at any time. It's not a
26 matter for the Minister. Zoning of land is confined to other elected
27 representatives.
28 Q. 105 Did Mr. Monahan ever ask you to exercise any influence over the other elected
29 representatives in relation to the rezoning of lands?
14:43:57 30 A. I have no recollection of Mr. Monahan ever asking me to intervene with anybody

www.pcr.ie Day 648
23
14:44:01 1 concerning the rezoning or any other business that he was involved in, and I
2 don't see any evidence and there has been no evidence submitted to support such
3 a view.
4 Q. 106 Can you give any reason or indication to the Tribunal as to why your staff
14:44:13 5 would have been of the view that the upcoming meeting between you and
6 Mr. Monahan was in relation to the rezoning of land?
7 A. If my staff had meetings with Mr. Monahan about any matter, I was not aware of
8 them.
9 Q. 107 No I am not saying they meetings, the final post script to that letter refers
14:44:32 10 to material required in relation to the meeting of P Monaghan and Minister in
11 relation to the rezoning of lands, it was a meeting between you and Mr. Monahan
12 had a had the subject title of land rezoning?
13 A. But this is a correspondence between individuals that I don't know anything
14 about.
14:44:50 15 Q. 108 But they were your staff within the department in 198 -- 1990?
16 A. There were hundreds of staff in the department, some of them in Planning
17 Administration and some of them in the Water and Sanitary Services Division and
18 some of them I never met at all. The practice, as far as the Minister would be
19 concerned, is that he would be dealing with the senior staff.
14:45:10 20 Q. 109 But for some reason these members of staff were of the of the view that the
21 upcoming meeting between you and Mr. Monahan had to do with rezoning of land?
22 A. I am not aware what was in the mind of any of my staff concerning those
23 matters. All I am saying to you is, I have no recollection Mr. Chairman, of
24 that matter being discussed between myself and Mr. Monahan, because for obvious
14:45:30 25 reasons, which I have to reiterate for you is, the Minister has no
26 responsibility, and I have also answered the question, did I make
27 representations to anybody who had responsibility for dealing with rezoning
28 matters and the answer is, no I did not.
29 Q. 110 Did you ever make representations to any officials with responsibility --
14:45:47 30 A. I did not.

www.pcr.ie Day 648
24
14:45:50 1 Q. 111 Did you know when you met Mr. Monahan on the 12th of February 1991, that he had
2 been given a contribution towards Mr. Haughey for the party leader's fund?
3 A. I was not aware of that matter either.
4 Q. 112 3100 please? You weren't aware of that matter?
14:46:09 5 A. No.
6 Q. 113 Did you know that Mr. Monahan and Monarch Properties had given contributions to
7 individual members of Fianna Fail in various elections in 1989, 1991 and 1992?
8 A. No, Mr. Chairman.
9 Q. 114 Did you ever seek a contribution towards your, either your own or the party's
14:46:31 10 finances at any of those courtesy meetings that you have referred to with
11 Mr. Monahan?
12 A. No Mr. Chairman.
13 Q. 115 You can't remember, you say, any of the matters discussed at any of those
14 meetings, isn't that right?
14:46:48 15 A. I have no recollection of the subject matter of discussions that took place
16 between myself and Mr. Monahan at those meetings and I cannot recall if there
17 was anybody else present Mr. Chairman. If there was departmental presence,
18 then there would be a minute of that.
19 Q. 116 What was the protocol within the department for having people present at
14:47:07 20 meetings between you and visitors, including developers like Mr. Monahan?
21 A. If somebody came to see the Minister privately, then the Minister saw that
22 person privately, if there was other matters to be discussed that required
23 technical advice or administrative advice, then others might have been present,
24 and would have been present, if they were present then notes would be taken and
14:47:33 25 there would be a recorded note or minute of the particular subject matters
26 discussed.
27 Q. 117 Thank you very much Mr. Flynn.
28 A. Thank you.
29
14:47:44 30 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Madden do you want to ask Mr. Flynn anything, sorry Mr. Moran.

www.pcr.ie Day 648
25
14:47:51 1
2 MR. MORAN: No Chairman.
4 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Flynn just before you go, you say you have no idea about what
14:47:57 5 was discussed at these meetings?
6 A. That's right, sorry Mr. Chairman, sorry now. Maybe I should clarify that, I
7 was invited to -- and I stated that in my narrative statement to the Tribunal,
8 just so that you, nobody is under any misunderstanding, I was invited to view
9 the Tallaght project and I was also invited to go to the --
14:48:20 10
11 CHAIRMAN: Right, well I am more interested in the two or three meetings that,
12 according to the diaries, took place or probably took place with you and
13 assuming they did take place --
14 A. I cannot, on oath, swear that they did take place, unless I had my diaries to
14:48:36 15 confirm.
16
17 CHAIRMAN: Exactly. But if they did take place --
18 A. Yes.
19
14:48:39 20 CHAIRMAN: -- presumably they took place for a purpose, either some purpose of
21 yours or some purpose of Mr. Monahan's, you or somebody described them as
22 possibly courtesy visits?
23 A. I did not initiate any of these meetings, Mr. Chairman, that's the first thing
24 to say there. I never asked Mr. Monahan to come to see me about anything. And
14:49:06 25 if he requested a meeting with me, I would have been happy to see him.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: And a courtesy visit, presumably, would be a meeting such as might
28 take place if somebody was visiting from another government or --
29 A. Oh no, yes that would be the case, but also I had, during my time in politics
14:49:26 30 at senior level, I had courtesy visits from lots of people. Oh, yes, and in

www.pcr.ie Day 648
26
14:49:30 1 particular now, insofar as the Tallaght centre, which was a huge development,
2 the first of its kind in the developing towns around Dublin. Everybody was
3 interested and Mr. Monahan was the man in charge and he certainly would have
4 been very happy to tell me what was going on and to invite me out to view it,
14:49:49 5 oh yeah.
7 CHAIRMAN: But if there were courtesy visits, you are suggesting that
8 Mr. Monarch would be simply attending at your office to --
9 A. To brief me on what the current state of play was with his Tallaght Town Centre
14:50:03 10 development.
11
12 CHAIRMAN: And that would be at his behest you think, rather than at your
13 request?
14 A. Oh, yes. I never requested Mr. Monahan to attend and visit on me in my
14:50:17 15 department, to discuss any matter.
16
17 CHAIRMAN: Would you be surprised if he did attend, I know you can't think
18 back with any certainty, but would you be surprised if he did attend even for
19 the purposes of a courtesy visit, would you be surprised that he wouldn't have
14:50:37 20 raised some of the issues that would appear to have been exercising his mind
21 and that of his company colleagues at that time with you, given your position
22 as Minister for the Environment?
23 A. Well I can't recollect him talking about anything in particular, but even
24 looking through the brief that was sent to me Mr. Chairman, by the Tribunal, a
14:50:59 25 lot of these decisions concerning, in particular the rezoning, took place long
26 after I had left, was working as commissioner and I was just noting that in the
27 brief.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: But I am just wondering while you have said, understandably, that
14:51:19 30 you as Minister wouldn't be in a position to partake in any shape or form in

www.pcr.ie Day 648
27
14:51:26 1 rezoning decisions --
2 A. That's right.
4 CHAIRMAN: -- but to an outsider, a developer or builder or an ordinary member
14:51:34 5 of the public that mightn't be clear, that mightn't necessarily be clear to
6 them that you wouldn't be in a position to influence, until such time as they
7 would raise it with you and be told by you?
8 A. Oh no, Mr. Chairman, sorry to cut across you there, but any developer the size
9 of Monarch Properties with their executive directors dealing with these
14:51:57 10 matters, they would be fully au fait with the practices of County Councils and
11 the whole question about rezoning and how it took place and why it took place.
12 I mean, no, no, no, Mr. Chairman. Those people would fully understand. Now as
13 you say there would be people in the general public that mightn't understand
14 that, but insofar as the Chief Executives and chief people involved in
14:52:22 15 properties such as Tallaght and things like that, they would know the full
16 understanding of legislation on planning and zoning.
17
18 CHAIRMAN: In your role as Honorary Treasurer of the party around this time --
19 A. Yes?
14:52:37 20
21 CHAIRMAN: -- would you have been furnished with lists from time to time of
22 major donations to the party?
23 A. No Mr. Chairman, specifically no. The role of the treasurer was to produce and
24 provide for the Ard Fheiseanna, a Statement of Affairs. I was not acquainted
14:52:58 25 with how matters were dealt with insofar as headquarters and money collection
26 was concerned.
27
28 CHAIRMAN: Is there a difference between position of honorary Treasurer and
29 Treasurer?
14:53:10 30 A. There is.

www.pcr.ie Day 648
28
14:53:10 1
2 CHAIRMAN: And you were?
3 A. An Honorary Treasurer yes, is a nominated person on behalf of the party who
4 reports annually to the Ard Fheis at the time, as to what the state of play
14:53:20 5 with the finances are, but they would not be involved in any of the day to day
6 business.
8 CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you very much Mr. Flynn.
9 A. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
14:53:32 10
12
13 MS. DILLON: Mr. Sean Fleming please.
14
14:53:45 15 MR. SEAN FLEMING, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS QUESTIONED AS FOLLOWS.
16 BY MS. DILLON:
17
18 CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon Mr. Fleming?
19 A. Good afternoon.
14:54:12 20 Q. 118 Good afternoon Mr. Fleming, in particular I want you to deal with a particular
21 payment that was made by Monarch Properties indirectly to Fianna Fail through a
22 system known as the pick me up system, but in advance of that if we could, the
23 Tribunal could hear some evidence from you in relation to your involvement with
24 Fianna Fail. I understand that you were employed with Fianna Fail party as
14:54:32 25 financial controller in August 1982.
27 Q. 119 And that at that stage you had recently qualified as a chartered accountant?
28 A. True.
29 Q. 120 So your relationship with Fianna Fail was as a professional employee if I can
14:54:44 30 put it like that?

www.pcr.ie Day 648
29
14:54:45 1 A. That's right.
2 Q. 121 And part of your duties involved liaising with the fundraising committee and
3 various people involved in fundraising, is that correct?
4 A. Absolutely.
14:54:54 5 Q. 122 You would also have been involved in dealing with monies that were to be
6 received by the party through an indirect route, if we can call it that, by way
7 of operation of what became known as pick me up system, is that right?
8 A. Just say that again.
9 Q. 123 You would also have been involved on occasion with the reconciliations --
14:55:08 10 A. Oh yeah.
11 Q. 124 -- let's say, that arose as a result of the operation of the pick me up system?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. 125 And please correct me if I am wrong in relation to this, but the way a pick me
14 up system operated was that instead of making a direct political donation to
14:55:23 15 Fianna Fail, which would have been a receipt in the hands of Fianna Fail, a
16 party could elect to pay a creditor of Fianna Fail?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 126 That would require the creditor of Fianna Fail to issue an invoice.
19 A. Normally, yeah.
14:55:37 20 Q. 127 And that invoice would then be paid by the person who wished to make the
21 donation indirectly to Fianna Fail, is that correct?
22 A. Yeah, by way of paying a bill.
23 Q. 128 By way of paying a bill. And in the particular case of any party who wanted to
24 do this, would it have involved somebody in the party knowing that a person
14:55:55 25 wanted to make a donation by way of a pick me up?
26 A. It would.
27 Q. 129 Because what would have to happen at the end of whatever fundraising was going
28 on, there would have to be a reconciliation between the creditor and Fianna
29 Fail, isn't that right?
14:56:08 30 A. Certainly, yeah.

www.pcr.ie Day 648
30
14:56:10 1 Q. 130 So say, for example, if it was a printer who was printing for Fianna Fail, and
2 the printer had a bill of 250,000, let's just say with Fianna Fail, but a
3 100,000 of that had been paid by various people who wanted to make indirect
4 contributions to Fianna Fail, somebody in Fianna Fail would have to sit down
14:56:28 5 with the printer, is that right? And work-out what was owed or what was
6 outstanding on the account?
7 A. Of course.
8 Q. 131 And was that person normally you?
9 A. Well I was involved in the carrying out of the reconciliation, not in arranging
14:56:40 10 the PMU or with the actual donor, I wasn't involved in the fundraising, I was
11 more involved in the record keeping after the fundraising was done.
12 Q. 132 Right. Does it follow from that, that at the time that you were employed first
13 by Fianna Fail in 1982, that the pick me up system was already in operation?
14 A. It was established, that practice, I think, had been ongoing in all voluntary
14:57:05 15 organisations and you know, and it was there before I arrived in Fianna Fail.
16 Q. 133 But it was, and was it a system of fundraising in effect?
17 A. No.
18 Q. 134 What was it?
19 A. It was the method where the fundraising was done, a person would -- various
14:57:21 20 types of fundraising, whether there was direct appeal to donors to make a
21 contribution to our fundraising efforts or there might have been a fundraising
22 lunch or golf classic or whatever the event might have been. And if somebody
23 had agreed to make a donation, that was the fundraising effort, but the method
24 by which they made the payment was what we called the PMU, we didn't go out
14:57:44 25 ever seeking PMU, people to pay bills directly, because most, over 95 per cent
26 of all our income would have been directly into Fianna Fail Head Office, so we
27 were not ever pursuing companies to make a payment through an indirect method.
28 Q. 135 But for the 95 per cent of people who made payments directly, Fianna Fail would
29 issue a receipt directly?
14:58:04 30 A. Absolutely because the cheque would have been received in Fianna Fail Head

www.pcr.ie Day 648
31
14:58:07 1 Office.
2 Q. 136 And would that be a receipt that would be signed by the Honorary Treasurer, for
3 example?
4 A. Like all big organisations, there would be preprinted receipts, they wouldn't
14:58:17 5 personally sign them, they would be printed by the printer and a receipt number
6 allocated to the receipt before it would be issued. But they wouldn't be
7 signed -- the name of the Treasurer would be on the receipt.
8 Q. 137 And records would be kept?
9 A. Absolutely.
14:58:29 10 Q. 138 Then in relation to the five per cent income or political fundraising that came
11 in by way of pick me ups, it required a slightly different form of accounting,
12 is that right?
13 A. Yeah, because the receipt wasn't directly into Head Office, it went to our
14 creditor and then we reconciled the figures with our creditor.
14:58:48 15 Q. 139 So, what would happen is that, a creditor of Fianna Fail would issue an invoice
16 to, let us say, for example, X company.
17 A. Well really it would be a pro forma invoice or you know a pro forma document,
18 they may issue, the practice would have varied depending on the printer and how
19 they dealt with the actual donor, the practice could vary.
14:59:08 20 Q. 140 But in general terms the creditor, who is a creditor of Fianna Fail, would
21 issue an invoice --
22 A. Issue a document.
23 Q. 141 -- a document. That document would record a liability, isn't that right?
24 A. That document would be to the company for provision of service.
14:59:24 25 Q. 142 So that would you have somebody like a printing company or a PR company --
26 A. Yeah.
27 Q. 143 -- who would issue an invoice, that on its face said X company owed them money,
28 in its simplest terms?
29 A. Well they would issue a document because sometimes the documents would say pro
14:59:41 30 forma invoice, it mightn't be an actual invoice.

www.pcr.ie Day 648
32
14:59:44 1 Q. 144 If we just have --
2 A. On some occasions.
3 Q. 145 If we just look at the Monarch Properties one it might help us, at 5350 please?
4 A. Okay.
14:59:54 5 Q. 146 Now this is an invoice that issued to Saatchi and Saatchi Advertising Limited
6 on the 24th of February 1994, it issues by Saatchi and Saatchi Advertising
7 Limited, who I assume were creditors of Fianna Fail?
8 A. They were indeed.
9 Q. 147 They were providing services to Fianna Fail.
15:00:10 10 A. They would have had at the previous election.
11 Q. 148 And they are issuing an invoice to Monarch Properties at Monarch House in the
12 sum of 25,000 plus VAT, total 30,250 pounds.
13 A. That's right.
14 Q. 149 Now before that could happen Mr. Fleming, somebody had to, in Saatchi and
15:00:27 15 Saatchi, had to issue the invoice?
16 A. That's right.
17 Q. 150 And they, I assume, could only issue an invoice if they received an instruction
18 from somebody that an invoice if that amount should be issued to Monarch
19 Properties.
15:00:38 20 A. That's right.
21 Q. 151 And that instruction, I assume, could only have come into Saatchi and Saatchi
22 from somebody in Fianna Fail.
15:00:46 25 A. Yeah.
26 Q. 153 And that would mean that somebody in Fianna Fail would have to have been told
27 that Monarch Properties were prepared to pay 30,250 pounds to Saatchi and
28 Saatchi?
29 A. Well they may not have had to be told, they may have been the person who made
15:01:01 30 that arrangement with the donor.

www.pcr.ie Day 648
33
15:01:04 1 Q. 154 So that the person in Fianna Fail who had made, went to Monarch Property
2 looking for a political support and made this arrangement or an arrangement
3 equivalent to this with Monarch Properties, is that right?
4 A. Yeah because somebody in fundraising side of Fianna Fail would have had to make
15:01:19 5 that arrangement as opposed to direct cheque coming into head office.
6 Q. 155 Right so the issue of this invoice, in February 1994, would indicate that
7 somebody in Fianna Fail believed that Monarch Properties were going to pay
8 Saatchi and Saatchi 30,250 pounds inclusive of VAT?
9 A. Yeah.
15:01:36 10 Q. 156 Right. Who was the person --
11 A. Well no, not inclusive of VAT, 30,250 would be the value to Fianna Fail, the
12 VAT was not an issue. Fianna Fail is not registered for VAT, is not a trading
13 company. So the understanding would have been they would have paid 30,250.
14 Q. 157 Would be coming off the full bill, as it were?
15:01:57 15 A. Yeah. The VAT would be of zero consequence to Fianna Fail because we received
16 the benefit of whatever the payment was, that's what we received.
17 Q. 158 30,250 pounds?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. 159 But nonetheless you would also have received a copy of this invoice, is that
15:02:11 20 correct?
21 A. Absolutely. Sure came from, Fianna Fail Head Office provided that.
22 Q. 160 That's right. But leaving aside you provided it to the Tribunal, in order for
23 to you deal well your own book keeping exercise, in order to keep your books
24 straight with Saatchi and Saatchi, you had to know how much had been paid by
15:02:29 25 people who wanted to make donations in this manner, isn't that right?
26 A. Absolutely. You need to know your outstanding liability to the company and
27 they would inform you if they had received a payment from somebody else other
28 than ourselves on our behalf.
29 Q. 161 So you would have seen, for example, that the invoice had issued in the sum of
15:02:47 30 25,000 pounds plus VAT?

www.pcr.ie Day 648
34
15:02:48 1 A. I would have got a copy of that somewhere along the line, yes.
2 Q. 162 But you would have been looking at the bottom figure 30,250 pounds, that would
3 be coming off the full bill as it were to Fianna Fail from Saatchi and Saatchi?
4 A. Absolutely.
15:03:02 5 Q. 163 Because Fianna Fail wasn't registered for VAT?
6 A. Absolutely.
7 Q. 164 Insofar as Saatchi and Saatchi were dealing with the VAT element of that, that
8 was a matter for Saatchi and Saatchi?
9 A. It was, yeah.
15:03:12 10 Q. 165 Not a matter for Fianna Fail?
11 A. Fianna Fail wasn't involved in that particular transaction. We were the third
12 party -- that transaction was between Saatchi and Saatchi and Monarch, and the
13 VAT element you talked about would be between those two companies not Fianna
14 Fail.
15:03:25 15 Q. 166 Yes, but the benefit of the transaction was for Fianna Fail?
16 A. Absolutely.
17 Q. 167 So to say they weren't involved in the transaction would not be quite correct,
18 Mr Fleming, because they were involved in the transaction insofar as the
19 benefit of the transaction was for you?
15:03:38 20 A. Yes, but not any VAT aspect of it.
21 Q. 168 It would also mean, would it not, as of February 1994 the understanding in
22 Fianna Fail and the understanding in Monarch was that the amount of the
23 donation was to be 30,250 pounds?
24 A. That's right.
15:03:51 25 Q. 169 But in the event the records would suggest that that in fact was not paid,
27 A. Yeah, only 15,000 thousand was paid.
28 Q. 170 In fact that wasn't paid -- did this arise as a result of the election in, in
29 1993?
15:04:05 30 A. No, I think there was an election at the end of 1992.

www.pcr.ie Day 648
35
15:04:10 1 Q. 171 Yes, and this is an invoice in February of 1994?
2 A. Correct. So we still owed Saatchi and Saatchi money at that point in time.
3 Q. 172 Does that mean that somebody had approached Monarch in or around the time of
4 the issuing of this invoice in February of '94 looking for money?
15:04:23 5 A. Looking for a donation. Like after the '92 general election the Fianna Fail
6 party had serious debts and it took us a couple of years to clear those debts.
7 We would have been fund raising in '93 and '94 onwards and into '95 to clear
8 the debts that had arisen in the three general elections in the previous five
9 years.
15:04:42 10 Q. 173 That would mean, would it not, that Monarch Properties were on some list in
11 Fianna Fail as somebody who ought to be approached?
12 A. Absolutely. All major companies in Ireland would be written to by the party.
13 Q. 174 I think in September of 1994 at 5353 a cheque in the sum of 15,000 pounds
14 issued to Saatchi and Saatchi?
15:05:02 15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. 175 And according --
17 A. From Monarch.
18 Q. 176 From Monarch Properties Services Limited, and according to the earlier document
19 the total amount expected had been 30,250 but 15,000 was paid?
15:05:14 20 A. That was all that was paid.
21 Q. 177 And that's all that was paid on foot of the original invoice?
22 A. On foot of that, yes.
23 Q. 178 That would mean then that Fianna Fail themselves would have had to have made an
24 adjustment with Saatchi and Saatchi?
15:05:27 25 A. No.
26 Q. 179 No?
27 A. No, because we would have only dealt with the transaction when the payment was
28 received. So up to the point in time that 15,000 was received we would have
29 owed Saatchi and Saatchi the full amount. When that 15,000 was received,
15:05:41 30 15,000 would have come off the balance owed by Fianna Fail. There would have

www.pcr.ie Day 648
36
15:05:44 1 been no adjustment prior to the receipt of the money, because when you are in
2 the fundraising business you don't, to use a phrase, count your chickens before
3 they are hatched, only -- often you expect more money from a donor than you
4 actually receive. We would have only dealt with the transaction on the point
15:06:00 5 of receipt, and the Fianna Fail records nationally are written on income
6 received basis not a projected or expected income received basis.
7 Q. 180 Indeed the records with in Fianna Fail, again I think you are familiar with
8 this document at 5355, which record the pick-me-ups I think in 1994, insofar as
9 it deals with the one from Monarch Property Services Limited, it records that
15:06:24 10 in the third column it records that the invoice from the creditor, that's
11 Saatchi and Saatchi, to the donor company, that's Monarch, was for 30,250.
12 There was a copy cheque from the donor and a letter dated 19 of September from
13 the donor company to the creditor, but the amount paid is recorded in the third
14 column, fourth across and that's 15,000 pounds?
15:06:42 15 A. Yeah. I ever only actually seen the original of that document last Friday for
16 my first time after, that document was not produced when I worked in Fianna
17 Fail, it was produced sometime later. I have only seen that document in recent
18 days for the first time, but it's accurate. The document is accurate.
19 Q. 181 And at 5356 there is a copy letter of the 19 of September 1994 enclosing a copy
15:07:10 20 of the cheque and it's the letter from Monarch Property Services Limited and it
21 encloses a copy of the cheque for 15,000 in full and final settlement of the
22 invoice of 30,250. Now that is also supplied to the Tribunal by Fianna Fail?
23 A. That was. And I would have seen that, the previous document was a document
24 only generated in 1998.
15:07:28 25 Q. 182 That would mean, would it not Mr. Fleming, when the money was received by
26 Saatchi and Saatchi it was copied or the documentation in connection to it was
27 copied to Fianna Fail?
28 A. Absolutely.
29 Q. 183 So that you could keep your records.
15:07:42 30 A. We would know then 15,000 had been received.

www.pcr.ie Day 648
37
15:07:46 1 Q. 184 Do you know who it was in Fianna Fail that approached Monarch Properties or who
2 in Monarch Properties was approached?
3 A. No I don't, and as I said I personally was never involved in the fundraising, I
4 was more involved in the record keeping of the outcome of the fundraising
15:07:59 5 activities and party financial activities, so I was never involved in
6 approaching any donor and I don't know do we have a record of who on our
7 fundraising committee would have been the contact with Monarch Properties. It
8 could have been a number of people and I don't know who was the contact with
9 Monarch.
15:08:15 10 Q. 185 Certainly a document that I think was generated in or around the time that the
11 money was received, or not long afterwards, at 5349 which records the receipts
12 received in September 1994?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 186 There is a reference of Monarch Properties, Phil Monahan?
15:08:33 15 A. Yeah, that's right.
16 Q. 187 Now there are other figures mentioned there and donors have been blanked out in
17 relation to it. But that would suggest that certainly in so far as Fianna Fail
18 were concerned, that the contact person was Mr. Phillip Monahan, is that right?
19 A. Yeah, he was the proprietor I think of the company, I didn't know the man
15:08:52 20 myself.
21 Q. 188 Yes?
22 A. But he was the managing director. But that, I would just say that might have
23 been just written, the name of the gentleman involved may or may not have been
24 the point of contact. It would have been the name Monarch Properties mightn't
15:09:08 25 have been known to people at the time, so the name Phil Monahan was just put in
26 as a way of identifying the company, and he may or may not have been the point
27 of contact. It would be an over statement to draw that conclusion from that.
28 Q. 189 It would be an over statement to draw the conclusion that Fianna Fail recorded
29 Phillip Monahan as the point of contact in dealing with receipts in September
15:09:30 30 of 1994?

www.pcr.ie Day 648
38
15:09:31 1 A. No, it would be an over statement to say from that document that Phil Monahan
2 was the point of contact.
3 Q. 190 In the absence of any other information Mr. Fleming I suggest it's more than
4 likely he was the point of contact?
15:09:42 5 A. He may well be, I just don't know.
6 Q. 191 Certainly insofar as the documentation has been provided to the Tribunal by
7 Fianna Fail?
8 A. Well the letter you showed me a minute ago wasn't signed by Mr. Monahan at all.
9 The previous document you had on the screen, the cheque from Monarch Properties
15:09:55 10 wasn't signed by Mr. Monahan, there was a marketing director, some other
11 director.
12 Q. 192 Mr. Noel Murray, at 5356?
13 A. So there is two names. The letter from Monarch refers to -- I don't have the
14 document in front of me.
15:10:07 15 Q. 193 There is the document.
16 A. Yeah, so he may have been the point of contact or it could have been
17 Mr. Monahan or somebody else, I personally wouldn't know. Not only do I not
18 know, I wouldn't have known at the time either.
19 Q. 194 It wouldn't have been a matter that was of any interest to you because your
15:10:24 20 function was a different function, it was nothing to do with the actual fund
21 raising, your job was the accounting?
22 A. For the transactions.
23 Q. 195 Yes. And insofar as these pick-me-ups operated, Mr. Fleming, they operated to
24 the benefit of Fianna Fail insofar as they defrayed substantial expenses
15:10:43 25 incurred by Fianna Fail with creditors, isn't that right?
26 A. Yeah, like any organisation receiving sponsorship or a donation, or a donation
27 to a third party or sponsorship.
28 Q. 196 Insofar as the companies were concerned, what was the advantage to the company
29 who was making the payment in operating this system?
15:10:59 30 A. The principle advantage, and one that I would have been aware of in general,

www.pcr.ie Day 648
39
15:11:03 1 would have been it gave confidentiality to the donor that people maybe, may not
2 have wanted staff in their own organisation to know they were making a payment
3 to any political parties and they might have routed their payment directly to
4 one of the suppliers of the party, that would be the principle reason and the
15:11:22 5 only real reason that I would see it gave them confidence. It was of no
6 benefit to the Fianna Fail party to receive the money this way, it would have
7 been far simpler for us to receive the cheque of 15,000 directly and lodge it
8 to our own bank account and use it for our own purposes, so there was no
9 benefit to us, but it was obviously a benefit to the donor because they were
15:11:43 10 able to have confidentiality within their own organisation.
11 Q. 197 And do you know who it was in Fianna Fail who dealt with this particular item
12 of fundraising, I think I have asked that you already?
13 A. No, and I don't and I wouldn't have even known at the time, as such.
14 Q. 198 Can I show you 8513 please? This is a letter to the Senior Inspector of Taxes,
15:12:04 15 the Office of the Revenue Commissioners Investigation Branch, arising out of,
16 including an inquiry in connection with Monarch Properties, including the
17 particular payment of 15,000 pounds. I think this arose as a result of certain
18 disclosures made to the Revenue arising out of the operation of the pick-me-up
19 scheme and a number of companies were asked for information. But what I want
15:12:25 20 to draw to your attention there is the third paragraph?
21 A. Can I just read -- I have never seen it before.
22 Q. 199 Yes, absolutely.
23 A. I see Secretary, who is the letter from?
24 Q. 200 From Monarch Properties Limited to Mr. Brendan O'Brien, Senior Inspector of
15:12:38 25 Taxes.
26 A. Okay, just give me a moment to read it because I haven't seen it.
27 Q. 201 Of course.
28 A. Right. I have read the letter.
29 Q. 202 Now what I want to draw to your attention, I mean any tax computation or tax
15:13:15 30 matters arising from this is a matter for Monarch Properties and it's not a

www.pcr.ie Day 648
40
15:13:17 1 matter for you and I don't intend to deal with those with you, but what I want
2 to draw to your attention is the third paragraph in which the author of this
3 letter says they have now established from Mr. Des Richardson that they made a
4 payment of 15,000 pound to Saatchi and Saatchi Advertising Limited in September
15:13:32 5 1994 against a VAT invoice of 30,250 pounds?
6 A. That's right.
7 Q. 203 That would suggest that what is being talked about here is the payment you and
8 I have been talking about?
9 A. Yeah, definitely.
15:13:42 10 Q. 204 That would suggest, Mr. Fleming, that the person who was dealing with Monarch
11 Properties in Fianna Fail was Mr. Des Richardson?
12 A. Could probably well have been, but I can't be absolutely sure that have.
13 Q. 205 Yes, was Mr. Richardson a fundraiser for Fianna Fail?
14 A. He was, he was.
15:13:56 15 Q. 206 Was he involved in the compilation and preparation of lists in Fianna Fail in
16 relation to people who made donations to the party?
17 A. With the members of the fundraising committee.
18 Q. 207 Yes. Did Mr. Richardson keep separate information and documentation,
19 independent of the party books and records, lists of the people he had on his
15:14:14 20 own lists?
21 A. Well the lists he had were the lists for Fianna Fail, I don't know who they
22 would have been --
23 Q. 208 Did he operate a separate recording system?
24 A. No.
15:14:25 25 Q. 209 Or keeping records separate to the records kept by Fianna Fail?
26 A. All the receipts through fundraising committee and by Mr. Richardson were
27 lodged to the Fianna Fail Head Office account. They no separate bank account
28 at all.
29 Q. 210 Did Mr. Richardson have an office separate to Fianna Fail?
15:14:42 30 A. He did.

www.pcr.ie Day 648
41
15:14:43 1 Q. 211 Where did he have that office?
2 A. It was in the, I think it was in the Berkley Court.
3 Q. 212 Did Mr. Richardson keep his own records within that office, within that system?
4 A. I am sure he kept a record of what he was doing, yes.
15:14:56 5 Q. 213 But you would say that his record should mirror the records of Fianna Fail?
6 A. Well if he had -- I don't know that because I don't know what records you are
7 referring to, I don't know that. Like, what I would believe to be the case,
8 everything all the money he received would have been lodged to the bank account
9 of Fianna Fail and we would have a record of that.
15:15:15 10 Q. 214 Yes, leaving aside the money, but what we are talking about now are lists of
11 subscribers or all of that type of information.
12 A. Oh no, there was no parallel duty, he was the fundraiser, I was keeping a
13 record of, you know, of whatever was received and paid out. I wouldn't have
14 had a parallel copy of everything he was working on on a day to day basis.
15:15:35 15 Q. 215 So Mr. Richardson would have had his own lists of subscribers to Fianna Fail
16 and he would have made the returns to you, is that correct, in relation to the
17 monies that he received?
18 A. Yeah, well the lists -- when he came to work for Fianna Fail the previous year
19 he would have started with the list of subscribers that Fianna Fail had at that
15:15:52 20 point in time and his records would have been built from the Fianna Fail
21 records.
22 Q. 216 But would --
23 A. -- and he would have added more to it and the members of the committee would
24 have added more to it.
15:16:03 25 Q. 217 Yes, but it would be fair to describe Mr. Richardson's operation as somewhat
26 independent of the Fianna Fail fundraising operation?
27 A. Was Mr. Richardson's operation independent of the?
28 Q. 218 Of the mainstream Fianna Fail fundraising?
29 A. No, he was the mainstream Fianna Fail fundraising.
15:16:18 30 Q. 219 But he operated a separate office?

www.pcr.ie Day 648
42
15:16:20 1 A. No, he didn't operate from 13 Upper Mount Street, no.
2 Q. 220 He operated a separate office?
3 A. Yeah, in the Berkley Court.
4 Q. 221 And within that office he kept his own records?
15:16:28 5 A. Yeah, I am sure he did.
6 Q. 222 All right. Thank you very much Mr. Fleming, if you answer any questions
7 anybody else might have.
9 CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Mr. Fleming.
15:16:36 10
12
13 MS. DILLON: Mr. Brian Lenihan please.
14
15:16:44 15 BRIAN LENIHAN, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS QUESTIONED
17
18 CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon Mr. Lenihan.
19 Q. 223 Good afternoon Mr. Lenihan, I think the position is that you have never been a
15:17:18 20 member of any local authority in Dublin, is that the position?
21 A. Or anywhere else, yes, that's the position.
22 Q. 224 So that in so far as the lands in Carrickmines are concerned you have never
23 been in a position whereby you had any vote in connection with those lands?
24 A. That's correct. And I have never had any involvement with the lands at
15:17:35 25 Cherrywood in Carrickmines at any time.
26 Q. 225 But you have been, I think, you have provided a statement to the Tribunal which
27 I will go through with you, but you have received two payments from Monarch
28 Properties or their connected companies, and possibly a third payment, is that
29 right?
15:17:52 30 A. Well in fact when you wrote to me you notified me of two payments, but on

www.pcr.ie Day 648
43
15:17:57 1 examining my own records I identified a third payment which I notified to you.
2 Q. 226 Yes?
4 Q. 227 And when you looked at your own records, Mr. Lenihan, in relation to the first
15:18:08 5 payment which I believe to be a sum of a thousand pounds in 1996, is that
6 right?
8 Q. 228 Were you, from your records were you able to identify how you had received
9 that?
15:18:18 10 A. No, I will explain the position. I purchased my present residence at Somerton
11 Road in the Strawberry Beds in 1991 and the late Phil Monahan was a very near
12 neighbour. His residence at Somerton had a common boundary wall with my
13 property. Soon after I settled in the area we became acquainted, he walked
14 past my house most days, and I talked to him at the weekend. My father died on
15:18:44 15 first of November 1995. A few days later Phil Monahan called to my house
16 during the morning time to express his sympathies. I remember it very well
17 because it was in fact the only occasion upon which he visited my house, though
18 I can say that as he often passed our front gate he often stopped and talked to
19 me and I met him at other social occasions within the parish. He stated to me
15:19:04 20 if I was going forward as a candidate for the vacancy in the constituency he
21 would like to support me.
22
23 Now I was nominated as a candidate in March of 1996 and at that stage the -- I
24 do recall that, you know, various subscriptions were received and lodged. At
15:19:27 25 the conclusion of that by-election I compiled, in a simple copy book, a record
26 of every subscription received by me, and I acknowledged them by hand. I would
27 have written to Mr. Monahan and acknowledged the subscription.
28
29 When you wrote your letter to me, I examined my records and discovered that
15:19:44 30 there was a subscription in the name of a company described as Monarch Property

www.pcr.ie Day 648
44
15:19:50 1 Services Limited and that it was in the sum of a thousand pounds. Now I looked
2 at my bank statements but I wasn't able to ascertain from the bank statements
3 exactly the date on which the lodgement was made, but I am satisfied that I
4 made a comprehensive record of all subscriptions received during that
15:20:06 5 by-election and it's on that basis I volunteered the information to you about
6 that particular subscription.
7 Q. 229 And I think your Director of Elections in that election was Mr, one of the
8 people involved in your constituency at that time was Mr. Ned Ryan?
9 A. That's correct. He wasn't the Director of Elections but he was county
15:20:26 10 councillor in the constituency, one of a number at the time.
11 Q. 230 I think Mr. Ryan is recorded in the books of Monarch as having received a
12 cheque for 1,000 pounds in March of 1996, and could I have 5776 please? And
13 just to draw to your attention this document which is dated 14 of March 1996,
14 you will see at the top "Brian Lenihan" and in brackets "Councillor Ned Ryan FF
15:20:57 15 and I think a cheque in that sum did issue to Mr. Ryan, at 5780 please, and was
16 endorsed on the back, at 5781, by Mr. Ryan.
17 A. Yes. I haven't seen this documentation before, but I mean I have no reason to
18 dispute it. I mean I am simply, what I have told you is that I recorded the
19 fact in my own records that I received a subscription from this company and my
15:21:28 20 form -- I would have assumed from the identification of the company that it was
21 intended as a subscription to my campaign by Mr. Monahan, who was a near
22 neighbour. I didn't solicit any contribution but it did arrive and I
23 acknowledged it and I know I acknowledged various contributions made to the
24 particular donor by handwritten letter.
15:21:49 25 Q. 231 I think Mr. Ryan has told the Tribunal he was not a candidate in that election
26 at that time?
27 A. No he wasn't. He was a local Fianna Fail County Councillor.
28 Q. 232 But that he was involved in fundraising in the constituency at that time?
29 A. He was, but I have to say that he didn't, you know my campaign was not funded
15:22:09 30 in that way substantially, in fact when looking through the list of donors I

www.pcr.ie Day 648
45
15:22:13 1 have to say this to Members of the Tribunal, the most generous donors I had
2 were members of the legal profession.
3 Q. 233 I think insofar as the, you received --
4 A. -- I am not disputing the fact that he may well have handed the cheque over to
15:22:32 5 me and it was lodged in an account on my behalf. I haven't been able to
6 ascertain that as a matter of evidence. I quite accept it's a reasonable
7 inference to draw that the cheque payment was made to me through Mr. Monahan,
8 or through Councillor Ryan. That seems very clear from your records, and I
9 thank you for that.
15:22:48 10 Q. 234 And I think that subsequently in 1997, at 6183, there was a payment of 500
11 pounds for a golf classic, and that's recorded I think about eight or nine from
12 the bottom on the document that's on screen. And I think also in 1999 a sum of
13 300 pounds from Dunloe Ewart, is that the position that accords with your
14 records Mr. Lenihan?
15:23:12 15 A. Well I accept that golf classics took place on those occasions as I outlined to
16 you in my statement, and I can identify where the sums were lodged, so yes I
17 would accept that it's reasonable to assume those payments were made. I don't
18 have a precise list of all the donors in the golf classics, you will appreciate
19 you can have 35 to 40 teams at a particular classic. The donors are
15:23:36 20 acknowledged afterwards, and since my appointment as a minister I have not
21 organised any golf classic. I think a minister has a different position from a
22 Dail Deputy who has no executive responsibility, so as a result I don't have a
23 list, a current list of golf classic subscribers or assistance.
24 Q. 235 I think in fact that at 6306 there is a copy of the cheque in the sum of 500
15:24:01 25 pounds made out to you?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 236 And that seems to arise from a golf classic?
28 A. That is correct. And that was made, that was a classic that was organised as
29 the sole fundraiser before the 1997 general election, and the proceeds of that
15:24:12 30 golf classic were applied to both party purposes and campaign purposes for

www.pcr.ie Day 648
46
15:24:17 1 myself.
2 Q. 237 Were you ever approached by anybody from Monarch Properties seeking your
3 support or seeking to ask you to seek speak to any of your Fianna Fail
4 colleagues on local authority in connection with any of their lands?
15:24:30 5 A. No, never. In connection with any of their lands, and I appreciate you are
6 investigating here the lands at Cherrywood, and the lands at Cherrywood I know
7 from what you have said in the letter are located in the Dun Laoghaire county.
8 Dun Laoghaire county was never part of my area, the split of the old Dublin
9 county into three took place before I was elected a member of Dail Eireann, so
15:24:52 10 I would not have been from a position to talk to any councillor in Dun
11 Laoghaire at any stage of my public life, but I can say that I have not
12 discussed the lands at Cherrywood before, during or since my election as a
13 member of Dail Eireann.
14
15:25:04 15 Now you asked then about any other lands that Monarch might have, and of course
16 Monarch had lands at Somerton near my house, and as a private citizen I had
17 opposed the rezoning of those lands for residential use, I think an attempt was
18 made to rezone them for that use in the early '90s. So Mr. Monahan would have
19 made his subscription in the full knowledge of that.
15:25:26 20 Q. 238 I think Ms. Mary Flaherty told the Tribunal she was approached by Monarch
21 Properties, even though she lived outside the area, and I think her
22 constituency is not that far away from your own constituency, that she had been
23 asked to speak on behalf of Monarch with her Fine Gael colleagues on Dun
24 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council. Did anything similar ever happen to you?
15:25:46 25 A. No, no. I am not clear, by the way, in relation to the planning history. I
26 have been following the proceedings of the Tribunal in the newspapers, but my
27 understanding is that the most crucial and contentious votes took place in the
28 early 1990s, and I didn't quite see what votes took place in Dun Laoghaire
29 county, but in any event I was not asked by them nor did I make representations
15:26:11 30 to anyone with the lands in Dun Laoghaire.

www.pcr.ie Day 648
47
15:26:13 1 Q. 239 I think Mr. Edward Sweeney has told the Tribunal in his statement that he had
2 contact with you at some time. Do you ever recollect meeting Eddie Sweeney?
3 A. No, and that surprises me. I didn't peruse the booklet of documentation but I
4 certainly went back over the years. I don't know has Mr. Sweeney fixed a
15:26:33 5 particular year for this particular representation?
6 Q. 240 No, at 2191 he simply says "I specifically recall having had contact at some
7 time or other with the following political representatives" and approximately
8 halfway down that list is Brian Lenihan TD Senior and Junior. Now Mr. Sweeney
9 has not yet given evidence Mr. Lenihan so you will appreciate this is the bet
15:26:53 10 information the Tribunal has at this moment in time in relation to the matter?
11 A. He has given a very long list and I must say I am surprised at him suggesting
12 that, obviously I have to reserve my rights in relation to that. I don't have
13 and I would have, a distinct memory on this particular issue, and I certainly
14 wouldn't, you know I would recall were such a representation made to me. And I
15:27:15 15 am certainly not being made aware of particular plans that they have made. But
16 again -- I do want to assist the Tribunal, but I cannot recall a Mr. Sweeney
17 first of all. The one employee named in your list whom I would know is
18 Mr. Lynn, because Mr. Lynn was constituent of mine and I knew himself and his
19 wife, and he certainly never spoke to me about these matters.
15:27:45 20 Q. 241 I think Mr. Lynn lived in Blanchardstown?
21 A. He lived in Blanchardstown for a while, I don't think he lives there any
22 longer.
23 Q. 242 Thank you very much Mr. Lenihan, if you answer any questions anybody else might
24 have.
15:27:56 25
26 CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Mr. Lenihan for your assistance?
27 A. Just in relation to Mr. Sweeney, I mean -- you know, obviously he intends to
28 raise some issue. It is possible I suppose that Monarch made a general
29 presentation to which they invited people, but I don't recall being at such a
15:28:15 30 presentation I have to say.

www.pcr.ie Day 648
48
15:28:16 1
2 CHAIRMAN: But when he gives, comes to give evidence, obviously if you feel
3 the need to return you can certainly.
4 A. Yes, I am not sure it will be essential. Thank you very much.
15:28:30 5
6 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. All right, that concludes today?
8 MS. DILLON: Yes, I think we are sitting at 10 am tomorrow because, due the
9 non-availability of Mr. O'Herlihy for this morning we have had to put in
15:28:39 10 Mr. O'Herlihy for tomorrow morning, but I think you are sitting at 10 o'clock
11 to take one councillor witness and to take Mr. Bill O'Herlihy at 10.30.
12
13 CHAIRMAN: All right, 10 o'clock tomorrow. Thank you.
14
15:28:58 15 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING DAY
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 648
1
10:21:40 1 THE TRIBUNAL RESUMED AS FOLLOWS ON THURSDAY,
2 8TH JUNE 2006 AT 10.30 A.M:
10:35:19 5
6 MS. DILLON: Good morning, sir. Mr. Larry Lohan please.
8 MR. ABRAHAMSON: Chairman, I wonder just before you start to hear evidence, if I
9 could briefly mention a matter, my name is William Abrahamson and I appear with
10:35:28 10 Mr. Sanfui and Mr. Marray for Monarch and some of the other individuals. It
11 just came to our attention that when limited representation was granted to our
12 clients, the reference was to Monarch Properties Limited and my solicitor was
13 just anxious that I would clarify to the Tribunal that we do also appear for
14 all the companies in the Monarch Group, including L&C Properties and Monarch
10:35:46 15 Services Properties.
16
17 CHAIRMAN: Well, we understood that and in so far as the granting of limited
18 representation was made, it applies to all those parties.
19
10:35:55 20 MR. ABRAHAMSON: That's the point I simply wanted to clarify. Thank you,
21 chairman.
22
23 MR. LARRY LOHAN, PREVIOUSLY SWORN, WAS EXAMINED AS FOLLOWS
24 BY MS. FOLEY:
10:36:13 25
26 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Mr. Lohan.
27
28 Q 1 MS. FOLEY: If I could take you back to where we left off on the last
29 occasion, Mr. Lohan, if I could have 7172 please. This is the map that was
10:36:27 30 being considered at the meeting of the 11th November 1993.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

2
10:36:41 1 Now, the Development Plan review commenced around October 1987 and at this
2 stage it's November 1993, a month from the end which is about six years into
3 the process. The map that we have here is where all of the yellow lands, both
4 Monarch lands and the surrounding lands are one house to the acre and then we
10:36:58 5 have, I don't know if you can see 4A and 4B, the two squares in the centre of
6 lands there which are zoned for C, town district centre and then the lands
7 beside that in white which are agriculture. I was wondering what you thought
8 of that map?
9 A Well, I know the area intimately because I live beside it, I am very poor at
10:37:24 10 map reading and my sense of direction is also poor but I know those lands
11 intimately.
12 Q 2 But I was wondering what you thought -- there's a large area, I think it's 178
13 hectares at two houses to the hectare which would be about 356 houses that the
14 entire of those yellow lands would take and then you have 4A and 4B which is
10:37:44 15 the town centre and the other two sides of the town centre are fields. So
16 from -- what would you think of that as a map for November 1993?
17 A Well if I take it back to my original motion to the council was to leave the
18 lands as they were until such time as all the infrastructure was in place and
19 that didn't actually happen until 1996. Unfortunately for me, my motion was
10:38:08 20 roundly defeated, so I had to accept that and move on and consider other
21 elements.
22 Q 3 What would your opinion be of it, that where you have a town centre surrounded
23 on two sides by fields and the other two sides by 356 houses?
24 A I was totally against the town centre and I put down a motion to have it
10:38:27 25 rezoned down to neighbourhood centre.
26 Q 4 And I think the Tribunal has heard that the developers wouldn't have been
27 prepared to develop the lands at one house to the acre, that it wouldn't have
28 been viable and you said yourself on the last occasion that from your own point
29 of view, by the time it had come to November 1993, you didn't think one house
10:38:44 30 to the acre was good development.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

3
10:38:46 1 A I thought it would be very bad development of a very important parcel of land
2 because on the other side of the N11, you have houses at 16 to the acre, up to
3 2/3,000 houses, so I thought would be very elitist to have that type, in other
4 words a two tier society, the very rich on one side of the N11 and the very
10:39:05 5 poor and unemployed on the other side of the N11.
6 Q 5 And would you as well that a town centre, that from the point of view of
7 getting tenants for a town centre where you are surrounded by fields and 356
8 houses, that that would not be commercially viable to develop either?
9 A Well my interest was the town of Dun Laoghaire which I regarded to be dying on
10:39:23 10 its feet.
11 Q 6 But at this point on this particular map, we now have a town centre and the
12 residential as I described to you, would you consider that that was a good
13 planning perspective, would you consider that to be a good and viable map?
14 A Well history has proven that it wasn't because today the centre that's there is
10:39:42 15 not doing that terribly well.
16 Q 7 Would you agree it was almost inevitable that change would have to happen?
17 A Yes.
18 Q 8 Would you think that this map was the result of careful consideration of the
19 planning issues and the needs of the Dublin community?
10:39:54 20 A Well once we came to Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council, I took my direction
21 from the manager and the professional planners. I know they had a view of how
22 the lands should be developed. There were times I found it difficult to
23 comprehend but as they were professional planners, I spoke to them and took
24 direction from them because I have no experience of planning, I was a new
10:40:15 25 councillor and I had to read myself in the situation, I felt I owed myself that
26 and I owed my community that and I also I would get, from the community as
27 well, I was getting mixed messages, total opposition to everything in
28 Cherrywood and total support for everything in Cherrywood and in between, you
29 had kind of --
10:40:33 30 Q 9 So would you agree there were two powerful lobby groups?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

4
10:40:36 1 A Absolutely. You had the Carrickmines Preservation Association on the one hand
2 who were willing to accept four houses to the acre at one stage, they changed
3 their minds subsequently, and then you had the Monarch proposals.
4 Q 10 And that -- would you agree this map might be the result of the impact of two
10:40:52 5 powerful lobbying groups rather than careful considered planning?
6 A Well the lands were already zoned in 1983, 167 acres was zoned in 1983 and that
7 was the fact I suppose you had to live with.
8 Q 11 With septic tank.
9 A You couldn't rezone it back to agriculture without huge legal cost and legal
10:41:08 10 implications.
11 Q 12 So it had to remain residential?
12 A I would have thought so, yes.
13 Q 13 Could I have 7226 and 7227 beside each other please.
14 A Yes, this is the motion for the last day, yes.
10:41:38 15 Q 14 11th November. Just to review, we were just pointing out that the area that
16 you have outlined there, you are proposing four to the, four houses to the acre
17 and that the rest remained at one?
18 A The last day when you brought this up, of course it was 13 years or more since
19 I seen it and I was totally vague, relatively vague about it, I just gave you
10:41:59 20 whatever I could remember. Naturally since then I have been talking about, not
21 talking about it, thinking about it, and I had no documentary evidence of any
22 type except what you provided for me to look back on, which I did.
23
24 I realised at the time that the manager -- this was a compromised motion on the
10:42:19 25 manager's proposal, I know, your honour, you have problems with it or
26 understanding where it came from, there were three ruling parties in the
27 council at the time, Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats, of
28 which we were two, and my name would be attached to that motion because I was
29 part of the ruling group.
10:42:37 30 Q 15 I don't understand what you mean by part of the ruling group?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

5
10:42:43 1 A Well the group who elected the Cathaoirleach.
2 Q 16 Oh I see.
3 A Like in the Dail, we were a coalition, if you like.
4 Q 17 Okay. So you are saying this was a compromise between the manager, what the
10:42:56 5 manager was proposing and what else?
6 A It was a compromise with what the manager was proposing and what the council as
7 a group were willing to vote for or to accept. And centre to it was the
8 capping of the district centre down to neighbourhood centre, which would of
9 course have negative impact on the development.
10:43:16 10 Q 18 Sorry, Mr. Lohan, you described your group there as a coalition?
11 A That's right.
12 Q 19 Who would be part of the coalition?
13 A Fine Gael, Fianna Fail and Progressive Democrats.
14 Q 20 And what activities did the coalition discuss?
10:43:52 15 A Really I suppose the basic function of any coalition is that they elect the
16 Chair or the Cathaoirleach at any one time. There would be no inter-party
17 discussions on issues, probably each party would come to their own conclusion
18 and then --
19 Q 21 Such as motions or --
10:44:16 20 A Yes and would you accept it or would you go with it or might you go with it.
21 Q 22 Your coalition was formed principally for the election of the Cathaoirleach?
22 A That's right, yes.
23 Q 23 Mr. Lohan, you described yourselves as part of the ruling group.
24 A Yes, the group that elect the Cathaoirleach, yes.
10:44:43 25 Q 24 And would that mean that you would have a majority?
26 A Yes, we would have.
27 Q 25 So that Fine Gael, the Progressive Democrats --
28 A And Fianna Fail.
29 Q 26 And Fianna Fail. If I could have please page 2359, this is a map of the lands
10:45:12 30 following the 11th November 1993 meeting and the success of your motion. If
www.pcr.ie Day 650

6
10:45:22 1 you could see the lands outlined in red, the yellow part, sorry the lands
2 outlined in red are Monarch lands, the yellow lands are now ten to the hectare,
3 the blue remained agricultural and the C are still town centre and the yellow
4 around are at one to the acre. I was wondering what you thought of that map,
10:45:41 5 did you feel it was an improvement on the previous map?
6 A That, I can't recall what I thought at the time. I do remember questioning
7 when the motion was presented whether there was going to be access for the
8 development of the lands and I remember being informed at the Wyattville end,
9 there would be access within a year but at the further end of the lands, there
10:46:07 10 wouldn't be access until maybe 7, 8, 10 years, until the motorway was complete.
11 So the access was the big problem with the developments of the land in total.
12 Q 27 Which end of the lands do you say there was difficulty with access?
13 A The upper end, towards the M50 side; the Southeastern Motorway side.
14 Q 28 If I could have page 3983 please. This is a letter from Phil Reilly dated the
10:46:33 15 23rd February '94, replying to you and it's a request for support for a T box.
16 A That's right.
17 Q 29 For the Alana club?
18 A When I was Cathaoirleach in Dun Laoghaire I was very much involved in local
19 community activity and the Alana club are a drug free group who support people
10:46:56 20 who have alcohol or drug problems, so they were short of funds and I said I
21 would help them in a fund-raising event, that was it.
22 Q 30 I was wondering how well do you know Mr. Reilly, I see there is a handwritten
23 note on it saying "Larry Lohan reckoned Monarch should have first option on the
24 T box and matters like that" and I was wondering how you knew Mr. Reilly?
10:47:24 25 A I met Mr. Reilly a few times when their road show was first put out because I
26 went along as often as I could to see it and to get to know exactly what they
27 were proposing. Eventually I told them I couldn't support them, but that's
28 when I would have known Phil Reilly but mostly it would have been through
29 Mr. Lynn, Richard Lynn, that I would offer anything like this.
10:47:48 30 Q 31 Can I have page 5084 please, this is around the same time, it's the end of
www.pcr.ie Day 650

7
10:47:55 1 April 1994, and it's an expense claim form for Mr. Lynn suggesting that in that
2 week, he met yourself and he is charging expenses of 40 pounds 53 pence
3 attributable to this meeting, do you recall meetings alone between yourself and
4 Mr.--
10:48:11 5 A I told you the last day, I would have no recall of small items like that,
6 because I would never recall something like that myself.
7 Q 32 You wouldn't recall having had a meeting?
8 A No. I recall having met Richard several times outside council meetings and
9 that but --
10:48:26 10 Q 33 But not on a one to one?
11 A I wouldn't, no.
12 Q 34 If I could have the map at page 2722 please. This is in April 1994 and it's a
13 draft area action plan suggested by the manager. You will see the lands
14 outlined in red there, the Monarch lands.
10:48:57 15 A Yes.
16 Q 35 But the plan was initiated as I say by the manager and the planners, the
17 residential densities have been increased. There was 65 and a half acres zoned
18 B and G which are considered anomalies. They would be the agricultural lands
19 that you have seen on the previous maps and the residential densities have been
10:49:16 20 increased, there's no mention of a science and technology park here.
21
22 I don't know if you recall in May 1994 Councillor Gilmore proposed a motion
23 "That the committee welcomed the development of a science and technology park
24 in the Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown area and in order to encourage and facilitate
10:49:36 25 such development, the council agrees to review the zoning of the lands at
26 Cherrywood Loughlinstown which are owned by Monarch Properties."
28 Q 36 Do you recall this proposal of a science and technology park?
29 A The science and technology issue arose towards the end of 1993 for the first
10:49:52 30 time, I was Cathaoirleach at the time and I remembered the manager telling me
www.pcr.ie Day 650

8
10:49:55 1 about this proposed science and technology development and they asked me what
2 would be my attitude towards them and I said I would totally approve of it
3 because all my life I had been in education and at the time we were
4 endeavouring to get a third level institution into Dun Laoghaire which we
10:50:10 5 subsequently got. Which is now the Institute of Art Design and Technology. So
6 anything that would be favouring employment or for third level students or
7 research and development, that type of thing I would be totally supportive of.
8 Q 37 And would you have heard this proposal of a science and technology park before
9 the November 1993 motions that finalised the --
10:50:32 10 A It was about November 1993 I heard about it for the first time. I knew about
11 the one in Limerick and I had been down there at the University of Limerick and
12 I knew how exciting a project they were, particularly as we had UCD down the
13 road only five kilometres. I felt it would be an ideal location, there was no
14 guarantee we were going to get it.
10:51:00 15 Q 38 Was that your understanding, that it was the Monarch lands were only one of the
16 areas proposed as a science and technology park?
17 A That's right.
18 Q 39 There were a number of other lands competing as it were?
19 A I think there was a special group put together from our council to deal with
10:51:09 20 the minister at the time, enterprise and whatever, Minister for Enterprise, to
21 see if we could get --
22 Q 40 Get it into your area?
23 A Into our area.
24 Q 41 But there were other areas in Dublin, is that right?
10:51:22 25 A Yes, it was on open competition really at the time.
26 Q 42 Later on at this meeting in June 1994, Monarch were anxious for the manager to
27 prepare a draft variation to include the science and technology park and if I
28 could have 5202 please. And one of their goals was to -- point 2 there was "To
29 re-examine the areas noted in the report of the 23rd May 1994 for their present
10:52:05 30 zoning being anomalous" and this would refer to the B and G lands that was saw
www.pcr.ie Day 650

9
10:52:10 1 on the previous map which had been zoned for agriculture. At the end of the
2 note of this meeting, "The specific members should be approached on the basis
3 of moving and supporting a motion from the floor, in particular senior members
4 of the Progressive Democrats should be approached and their support obtained."
10:52:22 5 And I think page 5203 please, you see there third at the end of the list there?
6 A I see it.
7 Q 43 You have been highlighted as a person who's support should be sought and the
8 note is taken by Mr. Lynn on the 16th June 1994. Do you recall at this time
9 for the time of the proposal of the science and technology park being contacted
10:52:45 10 by Mr. Lynn seeking your support?
11 A I can't, but I do -- I can tell you that I was supportive of the development
12 from day one.
13 Q 44 So there would have been no difficulty in gaining your support?
14 A Absolutely none.
10:53:00 15 Q 45 I think on the 14th November 1994, agreement, "the manager informs the council
16 that agreement had been reached between Guardian Royal Properties, Monarch
17 Properties Limited about a potential purchase of one third of the lands which
18 would form the proposed science and technology park."
19 A I think that was for a joint venture.
10:53:20 20 Q 46 Joint venture.
21 A Because science and technology by their very nature are slow moving things, it
22 takes up to 10, 12 years to bring them to fruition, so it was going to entail
23 ongoing investment so the council would have to get involved to ensure that
24 such ongoing investment would be there.
10:53:37 25 Q 47 On this occasion the manager proposes that "the procedures for Draft Variation
26 Plan be set to place to provide for the rezoning of the lands for the park, the
27 reciting of the existing C zoned lands and the lands currently zoned
28 agriculture to be rezoned at a density of 16 houses to the hectare." And this
29 motion was agreed. Did you find that the zoning of 16 houses to the hectare
10:53:59 30 was preferable to the four houses to the acre which the other lands had?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

10
10:54:04 1 A Well eight to the acre or 16 to the hectare is the zoning on the other side of
2 the road. So I suppose I always felt that if you are going to zone something
3 properly and you are going to maximise open space, leisure activities and
4 activities that benefit the community the large, the higher the density that's
10:54:25 5 zoned, the more opportunity you have for providing these facilities.
6 Q 48 If I could have page 5518 please. This is another one of the expense claims
7 forms, Mr. Lohan, you just see there in December 1994, Mr. Lynn has noted
8 contact with yourself again there, you see the sum there of 78 which you have
9 already told the Tribunal you have no recollection of.
10:54:50 10 A None. I know -- I never had a meal with Mr. Lynn, I am absolutely sure of
11 that.
12 Q 49 And then on the 24th April 1995 the manager informs the council there were a
13 number of submissions, three in favour of the variation, 15 against but he
14 recommends that the variation takes place without amendment and there was a
10:55:10 15 vote in that regard, the vote is 23 for the variation without amendment and you
16 were in favour of that I think, that would be your --
17 A Yes.
18 Q 50 Could I have map 7283 please. This is the final map posed to the variation
19 where we see that the stripy lands there are the science and technology park,
10:55:47 20 the lands that are outlined in red and pale colour are ten to the hectare and
21 then the lands on the other side, the ones we were speaking of are 16 to the
22 hectare. 5619 please. This is a letter from Mr. Michael Riordan to
23 Mr. Richard Lynn from May 1995. Seeking support for the Dun Laoghaire Adult
24 Education Board for the 16th.
10:56:22 25 A Yes, that's correct, I was chairman of that board for eight years. Our
26 function was to take people who were illiterate, who couldn't read or write
27 over a period of years to give them reading and writing skills and numeracy
28 skills and each year we had a session where we would put on display the works
29 of the groups within the county for three days and on one occasion, our
10:56:47 30 president actually opened so it was quite a big event. And it was very
www.pcr.ie Day 650

11
10:56:50 1 important to the people concerned and I remember on one occasion, the year the
2 president opened it, one of our students who four years before couldn't read or
3 write was able to give a recital of his own poetry and for him that was a
4 hugely significant thing and his family. I was very proud of my involvement.
10:57:09 5 Q 51 I think Monarch had been regular supporters, they supported you for 100 pounds
6 in 1993 and this letter indicates that they supported you 200 pounds the
7 previous year?
8 A There was five or six companies we wrote to and Michael Riordan we wrote to
9 every year and generally they were all supportive of it.
10:57:34 10 Q 52 5735 please. Just to show you, Mr. Lohan, another one of these expense claims
11 formed and this one is for January '96, the weekend of 5th January 1986 again
12 indicating that Mr. Lynn had some contact with you that week.
13 A I have no recall of these events.
14 Q 53 The next sign of any contact is in June of 1996 at 6019 please and it's the
10:58:07 15 following year, again the adult education exhibition where you are seeking a
16 donation from Monarch Properties and again they donate 200 pounds to the cost
17 of the exhibition.
19 Q 54 6070 please. A couple of months later in August of 1996, Monarch at your
10:58:33 20 request contribute to tickets.
21 A That's right. The 3rd August 1996.
22 Q 55 8322 please. This is the cheque there, it appears to have been made out
23 directly to yourself. And in such circumstances, what would you then do?
24 A We had an accountant in charge of the draws and I'd hand all the cheques over
10:58:58 25 to him and where necessary, he would get me to endorse them but generally they
26 were made out directly to the Progressive Democrats, it would be unusual to
27 make one out to myself.
28 Q 56 Could I have 7465 please. This is the review of the 1993 Development Plan
29 these are the draft changes proposed by the manager and I think you see the
10:59:23 30 Monarch lands there, you see the yellow lands refer to changes 13 and 14 which
www.pcr.ie Day 650

12
10:59:27 1 is changing the zoning from AP10 to A and change 14, AP16 to A and for the
2 purpose of maximising potential of the lands suitable for development and in
3 effect lifting the densities and changes 4 and 5 are the stripy lands, down at
4 the bottom of the lands, are to extend the science and technology park.
10:59:47 5 A That's correct.
6 Q 57 These changes passed through the council and there seems to be no opposition.
7 A As far as I can recall, there was very little opposition, I think there may
8 have been one or two but very little.
9 Q 58 And the extension of the science and technology park, what was your belief with
11:00:06 10 a view to that extension?
11 A I think we extended by 20 acres or something, I was supportive of that.
12 Q 59 What was the reasoning behind that?
13 A Again, everybody was so supportive of the science and technology and I think it
14 was developing as such a rate at that stage that it justified the zoning more
11:00:25 15 land because it would be filled.
16 Q 60 The park was being developed --
17 A The park would be filled, yes.
18 Q 61 Could I have 7258 please, this is the first display of the Draft Development
19 Plan of 1987 and a number of representations were received from Monarch
11:00:43 20 Properties there, you see the numbers if we could enlarge that bit there
21 please. You see their representation 360 at the top left representation?
22 A I see that, yes.
23 Q 62 And that was to extend the district centre and then the representation beside
24 it was to remove the cap on the district centre at 362 and then below that
11:01:07 25 representation 359 was to extend the science and technology parks across the
26 road.
27 A I I recall that is -- we resisted extending the cap, we had a cap and we wanted
28 the cap maintained because we wanted to development Dun Laoghaire and not
29 outside the town and particularly not in Monarch lands.
11:01:24 30 Q 63 I think while the motion to lift the cap was put, there was an amendment put to
www.pcr.ie Day 650

13
11:01:32 1 it, it was successful with the addition of the terms accepting the manager's
2 recommendation in his report that "The following specific objective replace the
3 cap, the retail elements on lands zoned DC at Cherrywood should compliment
4 adjoining land uses. As such it shall be of a size which will provide for the
11:01:46 5 local needs of the proposed science and technology park, the proposed business
6 park and the adjoining residential neighbourhoods." That isn't quite as firm
7 as a cap, is that correct?
8 A No it's not.
9 Q 64 And also the motion to extend the science and technology park was also
11:02:02 10 successful but the amendment to include without prejudice to the advancement of
11 the objective of a public golf course.
13 Q 65 So I think at this stage the lands are now fully developed and there are no
14 areas remaining that are not suitable for development. So from a developer's
11:02:20 15 perspective, this was a very happy outcome, would you agree?
16 A Well I was very very supportive of the pay and play, the golf thing and I was
17 very supportive of the science and technology and the zoning, I suppose that we
18 ultimately arrived at was in keeping with the zoning in the area generally, the
19 density levels, not the zoning, the density levels. They allowed for the
11:02:44 20 development of Druid's Glen and they allowed for a lot of open space.
21 Q 66 Could I have page 6321 please. This appears to be an internal memo of Monarch
22 Properties addressed to Mr. Richard Lynn, copied to Noel Murray. I think Noel
23 Murray was the marketing director of Monarch Properties, did you know Noel
24 Murray?
11:03:08 25 A No, I think I met him once but I didn't know him. I knew of him.
26 Q 67 And the note indicates that you telephoned and you wanted to speak with
27 Mr. Lynn about the arts centre in Bloomfields?
28 A There was a proposed arts centre in Bloomfields and it looked as if the arts
29 group weren't going to take it up. The adult education centre, we were located
11:03:28 30 in the VEC in Sallynoggin and we needed space in Dun Laoghaire very badly and
www.pcr.ie Day 650

14
11:03:33 1 we were just inquiring if it was possible maybe we could maybe rent that space
2 if it become available, it subsequently didn't become available anyway.
3 Q 68 Could I have page 2078 please. This is the statement of Mr. Sweeney and dated
4 June 2000. And at page 2079 please, he indicates a donation to yourself on the
11:04:02 5 12th January 1999 for 450 pounds. Do you recall this?
6 A I can't recall it but if he did, I would have to check that up for you, it
7 would be in the context of the local elections that were taking place that
8 year. But I definitely cannot recall getting any such payment from him.
9 Q 69 I think Mr. Lohan in your statement you told the Tribunal that you never
11:04:29 10 received any political contributions or gifts from anyone associated with the
11 Monarch Group or any of the people outlined?
12 A That's absolutely true, I made that statement in April 1999.
13 Q 70 So you are not sure whether this payment took place or not?
14 A I have absolutely no recall of but I will check it up for you and see but I --
11:04:47 15 Q 71 And there's a further payment, a contribution arranged by Mr. Richard Lynn in
16 June of 1999 indicating a payment of 500 pounds to yourself for the local
17 election expenses?
19 Q 72 But you didn't in your statement, you didn't refer to this donation?
11:05:04 20 A I made the statement in April 1999. That was in June 1999.
21 Q 73 Excuse me.
22 A Sorry, April -- which was it. No, my original statement.
23 Q 74 That's 7620 please. This is in replay to the Tribunal's letter of April 2006.
24 A Yeah, I took the view that the Monarch lands had ceased in 1998 and that any
11:05:40 25 information you wanted was up to that date.
26 Q 75 Could I have page 1300 please, this is the letter from the Tribunal to
27 yourself, Mr. Lohan, and at item 3 there if we could enlarge that please. "Any
28 payment or benefit you may have received from or on behalf of those listed at i
29 and ii" and I think you see there at ii, the names listed are the late
11:06:08 30 Mr. Phillip Monahan, Mr. Richard Lynn, Mr. Eddie Sweeney and Mr. Dominic
www.pcr.ie Day 650

15
11:06:16 1 Glennane and Mr. Phillip Reilly. That was the question asked of you, Mr.
2 Lohan.
3 A I took that being a reference to the period of the development of the Monarch
4 lands.
11:06:23 5 Q 76 If I could just enlarge, you see the last line of the second paragraph there
6 please, Mr. Lohan?
7 A I do indeed.
8 Q 77 It says, "From the 1st January 1989 to date."
9 A Yes, I am sorry, I must have misread that.
11:06:40 10 Q 78 Just to refer you then briefly to 6619 which is a request from yourself to
11 Mr. Sweeney.
12 A Yes. That was for a draw we were running too.
13 Q 79 You indicate that you have recently been appointed to the national executive
14 party and asked to help out some financial problems and Mr. Sweeney notes he
11:07:03 15 purchased seven tickets at 100 pounds each in support of your request.
17 Q 80 And then at page 1375 please, this is from the statement of Mr. Lynn, again you
18 will see items 7 and 8 there, around the same time period. A contribution to
19 the Dun Laoghaire Adult Education Board of 800 pounds.
11:07:29 20 A That would be correct, yes.
21 Q 81 And then the tickets for the grand draw of 100 pounds and then page 1376
22 please. The last two items on that list.
23 A Yes, Dun Laoghaire Education Committee, fine, and local election. I accept
24 that, yes.
11:07:49 25 Q 82 Thank you, Mr. Lohan, if you would answer any questions anybody else might have
26 for you.
27 A Thank you very much.
28
29 JUDGE FAHERTY: Just one question, Mr. Lohan.
11:07:59 30 A Yes, your honour.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

16
11:08:01 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: Could I have 2359, I think it's a map, the Development Plan
2 map of 1993 and 7283 beside it if I could for a second. I just want to ask,
3 Mr. Lohan, the one on the right is the lands after the variation of the 1993
4 plan and I think that was finally, I have forgotten the day, I think it was
11:08:50 5 1995 it was actually adopted.
7 MS. DILLON: April 1995.
9 JUDGE FAHERTY: April 1995. If you like I suppose it's about 18 months or so
11:09:00 10 after the draft development, the 1993 plan. And you were saying earlier that
11 when you came to sign the motion in November of 1993, that that was a
12 compromise. And I just want to ask you, ultimately 18 months later, all of the
13 Monarch lands are zoned otherwise than agriculture, isn't that correct, there's
14 no agriculture lands left?
11:09:28 15 A Yes.
16
17 JUDGE FAHERTY: And in November 1993, Monarch had their lands on ten houses to
18 the hectare. To the right, if you like of the old 1983 line, isn't that
19 correct?
11:09:39 20 A Yes.
21
22 JUDGE FAHERTY: And by April 1995, they had retained that and then they had
23 this, obviously the science and technology park. And the district centre
24 capped.
26
27 JUDGE FAHERTY: And then they had 16 houses to the hectare, to the left of the
28 old 83 line, is that correct?
11:10:01 30
www.pcr.ie Day 650

17
11:10:02 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: I am just want to ask you, all that seems to have happened
2 without, as I understand it, any compromise having to be achieved, is that
3 correct, Mr. Lohan?
4 A Well as I said before, after '92 onwards, I took my direction from the county
11:10:24 5 manager and the professional planners. What they proposed, I tended to support
6 mostly.
8 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes but just if you look at that at that, 1995 variation map
9 and you took at the '93 map, that's the, is that the Brides Glen there I think,
11:10:46 10 is it?
11 A The Druid's Glen.
12
13 JUDGE FAHERTY: I beg your pardon, the Druid's Glen, there seems to be quite a
14 diverse density zoning pattern there now, isn't that correct by '95?
11:10:58 15 A As far as I can remember, yes.
16
17 JUDGE FAHERTY: You have one house to the acre, is that right, and then you
18 have 16 houses to the hectare and ten houses to the hectare. And in terms of,
19 just asking if anybody is looking at that and within the council, when that
11:11:17 20 came to be proposed, were the lands north of the Druid's Glen still within the
21 jurisdiction of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown?
22 A The Druid's Glen runs through Cherrywood.
23
24 JUDGE FAHERTY: As i understand it, the Cherrywood lands are still -- So the
11:11:31 25 houses, I am just wondering the houses, the lands that were zoned one house to
26 the acre, when you were considering if you like looking at densities and you
27 seem concerned about densities, you have given reasons as to why you voted why
28 you did, Mr. Lohan, that you didn't want an elitist pattern developing, which
29 obviously one can understand.
11:11:57 30 A Yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

18
11:11:58 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: I am just wondering why, if that was a compromise in November
2 1993, how come some 18 months later, there was no great, I haven't heard
3 anyway, discussion about giving 16 houses to the hectare to lands that were
4 zoned agricultural, already zoned lands at one house to the acre, I know it's a
11:12:27 5 very long-winded question but you get my drift.
6 A I understand where you are coming from but I honestly cannot recall as to why,
7 what my reasoning or my thinking was at the time on that.
9 JUDGE FAHERTY: All right and just one other thing. You said last time you
11:12:43 10 were here that Mr. Marren asked you to sign the motion, is that correct?
11 A That would be normal within the group.
12
13 JUDGE FAHERTY: That was the motion on the 11th, do you have of recollection
14 of being actually asked or?
11:13:00 15 A I don't have a recollection but I now I that's what would have happened.
16
17 JUDGE FAHERTY: Obviously your signature is on it. I see. All right. Thanks
18 very much.
19
11:13:04 20 CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you very much.
21 A Thank you.
22
24
11:13:10 25 MS. DILLON: Mr. Gerry Gannon please.
26
27
28
29
30
www.pcr.ie Day 650

19
11:13:12 1 MR. GERRY GANNON, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS EXAMINED AS
2 FOLLOWS BY MS. O' RAW.
4 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Mr. Gannon.
11:13:41 5 A Good morning.
6 Q 83 MS. O'RAW: Good morning, Mr. Gannon, my name is Eunice O' Raw, I will be
7 taking you through your evidence this morning. The Tribunal wrote to you in
8 April of this year with a note of a meeting that occurred back in August 1991.
9 A That's correct.
11:13:54 10 Q 84 And asked for you to provide a narrative statement and you did so. Just in
11 relation to that particular minute of a meeting, it appears that you attended
12 at a meeting with two other people or the three of you appear to have come
13 together, Mr. Noel Smyth, and Mr. Louis Scully, is that right?
11:14:16 15 Q 85 You have given evidence to the Tribunal before.
16 A Yes.
17 Q 86 And I think in that evidence, you said that you had a relationship with Mr.
18 Smyth?
11:14:25 20 Q 87 And that was in relation to lands at Airfield, is that correct?
22 Q 88 In relation to those lands out at Airfield, the nature of the relationship that
23 existed there, Mr. Smyth owned the lands, I think you told that to the Tribunal
24 before, and then you were involved in obtaining planning permission in relation
11:14:49 25 to those lands, is that correct?
26 A I also had some of the lands owned myself in my name too, so there was a kind
27 of a both parties came together to get the whole thing sorted out.
28 Q 89 Did you purchase the lands together at the time?
29 A No, he purchased the lands, I forget now going back because obviously this was
11:15:04 30 the last, this hasn't been brought to me before.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

20
11:15:07 1 Q 90 Yes. So when did you come on board with Mr. Smyth in relation to obtaining the
2 planning permission for these lands, the Airfield lands? Was it around about
3 the same time or did Mr. Smyth seek to obtain planning permission first of all?
4 A No.
11:15:26 5 Q 91 So it was he brought you on board to obtain the planning permission?
6 A Yes.
7 Q 92 Were the lands zoned for residential purposes at the time?
8 A Yes.
9 Q 93 I see. So you didn't need any rezoning done at the time, it was just the
11:15:38 10 planning permissions?
11 A It was just basically a sewerage problem, there was a problem with the sewerage
12 capacity.
13 Q 94 I see, okay. So if we could have a look at a document please at 8549. And
14 this is a letter dated the 19th June 1991, it's a letter from Mr. Smyth to
11:16:02 15 Mr. Louis Scully and it's in relation to the Cherrywood lands and he encloses
16 various different documents there in relation to the location maps, etc. and he
17 said "We anticipate that the 1983 plan is unlikely to be the one that will
18 finally be adopted". I think he is referring there to the 1983 road plan,
19 "However, perhaps you would like into the matter and set up a meeting with
11:16:26 20 Gerry and we can discuss it further." So this is in June 1991, Mr. Smyth
21 writing to Mr. Scully and suggesting that Mr. Scully would look into the matter
22 and set up a meeting with Gerry, do you think you are that Gerry referred to in
23 that letter there?
24 A More than likely.
11:16:46 25 Q 95 Can I ask the relationship then between yourself, Mr. Smyth and Mr. Scully, was
26 Mr. Scully involved in the Airfield lands as well?
27 A No, Mr. Scully was -- he dealt in land, he was an agent, a land agent. An
28 auctioneer.
29 Q 96 An estate agent and auctioneer, right. And after this letter was written, were
11:17:08 30 you contacted, do you think, by Mr. Scully? Or by Mr. Smyth in relation to
www.pcr.ie Day 650

21
11:17:14 1 these lands. We see that the minute of the meeting you were sent by the
2 Tribunal was in August of 1991, this letter is written in June '91. And you
3 attended a meeting in August '91. So presumably, between June and August, you
4 were contacted by Mr. Smyth or Mr. Scully.
11:17:37 5 A I have no recollection of it, I might have been, done.
6 Q 97 However, you ultimately ended up at a meeting in Monarch on the 27th August
7 1991?
8 A That's correct.
9 Q 98 Can you recall what was the intention of you attending this particular meeting,
11:17:53 10 what was the purpose behind it?
11 A Well to the best of my knowledge obviously in 1991, it was a long time ago and
12 the meeting wasn't a very long meeting as such.
13 Q 99 Yes.
14 A I do remember going into this big boardroom which was very impressive and I
11:18:08 15 remember we were a bit late, the meetings was a bit late but I think the main
16 thing that was the problem there, I think that in 1991 and correct me if I am
17 wrong because this is only meeting I think I had with about the land, I think
18 there was no sewerage line in Cabinteely at that particular time, there was no
19 sewerage capacity and obviously if you are to build houses, whether it's one to
11:18:35 20 the acre or five to the acre or six to the acre, you need a sewer line and I
21 think the houses at that stage were zoned on septic tanks, if I can remember
22 correctly.
23 Q 100 Yes.
24 A And I suppose why I was brought into the meeting probably was to see if it was
11:18:48 25 possible that a new sewer line which was about three miles away, again I am
26 only going from memory, I have no maps or recollection or no details of it,
27 that the sewer be brought in, I feel it needed a sewer line brought to the
28 site.
29 Q 101 At the time the lands were zoned for low density residential.
11:19:08 30 A I think it was one house to the acre, I am not quite sure but I think it was.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

22
11:19:12 1 Q 102 Do you remember a discussion or what was said about the zoning of the lands and
2 the density of the housing?
3 A Well not really. I think my view at the time was that septic tanks wouldn't be
4 viable on a large septic tank probably is viable on a house on, in a country
11:19:39 5 area but not in an area like that.
6 Q 103 Was there intention then to increase the density on the lands?
7 A No, it was totally a sewer line, the sewer line was far away and I had -- we
8 had already done a sewer line in Airfield, so I think we were the pain purpose
9 of the thing was to see could a sewer line be brought from Cabinteely to
11:20:00 10 wherever the sewer could be taken through.
11 Q 104 And out in Airfield, you had to have a sewer line put in?
12 A Correct.
13 Q 105 And was it the intention then that a similar project would be done here to see
14 about how to get the sewer line out?
11:20:14 15 A We brought a sewer line I think about two and a half mile in Airfield and this
16 was roughly, now I am going totally from memory, I think roughly it was
17 something similar distance, maybe a bit longer to get into a pipe where there
18 was capacity in the pipe to take houses.
19 Q 106 If we just have a look at the minute of the meeting, it said "NS" whom I take
11:20:34 20 to be Noel Smyth, "introduced Gerry Gannon and Louis Scully and stated that --
21 A Sorry.
22 Q 107 Page reference 3314. Sorry it should be appearing before you now.
23 A Yes.
24 Q 108 "NS introduced Gerry Gannon and Louis Scully and stated that GG" who I take to
11:20:56 25 be yourself "had obtained a planning permission at Grange Road, Malahide".
26 They would be the Airfield lands, would they?
27 A Correct.
28 Q 109 "On which Abbey Homes had had seven or eight refusals previously. He obtained
29 permission within --
11:21:09 30 A Sorry, that's a little bit of a exaggeration, I don't think it's seven or
www.pcr.ie Day 650

23
11:21:14 1 eight. But that's what's there but I think they had one or two.
2 Q 110 You think they had one or two refusals. Did you have a look at the planning
3 application that had been put in by Abbey Homes?
4 A Absolutely.
11:21:26 5 Q 111 And where Abbey Homes --
6 A I would have my own engineers looking at this obviously and my architects to
7 see what was the problems.
8 Q 112 And do you recall the difference between your application and the application
9 that had been put in by Abbey Homes?
11:21:40 10 A A sewer line.
11 Q 113 The sewer line. That was how it was achieved.
12 A Sewer pipe, well capacity, you can't flush a toilet without a sewer pipe. And
13 they were doing something similar that time to what Monarch was doing, they
14 were trying to put in a treatment plant at that stage but I thought wouldn't
11:21:58 15 work. It was in a residential area so it's different ways and means, you know.
16 Q 114 "He obtained permission within a 15 month period for 770 houses with an
17 additional 135 houses to come together with restaurant, pub, etc, D was not
18 proceeding with a refurbishment at Donaghmede pending Malahide." Do you recall
19 what that is about?
11:22:21 20 A I think that that was reference to Dunnes Stores.
21 Q 115 "GG was in contact with Manor Parks Homes in the sum of 6.5 million pounds.
22 (David Daly) prior to planning permission." Can you tell us what that was
23 about?
24 A Manor Park had actually entered -- again I had -- Manor Park had entered a
11:22:49 25 contract with us to purchase the lands.
26 Q 116 The purchase the Airfield lands?
27 A Airfield lands, yes.
28 Q 117 And "GG had looked at the Cherrywood site and recognised that there was some
29 difficulties attached." So that would indicate that you had done some work on
11:23:07 30 this beforehand?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

24
11:23:10 1 A Well --
2 Q 118 Before this meeting?
3 A I knew there was a service problem, that there was no sewerage in Cabinteely at
4 the time.
11:23:17 5 Q 119 Right. And what were you proposing to do then?
6 A Well my engineers was proposing to put in a new sewer line from where were the
7 capacity was in the existing sewers in, I honestly don't know at the time where
8 it was, I think it was up in Shanganagh or somewhere. That was our proposal at
9 this stage, this was only very brief, it's just one look into a meeting, it
11:23:43 10 wasn't as if we done detailed studies on it or anything like that.
11 Q 120 How did the three of you come together to present this to Monarch, yourself,
12 Mr. Smyth, and Mr. Scully?
13 A Well I suppose Mr. Scully was a valuer, Noel Smyth was a solicitor.
14 Q 121 And the three of you had operated previously together?
11:24:11 15 A Yes, well he'd be -- Yes.
16 Q 122 And you decided to broach Monarch with this possible assistance, or to provide
17 a service?
18 A I don't quite know it was like that. I think they could have approached Noel
19 Smyth, I don't know, he might have rang me to see about it.
11:24:37 20 Q 123 Yes and according to this note here. "He was prepared to offer his services to
21 provide as follows, GG to look after residential." Was that in relation to
22 providing the sewerage line?
23 A Yes.
24 Q 124 "Monarch look after retail, GG use own architect for residential, GG will enter
11:24:55 25 contract with Manor Homes. He states he has a good rapport with officials."
26 Can you tell me about that rapport that you had with officials and in obtaining
27 what whatever it was that needed to be obtained to provide this residential
28 development?
29 A Well I suppose that, you are talking about 1991 when the services in Dublin
11:25:21 30 were very bad and the services in Dublin at that stage was, there was usually
www.pcr.ie Day 650

25
11:25:26 1 one pipe which also connected to surface water and sewerage into the one pipe
2 rather than nowadays it all goes into the one pipe, at the time there was a
3 certain amount of people connecting surface water mains into the sewer pipe. I
4 suppose what we did up in the last site, we disconnected, our proposals was to
11:25:49 5 disconnect all the existing surface water pipes into a separate surface water
6 main and to keep the sewer pipe separate and this was something similar what we
7 were thinking about here.
8 Q 125 But can you tell me about the contact you would have had with officials in
9 order to obtain --
11:26:04 10 A Personally I had no contact at all myself, my engineers would have, they had no
11 contact at this stage, this was just a proposal we were going to do, it never
12 materialised.
13 Q 126 But in relation to Airfield, for example, did you have any contact with the
14 officials then?
11:26:16 15 A No, not me personally, my engineers would have been in contact with them, I am
16 not an engineering person, so obviously that is an engineering detail that
17 would have to be worked out over many months.
18 Q 127 And your role was in relation to the development of the lands but you would
19 have other professionals, architects and engineers?
11:26:38 20 A I am not an architect or an engineer.
21 Q 128 Yes. So what exactly was your role in relation to it? If you are not the
22 architect or the engineer, just to explain exactly the nature of the service
23 that you would have provided to Monarch?
24 A Well it happened they didn't want me at all but I suppose we would have looked
11:27:00 25 at bringing the pipe from A to B and seeing, first of all, was it viable to do
26 and secondly, could it be done.
27 Q 129 Yes. There was a further meeting that occurred on the 3rd September 1991, this
28 is at 3328. And again, you are present with Mr. Noel Smyth, Mr. Louis Scully,
29 Mr. Edward Sweeney, Mr. Noel Murray and Mr. Richard Lynn, Monarch and it said
11:27:38 30 "NS stated that GG required to know the area of land devoted for residential
www.pcr.ie Day 650

26
11:27:43 1 purposes and that to be retained for commercial and retail." Can you recall
2 any discussions about how the land was going to be used at that time?
3 A I haven't seen this before actually.
4 Q 130 It should have been in the documentation that was furnished to you, I believe a
11:28:00 5 CD Rom of the entire brief was sent to you, so ...
6 A I haven't seen it.
7 Q 131 If you would like a minute to have a look at it.
8 A Yes.
9 Q 132 And there's a following page as well, page 3329 please. Just to give you an
11:28:49 10 opportunity to have a look at it. I think this appears to be the package that
11 you are presenting to Monarch of services that you would have provided and in
12 relation to that particular package, "NS then outlined the package required by
13 Mr. Gannon and Louis Scully to be involved in Cherrywood."
14 A I am sorry, can you put up --
11:29:17 15 Q 133 Sorry of course 3328 please. This is on the first page, it was a payment of
16 20,000 pounds for this they would open up discussions with David Daly in
17 relation to the sale of the residential lands to Manor Homes. I think you have
18 already said that you had an involvement with Manor Homes in your Airfield
19 site?
11:29:38 20 A Yes.
21 Q 134 On signing of a contract for the residential lands, payment of 100,000 pounds
22 on the grant of planning permission, 12 percent of residential contract price
23 within this NS was to receive 2.5 percent of which he would not be taking and
24 then it goes on to outline further amounts there. Who, can you recall,
11:30:00 25 negotiated or who came up with those particular figures?
26 A Who wrote the letter?
27 Q 135 Well this is a minute of the meeting that occurred and this is the Mr. Smyth
28 outlining the package that was, that he said that was being required by
29 Mr. Gannon and Mr. Scully.
11:30:21 30 A I don't actually know. I think it was just discussions, just a discussion that
www.pcr.ie Day 650

27
11:30:25 1 was brought through the same as the last letter, I don't think there's any
2 actually -- I don't know to be quite honest. It's the first I have seen of it.
3 Q 136 On the following page at 3329, it indicates there "E.S" whom I take to be
4 Mr. Sweeney indicated "that GG should do was to provide a layout which he felt
11:30:50 5 David Daly would like and make a submission advising timing etc, after further
6 discussion, NS submitted that the package as outlined by him should be
7 considered by Monarch and if acceptable, heads of agreement should be entered
8 into. The payment of the 20,000 pounds initial fee would be made and work
9 could then be commenced by both Mr. Gannon and Mr. Scully." Was that 20,000
11:31:12 10 ever paid, that initial fee in?
11 A No.
12 Q 137 Did you do any work in relation to assisting Monarch in providing, in obtaining
13 residential --
14 A No, I have no documentation at all about it, if I had I would have given it to
11:31:28 15 the Tribunal.
16 Q 138 You mightn't have any documentation but do you recall assisting Monarch at all
17 in their endeavours?
18 A No.
19 Q 139 Do you recall any discussion about changing of zoning or changing of density at
11:31:42 20 this later meeting?
21 A No. I was taking the land basically at one house per acre which was in 1991, I
22 think Monarch was trying to achieve some development on the site at that stage
23 because obviously they had paid a lot of money for the site. So --
24 Q 140 Yes. Well at this time the lands were zoned on a very low density residential
11:32:07 25 basis. Now, you have been presented at this earlier meeting as some one who
26 had obtained a large amount or high density planning permission on other lands,
27 was something similar being sought by Monarch here?
28 A I would say it probably was. They were trying to maximise their lands.
29 Q 141 And given that their lands were zoned with low density residential, how did you
11:32:35 30 propose to them you could obtain this?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

28
11:32:38 1 A As I say, I didn't make any proposal to them, it was a general talk to them
2 about what their views were and what they were trying to do on it, I never made
3 no actual submission to them on drawings or anything at that stage. Because
4 the first of all the thing that we had to do was, we had to find out if you
11:32:57 5 could get a sewer pipe to the lands which we didn't follow up on that.
6 Q 142 I see. But the zoning at that time was low density, so there would have to be
7 a change in the zoning.
8 A Well, we weren't looking at that, we were looking at the house per acre as was
9 there, what we were trying to do first was see could we get a sewer line into
11:33:17 10 the site and then probably afterwards that would be a different --
11 Q 143 So to get a sewer line put in first and then to get a change in the zoning --
12 A That would be my view to get a sewer line into the place because there was no
13 sewer line.
14 Q 144 Thank you Mr. Gannon if you have any questions.
11:33:33 15
17 A Thank you, your honour.
18
11:33:37 20
21 MS. DILLON: Mr. Sean Barrett please.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
www.pcr.ie Day 650

29
11:33:46 1 MR. SEAN BARRETT, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS EXAMINED AS
2 FOLLOWS BY MS. DILLON:
4 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Mr. Barrett.
6 Q 145 Good morning, Mr. Barrett, you have previously given evidence to the Tribunal
7 but briefly, you are a member of the Fine Gael political party and between June
8 of 1991 and December of 1993, you were a member of Dublin County Council, and
9 after December of 1993, you became a member of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County
11:34:33 10 Council?
11 A That is correct.
12 Q 146 After 1993, insofar as you were a member of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County
13 Council, I think that the documentation shows that in late 1995, your
14 involvement with Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council and these lands ceased
11:34:49 15 and you had little or nothing to do with the lands thereafter, isn't that the
16 position?
17 A No, late 1994, I finished because I was appointed to the new government.
18 Q 147 Yes. That's correct and I think in prior to 1991, you had previously been a
19 member of Dublin County Council up to 1982.
21 Q 148 And then you retook your seat or stood in the local elections in June of 1991
22 and were elected, isn't that the position?
24 Q 149 By the time you were elected in June of 1991, certain things had happened to
11:35:23 25 the Cherrywood lands and I will ask you some questions about that. But can the
26 Tribunal take it, Mr. Barrett, that you would have known this entire area and
27 location very, very well?
28 A Well as part of my constituency even though I wasn't a member of council.
29 Q 150 Yes. And would it be fairs to say and indeed the Tribunal has heard evidence
11:35:44 30 as late as yesterday from Mr. O'Herlihy, that you were opposed to high density
www.pcr.ie Day 650

30
11:35:50 1 residential development in the Carrickmines Valley?
2 A Well the position I took was that these lands had been zoned in 1983 at one
3 house to the acre which one would regard as sort of a holding exercise I don't
4 think anybody would ever envisage developing a large area like this at one
11:36:11 5 house to the acre on septic tank.
7 When I was elected in 1991, I took a decision that any change was premature
8 pending the overall plan being presented by the new Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown
9 County Council as to the whole area stretching from Cherrywood Road to
11:36:36 10 Glenamuck, so I decided that the best thing to do was to retain what was there
11 in 1983 and to allow the new Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council, through the
12 officials, to present a new action plan for the whole area. I didn't see any
13 sense in changing from one house to the acre to four houses to the acre because
14 it was evident to anybody who knew the area that the whole of that area would
11:37:01 15 not be developed purely for housing at four houses to the acre.
16 Q 151 And by that, do you mean that you would have known as your colleagues would
17 have known that portion of the land would have been developed the at a higher
18 density?
19 A All you have to do is look at the report presented, the technical reports
11:37:19 20 presented to the council at that time. They clearly stated that there was a
21 proposal to put a new main sewer, the Carrickmines sewer, into this area and
22 therefore they were indicating that this was in future a development area and
23 therefore anything that was going to be proposed, whether it was one house to
24 the acre or four houses to the acre was going to be totally irrelevant because
11:37:43 25 you had proposal for a new motorway to go through it, the line hadn't been
26 decided, there was a proposal for a new mains sewer, not just to service that
27 land but other lands, right up Glenamuck Road up to Stepaside. So that whole
28 area was going to change. My attitude was that in the 19 -- as it turned out
29 1993 Development Plan, that it was pointless changing from one house to the
11:38:13 30 acre to four houses to the acre, especially with the Monarch proposal which
www.pcr.ie Day 650

31
11:38:18 1 also included major retail development when Dun Laoghaire town was dying on its
2 feet, when you had a neighbourhood shopping centre in Loughlinstown, one in
3 Ballybrack, you had shopping facilities being developed in Shankill, you had a
4 major outlet in Cornelscourt and here we were talking about a major retail
11:38:42 5 development in an area that was totally virgin, a virgin area, and Dun
6 Laoghaire town dying on its feet, it didn't make any sense to me. I said to
7 people if you want to develop, go down to Dun Laoghaire and I will support you.
8 That was quite simple.
9 Q 152 And at that time, sorry, Mr. Barrett, you had effectively dual membership, you
11:39:03 10 were also a member of Dun Laoghaire Urban District Council, is that correct?
11 A No, I was never a member of.
12 Q 153 Sorry I beg your pardon. Can I show you the position that pertained when you
13 were elected in 1991, which was the map that went out on first public display
14 at page 7021.
11:39:29 15
16 Now, you will have seen this documentation, Mr. Barrett, in the brief. The
17 yellow lands are the residentially zoned lands and the lands caught within the
18 red boundary are those that were owned by Monarch Properties and in the first
19 public display, the yellow lands were proposed at four houses to the acre or
11:39:50 20 ten house to the hectare on piped sewage as a result of a map that was brought
21 to the council by the manager in May of 1991, just before the elections. And
22 that was the position that was put on the first public display. So when you
23 were reelected to the council, that was the position that pertained?
11:40:08 25 Q 154 Now, the manager in his report to the members had explained to the members that
26 it was more appropriate that all of these yellow lands be zoned on piped
27 sewerage because of the imminence of the Carrickmines sewer that was going to
28 service the area.
29 A Well that was the report that I saw.
11:40:26 30 Q 155 Yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

32
11:40:27 1 A I didn't necessarily agree with it mind you but --
2 Q 156 That was what the manager had said, that it was more appropriate, that instead
3 of it being on septic tank, it should be on piped sewage but the pipe itself
4 had not been built indeed at this stage, isn't that the position? Now --
11:40:42 5 A Or the capacity of the pipe hadn't been agreed either. That was an issue
6 following on 1992, 1993 as to the size was pipe that should be installed, as to
7 what level of development should be allowed.
8 Q 157 Because the size of the pipe or the diameter of the pipe would determine the
9 density of development, isn't that right?
11:41:04 10 A Correct.
11 Q 158 And that was a decision indeed I think that came before the council and there
12 was much discussion in the council about the size of the pipe, isn't that
13 right?
14 A Correct. That is correct.
11:41:13 15 Q 159 Because that was going to have a knock-on effect on what density, sorry, what
16 the capacity would be would determine the density, isn't that the position?
17 A That is correct but it would also determine what level of development should be
18 allowed in that whole area and that's why it was an action plan was needed for
19 this whole area in advance of any change. Which therefore my argument was,
11:41:38 20 which I stated publicly at various meetings and at the council meeting, my
21 argument was that it was premature to make any change when you hadn't decided
22 on the size of the pipe, the pipe hadn't been built, the road line hadn't been
23 decided, and yet we were changing from one house to the acre to four houses to
24 the acre. I couldn't understand it.
11:42:02 25 Q 160 But your position in relation to the lands was that you wanted an action area
26 plan and you wanted the matter left to the new Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County
27 Council which was due to take up office in early 1994, isn't that right?
28 A Immediately after the Development Plan. What I actually did was I asked the
29 planning officials to supply me with a map outlining the area in that general
11:42:25 30 area which was zoned at one house to the acre. They supplied me with the map
www.pcr.ie Day 650

33
11:42:31 1 and I tabled a motion which stated that these lands should be zoned at one
2 house to the acre, the reason why I worded it that way is because technically
3 some of it had gone on public display at four houses to the acre. So I got
4 that map supplied to me by the council and I tabled that motion.
11:42:49 5 Q 161 That's the motion that was dealt with by the council on the 27th May 1992.
7 Q 162 But I think that prior to that, in late November 1991, it appears somebody
8 else, the Tribunal heard from Mr. Bill O'Herlihy, you may have had a meeting
9 with Mr. O'Herlihy or some of the Monarch people who wanted to make their
11:43:12 10 proposal to you?
12 Q 163 Did you attend a meeting in the offices of Monarch Properties to view the
13 display that they had or their proposals?
14 A I did.
11:43:22 15 Q 164 Can you remember first of all who you met at the meeting?
16 A I can't remember exactly, but there was a large group of people there. There
17 was Mr. Monahan, who I had met for the first time and there was a large group
18 of officials and a model of who was being proposed. So out of courtesy, I
19 attended and listened to what they had to and then I told them straight up I
11:43:42 20 wasn't support it and I gave them all the reasons why.
21 Q 165 And would those reasons have been, Mr. Barrett, the reasons you have outlined
22 to the Tribunal today, that it was premature because the sewer hadn't been
23 built or the size of the pipe hadn't been determined and the matter should be
24 left over to the new council?
11:43:56 25 A What I said clearly was that this matter should be left to the new council,
26 that an action plan should be drawn up and that I would recommend that if they
27 wanted to have more retail development, that they should move from Cherrywood
28 down to Dun Laoghaire where redevelopment was very badly needed. The town was
29 dying on its feet. It was the main centre of my constituency, I was concerned
11:44:21 30 about it, there was a lot of dereliction in the area and I couldn't see any
www.pcr.ie Day 650

34
11:44:26 1 sense of building a new retail centre back in 1991, 1992, in an area that was
2 totally, well for all intents and purposes, agricultural.
3 Q 166 And prior to this, would you have known, Mr. Barrett, that Monarch had bought
4 these lands and were the purchasers of those lands?
11:44:42 5 A Well it was public knowledge that Monarch and GRE had purchased these lands at
6 some enormous price. But that was none of my business.
7 Q 167 Yes, I know that but being familiar with the area, the price paid for these
8 lands in 1989 was approximately 10 million pounds, was that regarded as a very
9 high price for land in that area at that time?
11:45:03 10 A Well I put it to you this way, I wouldn't have paid 10 million pounds for lands
11 that was zoned one house to the acre on septic tank.
12 Q 168 I think you mentioned a moment ago that it was regarded as being a high price,
13 was that generally known in the area or in the location that or was it
14 generally considered that a large amount, a bigger than normal amount had been
11:45:24 15 paid for these particular lands?
16 A I suppose I mean we are going back now what, 15, 16 years, you are talking
17 about punts. I suppose given the value of property in the area at that stage,
18 it would have been a large sum of money, yes.
19 Q 169 And the line that was used by the council to determine residential development
11:45:50 20 as has been explained to the Tribunal, was what was described as the 1983 line
21 of the Southeastern Motorway and on the map that's on screen, the lands to the
22 east of that line were zoned residential but the lands to the west of that line
23 were zoned agriculture?
24 A Yes, well I mean in 1983, I would imagine that the line that was put in was
11:46:11 25 just an indication that a road was going in, there was never any detailed
26 discussion that, to my knowledge, from '91 to '93 as to the exact line of this
27 road. I mean if you look at back to the minutes of the new Dun
28 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council, you will find strangely that a report was
29 presented, to the best of my recollection, by the engineers suggesting three
11:46:40 30 options for that road. The least desirable one, according to that report as I
www.pcr.ie Day 650

35
11:46:47 1 recall turned out to be the one that was eventually built on.
2 Q 170 That's the mountain route, it's called the mountain route?
3 A The one through Leopardstown racecourse was the one that the engineers said was
4 least desirable, yet it turned out to be the one that eventually went ahead.
11:47:04 5 Now, that had a significant effect on where development should take place. I
6 was off the council by that stage and in fact the Dail record will show that I
7 questioned why this line was changed and I asked the Minister for Agriculture,
8 who was responsible at the time, for horse racing and I asked why was it
9 allowed that the only remaining race track in Dublin, which was of significant
11:47:31 10 importance to the racing industry, was allowed to lose its six furlong track
11 for a line of a road where the report had previously said it was the least
12 desirable route to take. I could never understand why it was changed. The
13 alternative route was up through Kilgobbin and across through the tip head and
14 I mean all the of this, chairman, is public knowledge. These reports are
11:47:59 15 available at the council.
16 Q 171 And I think some of these documents are in the brief, Mr. Barrett, but on the
17 1983 plan, the line of the motorway bisected the Monarch lands, isn't that
18 right?
19 A Yes.
11:48:14 20 Q 172 It's only a notional line because nothing as you say, was built but it did
21 bisect the Monarch lands?
22 A Yes.
23 Q 173 And the agreement within the council or the understanding within the council
24 was that residential development would be allowed on the eastern side of that
11:48:28 25 line up to the notional line, is that right?
26 A Yes.
27 Q 174 And that beyond that's correct the other side, the western side of that line,
28 would not be available or there wouldn't be residential development, that was
29 the thinking at the time?
11:48:39 30 A That is so and in fact there was a proposal which I supported, I think it was
www.pcr.ie Day 650

36
11:48:47 1 Mr. Galvin, through estate agents called Spain, I think, Paddy Spain.
2 Q 175 Spain Courtney.
3 A He was representing Mr. Galvin and they were anxious to develop a golf course
4 on the line to the west of that notional line. And therefore any movement in
11:49:08 5 that line could affect the viability of a pay and display golf course or pay
6 and play I should say golf course. That if you moved it, if you kept moving
7 it, that it would take up so much land that there wouldn't be sufficient for a
8 golf course and I thought at that stage again we are talking about 1991, 1992,
9 that you know there was a need for pay and play golf facilities because the
11:49:34 10 only other facilities in the area were mainly private golf courses with the
11 exception of a nine hole course in Stepaside which was developed by Dublin
12 County Council.
13
14 And therefore it was important that you were in favour of that golf course on
11:49:52 15 the west side of the line, that to move the notional line more west would
16 affect that possibility, so that was a consideration also.
17 Q 176 So at the time, so far as the line of the motorway was concerned, you had two
18 competing interests, Monarch Properties didn't want the line of the motorway on
19 their lands because they would only be allowed develop up to the line of the
11:50:19 20 motorway, that would make sense, isn't that right?
21 A This would make sense, yes.
22 Q 177 Mr. Galvin didn't want the motorway going through his lands which adjoined
23 Monarch's lands because he wouldn't be able to build his pay and display golf
24 course?
26 Q 178 And I think ultimately the manager together with the council officials resolved
27 the matter by saying the line was diagrammatic only and nobody could take it
28 was a fixed and final line?
29 A That was all the more reason, Ms. Dillon, for a proper action plan to be drawn
11:50:49 30 up for this whole area, I can understand Monarch Properties wanting to get
www.pcr.ie Day 650

37
11:50:54 1 development on the land they bought, I was talking about the wider area and if
2 you look at the motion I was tabled, it was not confined solely to Monarch
3 Properties land, it was lands zoned at one house to the acre from Cherrywood
4 Road to Glenamuck Road and the map was supplied to me by the officials.
11:51:10 5 Q 179 In fact I think your map, which I am going to show you in a moment,
6 Mr. Barrett, but your map in May of 1992 covered all of the lands that are
7 coloured yellow on that map that's on screen at the moment?
8 A Well that was supplied to me by the council officials.
9 Q 180 And the map that you prepared for your motion is at 7175 --
11:51:28 10
11 CHAIRMAN: Ms. Dillon, could I stop you there, give the stenographer a break,
12 we will break for about ten minutes.
13
11:52:02 15
16 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED FOR A SHORT
17 BREAK AND RESUMED AS FOLLOWS
18
19 Q 181 MS. DILLON: Good afternoon, Mr. Barrett. Just briefly can I ask you before
12:04:29 20 we look at the motion of the 27th May 1992, and the minutes of the meeting of
21 the 27th May 1992. The lands had been zoned at one house to the acre in the
22 1983 Development Plan, they had gone out on the first public display at four
23 house to the acre, the manager had recommended that the density be changed and
24 that motion was lost on the 27th May, if you hadn't brought your motion,
12:04:55 25 Mr. Barrett, to change the density as it were, on those lands, would they have
26 stayed at four houses to the acre?
27 A Yes.
28 Q 182 That would have followed, would it?
29 A Yes.
12:05:05 30 Q 183 So that in even though the manager's map was not accepted by the councillors
www.pcr.ie Day 650

38
12:05:10 1 and Councillor Lydon and Councillor -- Councillor Lydon withdrew his motion
2 seeking to the zone the lands to a higher density, if you hadn't brought your
3 motion seeking to rezone them at one to the acre, they would have gone on the
4 1993 plan at four house to the acre?
6 Q 184 That would have followed. Right. If I show you page 7174, and this is your
7 motion, Mr. Barrett, dated the 11th May 1992, to rezone the lands on the
8 attached map stretching from the Glenamuck Road to the Cherrywood Road
9 Loughlinstown for residential development not exceeding one house to the acre
12:05:54 10 and at map is in question is at 7175. And if we can return this map on its
11 side please. The other way. Yes, and you will see that the outline in red,
12 Mr. Barrett, is the same as the yellow lands we had looked at briefly on the
13 map, isn't that right?
14 A That's correct, as I said to you earlier, the map was supplied to me by the
12:06:20 15 officials of Dublin County Council. I asked that they give me a map showing
16 what lands between Cherrywood Road and Glenamuck Road had been zoned at one
17 house to the acre in '83. So that's where that map came from.
18 Q 185 And you then, your motion then sought effectively to confirm that, to keep them
19 at one house to the acre?
21 Q 186 They were at this stage proposed for four houses to the acre?
23 Q 187 But the manager himself had brought a map before the council seeking to
24 change -- page 7203. Now, this deals with the same lands but in the lands
12:07:02 25 outlined in red are the Monarch lands and what the manager was proposing there
26 was a change from AP to A1P which was an area action plan and again, a change
27 on some of the lands from agriculture to A1P again, do you see that?
28 A Yes.
29 Q 188 And I think at the minutes of the meeting of the 27th, at page 7207, Councillor
12:07:31 30 Lydon proposed and Councillor McGrath seconded that the manager's report be
www.pcr.ie Day 650

39
12:07:37 1 adopted and approved. And you voted against that, isn't that right?
2 A That's correct.
3 Q 189 Right. Now, if that had been adopted and approved, Mr. Barrett, the effect of
4 that would have been to give, there would have been an action area plan for the
12:07:57 5 Monarch lands, is that right?
6 A Yes.
7 Q 190 It wouldn't necessarily have dealt with the balance of the lands that were
8 zoned residentially but it would have dealt with the Monarch lands, isn't that
9 right?
12:08:05 10 A Well it would appear so, yes.
11 Q 191 According to the manager's map?
12 A Yes.
13 Q 192 And it would also have increased the area that was available for residential
14 zoning across the old 1983 line, if you want to see the map again, it's 7203.
12:08:24 15 What the manager was proposing was a change in the notional line of the
16 Southeastern Motorway from the old '83 line to a line that became known as the
17 '91 line and that the lands between those two would be changed from agriculture
18 to action area plan, residential, isn't that right?
12:08:44 20 Q 193 The effect of that for Monarch Properties if it were passed would have been to
21 give them the benefit of an action area plan, isn't that right?
22 A Well I wouldn't call it an action area plan, it was just extending the area for
23 development at four houses to the acre into agricultural zoned land.
24 Q 194 That was one effect of it but by putting an area action, an action area plan in
12:09:10 25 place in connection with these lands, when the council came to consider an
26 action area plan, they would also come to consider shopping or retail, isn't
27 that right, in the context of an action area plan.
28 A Well that wasn't defined in the motion.
29 Q 195 No it wasn't defined, it wasn't defined in the motion because all that was
12:09:29 30 proposed by Councillor Lydon was to adopt the manager's report and to adopt
www.pcr.ie Day 650

40
12:09:34 1 effectively this map, DP90/244.
2 A Yes, it was increasing the area for development.
3 Q 196 And it was changing the zoning so far as it was changing it from AP, which was
4 10 houses to the hectare or four houses to the acre on to an action area plan
12:09:53 5 but with still with the same density, it meant the council would consider it
6 again, isn't that right?
7 A No what would have happened to us the fact that in 1991, when the draft plan
8 went on display, any change that we made subsequent to that would have to go
9 back on display again. So what I -- the effect of my motion, which was passed,
12:10:23 10 that it remain at one house to the acre, the fact that that was different to
11 what went on display in the draft plan in 1991 meant that it had to go back on
12 public display again.
13 Q 197 I understand all of, Mr. Barrett, but I am asking you about here, leaving aside
14 your motion or for the moment, if it map had been passed, if this motion had
12:10:46 15 been passed, the effect of that from Monarch Properties' point of view would
16 have been to increase their take of residentially zoned land in the first
17 instance, isn't that right?
18 A That's correct. Yeah.
19 Q 198 And in the second instance would have been to change the residential zoning
12:11:00 20 from AP to A1P?
21 A Yes, on piped.
22 Q 199 On piped sewerage, isn't that right?
23 A Yes.
24 Q 200 Now, if that had been passed add you say, that would have had to go out on the
12:11:11 25 second public display and would have to be confirmed by the council?
27 Q 201 And indeed when your motion was passed it went out on public display and
28 subsequently wasn't confirmed so far as these lands are concerned by the
29 council, isn't that right?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

41
12:11:24 1 Q 202 What I was asking you about was, in your view looking at this map, was this
2 something that would inure to the benefit of Monarch Properties if this had
3 been passed?
4 A Well they would have got more land zoned for development, yes.
12:11:36 5 Q 203 And they would have got an action area plan also?
6 A That would have been subsequent, yes.
7 Q 204 And within the context of an action area plan, the council would have had to
8 consider retail, isn't that right?
9 A Well not necessarily.
12:11:53 10 Q 205 I think the manager when he had given his report in relation to DP92/44 and I
11 will get it up for you in a moment -- sorry I will just show you this, page
12 7197, this had been dealt with at the meeting of the 13th May 1997 and the
13 manager in the third last paragraph in talking about the action area plan had
14 said "This will require the development conform to tan action plan to be
12:12:28 15 adopted by the council. The action plan will provide for the provision of the
16 necessary community facilities, schools, shopping etc and appropriate road
17 system and appropriate open space provision."
18
19 So that within the context of the action plan, the council would have to
12:12:42 20 consider, according to the manager in any event, schools and shopping?
21 A Yes but I mean if that was to, in my opinion if that was to take place, that
22 would be a further variation of that plan of 1993 when they subsequently would
23 have an action plan and if you adopted an action plan, it would have followed
24 that the council then from 1993 onwards would have had to pass a variation of
12:13:09 25 the '93 plan.
26 Q 206 Or by the time this plan came to be made in December 1993, it would have gone
27 into the new council.
28 A Well, once the '93 plan was finished by Dublin County Council, Dun
29 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council would then have to --
12:13:25 30 Q 207 Vary it?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

42
12:13:26 1 A Vary that particular development.
2 Q 208 As indeed they did with the science and technology zoning, isn't that right?
4 Q 209 Now, on the day itself, the 27th May 1992, that proposal by Councillor Lydon at
12:13:40 5 7307 was unsuccessful. Can I ask you, Mr. Barrett, do you remember this
6 meeting of the 27th May 1992?
7 A I do.
8 Q 210 And can you describe to the Members of the Tribunal whether it was a very
9 heated meeting, whether there was a lot of discussion about this entire issue
12:14:01 10 on the Carrickmines Valley?
11 A Yes, that is correct, I mean people who took the similar view to mine argued
12 that to change the zoning at this stage was premature and that it was, well,
13 the case I was making was that it was quite ridiculous to make any change
14 without having a proper action plan drawn up for the whole area and to consider
12:14:26 15 the road network, the sewerage facilities available, the other facilities that
16 would have to be incorporated and the level of open space, the whole area.
17
18 I mean this is a very beautiful area, anybody who knows it. It would -- in my
19 opinion, there should have been a proper action plan outlining what was going
12:14:50 20 to be open space, high amenity, shopping or whatever, science technology,
21 whatever you want, housing. In the whole wide area rather than just
22 concentrate on one area of land which happened to be owned by Monarch
23 Properties. I couldn't understand why there was such an effort to just deal
24 with one piece of this land. When the whole area was going to be affected by
12:15:20 25 the installation of a major sewerage system and a road network and that was the
26 argument and what I used on that occasion was to try and persuade my colleagues
27 to leave it as it is. And not to be seen as anti everything but to do it in an
28 organised fashion when the new Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council was set up
29 and that was only going to be a matter of 12 months or whatever, rather than
12:15:47 30 sort of rush in and just do one piece of it, which never made sense to me.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

43
12:15:52 1 Q 211 Is it your recollection that the focus of the argument on the 27th May 1992
2 centred on the Monarch Properties lands?
3 A Yes.
4 Q 212 And insofar as Councillor Lydon proposed the map DP92/44 and indeed had a
12:16:07 5 motion that he didn't proceed with on that day, and correct me if I am wrong,
6 would it be fair to say that Councillor Lydon was promoting the pro Monarch
7 viewpoint?
8 A Well I mean I -- I mean Councillor Lydon would have to answer that for himself.
9 On the particular day, the real -- going into the meeting, the real debate was
12:16:33 10 that the major Monarch proposal which included massive retail and all the other
11 things that were incorporated into the motion that was subsequently withdrawn.
12 Now, in my opinion, once that first motion was defeated, it was evident that
13 there wasn't support in the council for the subsequent motion. That's my
14 feeling. I have no reason to state categorically that was the case but once
12:16:59 15 the first motion was defeated, the next motion was withdrawn because it was
16 obvious there wasn't the support there.
17 Q 213 And the second motion, which sought the major rezoning, including the retail,
18 was the motion by Councillor Lydon and Councillor Hand, is that right?
12:17:17 20 Q 214 But the first motion that came to be considered was the manager's proposals in
21 connection with the land which were not as radical, if I can put it like that,
22 in connection with the Monarch lands as Mr. Lydon and Mr. Hand's motion, isn't
12:17:31 25 Q 215 Now, and it's your view and it seems to be borne out by the sequence of events
26 that when the manager's map failed, in other words when the councillors voted
27 against it, then it would have become apparent to those who were proposing the
28 second Monarch motion, if I can put it like that, that there was insufficient
29 support for what they were proposing in the council chamber?
12:17:52 30 A Yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

44
12:17:52 1 Q 216 And --
2 A It was a tight vote, it was 33 for and 35 against.
3 Q 217 And that's a very tight vote, isn't it?
4 A Yes.
12:18:00 5 Q 218 And indeed I think at 7209, the record shows that Councillor Lydon informed the
6 meeting that he wished to withdraw his motion, which had sought residential
7 zoning at 12 houses to the hectare and a retail element and certain other
8 matters that were set out in the motion, isn't that right?
9 A Yes, including a maximum of 80,000 square feet retail space.
12:18:24 10 Q 219 Yes and that was quite significant?
11 A That was significant, given the state of play in Dun Laoghaire town and areas
12 quite near this location in 1992. It's 14 years ago. Where there wasn't the
13 massive developments that have now taken place.
14 Q 220 Thereafter, on that date a number of motions were taken, including a motion
12:18:52 15 that there would be a C zoning on a portion of the lands which was proposed by
16 Councillor Gilmore and Councillor O'Callaghan and you also voted against that,
18 A Yes, I disagreed with it. I thought that was a pointless exercise but there
19 was a lot of pressure at the time in the locality because of the massive
12:19:10 20 campaign launched by Monarch Properties for extra jobs and so on, facilities in
21 the area, there was a massive pro lobby for that.
22
23 Now, I didn't buy into that argument, to be honest with you, because anybody
24 who knows the area, you would have to cross the main Dublin, Bray Road to get
12:19:37 25 to this retail shopping, where there was no walkways or overhead bridges or
26 anything else. I mean I just didn't buy into this. My argument was the same
27 could be achieved in terms of employment if you went to Dun Laoghaire and
28 redeveloped Dun Laoghaire town. So I didn't buy into the extra jobs syndrome.
29 And despite what has been said and I'd like to turn to that at a later stage in
12:20:08 30 various statements made to this Tribunal, about I was supposed to have been
www.pcr.ie Day 650

45
12:20:13 1 lobbying to have other people support for this when I was voting against it, it
2 was completely and utterly untrue. I based my argument solely as I saw it on
3 what was going to be good for the area that I represented.
4 Q 221 And your position, Mr. Barrett, insofar as the retail element was concerned, is
12:20:34 5 you were opposed to that for the same principles that you were opposed to the
6 residential development, it was premature, the facilities weren't in place and
7 also it would have an adverse impact on Dun Laoghaire town centre?
8 A Yes.
9 Q 222 You made those known to everybody that that was your position, including the
12:20:51 10 people who represented Monarch Properties.
12 Q 223 Are you satisfied that every person who was at that meeting of the 27th May
13 1992 knew that what was being discussed by the councillors were Monarch
14 Properties proposals in connection with their lands at Cherrywood.
12:21:08 15 A Well that was the whole emphasis, the whole emphasis was on the Monarch
16 proposal.
17 Q 224 The Tribunal has been told by councillors who were present at that meeting that
18 he they did know Monarch Properties owned those lands or that the subject
19 matter of discussion on the 27th May 1992 were the Monarch Properties land and
12:21:26 20 they were unaware of the ownership or actual owners of the land, do you have
21 any comment to make on that, Mr. Barrett?
22 A The only comment I make is I represented the area, I don't know who made these
23 statements but I represented the area and I knew it because it was very close
24 to me and I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't know. Mind you it's not my
12:21:48 25 business to know who owns the land, that's not a reason for voting one way or
26 the other.
27 Q 225 No but insofar as the meeting of the 27th May 1992 was concerned, the meeting
28 concerned what was going to happen to the Monarch lands?
29 A Well the lobbying was in favour or against Monarch Properties.
12:22:06 30 Q 226 And that's what everybody was talking about?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

46
12:22:08 1 A In my opinion, that would be the case, yes but I wasn't talking about that as
2 you will see from the map because I asked that the area between Cherrywood Road
3 and Glenamuck be retained as one house to the acre. I was not dealing solely
4 with Monarch Properties lands.
12:22:22 5 Q 227 You were dealing with all of the lands that were zoned residential in the 1983
6 plan which were east of the then Southeastern Motorway line?
7 A That's correct.
8 Q 228 And that's on the map that we have seen. Your motion was taken at 7216, sorry,
9 yes at 7216 and because the previous motion had been successful in relation to
12:22:46 10 the town centre zoning, your motion dealt with all of the lands that were
11 residentially zoned except those that had just been zoned for a town centre, is
12 that right?
13 A Yes.
14 Q 229 And those lands were voted by 36 to 24 at one house to the acre?
12:23:02 15 A In favour, yes.
16 Q 230 In favour, the effect of that was to change the density on the residentially
17 zoned lands, including Monarch lands from four to the acre to one to the acre?
19 Q 231 And that change necessitated a second public display.
12:23:14 20 A That is correct.
21 Q 232 And it would also have then required a second vote by the councillors when they
22 came to confirm or not that motion, isn't that right, that change?
23 A Unless somebody tabled a motion to the contrary, it would have been adopted as
24 part of the 1993 plan. There was no need for another motion.
12:23:33 25 Q 233 So --
26 A If it had been accepted what went on public display should form part of the '93
27 Development Plan, there was no need for any more motions unless you wanted to
28 change it again.
29 Q 234 At that time, can you tell the Tribunal who was the person within Monarch who
12:23:50 30 was most publicly visible in terms of seeking support from councillors, can you
www.pcr.ie Day 650

47
12:23:55 1 remember?
2 A Mr. Richard Lynn.
3 Q 235 And did you meet him?
4 A I did, yes.
12:24:00 5 Q 236 And did you make known to him your view?
6 A Yes.
7 Q 237 In relation to the lands?
8 A Yes.
9 Q 238 Now, Mr. Dunlop, and I outlined this to the Tribunal when I was opening this
12:24:11 10 module, in his private interviews to the Tribunal, suggested to the Tribunal
11 that your motion in some way, Mr. Barrett, saved the day, if I can summarise
12 what he is saying, for Monarch, is there any truth in that?
13 A Absolutely none, I read that myself, I was absolutely astonished. I mean how
14 could I be doing anything in favour of Monarch when I had succeeded in having
12:24:36 15 the area of land that they were involved in which was zoned at four house us to
16 the acre, that I had gotten it reduced to one house to the acre, I couldn't
17 possibly be doing any favours for Monarch and I mean this wasn't a pro or anti
18 Monarch thing as far as I was concerned, I was dealing with this as an issue in
19 an area that I represented and, you know, I couldn't understand what Mr. Dunlop
12:24:58 20 was saying.
21 Q 239 You will have seen and you have been supplied with the extracts from the
22 transcripts of Mr. Dunlop where he and I am summarising what he is saying when
23 I am saying he says you saved the day for Monarch but looking at the sequence
24 of the documentation and what the record shows up to this point in time,
12:25:14 25 Mr. Barrett, the only way in which you could have saved the day for Monarch, if
26 that was indeed the case, if you proposed a motion and everything else in your
27 party voted in a different way is that right? In other words Mr. Dunlop has
28 previously indicated to the Tribunal that sometimes what happened was a local
29 councillor might take a particular view but would have sorted matters out by
12:25:36 30 ensuring that other members of his or her party voted a particular way. I am
www.pcr.ie Day 650

48
12:25:42 1 not suggesting that that happened here today here, but just to cover all
2 eventualities if I show you 7216, it's on the screen and just for the record,
3 Mr. Barrett, if you go through the councillors who voted in favour of your
4 motion and indicate those in your political party who voted in favour of the
12:26:00 5 motion.
6 A Councillor John Dockrell. Stanley Laing. Joan Maher. Olivia Mitchell. Mary
7 Muldoon. That's it.
8 Q 240 Okay. So three or four other colleagues of yours voted in favour of your
9 motion and if you look at the list then of those who voted against your motion
12:26:37 10 and if you would indicate any of your Fine Gael colleagues who voted against
11 the motion.
12 A Councillor Anne Devitt, the late Tom Hand. I am not sure was Michael Keating
13 in Fine Gael at that stage or PDs.
14 Q 241 I believe that he was in Fine Gael at that stage, subject to correction?
12:27:12 15 A Therese Ridge, four I think.
16 Q 242 So that insofar as the --
17 A There are some missing from that, I mean there was only, what, 60 voted.
18 Q 243 Yes.
19 A Some had obviously left from the previous vote.
12:27:25 20 Q 244 But the only matter that was dealt with by the council on the 27th May 1992 was
21 the Carrickmines valley, isn't that right?
23 Q 245 And the end result of that, Mr. Barrett, was that as a result of your motion,
24 the map that went out on the second public display at 7217, the effect was that
12:27:48 25 the lands coloured yellow on the map at 7217 were now subject to change 3 and
26 change 3 was changing the density from four to the acre to one to the acre.
28 Q 246 There was also a second change 4A and 4B which was the introduction of the town
29 centre on lands that had been previously residential for one portion of them
12:28:11 30 and agriculture for the second portions of them?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

49
12:28:13 1 A Which I voted against.
2 Q 247 Which you had voted against. And that came back before the council in November
3 of 1993, isn't that right?
4 A That's correct.
12:28:22 5 Q 248 Now, the manager recommended that the amendment of change 3 be deleted. That
6 was the manager's recommendation.
7 A Yes.
8 Q 249 If the manager's recommendation had been accepted, Mr. Barrett, and change 3
9 had been deleted, what density would the residentially zoned lands have been
12:28:39 10 left at?
11 A Four house houses to the acre.
12 Q 250 The council came to consider that, including yourself, on the 11th November
13 1993 and there were a number of motions before the council, the first motion of
14 which was at 7224, and this was a motion by Councillors Misteil, Smyth and
12:29:03 15 Buckley and it's item number one that they were seeking that the resolving that
16 the lands referred to as change 3 on map 27 be confirmed as low density housing
17 at two houses per hectare, one house to the acre?
18 A They were confirming what I had succeeded in doing.
19 Q 251 Yes and you proposed an amendment to that motion at 2725 and that was the
12:29:29 20 manager be requested to prepare and submit to the new Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown
21 County Council not later than June '94, a draft variation of the new County
22 Development Plan for those lands.
24 Q 252 And that was third motion at 7226, which was a motion by Councillor Marren and
12:29:48 25 Coffey which sought to delete change 3 in respect of the lands outlined in red
26 and that the balance of the lands remain at two per hectare and the map is at
27 7277 and the lands outlined there are the Monarch lands, isn't that right?
28 A Yes, that was effectively the manager's previous proposal.
29 Q 253 Well the manager's proposal, with respect, Mr. Barrett, had been to delete
12:30:14 30 change 3 in its entirety, that was all of the residentially zoned lands, isn't
www.pcr.ie Day 650

50
12:30:20 1 that right? The change 3, if you look at 7217.
2 A No in the amendment in November 1993, there was an attempt to defeat what I had
3 achieved in terms of bringing it back to what it was in 1983, so bring back
4 what the manager had proposed when it went on display in 1991, as I understand
12:30:48 5 it.
6 Q 254 What went on display as a result of your motion was change 3 and change 3 as a
7 result of your motion dealt with all of the residentially zoned lands in the
8 Carrickmines Valley?
12:30:59 10 Q 255 The manager recommended to delete change 3 in its entirety, so change the
11 zoning on all of the residential lands to four to the acre, isn't that right?
12 A Yes.
13 Q 256 Councillor Smyth and Misteil brought a motion seeking to confirm change 3, in
14 other words leave it at one house to the acre for all the residentially zoned
12:31:21 15 land, isn't that right?
16 A Yes.
17 Q 257 And Councillors Marren and Coffey brought a motion seeking to confirm the
18 change for a portion of the lands but to delete it for other lands at 7227.
19 What Councillor Marren and Councillor Coffey's motion sought was to change the
12:31:40 20 density on the lands that are on screen which are the Monarch lands to four to
21 the acre but that the balance of the residentially zoned lands would stay as
22 per your motion at one house to the acre?
23 A Yes.
24 Q 258 Now, this motion, Mr. Barrett, correct me if I am wrong, is particular to the
12:31:57 25 Monarch lands, isn't that right?
26 A It would appear so from this, yes.
27 Q 259 And the motion is proposing at 7226 that the Monarch lands, it says "Dublin
28 County Council resolves to accept the county manager's recommendation and
29 delete the 1993 amendment in respect of the lands outlined in red". That is
12:32:20 30 delete change 3 in respect of the Monarch lands, isn't that right?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

51
12:32:20 1 A Yes.
2 Q 260 And leave the balance of the lands at two per hectare or one per acre, isn't
3 that right?
4 A Yes.
12:32:26 5 Q 261 So the effect of that would be that the Monarch lands would go on the '93 plan
6 at four to the acre and the balance of the residentially zoned lands would stay
7 at one to the acre as a result of your motion?
8 A Yes.
9 Q 262 Now, is there anything on the map of the over all residentially zoned lands
12:32:43 10 that for good zoning or planning reasons that one would say that it's a proper
11 planning or zoning decision to make to zone a portion of these lands at four
12 and the balance of them at one to the acre?
13 A Well I couldn't see it and I voted against that motion. And again, being
14 consistent, I hope, insofar as that we shouldn't do anything until we had the
12:33:07 15 new Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown council in situ and have an action plan prepared.
16 That was one of the reasons why I tabled an amendment to Councillor Smyth's
17 motion to retain the one to the acre because what I was trying to do was bring
18 the council with me in my argument and I was afraid I might lose them because
19 it's always a motive when you are going against the manager's proposal but in
12:33:38 20 this instance I didn't agree with the manager's proposal.
21 Q 263 And your amendment was lost I think, Mr. Barrett, at 7261?
22 A Yes.
23 Q 264 And then Mr. Smith's motion was then put, 43 voted against and 27 for and then
24 the substantive motion with no amendment because your amendment was lost to
12:34:00 25 confirm change 3 was put by Councillor Smyth and Buckley and at 7262, you voted
26 for that motion which was seeking to confirm change 3 which would be in
27 accordance with your May 1992 motion and that was also lost, isn't that right?
28 Now, the effect of that, as I understand it, Mr. Barrett, and you correct me if
29 I am wrong is once that vote took place, the change was not confirmed, isn't
12:34:26 30 that right? This is a motion seeking to confirm change 3.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

52
12:34:32 1 A Oh no, no -- yes.
2 Q 265 That motion is lost, isn't that right?
4 Q 266 So change 3 is not confirmed.
12:34:39 5 A Well, technically, unless somebody had tabled a motion, that motion would have
6 been to the contrary, that motion would have been irrelevant. Because what
7 went on public display was one house to the acre. And all we need do in the
8 adoption of the over all plan was to confirm that change from May 1992. Now,
9 unless somebody had put down a motion to change that again, it would have
12:35:16 10 irrespective of this motion, it would have remained at one house to the acre.
11 Q 267 But there was a motion.
12 A That was really a confirmation motion, if you like, of something that was
13 already decided. So it was academic in many respects, but it was an indication
14 as to the way the council was thinking. Do you get my point?
12:35:39 15 Q 268 I do get your point exactly, but what I was wondering was this, Mr. Barret,
16 would the effect of that -- when that motion was brought and when that motion
17 was lost, would the map, if nothing else had happened that day and that was the
18 only vote that was taken and the change was not confirmed, would the map have
19 reverted to the 1991 zoning?
12:35:59 20 A No.
21 Q 269 Or would it have gun back to the 1983 zoning?
22 A Or would it have gone back to the 1983 zoning because the overall adoption of
23 the plan comes at the final stage when you adopt the whole plan. So in my
24 opinion, that made no change, it was the following motion to confirm the
12:36:20 25 manager's recommendation, that changed the whole thing again.
26 Q 270 That's the motion at 7263 and you voted against that motion which was to
27 decrease?
28 A Increase again the density back up to four to the acre effectively.
29 Q 271 For the Monarch lands only?
12:36:37 30 A Yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

53
12:36:37 1 Q 272 Right. And did you see any good reason why that should be done, Mr. Barrett?
2 A No, I didn't, those I didn't voted against it.
3 Q 273 Can I put it to you as bluntly as this, do you agree the sole purpose of that
4 motion had to be to benefit the Monarch lands?
12:36:52 5 A Of course it was of benefit to the Monarch lands, yes, but again, I mean as I
6 hope I have displayed in all of this, I wasn't just dealing with Monarch lands,
7 I was dealing with an area bigger area and, you know, what the manager was
8 proposing was dealing with Monarch lands. He wasn't dealing with the whole
9 area at all.
12:37:12 10 Q 274 Well the manager's proposal was delete change 3 in its entirety which was your
11 motion which covered all of the residentially zoned lands?
12 A Effectively he was dealing with one section of the over all area. I wasn't, I
13 was dealing with the over all area and of course as a result of that, it did
14 benefit Monarch to answer your question directly.
12:37:36 15
16 JUDGE FAHERTY: Ms. Dillon, would you mind if I just interject, just one
17 thing, it might be yourself that might have to answer it. When you say that
18 the manager was only dealing with the Monarch lands, we know that the manager
19 was recommending in November, Mr. Barrett, to delete change 3 for the whole of
12:37:56 20 the map 26, whatever map that is that's gone up.
21
22 MS. DILLON: 27.
23
24 JUDGE FAHERTY: 27, yes. The map. But just could I seek clarification on, if
12:38:08 25 you go back to May of 1992, when the manager comes in, in May of 1992, this is
26 after the first public display where they have gone out on four houses to the
27 acre or ten to the hectare and it comes back to the council and the manager
28 before your motion is ever brought, there's a map and a report by the manager,
29 it's called DP92/44 we dealt with it earlier in your evidence. That map, when
12:38:35 30 the manager was proposing A1 on piped sewerage for the lands and an extension
www.pcr.ie Day 650

54
12:38:42 1 of some of the already residentially zoned lands, further down south of the
2 1983 line, could I have that map for a moment, that's DP92/44, Ms. Dillon. I
3 don't want to confuse either myself or Mr. Barrett.
12:39:03 5 MS. DILLON: 7203 please.
7 JUDGE FAHERTY: Maybe you could assist, Ms. Dillon, that map and maybe indeed
8 it may well be the planners who have to answer, that map that's on screen, the
9 AP to A1P, was that largely for the Monarch part of lands and not for the rest
12:39:30 10 of the lands?
11
12 MS. DILLON: That appears to be the position because if you travel up to the
13 residentially zoned lands that were in the corner, the change there is from B
14 to AP.
12:39:39 15
16 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes.
17
18 MS. DILLON: And they are not within the Monarch take and they are not A1P.
19 If you take my point.
12:39:47 20
21 JUDGE FAHERTY: That's what I wanted to understand. Back in '92, this map in
22 terms of what Ms. Dillon put to you earlier, Mr. Barrett, the manager was
23 proposing for part of the lands on that map would go from AP to A1P. And an
24 extension of residential al zoning.
12:40:10 25 A Yes, to four houses to the acre.
26
27 JUDGE FAHERTY: Four houses to the acre exactly, and that those two changes on
28 that map were in respect of Monarch lands. Was that your understanding in May
29 1992?
12:40:26 30 A I have a copy of the minutes of the meeting.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

55
12:40:28 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: Because you have said to us a moment ago yes I have looked at
2 the report of the manager that was given.
3 A There was never a report which relates solely to Monarch Properties, lands at
4 Cherrywood.
12:40:40 5
6 JUDGE FAHERTY: You are saying that DP92/44 the AP to A1P and extension of the
7 residential zoning, that was just in relation to Monarch property lands.
8 A Yes.
12:40:53 10 JUDGE FAHERTY: So do we take it the answer you gave to Ms. Dillon a few
11 minutes ago, you said some of the manager's proposals were only dealing with
12 the Monarch lands, were you referring in particular to this map?
13 A I was referring to the report that was discussed on the 27th May.
14
12:41:08 15 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes, that's what I'm talking about, that's the report that
16 went with DP92/44. Yes I just wanted to understand that. Thanks. Sorry
17 Ms. Dillon about that.
18
19 Q 275 MS. DILLON: You said just a moment ago, Mr. Barrett, that dealing with
12:41:26 20 November 1993, that the manager was proposal, that the manager was dealing only
21 with the Monarch lands and I just want to show you the manager's report which
22 is on the 3rd November which is at 7256. And it's commencing at 7255. And in
23 fairness to you, it's headed Carrickmines Monarch Properties, isn't that right
24 A Yes.
12:41:58 25 Q 276 And then it talks about change 3. But change 3 dealt with, as we know, as a
26 result of your motion all of the residentially zoned lands, isn't that right?
27 A Yes.
28 Q 277 In the Carrickmines Valley, including the Monarch lands but not limited to the
29 Monarch lands?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

56
12:42:13 1 Q 278 And the manager recommends in relation to change 3 which are all of those lands
2 at 7256 to delete the amendment. So do I take it from that then, Mr. Barrett,
3 that what the manager was saying was change all of the residentially zoned
4 lands from one house to the acre back to four houses to the acre?
12:42:31 5 A He was actually saying was in relation to the Monarch property lands, leave it
6 at four houses to the acre and leave the rest at one house to the acre. That
7 was the motion proposed I think by Councillor Marren, was it?
8 Q 279 By Councillor Marren and councillor --
9 A Which relates to the managers's proposal.
12:42:51 10 Q 280 Do you interpret the manager's proposal therefore as being confined to Monarch
11 properties only and not the entire of the residentially zoned lands in the
13 A Well the way I read was what was being proposed of the Monarch lands and the
14 additional lands that was zoned from agriculture to development should remain
12:43:12 15 at four houses to the acre and the balance of the land in my motion should
16 remain at one house to the acre.
17 Q 281 But if that --
18 A That's the way I read it.
19 Q 282 If that interpretation was correct, Mr. Barrett, then there would have been no
12:43:28 20 necessity for the handwritten amendment on the Marren Coffey motion at 7226, if
21 your interpretation of the manager's report is correct, then all the Marren
22 Coffey motion needed to record was to accept the manager's recommendation, full
23 stop.
24 A Well I just I don't know why that was. I mean, my understanding was that what
12:43:51 25 was being proposed was that the lands owned by Monarch Properties would go from
26 one house to the acre to four houses to the acre and the balance would remain
27 at one house to the acre. That's in relation to the over all area where I
28 proposed one house to the acre, to remain at one house to the acre. That was
29 the way it was in '83.
12:44:11 30
www.pcr.ie Day 650

57
12:44:11 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: Ms. Dillon, just in relation to that point, the map that went
2 out after Mr. Barrett's motion that was for the second public display, perhaps
3 if Mr. Barrett saw that.
12:44:22 5 MS. DILLON: That is the map at 7217.
7 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes, with the 1993 amendments.
9 MS. DILLON: The 1993 amendment.
12:44:33 10
11 JUDGE FAHERTY: Because change 3 is written on a number of parts of that map,
12 isn't it?
13
14 MS. DILLON: I think it's written change 3 is covered by lands within the
12:44:41 15 black outline.
16
17 JUDGE FAHERTY: And not just the red out line.
18
19 MS. DILLON: No, it's all of those yellow lands are covered by change 3
12:44:47 20 because they were all covered by Mr. Barrett's motion.
21
22 JUDGE FAHERTY: Exactly.
23 A What actually happened, the sequence of the notions, the fact that my motion
24 happened to be last, meant that if anything was proposed prior to the taking of
12:45:05 25 my motion and passed by the council, that I couldn't do anything about it in
26 relation to my own motion. So in other words that area that's shown as zoned
27 for a district centre, my motion excluded that area because I couldn't do
28 anything about it, that's why I voted against that district centre because I
29 knew exactly what was going to happen. You would end up with this area here
12:45:30 30 all zoned at one house to the acre and stuck in the middle you would have a
www.pcr.ie Day 650

58
12:45:33 1 district centre feeding nowhere.
2 Q 283 But insofar as the manager's report in November 1993 is concerned, Mr. Barrett,
3 his report appears to be speaking to the entire of change 3, which as a result
4 of your motion, covered all of the residentially zoned lands in the
12:45:49 5 Carrickmines Valley.
6 A That would appear to be the case, yes.
7 Q 284 And the motion by Mr. Marren and Mr. Coffey dealt only with the Monarch
8 property residentially zoned lands within that area, isn't that right?
9 A Yes.
12:46:03 10 Q 285 And at the end of the day, you having voted against it, their motion was
11 successful, isn't that right?
13 Q 286 So that at the end of the process in the making of the 1993 plan, some of the
14 lands were zoned at one house to the acre and some of the lands being Monarch's
12:46:20 15 lands were zoned at four houses to the acre.
16 A Yes and a neighbourhood shopping centre.
17 Q 287 In the centre of the Monarch lands.
18 A Yes.
19 Q 288 Right and I think in 1994, after the council split up, one of the first matters
12:46:39 20 that were undertaken by Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council was an area
21 action plan in relation to this area, is that right?
22 A It wasn't what I was looking for. It again concentrated on only part of that
23 overall area. As I said at the outset what I wanted was that whole area there
24 would be subject to an action plan where we would decide on where the line of
12:46:58 25 the motorway would be, what would be high amenity, what would be open space,
26 where would we have shopping where were we to concentrate whatever type of
27 development and all of those things would be discussed and debated by the new
28 Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council.
29 Q 289 Yes and the draft action plan that was prepared at 2722 and again the lands
12:47:25 30 outlined in red there are the Monarch lands but I want to draw to your
www.pcr.ie Day 650

59
12:47:28 1 attention there what's in the report that speaks to that map which is at 7472
2 and under the heading location, Mr. Barrett, you will see when they are talking
3 about the plan, that plan centres on 95.3 hectares or 236 acres of land
4 presently owned by Monarch Properties Limited.
12:47:49 5 A Yes.
6 Q 290 So it would seem the focus of the action plan that was prepared in April 1994
7 was on the Monarch Properties lands, isn't that right?
8 A That's correct.
9 Q 291 Did you agree with that?
12:47:58 10 A No, not -- I mean at that stage, there were other objectives, you will see
11 there to develop a public golf course, extend the bus way, retain existing
12 right of way and the creation of additional ones and to examine Tully Church
13 with a view to making a special amenity area order.
14 Q 292 If fairness to you, they were already local objectives attached to map 1993 in
12:48:26 15 the 1993 plan?
16 A That would be part of an overall action plan.
17 Q 293 But certainly so far as this action plan is concerned at 2722, the focus of the
18 action plan appears to be lands owned by Monarch Properties?
19 A Yes.
12:48:38 20 Q 294 Now, in fact I think no, while a decision was made to proceed with the action
21 plan, it was overtaken by events which was the development of a science and
22 technology park.
23 A Well I left the council in 1994, the latter part of 1994 when I was appointed
24 to the new government, so I had no more dealings at council level with this.
12:49:01 25 Q 295 Can I ask you, Mr. Barrett, in connection with these lands, were you ever
26 approached by anybody else in connection with these lands? Or in connection
27 with what you understood to be the Monarch Properties' lands?
28 A In what respect, Ms. Dillon?
29 Q 296 For example in connection with, say, a proposed swap of lands with the golf
12:49:21 30 club?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

60
12:49:22 1 A I was.
2 Q 297 Would you outline to the Tribunal the circumstances of that particular
3 encounter?
4 A In the course of carrying out my weekly advice centre, somebody arrived in, I
12:49:37 5 didn't recognise the person, a male, and he asked me, he said as I recall now,
6 I can't be exactly correct with the words I am using because it's so long ago,
7 asked me would I, he said I understand you are opposed to the Monarch proposal
8 and he said would you be interested in taking on a consultancy on a
9 professional basis to see if we could swap lands with Monarch Properties and
12:50:12 10 move either Killiney Golf Club or Dun Laoghaire golf club up to their lands and
11 develop either of Dun Laoghaire or Killiney. So he said I would be prepared to
12 pay a professional fee if you were prepared to take this on, and it would be
13 done on a professional basis. And he outlined a fee and secretarial assistance
14 and possible expenses. I think the whole thing came to about 80,000 or
12:50:44 15 something.
16
17 I was shocked and I said no, I am not interested and I don't accept any payment
18 for any duties I have to perform as an elected public representative and I said
19 also I would oppose you if you tried to have either Dun Laoghaire Golf Club or
12:51:10 20 Killiney Golf Club rezoned for development and that ended the conversation and
21 he left. I have no reason to believe that he was representing anybody, this is
22 what he said to me but that was the end of the conversation. I never saw him
23 before and I haven't seen him since.
24 Q 298 Did he leave you a name?
12:51:29 25 A No.
26 Q 299 Did he, his introduction to you at this meeting, was an introduction in
27 connection with the lands owned by Monarch Properties?
28 A He just walked in and said to me I know you are opposed to the Monarch
29 development but would you be interested taking on this consultancy.
12:51:49 30 Q 300 And insofar as a consultancy is concerned, Mr. Barrett, can I ask you do you
www.pcr.ie Day 650

61
12:51:58 1 operate as a consultant in connection with lands in any way?
2 A Never did and never will.
3 Q 301 And do you have any professional expertise or qualification or do you hold
4 yourself out at having any professional expertise or qualification in relation
12:52:04 5 to negotiation to do with land?
6 A No.
7 Q 302 Do you know, may I ask you this: Did you treat this as an underhand approach
8 to you in any way?
9 A Well he was at pains to that this would be done on a professional basis, I
12:52:19 10 assume what he meant was that I would be acting in a professional capacity as
11 he saw it and that I would have to presumably disclose any fees to the Revenue
12 if I received them. That was the implication that I took out of it but I mean
13 our conversation lasted about two or three minutes I would say. He got a quick
14 shift from me I can tell you.
12:52:41 15 Q 303 But any such professional engagement by you in 1992, Mr. Barrett, would have
16 brought you into conflict with the job you were doing as a councillor, isn't
17 that right?
18 A Correct.
19 Q 304 And did you make that plain to the person who approached you?
12:52:55 20 A I told him exactly that I didn't take any reward of any description for any
21 duties I had to perform as a public representative, whether it was on or off
22 the council.
23 Q 305 And did you -- sorry, you just said there you wouldn't accept any reward for
24 any duties you had to perform?
12:53:15 25 A Correct.
26 Q 306 Did you regard this as some or the sorted of an offer of reward for a function
27 that you were going to have to carry out?
28 A I don't see how I could carry out duties as a professional consultant and at
29 the same time be part and parcel of voting on the council.
12:53:30 30 Q 307 At that stage, at the time of this approach, Mr. Barrett, did you know the
www.pcr.ie Day 650

62
12:53:38 1 various personnel in Monarch, the various people who were involved in Monarch
2 such as Mr. Lynn?
3 A The only person I could identify at that stage was Mr. Lynn because he was
4 always around the council and he was lobbying on a regular basis but I mean I,
12:53:53 5 if you ask me who X Y or Z was, I mean I didn't know people involved in Monarch
6 at all until after I was on the council and I met some people at that briefing
7 session that you referred to earlier. And I met subsequently met people in
8 relation to developments that were carried out in Dun Laoghaire, at various
9 functions but --
12:54:19 10 Q 308 But none of those people that you met subsequently were the gentleman who made
11 the proposal to you?
12 A No, no, not that I can recall. I mean as I said, I don't ever recall meeting
13 that gentleman before nor do I recall ever having met him since.
14 Unfortunately, I happened to mention to somebody that I had this approach and
12:54:41 15 then the next thing I read in the newspaper where there was a suspicion that I
16 had taken a large sum of money in connection with this rezoning in Monarch.
17 And that's borne out by some of the papers that were sent to me by this
18 Tribunal. Where various accusations were made by people to this Tribunal in
19 private which are completely and totally untrue.
12:55:07 20
21 I was subjected to newspaper articles which hinted that it was me. I think
22 there was one subsequent article by Mr. Sam Smith where he said it was
23 scurrilous that these people were going around spreading these stories without
24 any evidence and for the last ten years, I have carried this thing where there
12:55:31 25 is a suspicion that I received some large sum of money and there was also
26 suggested that I was going to vote for or against these proposals but at the
27 same time, get my colleagues to vote for them. Which I reject totally out of
28 hand and I dare anybody to come into this Tribunal and suggest that I ever
29 approached them to vote for a proposal that I was voting against. That is not
12:55:59 30 the way I do my business. I made my case quite clear, I made my case through
www.pcr.ie Day 650

63
12:56:05 1 argument at the council level, in public, and persuaded people to come to my
2 way of thinking. Unfortunately, I didn't succeed the full way but I succeeded
3 some of the way and I had no objections to ultimately development taking place
4 in this particular area. Anybody with a brain in their head would see that if
12:56:25 5 you are going to put a motorway through this and a main sewer, that there was
6 going to be some development. All I wanted is that it take place at a later
7 stage when there be proper debate and discussion through the local council, ie
8 Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council.
9 Q 309 Certainly insofar as the approach was made to you, Mr. Barrett, at the time by
12:56:50 10 this gentleman, this approach was presented to you in the context of your
11 objection to the Monarch Properties' position in connection with their lands at
12 Cherrywood?
13 A What was said to me was he was thinking of a proposal and would I be interested
14 in taking on this on a professional basis and be paid a consultancy fee.
12:57:08 15 That's the way it was put to me.
16 Q 310 Now, in June of 1991, the record of Monarch Properties record a political
17 donation in the sum of 600 pounds to you, Mr. Barrett, and I think you accept
18 you received a donation from Monarch Properties in June of 1991?
19 A What happened was prior to the local elections in 1991, a cheque arrived to my
12:57:33 20 home from Monarch Properties. I had never met these people. I phoned my
21 director of elections and I said I had received this cheque, I asked him to
22 take it away and to acknowledge it on behalf of the party, which he did. And I
23 supplied the name of the person to the Tribunal who I gave the cheque to.
24 Q 311 And the funds were lodged to the credit of the organisation, is that correct?
12:57:57 25 A As I am aware, that's what happened, it certainly wasn't lodged to my account.
26 Q 312 And the, insofar as there is a suggestion in the documentation that all
27 political donations were paid by Monarch Properties as a result of being
28 solicited, it's your position that you received this money unsolicited, is that
29 correct?
12:58:16 30 A That's absolutely correct. As I said, I had no dealings whatsoever with these
www.pcr.ie Day 650

64
12:58:21 1 people and I also read that in the documentation you supplied to me which was
2 made by a solicitor acting on behalf of Mr. Monahan who was deceased as I
3 understand when this statement was made, I fail to see how any firm of
4 solicitors can say that it's their understanding that all of these donations
12:58:43 5 were solicited. I certainly never wrote to Monarch Properties looking for a
6 donation, not that I can recall. And I'd no reason to, I wouldn't have known
7 where to write to. This was prior to my being elected to the council, prior to
8 any discussions I ever had with Monarch Properties about their proposal one way
9 or the other.
12:59:02 10
11 I also subsequently read and it was only when I received your papers that they
12 also state that I received a cheque for 500 pounds prior to the November 1992
13 general election. I have absolutely no record or recollection of this and as
14 you have already stated in May of the same year, I succeeded in having a motion
12:59:24 15 reducing the density from four houses to the acre to one house to the acre and
16 if anybody thinks I would go look for money off people that I had succeeded in
17 having their density reduced, I mean I don't know, but I certainly have no
18 recollection whatever.
19
12:59:41 20 Now if you accept, if there's a cheque to show that it was there, I have to
21 accept it but I certainly have no recollection, the only thing I can say is
22 that I think from any records I had, I always acknowledged in writing any
23 unsolicited donation I ever received. I have no recollection whatsoever of
24 ever having approached Monarch Properties for any donations.
13:00:06 25 Q 313 At 8376 there is in fact a copy of that cheque dated 19th November 1992 and the
26 reverse of the cheque, 8377 please, do you see there's an account number there,
27 can we turn that upside down there please. I don't know whether that assists
28 you in any way, Mr. Barrett, that's the reverse of the cheque?
29 A Well, that's not my account number.
13:00:29 30 Q 314 And at 8376, the cheque on its face is made out to Sean Barrett?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

65
13:00:37 1 A That's not my account number.
2 Q 315 On the reverse of the cheque?
3 A So the only thing, it may have arrived and I may have passed it over to the
4 organisation. I mean I just have no recollection whatsoever of it but the
13:00:49 5 account number on the back of that cheque, unless it's some account that I
6 never heard of it, I can't recall it. But I mean I had no reason whatsoever
7 not to have disclosed initially to the Tribunal that I would have received that
8 donation.
9 Q 316 And I think that the records also show and you will have seen that in 1995,
13:01:08 10 further to a consideration with Mr. Lynn, you sought support for the party at
11 5623 by way of a gala dinner and a cheque of 1,000 pounds was paid to Dun
12 Laoghaire Fine Gael as a result of that. I think the cheque is in fact, is
13 made out to 5633, Fine Gael Dun Laoghaire, it's just slightly above halfway
14 down?
13:01:45 15 A That was fund-raising for the constituency, certainly it had nothing to do with
16 me personally.
17 Q 317 Other than those contacts, Mr. Barrett, have you ever received any funds from
18 Monarch properties or Mr. Phillip Monahan or anybody else acting on the behalf
19 other than those three payments that have just been outlined to the Tribunal?
13:02:00 20 A Not that I can recall but I noticed also from the documentation supplied to me
21 by the Tribunal, that there was a suggestion made by, I don't know whether I
22 should the person, but an individual who gave evidence in private that he
23 claimed that Mr. Monahan told him that I insured his race horses. I want to
24 state categorically, I never spoke to Mr. Monahan about his race horses and I
13:02:26 25 was also asked by the Tribunal if I had ever insured race horses or anything
26 else on behalf of Mr. Monahan and I checked with my office and they tell me
27 that at no stage they can recall or are there any records of us ever insuring a
28 race horse.
29
13:02:45 30 Now, that was suggested that this was a means of payment to me. At that stage,
www.pcr.ie Day 650

66
13:02:48 1 I was a full-time public representatives. I wasn't working on a day to day
2 basis in my business and people would ring up and insure houses and horses and
3 various things. I would not be aware of it. But I went to the trouble of
4 checking, I have no record, nor do my office have any record of having insured
13:03:09 5 in the name of Mr. Monahan, race horses, but it was suggested that this was a
6 means of paying me off. Which is totally and utterly untrue and in fact the
7 same individual had the cheek to leak this, those lies to journalists. And
8 admitted that he couldn't, that they couldn't print the whole lot because it
9 could be libelous.
13:03:33 10
11 Now, I have been subjected for the last ten years to this sort of innuendo
12 based on hearsay evidence or no evidence but hearsay and I have had to try and
13 defend myself. I was on one occasion I was subjected to having, giving an
14 interview as Minister for the Marine about the development of Dublin Port the
13:03:57 15 said journalist asked that he record the interview by way of dictaphone and he
16 came into my office and placed a dictaphone on the table in front of us and
17 when the interview about Dublin Port was finished, I stood up and he stood up.
18 And he said to me by the way, he said what was all that nonsense about you
19 supposed to have got -- received money for rezoning and I said what rezoning
13:04:22 20 are you talking about, he said Cherrywood. I said well that's peculiar, I
21 voted against Cherrywood and that was public knowledge and the next thing I
22 notice that the dictaphone was still on. And I said excuse me, our interview
23 ended ten minutes ago. Two weeks later, there was a banner headline in the
24 Sunday Business Post, Minister denies money for planning. That's the sort of
13:04:47 25 stuff that I have been subjected to by people passing on false information, not
26 accepting that I was genuine in what I was doing out in that whole area of
27 Carrickmines. And it's taken me ten years to get the opportunities to say this
28 in public in front of this Tribunal.
29 Q 318 You will understand of course, Mr. Barrett, that the Tribunal must examine any
13:05:12 30 information?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

67
13:05:12 1 A I accept totally that you have a job to do and I fully accept that.
2 Q 319 And I think you would also accept, Mr. Barrett, that you have been provided
3 with all material and information?
4 A Absolutely.
13:05:22 5 Q 320 Can I ask you this finally, insofar as Mr. Dunlop has outlined to the Tribunal
6 certain activities that he says he was involved in, in the making of the 1993
7 Development Plan, were you aware or was there any rumour or suggestion of this
8 type of activity on the part of Mr. Dunlop that you can recollect during that
9 period?
13:05:43 10 A Ms. Dillon, I never knew that Mr. Dunlop was involved in that particular module
11 until I received the documentation from that Tribunal.
12 Q 321 I just ask you --
13 A I never had any contact with him about Monarch Properties at all.
14 Q 322 I am just asking you generally, Mr. Barrett, about what Mr. Dunlop has
13:06:00 15 described to the Tribunal and what's been fairly widely reported as his
16 conduct, his own conduct which was the bribing of councillors in return for
17 obtaining votes, at the time that this plan was being made and leaving aside
18 Monarch Properties for the moment, were you aware of any concerns or rumour
19 within the council and your colleagues of the way business was being conducted?
13:06:22 20 A Well as I have just outlined to you, I have been the subject of rumour, I never
21 paid much attention to rumour and nor will I ever pay much attention to rumour.
22 Unless I have concrete evidence that somebody is in receipt of monies
23 illegally, I just ignore it. I mean you know you can't operate on the basis of
24 people whispering falsehoods into your ear every day of the week. If they have
13:06:48 25 something to say. I told the said journalist, by the way, the one I referred
26 to in the Sunday Business Post, you rang me up on another occasion and said
27 well, I believe it's not 80,000 now, it's 27,000, I said is that right. Well I
28 said do you know what you do, if you have all this information, there's a thing
29 called the Tribunal, will you please supply it to them, I don't know whether
13:07:09 30 you ever received any documentation or representations from that said
www.pcr.ie Day 650

68
13:07:13 1 gentleman? But that's the sort of stuff that was going on. And people like me
2 and people with a family have to put up with this.
3 Q 323 Thank you very much, Mr. Barrett, if you would answer any questions that
4 anybody else might have.
13:07:27 5 A Thank you.
7 MR. SANFUI: Chairman, I have one question.
13:07:32 10
11 THE WITNESS WAS CROSS-EXAMINED AS FOLLOWS BY MR. SANFUI:
12
13 Q 324 And that's all. I wonder, Mr. Barrett, my name is Mark Sanfui and I represent
14 Monarch Properties, I have one question for you, I wasn't here earlier this
13:07:43 15 morning, but I am assured by colleagues that you agreed with Ms. Dillon that
16 the motion of December 1993, Mr. Marren's motion benefited Monarch by
17 increasing the density from one per acre to four per acre and indeed that's a
18 fact that nobody could dispute.
19
13:08:00 20 We had Mr. Marren here yesterday outlining in detail various planning reasons
21 that he had for proposing the motion and saying that he had become convinced
22 that to increase the density from one to four per acre was the right thing to
23 do and he set out his reasons in that regard. Can I take it that you accept
24 Mr. Marren's bona fides even though you may disagree with the reasons that he
13:08:27 25 advanced and I take it you are not suggesting that the motion was put forward
26 solely for the purpose of benefitting Monarch but for what Mr. Marren saw to be
27 good planning reasons
28 A I accept totally that any councillor -- I mean individually, we have a
29 statutory duty and people will differ. Their views will differ on many
13:08:45 30 occasions. I have differed with other people on many occasions and I take in
www.pcr.ie Day 650

69
13:08:50 1 good faith what people do the way they believe is the right thing to do. And
2 if Councillor Marren felt that that was the right thing to do, that's a matter
3 for himself. I mean the option open to me is either vote for or against that
4 particular motion. I selected to vote against it because I thought as I have
13:09:08 5 outlined, that we should wait and do an overall action plan. That was the -- I
6 am a realist, I knew that some day there was going to be development of that
7 land. I mean as I said if you are going to have a motorway and a main sewer,
8 of course there's going to be development, there's a question of timing and how
9 you go about it, that's all.
13:09:28 10 Q 325 Yes and in fact Mr. Marren said that he had had disagreements with you I think
11 perhaps disagreements that caused him some distress because he had been close
12 to you but that he put this motion forward and he did so in the best interests
13 of the Development Plan.
14 A Well of course. I mean it also puts paid to the idea that we met in secret as
13:09:50 15 a group and decided to vote one way or the other. We didn't do that. I can
16 only speak for myself but I mean, I knew that some people in my own group voted
17 and thought differently about different issues. You accepted that. One has to
18 accept it's an individual statutory duty to vote, you cannot in my opinion
19 impose a whip on something like this.
13:10:16 20 Q 326 Yes, thank you Mr. Barrett. Thank you chairman.
21
22 CHAIRMAN: All right Mr. Barrett, can I just ask you one thing and we will, you
23 can stand down then. You mentioned I think in May of 1992, the 27th May the
24 motion that -- this is your motion -- you got a map from an official of Dublin
13:10:33 25 County Council, you went in and you asked them to give you a map and then you
26 used that as a base for your motion. Was that facility there for councillors
27 generally if a councillor who themselves obviously wouldn't have the facility
28 for producing a map or even possibly understanding a map, was there a facility
29 there for councillors to go to the officials, to the engineers and get an
13:11:05 30 explanation for a map or get help in understanding a map?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

70
13:11:08 1 A Oh yes. I went to the planning department, the official in the planning
2 department. The administrative end of it and I just asked could they give me a
3 copy of the map relating to the '83 Development Plan for that particular area.
13:11:23 5 CHAIRMAN: And were you aware of other councillors using that facility or --
6 A Not really, I mean I understood it was available to everybody. I mean if you
7 want a map, I mean it was --
9 CHAIRMAN: It wasn't a special favour to you?
13:11:39 10 A No, no, it's a matter of public knowledge, the area is zoned and it's zoned,
11 it's just to get, in order to submit your motion and to make sense of the
12 motion, you have to indicate what area you are talking about.
13
14 CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Barrett.
13:11:53 15 A Thank you.
16
18
19 CHAIRMAN: We will say ten past two.
13:12:04 20
21 MS. DILLON: May it please you, sir.
22
23 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED FOR LUNCH
24
13:12:11 25
26
27
28
29
30
www.pcr.ie Day 650

71
14:15:06 1 THE TRIBUNAL RESUMED AS FOLLOWS AT 2.10 P.M.
3 MS. DILLON: Mr. Richard Conroy please.
14:15:12 5 MR. RICHARD CONROY HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS EXAMINED AS
6 FOLLOWS BY MS. DILLON:
8 CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon Mr. Conroy.
9 A Your honours.
14:15:47 10
11 Q 327 MS. DILLON: Good afternoon, Mr. Conroy. I think you were originally elected
12 to Dublin County Council in 1985 and remained a member of Dublin County Council
13 until January 1994, when you became a member of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County
14 Council.
14:15:59 15 A Yes.
16 Q 328 I think that you were elected or you were a member of the Fianna Fail political
17 party, is that correct?
18 A Yes.
19 Q 329 I think the Tribunal asked you to provide such information as you could in
14:16:12 20 connection with the lands at Cherrywood and asked you a number of questions and
21 you replied by letter dated 20th March 2006 at page 185 please, and at
22 paragraph 1 you state "You had no contacts or meetings with any servants or
23 agents of Monarch Properties Limited, Monarch Properties Services or any
24 company in the Monarch Group in relation to the lands at Cherrywood." Is that
14:16:44 25 correct?
26 A I think it is correct but I may well at some stage or another, someone of
27 Monarch Properties mentioned the matter to me but I certainly didn't have any
28 contacts or meetings with any of the persons involved.
29 Q 330 And other than the lands at Cherrywood, did you ever meet any of the servants
14:17:04 30 or agents of Monarch Properties or Monarch Properties Services Limited?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

72
14:17:11 1 A Not having the list in front of me but Richard Lynn was about the place quite
2 frequently and I am not, Mr. Monahan, to the best of nigh knowledge, the late
3 Mr. Monahan I don't think I have ever met him. I think Mr. Murray I may have
4 met at some stage or other on other business. I can't recollect the other
14:17:33 5 names.
6 Q 331 And at paragraph 2, you state "You had no contacts or meetings with the various
7 names parties in relation to the Monarch Group whether a servant or agent or
8 otherwise with regard to the lands at Cherrywood." And I think the parties
9 that were identified to you in the Tribunal letter, were Mr. Phillip Monahan,
14:17:50 10 the late Mr. Monahan, Mr. Richard Lynn, Mr. Eddie Sweeney, Mr. Dominic
11 Glennane, Mr. Philip Reilly and Mr. Frank Dunlop.
12 A None other than Mr. Lynn was about the place, as I said, he may have at some
13 stage mentioned it to me or he may have called to the office but I have no
14 recollection of any discussion with him.
14:18:10 15 Q 332 And you say at 3 "You say you have not received any benefit or payment for or
16 on behalf of those listed at 1 or 2." And at 4, "No person made
17 representations to you on behalf of any company in the Monarch Group."
18 A Correct.
19 Q 333 Now, if I can take you, Mr. Lynn in his statement to the Tribunal says that he
14:18:25 20 would have met and spoken with all of the members of Dublin County Council,
21 including yourself, you don't dispute that, is that correct?
22 A I don't dispute that and I note in the documentation a tick beside my name.
23 Q 334 Now I think that in 1993, you were a member of Dublin County Council, is that
24 correct?
14:18:44 25 A Yes, I think it was, Ms. Dillon, 1993, yes.
26 Q 335 And in the course of that, you had occasion to come to consider the
27 Carrickmines lands, the Cherrywood lands, isn't that the position?
28 A Yes.
29 Q 336 But I think in fact your only involvement as recorded in the minutes of the
14:18:59 30 minutes of the meetings is in connection with the meeting in November 1993,
www.pcr.ie Day 650

73
3 Q 337 But you don't appear to have any involvement up to that particular point in
4 time and you were recorded in the minutes of the meeting as voting in favour of
14:19:11 5 a motion that's put before the meeting by Councillor Marren and Coffey. And I
6 will show you a copy of the motion please at 722, 7229 please. These are the
7 lands that were the subject matter of the motion and these are the lands you
8 may take it from me, Mr. Conroy, that these are the lands that were owned by
9 Monarch Properties at Cherrywood. And as a result of the, sorry the motion
14:19:50 10 that was put forward to the meeting was a motion in connection with the
11 rezoning of these lands on behalf of Monarch Properties from one to the acre
12 which they had been since May of 1992 to four to the acre, did you understand
13 that, Mr. Conroy?
14 A Yes.
14:20:07 15 Q 338 Now, I think that you are recorded at 7263 as voting in favour of the motion.
16 A Yes.
17 Q 339 Can you outline to the Tribunal anything you recollect about that or the
18 circumstances in which you came to support it?
19 A In the general terms, which I think I have been consistent about from the
14:20:42 20 beginning, in that I felt that there was a housing shortage, a land shortage
21 and I have consistently supported increased housing per acre or per hectare as
22 it's now known and no other particular reason for voting for it or against it.
23 Q 340 Yes. The lands that were the subject matter of this motion were part of the
24 lands, 7217 please, if I just explain to you, Mr. Conroy, on the map that's on
14:21:18 25 screen, all of the yellow lands are zoned residential.
26 A Yes.
27 Q 341 And the Monarch lands are outlined in red and they form part of the yellow
28 lands.
29 A Yes.
14:21:28 30 Q 342 All of those yellow lands being all of the residentially zoned lands in the
www.pcr.ie Day 650

74
14:21:33 1 Carrickmines Valley were zoned at one house to the acre in May of 1992 as a
2 result of Councillor Barrett's motion.
3 A Yes.
4 Q 343 When the matter came back before the council in November 1993, the motion that
14:21:46 5 was put before the council by Councillors Marren and Coffey was to rezone a
6 portion of those residentially zoned lands at four to the acre and the balance
7 at one to the acre, you follow that?
8 A Yes. Yes.
9 Q 344 Now, your position had been pro development as I understand what you have just
14:22:03 10 told the Tribunal.
11 A Yes.
12 Q 345 In those circumstances, can I ask you, Mr. Conroy, why you didn't take some
13 step to bring all of the zoning to four houses to the acre?
14 A Well I would absolutely agree that all of the zoning should be four houses or
14:22:19 15 more to the acre, but that was the actual proposition that was before the
16 council at that stage.
17 Q 346 And certainly the manager had recommended that that entire change be deleted
18 and that the lands revert to four houses to the acre.
19 A Yes.
14:22:35 20 Q 347 And you could have brought a motion to do that, isn't that correct?
21 A That is correct, yes.
22 Q 348 But you didn't do that, notwithstanding the fact that you have a pro
23 development view?
14:22:46 25 Q 349 So you simply responded, is that correct, Mr. Conroy, to the motion put before
26 the chamber by Mr. Marren and Ms. Coffey?
27 A In that that was a motion which I felt had a possibility of succeeding at that
28 time, yes.
29 Q 350 Sorry.
14:23:02 30 A In that that was a motion which I thought, rightly or wrongly, had the
www.pcr.ie Day 650

75
14:23:07 1 possibility of succeeding at that time.
2 Q 351 Was it your belief at that time that if a motion were put to the chamber
3 concerning all of the lands that were zoned residential in the Carrickmines
4 Valley and to rezone those lands at four to the acre, that motion would not
14:23:21 5 succeed?
6 A It might have been more difficult I am just speculating on that.
7 Q 352 Do you have any recollection of there being, of the rezoning of the
8 Carrickmines Valley being a contentious issue before the council?
9 A Yes, it was a contentious issue, it's a very beautiful valley and it's very sad
14:23:39 10 that it had to be rezoned but with the demand on housing and later the
11 possibility of a science park, it was, I felt, necessary, but there was a lot
12 of opposition to it, and very understandably.
13 Q 353 And was it well known within the council that the lands, the subject matter of
14 that motion, were the Monarch lands?
14:23:59 15 A I am not so sure if that was very well known but it may well have been.
16 Q 354 And you will have seen in the documentation and records of the minutes of the
17 meeting, Mr. Conroy, that these lands are referred to as Monarch Properties
18 lands throughout the minutes, isn't that right?
19 A That is absolutely correct.
14:24:16 20 Q 355 And they are also so referred in the manager's report, isn't that right?
21 A Yes, indeed.
22 Q 356 So it would follow from that for anybody who was in attendance at those
23 meetings, they would have been aware of the existence of Monarch Properties
24 interests in the lands, isn't that right?
14:24:30 25 A They would certainly have been aware of it but from time to time you have
26 various developers whose interests in the lands are mentioned in the council.
27 Q 357 Certainly if I could move on, Mr. Conroy, to 1994 and the events in 1994. I
28 think would it be fair to that you would have been in favour of the science and
29 technology park?
14:24:49 30 A Very much so.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

76
14:24:50 1 Q 358 And indeed when matters weren't moving along, I think that you signed a motion
2 at 5396.
3 A I think so.
4 Q 359 Which is dated October 1994 and by this stage, Mr. Conroy, a decision had
14:25:30 5 already been taken to promote a science and technology park and that decision
6 had been taken by Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council.
7 A Do you mind if I just --
8 Q 360 Not at all.
9 A Thank you very much. Yes, thank you.
14:25:42 10 Q 361 But that decision was taken in June of 1994 and by October of 1994, the council
11 received a motion that's signed by Councillor Lydon, Councillor Liam Cosgrave
12 and yourself, isn't that right?
14 Q 362 And I think the map that's attached to that motion at 5397 outlines the Monarch
14:26:03 15 lands and details the break down in zoning that was sought.
16 A Yes.
17 Q 363 And I think you also signed that map, isn't that right?
18 A That looks like my signature there, I think yes. Yes, it is my signature, yes.
19 Q 364 Now can I ask you, Mr. Conroy, the circumstances in which you came to sign this
14:26:27 20 motion at 5396?
21 A Well I would certainly have made my position on a science and technology
22 development as being very very much in favour. It was something which I think
23 at the time, still is urgently needed, a very beneficial development, which we
24 are very fortunate to get and therefore I would have been very happy indeed to
14:26:53 25 sign that motion.
26 Q 365 Yes. Who asked you to sign the motion?
27 A Sorry.
28 Q 366 Who asked you to sign the motion?
29 A I have no recollection but anyone who asked me to sign that motion, I would
14:27:05 30 happily do so.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

77
14:27:06 1 Q 367 Do you know whether Mr. Lydon or Mr. Cosgrave had already signed the motion by
2 the time you signed it?
3 A I don't really, it likes as though I am the first signature on it but I just
4 don't recollect.
14:27:17 5 Q 368 Do you remember meeting Mr. Lynn or anybody from Monarch Properties in
6 connection with this motion?
7 A No, I don't.
8 Q 369 Do you remember discussing it with either Mr. Lydon or Mr. Cosgrave?
9 A They could well have said that they were putting that motion forward and I
14:27:31 10 would have been very happy with that.
11 Q 370 And the motion was an unusual motion, was it not, Mr. Conroy in the sense that
12 the science and technology park was a new development for Dun
13 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council?
14 A Indeed, yes.
14:27:43 15 Q 371 And this I suggest to you is probably the only motion in connection with the
16 science and technology park that was ever heard, dealt with or received by Dun
17 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council?
18 A I think that's probably correct, I can't just be certain of that.
19 Q 372 And therefore the subject matter of the motion is an unusual subject matter in
14:28:00 20 your experience as a councillor, isn't that right?
21 A Yes, that would be true.
22 Q 373 And it's still your position that you cannot recollect anything about the
23 circumstances in which you came to sign it, Mr. Conroy?
24 A I don't think there was anything untoward or out of the way about the signing
14:28:15 25 of it that I can recollect at any rate. It seemed a very proper motion, very
26 essential motion and very beneficial one in my view at any rate.
27 Q 374 I am not suggesting that there's anything untoward about it Mr. Conroy, I am
28 simply seeking to establish who was the person who asked you to sign the
29 motion, whether it was somebody from Monarch Properties or whether it was
14:28:36 30 either of the two persons whose names appear beside yours?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

78
14:28:41 1 A It certainly wasn't anyone from Monarch Properties, it could have been one of
2 my two colleagues but I would certainly have been happy to initiate that motion
3 myself, i have to say that.
4 Q 375 Would you have drafted the motion if you had initiated it?
14:28:53 5 A No.
6 Q 376 Does it follow from that, if you were the main proposer of the motion, it would
7 have required somebody else to prepare the motion and present it to you?
8 A That would be correct.
9 Q 377 And you yourself did not prepare the motion?
14:29:03 10 A Not to my recollection, I don't think so. No.
11 Q 378 Do you have any idea where the map came from at 5397 please.
12 A That would be normal procedure in relation to motions to provide a map, I would
13 take it, it comes from the officials on the council but I have no particular
14 recollection of where it came from.
14:29:24 15 Q 379 In any event, ultimately a variation was made, isn't that right, by Dun
16 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council in connection with the science and technology
17 park and that variation was confirmed.
18 A Yes.
19 Q 380 That motion in fact was never proceeded with because the manager brought before
14:29:39 20 the council his own proposals which were accepted, isn't that right?
21 A That is correct, yes.
22 Q 381 But other than the fact that this was a unique motion in your experience as a
23 councillor, you can't assist the Tribunal as to the circumstances in which you
24 came to sign it?
14:29:55 25 A I don't think so, other than that I thought it a very necessary development
26 that should be encouraged in which I was, I didn't sign very many motions when
27 I was on the council, as you will be aware but that was certainly one I was
28 very happy to sign.
29 Q 382 Yes, and I think that matters moved on, Mr. Conroy, and Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown
14:30:15 30 County Council came to consider the Development Plan, the review of the
www.pcr.ie Day 650

79
14:30:16 1 Development Plan in 1997 and 1998, isn't that right?
2 A About then, yes.
3 Q 383 And I think that there were a number of submissions that were made to the
4 council in connection to the Development Plan by Monarch Properties at 2561
14:30:30 5 please. This is a submission 359 and it seeks, Mr. Conroy, rezoning of a
6 certain portion of lands from B agriculture to E1 and the lands are outlined on
7 the map on the following page at 2563. We just need to turn this map. And
8 what was being sought was to extend the science and technology zoning into the
9 area marked 3 on that map, do you see that?
14:31:06 10 A Yes, I do indeed, yes.
11 Q 384 And I think subsequently, a motion was brought before the council at page 7286,
12 and this motion sought as its objective, the rezoning of 40 acres from B to
13 objective E1 and the map attached to that motion, Mr. Conroy, is at 7287. And
14 you will see that the map seeks the rezoning of the area marked 3 and you will
14:31:45 15 see that the motion at 7286 is signed by Councillors Lowry, Matthews, Cosgrave
16 and yourself, is that right?
17 A That's absolutely correct and the map as well, I've signed.
18 Q 385 And the map is signed. Can you outline to the Tribunal the circumstances in
19 which you came to sign this motion?
14:32:04 20 A I would assume and this is an assumption now, that an extra area was required
21 or had been requested and certainly if it was required to change it to
22 agricultural which is B to E1, science and technology, I would certainly feel
23 that that was something I would support. But I don't recollect if that's the
24 following -- who asked me to sign it but I see names ahead of me.
14:32:39 25 Q 386 Yes. Do you remember or do you recollect having being approached by anybody
26 from Monarch Properties in connection with this motion?
27 A No, no.
28 Q 387 Would you agree that what is sought on the face of this motion is exactly what
29 had been sought by Monarch Properties in their submission to the council at
14:32:55 30 page 2561. Monarch Properties outline in that letter that they seek a change
www.pcr.ie Day 650

80
14:33:10 1 for the lands marked 3 for the provision of a science and development park and
2 you will see and you have seen already that the map that is attached to the
3 Monarch submission at 2563, if we just turn that please, is almost the same as
4 the map that you signed that's attached to the motion, is that correct?
14:33:35 5 A That's absolutely correct.
6 Q 388 So and it would seem then that the motion that was brought, Mr. Conroy, was on
7 all fours or in agreement with the submission that had been made by Monarch
8 Properties?
9 A That would appear to be the case, yes.
14:33:48 10 Q 389 And yet you have no recollection of the circumstances in which you came to sign
11 this motion, is that the position?
12 A Other than that if it was something in relation to the science park, I would
13 certainly support it. But certainly I wasn't approached by Monarch Properties
14 to the best of my recollection and I don't specifically recollect but somebody
14:34:07 15 must obviously have suggested it to me.
16 Q 390 That motion was amended by a motion saying that any such rezoning of the lands
17 marked 3 on the map that's on screen would be without prejudice to the
18 council's stated objective to develop a golf course on those lands. Do you
19 remember that?
14:34:27 20 A That could well be the case, yes.
21 Q 391 Because the lands --
22 A Yes.
23 Q 392 Which it was proposed by your motion would be rezoned were lands that had been
24 zoned for a golf course in the 1993 plan, is that right?
14:34:38 25 A That would be correct.
26 Q 393 So that motion as amended was passed, isn't that the position?
27 A To my recollection, yes.
28 Q 394 And the second submission that was made by Monarch Properties to the council in
29 the review of the Development Plan is at 2564, and this submission seeks an
14:35:01 30 extension of the area zoned DC or district centre and the map shows the area
www.pcr.ie Day 650

81
14:35:06 1 marked 2 at 2566. If you just turn this map please. What was sought is an
2 extension of the town centre zoning from the area marked 1 into the area marked
3 2 on that map at 2566, Mr. Conroy, do you see that?
4 A I do indeed, yes.
14:35:24 5 Q 395 So it was an additional piece of land that was sought to be rezoned to include
6 retail and district centre activities.
7 A Yes.
8 Q 396 And if I could show you a motion at 7288, Mr. Conroy, which is signed by
9 yourself, isn't that the position?
14:35:42 10 A That is correct, yes.
11 Q 397 And this motion seeks a rezoning of lands from objective A residential to DC as
12 an extension of the existing district centre zoning on the adjoining lands,
14:36:00 15 Q 398 And I think you will accept from the map attached to that motion which is at
16 7289, that what is sought there is an extension of the district centre zoning
17 from the area marked 1 into the area marked 2.
18 A Correct.
19 Q 399 Isn't that the position?
14:36:13 20 A Yes, absolutely.
21 Q 400 And that is exactly the same matter that had been sought by Monarch Properties
22 in their submission 360 to the council, isn't that the position?
23 A Absolutely correct, yes.
24 Q 401 Can you outline to the Tribunal the circumstances in which you came to sign
14:36:27 25 this motion?
26 A Certainly, I assume there that one of my colleagues asked me to sign it, I
27 would have to assume that because I would have no particular interest in the
28 district centre per se in the same way that I would in the science and
29 technology one.
14:36:49 30 Q 402 I think you in fact seconded that motion at 2625, Mr. Conroy?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

82
14:36:53 1 A Very likely. Yes.
2 Q 403 It was proposed by Councillor Lowry and seconded by yourself.
3 A Yes.
4 Q 404 And it was passed on a show of hands, isn't that right?
14:37:00 5 A I think so, yes.
6 Q 405 Can you assist the Tribunal as to whether you would have done that at the
7 instigation of somebody from Monarch or whether you did it at the request of
8 one of your colleagues who also signed the motion?
9 A I cannot assume that it was at the request of the colleague who proposed the
14:37:17 10 motion but it certainly wasn't at the request of Monarch, so therefore I have
11 to assume it was one of my councillor colleagues.
12 Q 406 And insofar as these three motions are concerned, the original motion,
13 Mr. Conroy, seeking to bring on a science and technology park that was dealt
14 with in 1994 and these two motions in the course of the review of the
14:37:39 15 Development Plan, it's your position that you accept that you signed the
16 motions and the maps, is that right?
17 A Yes, absolutely, yes.
18 Q 407 And that these latter two motions were ultimately successful but that you have
19 no recollection of the circumstances in which you came to sign them.
14:37:53 20 A Of the science and technology park, I am quite clear this was something I was
21 very much advocating and in favour of. The other, the retail centre, not
22 really, no.
23 Q 408 But you have no recollection in any of these cases, Mr. Conroy, of who asked
24 you to sign the motion, is that right?
14:38:09 25 A I have no recollection of who asked me, but certainly wasn't Monarch Properties
26 so one has to assume therefore it was one of the my colleagues.
27 Q 409 And you do not know who prepared the motion or provided the maps, is that the
28 position?
29 A No, I don't.
14:38:25 30 Q 410 Ultimately those motions were successful, is that correct?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

83
14:38:28 1 A That's correct, yes.
2 Q 411 And you were in favour of those motions in any event, isn't that the position?
3 A Yes, particularly the first one, yes.
4 Q 412 Were you ever in receipt of any money or payments from Monarch Properties or
14:38:38 5 anybody in connection with Monarch Properties?
6 A None.
7 Q 413 In the course of your career in Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council since
8 1994, would you have had occasion to sign many motions?
9 A I would have signed a number but I was not I would say the number of motions
14:38:55 10 that I signed was not a very large number indeed.
11 Q 414 And the records of the meetings would show --
12 A It's on the record the ones I did propose obviously.
13 Q 415 And the record of attendances at the meeting would tend to show, Mr. Conroy,
14 and I am in no was criticising you for this, that you were a less than frequent
14:39:11 15 attender at the meetings, would that be fair?
16 A Before I came Cathaoirleach, that is correct, I had various other demands.
17 Q 416 Would it be fair to say without putting words in your mouth, that the signing
18 of these motions would be a not commonplace occurrence in your life as a
19 councillor?
14:39:29 20 A I signed a number of motions, it certainly wouldn't be a commonplace
21 occurrence, I think that's fair to say, yes.
22 Q 417 Thank you very much, if you answer any other questions.
23
14:39:45 25
27
28 MR. QUINN: Mr. Fergal McCabe please.
29
30
www.pcr.ie Day 650

84
14:39:52 1 MR. FERGAL MCCABE, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS EXAMINED
4 CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon, Mr. McCabe.
14:40:23 5 A Good afternoon.
6 Q 418 Thank you Mr. McCabe, good after. Mr. McCabe you were a town planner and you
7 were retained by Monarch in relation to the lands at Cherrywood, isn't that
8 right?
9 A That's correct.
14:40:32 10 Q 419 And you were written to by the Tribunal and you were asked to provide a
11 statement, the letter seeking the statement dated the 7th April 2006 is at
12 pages 1426 and 1427 of the brief an your response is 8202. I think you say in
13 the first paragraph of that letter of response, that you have worked for the
14 Monarch property group since you first commenced practice in 1974. Isn't that
14:40:58 15 right?
17 Q 420 And you work with the group right up until 1997 and probably later, is that
18 correct?
19 A Yes.
14:41:07 20 Q 421 So therefore you would have been involved with all the other various projects
21 that Monarch had been involvement with prior to Cherrywood?
22 A Yes.
23 Q 422 So by 1989, you would have in your capacity as a consultant town planner have
24 quite a good deal of experience with the various personnel within Monarch
14:41:24 25 Group?
26 A I would.
27 Q 423 And Monarch I think at that stage had a reputation in relation to the
28 development of supermarkets and shopping centres?
29 A They were principally a shopping centre developer.
14:41:33 30 Q 424 The departure towards Cherrywood, that was a departure for them?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

85
14:41:39 1 A Yes, it was. I suppose in the sense that it was principally residentially or
2 industrially zoned land but I think their initial interest was there might be a
3 shopping centre involved.
4 Q 425 But by and large, they hadn't been involved to that extent in relation to
14:41:58 5 residential property prior to that?
6 A No.
7 Q 426 I think that Mr. Monahan obviously was the chairman and chief executive of the
8 Monarch Group and you knew the late Mr. Phil Monahan I presume?
9 A I did.
14:42:12 10 Q 427 Mr. Noel Murray was also involved with the group and presumably you knew him
11 also?
12 A I do of course.
13 Q 428 In what capacity did Mr. Murray --
14 A I think Mr. Murray was mainly marketing.
14:42:23 15 Q 429 Then there was a Mr. Phillip Reilly I think who had a responsibility in
16 Tallaght, is that correct?
17 A Yes, I think that was --
18 Q 430 Did you know Mr. Reilly?
19 A I did.
14:42:30 20 Q 431 And then Mr. Lynn, isn't that right?
22 Q 432 Had Mr. Lynn been with the company prior to 1989 and had he been involved with
23 the other projects?
24 A I don't think so, I think Mr. Lynn came in around the time of Cherrywood.
14:42:46 25 Q 433 So Mr. Lynn would have been peculiar to the Cherrywood development?
26 A He certainly was the team leader.
27 Q 434 Yes. Now, I think there was a Mr. Lafferty who was an in-house engineer, is
28 that correct?
29 A In-house architect.
14:42:58 30 Q 435 Did you have a lot of dealing with Mr. Lafferty?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

86
14:43:01 1 A Yes, I would have.
2 Q 436 Now, I think in May 1989, you wrote to Mr. Monahan, if I could have 2846
3 please, this is a letter discovered to the Tribunal by you and it's a letter to
4 Mr. Monahan and it's your assessment of the site, isn't that right?
14:43:19 5 A I think Monarch had just bought the lands at the time. Mr. Monahan asked me
6 for an initial reaction in terms of the statutory planning system.
7 Q 437 Yes. Is that unusual, Mr. McCabe, that you would be asked for an assessment
8 after the purchase rather than before the purchase?
9 A Yes, I suppose it is.
14:43:41 10 Q 438 Now, I think the property, according to the Irish Times of the 12th May 1989,
11 at 8510 had been recently purchased for a sum of 11 million which would have
12 been a substantial payment at the time, both in relation to size and indeed in
13 relation to price per acre for this green field, well it was effectively a
14 green field site?
14:44:00 15 A I really don't know about values.
16 Q 439 You in any event did write as we saw on the 16th May 1989 at 2846 to
17 Mr. Monahan and you set out what you thought was the current zoning situation
18 on the land and what might be contained on the land, isn't that right?
19 A Yes.
14:44:24 20 Q 440 And both you highlighted the prospect of possibility on both residential and
21 shopping centre, isn't that correct, although you felt the inclusion of
22 shopping facilities in the Draft Development Plan at that stage might be
23 controversial?
24 A I was sceptical as to the viability of a shopping centre at that stage.
14:44:45 25 Q 441 Yes.
26 A It's on page 2, I think.
27 Q 442 Yes. At 2847, you are familiar with this correspondence I take it?
28 A Yes, I am.
29 Q 443 You would have recently updated yourself on it in any event. I think one of
14:44:59 30 the important points being made by you at the very early stage in relation to
www.pcr.ie Day 650

87
14:45:05 1 the property is that the current development plan was being undertaken, the
2 review of the current Development Plan was in being, isn't that right?
3 A I think it had commenced.
4 Q 444 About 1987 and a series of working papers were being prepared?
14:45:18 5 A Yes.
6 Q 445 And maps were being prepared and I think and would it be fair to that your
7 approach to both that review of the plan and the review of the 1993 plan was
8 that you should get in and try and have your views adopted by the management?
9 A It was not unusual for significant landowners to make their views known to an
14:45:44 10 evolving Development Plan in the early stages, in fact that's provided for
11 statutorily in the 2000 act now.
12 Q 446 We are now talk being 1989. I think in 1989, the idea was that there would be
13 a statutory display when submissions would be made to the plan, isn't that
14 right, after the first statutory display.
14:46:05 15 A In the ordinary circumstances, yes.
16 Q 447 And I think the first statutory display in relation to the '83 plan was between
17 September and December 1991 which was two years away, isn't that right?
18 A I take your word.
19 Q 448 Yes. Now, I think there were a series of meetings and you will have seen in
14:46:24 20 the brief if we could have 2850 please, one of the meetings occurred between
21 the roads department and, sorry, the sewerage department of the council and
22 representatives of your associates who I think were retained as engineers under
23 the development?
24 A Yes.
14:46:45 25 Q 449 And you will have seen one of the issues at this early stage was the issue of
26 the Carrickmines Valley sewerage scheme, is that right?
27 A That's right.
28 Q 450 There were two issues in relation to this green field site, one was a question
29 of access complicated by the proposed siting of the Southeastern Motorway and
14:47:02 30 the other was the question of drainage and in particular, sewage drainage and
www.pcr.ie Day 650

88
14:47:07 1 that was to be catered for by the Carrickmines Valley sewer, isn't that
2 correct?
3 A Yes.
4 Q 451 And both of those were essential to any development of the site?
14:47:14 5 A Yes.
6 Q 452 As indeed was the zoning because the zoning at the time I think was one house
7 to the acre on septic tank.
8 A Yes, of that order.
9 Q 453 It would be wholly uneconomic to develop this site on that zoning I take it?
14:47:32 10 A Again, I am not, I'm unwilling to give evidence on values but it would seem to
11 me in planning terms alone inappropriate.
12 Q 454 Yes. It's unlikely that you would get a large scale planning, for 243 houses
13 on the 243 acres.
14 A At that particular zoning of septic tanks, it would have caused a lot of
14:47:54 15 pollution problems.
16 Q 455 Yes. Now, I think as we see from the document on screen that when they met
17 with the representatives of the council, they were informed that tender
18 documents had recently been approved by the Department of the Environment in
19 relation to the scheme and that is to say that the internal engineers were
14:48:16 20 surprised at the instruction since it wasn't on a priority list. Do you recall
21 any discussion in May, June 1989 in relation to that matter?
22 A No.
23 Q 456 But in any event, you did find out and you discovered I take it that the tender
24 documents were being drawn up within the council, approval having been given I
14:48:38 25 think on the 1st May or shortly prior to the 1st May of that year, that the
26 scheme could go ahead.
27 A Yes, I am aware of that.
28 Q 457 Yes. And I think you then, on the 7th June 1989 provided your first
29 comprehensive report to Mr. Sweeney, if I could have 2852 please, in relation
14:48:57 30 to the matter, isn't that right?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

89
14:48:59 1 A Yes, that's it.
2 Q 458 And I think as I indicated in the very first paragraph there, you were
3 highlighting the advantage of securing a rezoning in the initial draft, isn't
4 that right?
14:49:11 5 A Yes.
6 Q 459 Presumably if it were the manager's proposal, it had a greater possibility of
7 being accepted by the councillors, although as we discover, that wasn't
8 necessarily the case here at a later stage?
9 A Well that's what should happen.
14:49:28 10 Q 460 Yes. Now, you were suggesting a density, current density, isn't that right, in
11 relation to the lands at this stage. I think in fact what you say is "I would
12 suggest that a representation be made to the planning authority to the effect
13 that the lands be considered for development at full residential densities,"
14:49:47 15 A Yes.
16 Q 461 What were full residential densities at that time?
17 A Probably in the order of 20 to the acre.
18 Q 462 We know, for example, and we have evidence --
19 A Sorry 20 to the hectare, I am sorry.
14:49:59 20 Q 463 Which would be about ten to the acre?
21 A Eight. Eight to the acre.
22 Q 464 So therefore four to the acre would be considered low density.
23 A It would be lowish. It would be verging on the, verging on the level at which
24 it would be difficult to sustain a proper neighbourhood.
14:50:21 25 Q 465 And I think you directed that a series of studies be undertaken which might be
26 of assistance in compiling a report, isn't that right?
27 A Yes.
28 Q 466 You have seen that document and I am sure you have revised your, you have
29 updated your memory in relation to what went on?
14:50:40 30 A Yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

90
14:50:40 1 Q 467 We see at 2853 under the heading "Housing development" you said that you would
2 recommend that -- this is the suggested application perhaps for a material
3 contravention at that stage that any such application be delayed, isn't that
4 right? You say there that "However the possibility of seeking a material
14:51:01 5 contravention is available at any time, I would recommend that it would be
6 delayed until such time as a favourable draft zoning at least for the lands has
7 emerged." Isn't that right?
8 A Yes, ideally until the plan had been fully approved.
9 Q 468 Yes. Now, the submissions and the case for housing and density, you suggest I
14:51:21 10 think at 2854 be established on the principles laid down in the studies
11 prepared for the Development Plan submission, were you there talking about the
12 working papers, etc?
13 A Yes.
14 Q 469 And then I think you dealt with the retail element and based on that, I think
14:51:38 15 you followed up that letter on the 7th June with a further letter setting out
16 your charges and recommending that I think it was the late Mr. Meehan who was
17 also a planner?
18 A Dr. Meehan, yes.
19 Q 470 Be employed also, is that correct?
14:51:52 20 A Yes.
21 Q 471 I think on the 26th June 1989, if we see 2874 you were given instructions in
22 relation to the matter. Now, on the 29th June '89, if we could have 2878
23 please, the issue of the route of the Southeastern Motorway was beginning to
24 surface, isn't that right? And you were given a map with a suggested land use
14:52:23 25 structure, isn't that correct?
27 Q 472 And I think you wrote to the planners on 2879 on the 3rd July 1989 advising of
28 your client's interests in the land and asking that a development -- not
29 exceeding 10 thousand house to the acre in the forthcoming review of the plan?
14:52:46 30 A That's right, that's a preliminary letter.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

91
14:52:48 1 Q 473 That's a preliminary letter written to the planners at the time when they were
2 considering the papers for publication to the councillors?
3 A Yes.
4 Q 474 Now, I think that letter was acknowledged as we see on the 10th July '89 at
14:53:03 5 2883 and I think that strategy meetings were beginning to develop within the
6 Monarch Group attended by you and others in relation to how you might proceed,
7 is that correct?
8 A Yes.
9 Q 475 Were you providing a strategy control option to Monarch on how they might
14:53:23 10 proceed?
11 A I was outlining, if I remember right, the form of submission that might be
12 successful.
13 Q 476 For example if we look at 2894, on the 11th August 1989, I think you were
14 referring to the ERDO report, is that correct?
14:53:44 15 A Yes, it seemed to me it was the bedrock of the whole exercise.
16 Q 477 Yes. ERDO I think had compiled a report in May of 1988 or revised a report in
17 1988 which suggested that there might be an additional 30,000 houses required
18 in this location, is that correct?
19 A An additional 20,000 population if I recollect.
14:54:03 20 Q 478 Yes. If we look at 2894, we just look at the second paragraph there, you say
21 that "The revised ERDO strategy for the Dublin sub region of May 1988 which is
22 the basic research document informing the forthcoming review of the Development
23 Plan recommends an additional population of 20,000 persons for the Shanganagh
24 area by the year 2001. In addition to a committed population capacity based on
14:54:30 25 current permissions and land use zoning objectives of 30,000 in the south and
26 south eastern suburbs."
27 A I think that might be 2011.
28 Q 479 20 and 11 as opposed to 30?
29 A Sorry an additional 20,000 persons by 2011 rather than 2001.
14:54:47 30 Q 480 I understand. And I think you were suggesting then that there was a scarcity
www.pcr.ie Day 650

92
14:54:50 1 of industrially zoned lands and again these lands might be considered for that
2 purpose?
3 A Yes.
4 Q 481 And I think your suggestion was more or less to the effect that based on the
14:55:00 5 existing zoning, that you would not have a capacity on these lands for that
6 projected population growth.
7 A I made a study of the southeast area generally and looked at committed lands or
8 permissions and undevelopable of lands and it seemed to me one of the few
9 places in which the 20,000 population could be located was the Lehaunstown,
14:55:24 10 Cherrywood lands.
11 Q 482 That's 30 years on from when this commission is being undertaken or 20 years
12 on?
13 A By 2011.
14 Q 483 And it's now 1989, 1990.
14:55:36 15 A Yes.
16 Q 484 I think additional population then would give rise to the necessity for
17 shopping and other activities, isn't that right?
18 A There would be ancillary retail and schools and open space necessary.
19 Q 485 Now, I think that as you go forward, you eventually have a meeting with the
14:56:00 20 planners, isn't that right? And that meeting took place on the 29th August
21 1989 and at 2902 we have a report of that meeting and I think that report may
22 have been in fact compiled by yourself for Mr. Lynn?
24 Q 486 How did that meeting take place?
14:56:15 25 A I sought the meeting and the members of the Development Plan team agreed to
26 meet me.
27 Q 487 Had you sought similar meetings on behalf of other clients in relation to the
28 review of that Development Plan?
29 A In relation to the 199 -- that Development Plan, that was the only submission,
14:56:39 30 I don't think I made any other submissions in relation to that plan other than
www.pcr.ie Day 650

93
14:56:43 1 Cherrywood.
2 Q 488 Yes. You would have been one of the leading planning consultants at that time
3 in the country, isn't that right?
4 A I was an established planning consultant.
14:56:49 5 Q 489 And yet this is the very first and only occasion that you have had to meet with
6 the planners during their review of the plan in advance of its publication.
7 A It is but I wouldn't really have made any large scale submissions to the
8 development plans other than Cherrywood.
9 Q 490 Yes. Well did you make any submissions during the public display between
14:57:13 10 September and December 1991 other than Cherrywood?
11 A No.
12 Q 491 On behalf of any clients?
13 A I don't believe so.
14 Q 492 In any event, you discussed your views in relation to the valley and in
14:57:25 15 relation to these lands with the planners, isn't that right, at that, as
16 appears from that and it was obvious that the Shanganagh, or sorry, the
17 Carrickmines sewerage system and the proposed Southeastern Motorway were going
18 to be huge factors in relation to the matter, isn't that right?
19 A Yes.
14:57:43 20 Q 493 The motorway was particularly important from the point of view of the line of
21 the motorway, isn't that correct?
22 A Well it would because if you were to put residential, new residential
23 population on the lands, in the ordinary course of events, correct planning
24 principles would suggest that the motorway would go on the edge of the lands
14:58:09 25 and the public transport up the middle. It would be unusual to have the
26 motorway running through the middle of a residential area.
27 Q 494 Presumably the motorway doesn't take account of the ownership of the lands?
28 A I -- no, but it would take account of planning principles.
29 Q 495 For sure but this is a green field site.
14:58:30 30 A Yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

94
14:58:31 1 Q 496 And the motorway was unlikely at this stage to take account of the ownership or
2 the owners' objectives or views or --
3 A No, presumably it wouldn't.
4 Q 497 For these lands, isn't that right?
14:58:45 5 A Yes.
6 Q 498 Yet I think that you discussed two options with the planners at this meeting,
7 isn't that right, in relation to the lands?
8 A Yes.
9 Q 499 They had a view, I think there were two, an option A and an option B or C,
14:59:00 10 option A being as we see it at 8554, a suggestion that the motorway would join
11 with the existing road, that is to say the existing Dublin, Bray Road which had
12 been upgraded, is that right?
13 A Yes.
14 Q 500 Option C as we see it there would be to go through the lands to the west of the
16 A Well on the map I'm looking at here, there are two options, the blue line is
17 picking up the existing Bray Road and the brown line is where the motorway acts
18 as an edge to the development area.
19 Q 501 Yes. I think the '83 plan had envisaged a line going straight through these
21 A Yes.
22 Q 502 And I think it was your view and I think it would have been the councillors'
23 view and possibly the planners' view at that stage, that any development would
24 only be permissible to the line of the motorway.
15:00:06 25 A I am not too sure, if you could repeat that question.
26 Q 503 Any development, any rezoning of these lands for residential development was
27 likely to end wherever the motorway line --
28 A Yes, in general the motorway was considered to be the stop line between the
29 city and the mountain zone.
15:00:24 30 Q 504 So for example if the blue line as we see it there were to be the motorway
www.pcr.ie Day 650

95
15:00:29 1 line, it would effectively mean these lands were going to be continue to be
2 zoned for agricultural purposes whereas if the brown line was to be zoned owes
3 a motorway line, there's a possibility that residential development would be
4 extended to the brown line.
15:00:45 5 A Well, I mean I don't think it's as simple as that. There was an identification
6 of a need for 20,000 population in the area, it had to be accommodated
7 somewhere and this was very well located land. And it is very possible that
8 the, if the blue line were to go ahead that somehow or other a reasonable stop
9 gap for some kind would have to be provided on the south west boundary.
15:01:17 10 Q 505 In other words there would have to be development on the other side of the
11 motorway?
12 A Yes.
13 Q 506 However assuming the brown line or a variation of the brown line were to be the
14 motorway line, then obviously the development was going to take place east of
15:01:29 15 that line, isn't that is right?
16 A It was preferable.
17 Q 507 Yes. Now, at that meeting, I think Mr. Davin, if we could have 2903 please,
18 Mr. Davin had suggested a line, and I think if we look at the second last
19 paragraph of that it says "It was generally felt that we had a lot in common
15:01:52 20 and the meeting ended on the request that I would examine in more detail
21 Mr. Davin's line and its implications and possibly come up with a structure
22 plan based on it which could be the subject of further discussions."
23 Mr. Davin's line at that time, as I understand it and I may be wrong, if we go
24 back to 8554 was in fact the blue line.
26 Q 508 So in other words you were being invited by the planners to put in a submission
27 on the basis that the motorway line might in fact be the blue line.
28 A One or the other.
29 Q 509 Yes. I think after that meeting, there was a return meeting by Muir &
15:02:31 30 Associates with the roads planning department, if we could have 2906 please. I
www.pcr.ie Day 650

96
15:02:39 1 think the roads planning department had expected Muir to return some sort of
2 submissions in relation to the line of the roadway also, but this meeting had
3 been called following on your meeting with the planners in September, sorry in
4 August, isn't that correct? And we see there in the first paragraph, "Fergal
15:02:57 5 McCabe had recently met the County Council planners and had been asked by them
6 to examine a certain proposed location for the road and Muir Associates now
7 wish to discuss this in outline with Cormac Rabbitte before embarking on a
8 detailed proposal which may be at total variance with the roads planning
9 department's ideas." That is correct?
15:03:19 10 A Yes. I think that may have been the first time I have seen that.
11 Q 510 It's included in the brief of documents, you would have been reporting back
12 presumably both to Monarch and their other professional consultants including
13 Muir Associates, is that correct?
14 A Yes, that's correct.
15:03:32 15 Q 511 And you would have been advising them of what had been told to you by Mr.
16 Conway and Mr. Davin at your meeting in August and having regard to what you
17 hades to, they had returned to the roads department to see what the position
18 was, isn't that correct?
19 A Yes.
15:03:44 20 Q 512 And I think you submitted to Mr. Davin on the 20th October 1989 at 2912 a draft
21 structural plan for the above -- for discussion purposes, isn't that right?
22 A Yes.
23 Q 513 And I think that map which we have been looking at at 8554, if we could have
24 that on screen, was the structure map that you enclose with that letter, isn't
15:04:13 25 that right?
26 A Yes.
27 Q 514 Now as we go forward, I think into late 1989, the issue of the road becomes an
28 even greater issue, isn't that right, the location of the roadway.
29 A In what context?
15:04:35 30 Q 515 In relation to your submissions and the submissions that you might put in in
www.pcr.ie Day 650

97
15:04:39 1 relation to these lands?
2 A The location of the road was critical.
3 Q 516 Critical, yes. Not just the Southeastern Motorway but also presumably any
4 junction on the motorway and access to the lands?
15:04:55 5 A Yes.
6 Q 517 In any event, on the 27th November 1989 I think you formally submitted a report
7 in relation to the lands, isn't that right, if we have 2918 please. And that's
8 a report as we see it at 2919 prepared by yourself, Dr. Meehan and Muir
9 Associates, isn't that correct?
15:05:14 10 A Yes.
11 Q 518 Mr. Lynn I think will tell the Tribunal, if I could have 14130 please, that the
12 contents of that submission was generally accepted by the county manager and it
13 formed part of the manager's report to the council in October 1990 entitled the
14 Carrickmines area action plan, do you see that, that's an extract from
15:05:33 15 Mr. Lynn's statement to the Tribunal and I take it that you would accept that
16 and agree with it. Perhaps if we could have the third paragraph highlighted
17 please. Just slightly north of the area action plan. You see a submission was
18 prepared --
19 A Yes. Yes, I see that.
15:06:05 20 Q 519 Do you accept that, Mr. McCabe?
21 A That report.
22 Q 520 That would be Mr. Lynn's evidence, I understand. Is that your evidence?
23 A I have no knowledge that it was generally accepted by the county manager.
24 Q 521 We will come in a moment to look at DP90/123, do you say that was substantially
15:06:27 25 different from what you were proposing at that's various meetings and these
26 reports you were submitting?
27 A If I could have see DP90.
28 Q 522 Yes. If we could have 6937 please. The area shaded in red at the bottom
29 right-hand side corner is the Monarch site as I understand it.
15:06:56 30 A Yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

98
15:07:00 1 Q 523 I think the entire valley was being proposed for development for either
2 residential or industrial zoning, the proposals were that there would be
3 development at both sides of the proposed line which is the blue line and that
4 the industrial zoning would be close to the interchange, particularly the
15:07:20 5 interchange at Carrickmines.
6 A Yes. It's a different layout, I mean I accept the principle that the general
7 body of the lands were to be developed for housing and shopping purposes but
8 the --
9 Q 524 Which is what you were hoping for in your submissions?
15:07:40 10 A In principle but not in detail.
11 Q 525 Yes. Yes. Would you accept that in large part the planners accepted your
12 proposals. I don't want to and I will if necessary go through your submissions
13 and through the manager's report to the council.
14 A Well I accept that they agreed that lands should be developed to ordinary
15:07:59 15 densities.
16 Q 526 And do you accept that the submission was generally accepted by the manager, as
17 Mr. Lynn will tell the Tribunal?
18 A In principle.
19 Q 527 Now, this was a submission which was made not during the display period but
15:08:16 20 during the consideration of the maps by the planners, isn't that right?
21 A Yes.
22 Q 528 And I think in fact you were able to tell Mr. Lynn on the 18th January 1990, if
23 we could have 2952 please that your submission was being considered seriously
24 and was being examined, isn't that right?
15:08:33 25 A Yes.
26 Q 529 "However until the line of the road was resolved, the land use planning of the
27 area was deferred." Isn't that right?
28 A Yes.
29 Q 530 Now, if we could have 2954 please, this is a meeting attended apparently by you
15:08:46 30 held on the 24th January 1990 in relation to the Cherrywood lands, isn't that
www.pcr.ie Day 650

99
15:08:51 1 right?
2 A Yes.
3 Q 531 This was one of the a series of meetings and I think in relation to the
4 motorway, you were advised that it now appears that the western option was the
15:09:02 5 most favoured by the council but that a clear decision may not emerge for
6 another couple of months?
7 A Yes.
8 Q 532 Who advised the meeting of that?
9 A I did but --
15:09:11 10 Q 533 Based on?
11 A At the time I would have been generally involved with planning in the southeast
12 area and I would have had quite a number of contacts with the Development Plan
13 team in relation to other lands which were being developed at Ballyogan or
14 Cabinteely. So I would have been generally aware of the debate that was going
15:09:34 15 on between the planners and the engineers.
16 Q 534 There was no doubt but there was a dispute within the council at this stage
17 between the planners and the road department?
18 A There was a debate.
19 Q 535 Yes, and I think it was your view the planners were likely to win out in that
15:09:50 20 debate?
21 A I believe so that, yes.
22 Q 536 However, that debate wasn't doing anything for the development of the site and
23 it was deemed essential that the motorway line be fixed, isn't that right?
24 A The fixing of the line would resolve many of the planning issues of the site.
15:10:06 25 Q 537 The merits of an immediate planning application were again discussed at this
26 meeting, isn't that right, and again I think you were of the view that the that
27 that, you should hold off on that?
28 A I always felt that it was pointless making planning applications until the
29 planning situation had settled down.
15:10:25 30 Q 538 Because obviously within the council planning department, at this stage they
www.pcr.ie Day 650

100
15:10:29 1 hadn't even decided on the proposals that might be put to the councillors in
2 relation to the review of the plan, isn't that right?
3 A An application would have been entirely premature.
4 Q 539 I think however the possibility of leverage was also discussed at that meeting
15:10:44 5 and at 2955, I think you or someone suggested that a possible leverage would be
6 to utilise the IDA in relation to the request for 60 acres of land and you
7 indicate that a possible approach to the planners with the IDA might result in
8 the speeding up of a decision, is that right?
9 A I didn't make the suggestion about the IDA but that was my response to it.
15:11:07 10 Q 540 Yes. If somebody else suggested the IDA and you suggested that it might sped
11 it up?
12 A That it might, yes.
13 Q 541 Now, there was a meeting again on the 24th January 1990 at 5956 and it would
14 appear from the note of that meeting that Mr. Sweeney was able to advise the
15:11:31 15 assembled experts, including yourself, that the political decision had been
16 made to align the motorway on the western edge of the site although the forward
17 planners in the roads and the planners were continuing meetings and having
18 discussions on options, is that right?
15:11:47 20 Q 542 Yes. Can you recall that meeting, Mr. McCabe?
21 A No.
22 Q 543 Do you know the source of Mr. Sweeney's knowledge?
23 A No.
24 Q 544 That must have come as a relief, however, to those involved, including
15:11:59 25 yourself, that there was such level of finality in relation to where the line
26 might be.
27 A Well I don't know with what credibility I would have taken it.
28 Q 545 Yes. What political decision was Mr. Sweeney referring to?
29 A I have no idea.
15:12:17 30 Q 546 You have absolutely no recollection of that meeting?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

101
15:12:27 1 A Not of the meeting specifically and not particularly of that comment.
2 Q 547 Do you ever recollect any discussions in relation to meetings with ministers?
3 A No.
4 Q 548 Even though you attended quite a number of these meetings, isn't that right?
15:12:41 5 A Yes.
6 Q 549 Was there ever any political or discussion of political interference in
7 relation to any of these matters?
8 A No, certainly not.
9 Q 550 Can you give any indication to the Tribunal how this note of this meeting could
15:12:53 10 contain a reference to Mr. Sweeney's contribution, namely there was a political
11 decision taken namely that in relation to the alignment of the motorway?
12 A I see it but I didn't place any credibility on it because in my view, the only
13 decision that would have been relevant would have been the ultimate line that
14 was posted on the Draft Development Plan map.
15:13:14 15 Q 551 Just let's take that in stages, you recall the comment presumably because you
16 have been able to tell us that you didn't take any notice of it at the time,
18 A Or I put it differently, I wouldn't have taken much notice.
19 Q 552 I think your evidence, Mr. McCabe was that you dismissed it at the time, isn't
15:13:38 20 that right?
21 A Yes.
22 Q 553 So you must have recalled hearing it?
23 A I must have but --
24 Q 554 But you can't assist the Tribunal as to the source of Mr. Sweeney's knowledge?
15:13:49 25 A No.
26 Q 555 I think the issue of the IDA again surfaced at that meeting at 2957 and it says
27 "Mr. F McCabe discussed the option of mobilising the idea's support in order to
28 expedite the construction of the sewer." Do you recall having a discussion in
29 relation to the IDA to that the sewer issue might be expedited and resolved?
15:14:15 30 A Yes, I probably did.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

102
15:14:18 1 Q 556 And what did you advise?
2 A That the IDA as a development agency, who would be an appropriate body to
3 assist in furthering the Carrickmines sewer.
4 Q 557 Had you been involved in any other development where the IDA had been mobilised
15:14:34 5 to expedite any decisions of the corporation or the council?
6 A No.
7 Q 558 In any event on the 24th January 1995 at 2958 you were asked by Mr. Lynn to
8 identify the most appropriate 60 acres which could be devoted to industrial
9 lands in order that they could advise the IDA, isn't that right?
15:14:57 10 A Yes.
11 Q 559 And I think you eventually did provide a report, if I could have the 2960 on
12 the 29th January 1990, you said "The most appropriate location for industrial
13 lands, would I imagine be those indicated in my report." Is that correct?
14 A Yes.
15:15:16 15 Q 560 And I think you went on to provide a further report to Mr. Monahan on the 15th
16 February, if we could have 2964 please. This is effectively a review of the
17 situation, isn't that right?
18 A Yes.
19 Q 561 Can I ask you why did you come to compile that report since most of what's
15:15:43 20 contained in it appears to have been contained in prior reports?
21 A I remember the late Mr. Monahan asking for it specifically, I don't know the
22 purpose.
23 Q 562 You agree with me it's like a briefing document that he might want to show some
24 one?
15:15:58 25 A Yes.
26 Q 563 That was on the 15th February 1990, is that right?
27 A It's not dated but it would have been 1990, yes.
28 Q 564 Did you know if Mr. Monahan had any meetings with parties or politicians in
29 relation to this project?
15:16:10 30 A No.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

103
15:16:14 1 Q 565 Now, I think on the 15th February 1990, the coordinating committee of the
2 council considered the Carrickmines Valley, if I could have 2969 please and
3 they noted that plans were being drawn up in the planning department for the
4 future development of the area and a number of issues required to be resolved,
15:16:35 5 namely the location of the motorway, the question of the provision and
6 limitation of foul sewer, water requirements, major park requirements,
7 industrial lands and road systems and they asked that reports be provided as a
8 matter of urgency, is that right?
9 A Yes.
15:16:49 10 Q 566 I think you were able to tell Mr. Lynn and Monarch on the 2nd March 1990, if I
11 could have 2170 please, that "You now believe for a good reason that the
12 motorway option selection by the planner and road section of the council was
13 the western most line, option B." Is that correct?
15:17:11 15 Q 567 What was the source of your knowledge?
16 A Again discussions with the Development Plan again in a general way.
17 Q 568 Somebody was advising you that this is what was happening?
18 A I don't think it was somebody was advising me but these are colleagues whom I
19 would have met on fairly frequent basis and I would have asked them I suppose
15:17:30 20 how the debate was going between the roads and planning sections.
21 Q 569 Did you know that there was a suggestion at some stage that perhaps IKEA might
22 be involved together with the IDA, if I could have 2977. So as to expedite the
23 drainage system. This is an extract from a letter written by Mr. Lynn and just
24 look at the final paragraph there, it's E.S. which presumably Mr. Sweeney
15:17:56 25 "indicated that he may be in a position to get a letter from IKEA requiring a
26 100,000 square feet development on the retail park which could be used with the
27 IDA to speed up the drainage contact." "RL" which is presumably Mr. Lynn, "to
28 make contact with IDA and ascertain whether they would back IKEA in their
29 application, do you recall any discussion in relation to that at that stage?
15:18:16 30 A No.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

104
15:18:17 1 Q 570 You have no recollection of that being discussed?
2 A No.
3 Q 571 Can I just ask you at this stage, Mr. McCabe, what exactly was your role within
4 Monarch in relation to these lands?
15:18:27 5 A Well I suppose generally to advise on responses to the statutory planning
6 system, to advise them on what current development plans were saying. What --
7 in the light of the ongoing future of the city, what would be the likely future
8 of the Cherrywood lands and then formal responses to the statutory planning
9 system in relation to the publication of draft plans and advice on the
15:19:04 10 implications of those.
11 Q 572 Yes. The impression I am getting from what you are saying, Mr. McCabe is that
12 your role was that of giving advice?
13 A Yes.
14 Q 573 Did you have any role or did you accept any role lobbying councillors?
15:19:19 15 A No.
16 Q 574 Ever?
17 A Ever.
18 Q 575 On behalf of Monarch?
19 A Never.
15:19:25 20 Q 576 Did you have speak to councillors on their behalf?
21 A I think I spoke to one councillor that I met on a social basis at one stage,
22 because I should say that I believed that the proposals for the Cherrywood area
23 made sense but that was on a semi personal basis, otherwise no.
24 Q 577 When would you have spoken to that councillor?
15:19:48 25 A I couldn't give a date.
26 Q 578 Could you be mistake in your recollection in relation to your responsibilities
27 in respect of lobbying for making representations to councillors?
28 A I don't think so.
29 Q 579 Did you bill for making representations to councillors?
15:20:03 30 A In one bill I mentioned a representation and that was the --
www.pcr.ie Day 650

105
15:20:06 1 Q 580 8267 please. This is an invoice dated the 3rd December 1991, you set out the
2 role that you had played and for which you were billing I think 6,000 to
3 include VAT, isn't that right?
4 A Yes.
15:20:24 5 Q 581 And I think one of the matters that you set out there was the preparation of
6 reports, various meetings with consultants, discussion with council officials,
7 maps and submissions of objections to the Development Plan together with
8 representations to councillors and the media. So you are saying that
9 representations to councillors there was one representation to one councillor?
15:20:46 10 A Singular, yes.
11 Q 582 And you never had a role in making representations to other councillors?
12 A None whatever.
13 Q 583 Did you ever recommend to Monarch that they make representations to
14 councillors?
15:20:56 15 A No.
16 Q 584 Were you ever present when representations were made to councillors?
17 A No.
18 Q 585 Did Monarch ever discuss with you their representations being made to
19 councillors?
15:21:10 20 A No.
21 Q 586 So you say you had no political interface in relation to these lands?
22 A None whatsoever.
23 Q 587 But you knew presumably that a review of the Development Plan would require the
24 input of councillors?
15:21:26 25 A I did of course.
26 Q 588 And you knew that a planning application because it would involve a material
27 contravention or indeed a Section 4 would require the input of councillors?
28 A Yes.
29 Q 589 And yet you say you never had any involvement with councillors?
15:21:38 30 A That was not my role, I was a professional adviser.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

106
15:21:42 1 Q 590 Did you ever have any role with politicians?
2 A No.
3 Q 591 Other than councillors?
4 A No.
15:21:50 5 Q 592 You agree with me that the issue of political contacts was raised in your
6 presence at various meetings?
7 A It was raised, yes.
8 Q 593 If I could have 2980 please, this is a minute of the meeting of the 3rd May
9 1990 and again the Carrickmines sewer valley is being, sorry, Carrickmines
15:22:10 10 sewer scheme is being addressed, and you see the fourth paragraph, "it was
11 agreed that a political input was required to ensure that the Carrickmines
12 Valley sewerage scheme went ahead as soon as possible and F McC" which is
13 presumably you, "indicated that a named developer with a company Eddie Sweeney
14 to see Minister Flynn to indicate an overall need in the area."
15:22:33 15
16 The suggestion that Mr. Flynn be approached appears to be your suggestion from
17 that note, is that right?
18 A Another development which I was engaged in the area had a consent I think for
19 about 900 houses which was held back due to I think 300 had been permitted and
15:22:55 20 the balance was held back pending the arrival of main drainage and my other
21 development in the area felt that there might have been some advantage in both
22 developers pressing the department to expedite the sewer.
23 Q 594 Just to take that in stages, there were two developers in this valley who both
24 had a problem in relation to the coming on line of the sewer, the Carrickmines
15:23:25 25 sewer, is that right?
26 A Yes.
27 Q 595 And that difficulty was being discussed by you and others in the context of
28 Monarch and their lands at Cherrywood.
29 A Yes.
15:23:35 30 Q 596 And the difficulty or the solution or a possible solution to the difficulty was
www.pcr.ie Day 650

107
15:23:40 1 the possibility of political input, namely an approach to the minister?
2 A Yes.
3 Q 597 And that was your suggestion and you said that suggestion came about because it
4 was something that was being mooted by another developer?
15:23:53 5 A Yes.
6 Q 598 Well did that meeting take place, can I ask you?
7 A I don't believe so.
8 Q 599 We know for example you were supposed to meet with the planners, can we have
9 page 2981, which is the second page of the same document and if we look at the
15:24:06 10 third last paragraph it says "It was agreed that Fergal McCabe and Dr. Brian
11 Meehan would meet with the planners on the documents already submitted after
12 the meeting with the minister had taken place."
13 A I see that but I am not aware a meeting took place.
14 Q 600 What was the strategy meeting the planners after the political representation
15:24:25 15 had been made to the minister?
16 A Presumably if there had been expedition on the arrival of the sewer.
17 Q 601 The expedition would have been brought about as a result of the visit to the
18 minister?
19 A Presumably.
15:24:38 20 Q 602 And that Minister's intervention having taken place you would then meet with
21 the planners.
22 A Yes.
23 Q 603 It would be pointless meeting with them in advance of it, is that right?
24 A I wouldn't go that far.
15:24:49 25 Q 604 But that certainly was the thinking that meeting at a strategy?
26 A Yes.
27 Q 605 You were intimately involved in the strategy in relation to the planning and
28 development of this site, isn't that right?
29 A Yes.
15:25:01 30 Q 606 You were key to it as was Mr. Lynn and the other representatives of Monarch,
www.pcr.ie Day 650

108
15:25:06 1 albeit, sorry, whether it be putting in a Development Plan submission or a
2 planning submission or advising your clients?
3 A My involvement would be largely to do with the relationship with the statutory
4 planning system.
15:25:28 5 Q 607 Let's look at your advice today, your first advice was not to put in a shopping
6 centre submission at this stage. You then advised I think that a submission
7 should go in at this stage during the review process, isn't that right?
8 A Yes.
9 Q 608 You had a series of meetings with the various planners and you had relayed the
15:25:49 10 contents of those meetings back to your employer, Monarch, is that right?
11 A Yes.
12 Q 609 You had made a suggestion or had developed a suggestion that the IDA might get
13 involved in an effort to expedite it?
14 A Yes.
15:26:03 15 Q 610 And it would appear from that document we just looked at, that you had because
16 of your experience elsewhere come up with a suggestion there be a joint
17 approach to the minister to get involved in relation to the expedition of the
18 sewerage system?
19 A Yes.
15:26:16 20 Q 611 I think there was a meeting on the 5th July 1990, you don't appear to have been
21 at the meeting but you have seen the documentation at which Mr. Sweeney and
22 Lynn were at and 2958 and at 2986, under the heading "access to site" it's
23 taking the second paragraph there RML, which I understand is Mr. Lynn
24 "indicated that it was not alone necessary to have the line of the motorway
15:26:48 25 established but to have it actually constructed to facilitate the development
26 and recommended that contact be made at the highest level, ie ministerial level
27 to ascertain the position."
28
29 Presumably you would agree with both of those propositions being put forward by
15:27:03 30 Mr. Lynn there?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

109
15:27:07 1 A I presume that the position of the motorway was a matter for Dun
2 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council, not the minister.
3 Q 612 What's being suggested here is that we have moved on from the position, we are
4 now talking about the construction.
15:27:21 5 A Yes.
6 Q 613 And that the construction of the site was of the motorway was necessary to
7 develop the site.
8 A It wasn't essential, I mean there was access from the Bray Road.
9 Q 614 Well there was access provided a road could be constructed into the site, isn't
15:27:39 10 that right?
11 A Yes.
12 Q 615 And there would have been an exit difficulty depending on the level of traffic
13 exiting on to the Bray Road?
14 A Certainly the construction of the motorway would have given more accessibility.
15:27:55 15 Q 616 Now, I think Nathaniel Lichfield got involved, isn't that right?
16 A Yes.
17 Q 617 And in August of 1990, if I could have 2988 please, Delia Lichfield visited the
18 site and she visited you on in the first instance and you took her on a tour of
19 the site, isn't that right?
15:28:09 20 A No, I think she saw the site independently and I met her afterwards.
21 Q 618 I understand and I think her involvement was in the context of shopping, is
22 that correct?
23 A I don't know that. I thought it was general.
24 Q 619 Okay. And I think you suggested as we see at 2989 a series of documents that
15:28:30 25 might be useful studied by her, including the 1983, I referred to there as the
26 '85 plan, the maps, the working papers and the ERDO report, isn't that right?
27 A Yes.
28 Q 620 And I think it was understood at this stage that an EIS report would probably
29 be required in relation to any large scale development of the site and
15:28:51 30 certainly an EIS report was required in relation to the motorway?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

110
15:28:58 1 A It was.
2 Q 621 I think you were able to tell her about the position of the motorway as you
3 understood it at that stage, is that right?
4 A Yes.
15:29:09 5 Q 622 If we have 2990, I think she was being advised that any approach or overtures
6 to the planners might be counter productive, isn't that correct? You see K
7 Mc E that presumably is a representative of Muir & Associates "was of the
8 opinion that it would be counter productive on making overtures in relation to
9 the planners in relation to the possible short term development and until such
15:29:43 10 time as the outline of the full development was available and would be
11 discussed even at a rough stage."
12 A Yes.
13 Q 623 That was consistent because you had given similar advice previously in relation
14 to a proposal for an outline planning application, isn't that right?
15:29:59 15 A I believe there had to be a context.
16 Q 624 Yes. And the context here was going to be the Development Plan when it was
17 published, isn't that right, what would be acceptable and if I could just maybe
18 speed it up a little bit, that context was finally published with the report of
19 the manager in October 1990 and the publication of that map which we have just
15:30:20 20 seen of DP90/123, isn't that right?
21 A Yes.
22 Q 625 And we see the manager's report at 3035 and that was presented to a special
23 meeting of the planner on the 18th October 1990. And I think there was a
24 follow up report in November where the manager again having presented that
15:30:39 25 report on the 18th October, on the 16th November updated the members on the
26 report, isn't that right, and finally there was a tour of the valley by the
27 councillors or some of the councillors and the matter came to a head I think on
28 the 6th December 1990, is that correct?
29 A I believe so.
15:30:57 30 Q 626 On the same day I think you wrote to Mr. Sweeney, if we could have 3068 and you
www.pcr.ie Day 650

111
15:31:02 1 advised Mr. Sweeney "That at the meeting last night of planners and councillors
2 to discuss general planning issues in Dublin area and inevitably the current
3 controversy regarding the above lands surfaced."
15:31:17 5 Can I ask you, we have been following a series of special meetings and
6 particularly a meeting on the 6th December 1990, since this letter is written
7 on the 6th December 1990, and refers to previous evening's meeting, I take it
8 we are talking about a different meeting, a meeting that possibly took place on
9 the 5th December 1990?
15:31:36 10 A Yes.
11 Q 627 Can you tell the Tribunal what the circumstances that meeting was held and how
12 you came to be at it?
13 A Yes, I can. At the time I was a member of the council of the Irish Planning
14 Institute which is a body which represents professional planners in Ireland and
15:31:50 15 the council during that period was quite disturbed that planning developments
16 in the Dublin area, in relation to apparent land use zoning land use anomalies,
17 for example, in north County Dublin, lots of isolated pieces of land were zoned
18 without any apparent purpose and the movement of the designated centre of the
19 Lucan, Clondalkin area to Quarryvale and we made statements about this. I got
15:32:26 20 a call, I think I was press officer of the council at the time. We got a call
21 from Deputy Liam Lawlor who I didn't know, expressing concern that the
22 professional institute were making these statements and asking for a meeting to
23 see if there was any common ground between I think he was representing the
24 Fianna Fail group and the institute.
15:32:47 25
26 The institute were not in the least happy about the approach but we felt that
27 since it was councillors, deputies who were asking it, we had no option but to
28 go along. So we arranged a meeting in Buswells Hotel on presumably the 5th.
29 And I attended along with Enda Conway who was councillor of the institute and a
15:33:16 30 third member who I can't remember and the Fianna Fail councillors were Deputy
www.pcr.ie Day 650

112
15:33:18 1 Lawlor, Colm McGrath and a third councillor who may have been GV Wright but I
2 simply can't remember.
4 And I think the intention or the hope of the Fianna Fail councillors was that
15:33:30 5 in some way, the institute might back off or say friendly things regarding the
6 Development Plan process in County Dublin. And it was fairly evident from the
7 outset that they certainly weren't going to do that and a general discussion
8 then involved or ensued. And at one stage I mentioned publication of the
9 manager's plan at Cherrywood and I recollect that, I particularly recollected
15:34:05 10 the views of the councillors that there was a degree of irritation because they
11 hadn't been consulted before its publication and that to a certain extent
12 resulted in negative attitude. I thought that was an interesting piece of
13 information that my clients should be aware of.
14 Q 628 There had been no consultation by the planners with the politicians and
15:34:28 15 councillors or there had been no consultation by the developer with the --
16 A No, the planners.
17 Q 629 The planners, the planners were keeping their distance in relation to at least
18 this development and that had irritated the councillors.
19 A That was the impression I got.
15:34:45 20 Q 630 And that's what you are reporting in that letter of the 5th December 1992 to
21 your principals?
22 A Yes.
23 Q 631 Were you at the council meeting of the 5th December itself?
24 A I have never attended a council meeting which had anything to do with planning
15:35:01 25 or zoning.
26 Q 632 Sorry -- you have never attended a council meeting?
27 A Never.
28 Q 633 Ever. But never in relation to any project that you were involved in?
29 A No, no.
15:35:08 30 Q 634 Would you have been made aware of the outcome of that meeting which was
www.pcr.ie Day 650

113
15:35:13 1 effectively, which was negative towards the managers proposals?
2 A Only what I read in the papers.
3 Q 635 Yes. But I think you were sent back to the drawing board so to speak by your
4 employers and we see on the 23rd January 1991 at 3094 you are tabling new
15:35:35 5 structure zoning maps in relation to the area, isn't that right?
6 A Yes.
7 Q 636 Would it be fair to at this stage you are confined now to any proposed
8 development to the eastern side of the proposed motorway line which is likely
9 to run somewhere either through the centre or through the bottom or beyond the
15:36:06 10 Cherrywood lands, isn't that right?
11 A Yes.
12 Q 637 And obviously the further west that line is, the more of the Cherrywood lands
13 that are available to the east for development.
14 A The more residential accommodation, the more residential development that can
15:36:26 15 be accommodated.
16 Q 638 Now, I think Councillor McDonald and councillor, yes, Councillor McDonald
17 tables a handwritten motion at 6972 asking that the council agree to provide
18 for a district shopping center in the rezoning of the lands at Loughlinstown as
19 shown on the attached map and to provide C zoning for same. That would be
15:36:49 20 consistent with what Monarch were seeking at this time, is that right?
21 A It was, yes.
22 Q 639 Do you know how Councillor Cyril McDonald came to table that motion?
23 A No.
24 Q 640 Councillor McDonald sponsored the motion with Councillor Coffey on the 6th
15:37:06 25 December 1990 which eventually stayed DP90/123, is that right?
26 A I am not au fait with the various motions and the process of the adoption of
27 the plan.
28 Q 641 Can I ask you, were you ever asked to supply the text of a motion to Monarch.
29 A Never.
15:37:21 30 Q 642 There was a further motion by Councillor McDonald that the lands fronting on to
www.pcr.ie Day 650

114
15:37:28 1 the main Dublin, Bray Road and marked in yellow on the map be zoned for amenity
2 lands, that's 6974. I am not going to go through the balance of those motions
3 because in any event, I think the manager short circuited matters by putting
4 forward three proposals in May 1990, is that right?
15:37:48 5
6 JUDGE FAHERTY: 1991 I think.
8 Q 643 MR. QUINN: Sorry, 1991. Do you recall the debate in May '91 or the lead up
9 to the debate in May 1991?
15:38:12 10 A No, I am not au fait with the procedures of the council during the process of
11 making the plan.
12 Q 644 Okay. Well in any event I think there was a debate and there were three
13 options put forward by the manager, including the 1983 plan subject to
14 amendments, which according to the manager's plan was known as DP90/129A and
15:38:38 15 that was voted upon to go on display for the Draft Development Plan. You may
16 or may not be aware of it?
17 A No, no, I am not aware of it.
18 Q 645 In any event, I think that further meetings took place between yourself and
19 Mr. Conroy because the display period as I say had been between the September
15:39:00 20 and December '91 and if we look at 3326, it's a memorandum of a meeting of the
21 2nd September 1991 held in Monarch House and it follows on a meeting where you
22 had undertaken to speak to Mr. Conway to determine the extent of the content of
23 a submission that you would put in in relation to the lands, isn't that right?
15:39:25 25 Q 646 And I think that you coordinated a submission which was to be put in, isn't
26 that correct, you had been given instructions to do that?
27 A Yes.
28 Q 647 At 3339, you were written to on the 11th September 1991 by Mr. Lynn, is that
29 right? And you were asked for a team to put in a submission to the Draft
15:39:47 30 Development Plan and a submission to the officials.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

115
15:39:49 1 A Yes.
2 Q 648 You were going to put in two submissions effectively, isn't that right?
3 A Yes.
4 Q 649 And in relation to the submission to the officials, and I think if we look at
15:40:03 5 3340, Mr. Lynn was advising that this submission would be a stronger document
6 and would include the following, and there were a series of documents set out
7 there. Can I ask you why a stronger document might go to the officials that
8 would go in to the plans so to speak?
9 A I think probably what's intended there is a more detailed document to the
15:40:26 10 planners which might show the actual location of roads, the form of housing,
11 more details as regards open space whereas the Development Plan would be simply
12 colours and notations.
13 Q 650 I think you did in fact have a meeting with Mr. Conroy on the 1st October at
14 3343 and you got some insights into the council's thinking on issues, isn't
15:40:53 15 that right?
16 A Yes, I was anxious to understand what was the effect of the draft plan zonings
17 or draft plan adoptions.
18 Q 651 In any event I think on the 26th November 1991, you compiled a report which was
19 included in a submission by Monarch on the 2nd December 1991 and if I just take
15:41:14 20 your letter, again I don't want to go in to details on your submission unless
21 you require me to do so but at 3384, we have your submission of the 26th
22 November 1991.
23 A Yes.
24 Q 652 And I think you were there suggesting a designation of AP be altered to A1PS?
15:41:32 25 A Yes.
26 Q 653 In other words pipe sewerage to action area piped sewerage, is that right?
28 Q 654 I understood that AP at this time was piped sewerage at ten houses to the
29 hectare or four to the acre unless otherwise stated?
15:41:52 30 A I don't know.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

116
15:41:53 1 Q 655 Okay. The zoning boundaries between AP lands to the east and the agricultural
2 B zoned lands to the west to be altered in line with an attached map, is that
3 correct?
4 A Yes.
15:42:04 5 Q 656 And that a new objective to protect, provide for and/or improve district centre
6 facilities be included in the lands at a location as set out in the map, that
7 would be zone C, isn't that right?
8 A That's correct.
9 Q 657 And the lands which were fully and visually related to Loughlinstown Stream
15:42:23 10 with a link to Brides Glen, that's the amenity suggestion, isn't that correct?
11 A Yes.
12 Q 658 And there was a suggestion for a link road between the Bray Road on the eastern
13 boundary of the lands and the south eastern motorway on the western boundary.
14 Be indicated that it was a five year road proposal, isn't that right?
15:42:38 15 A Yes.
16 Q 659 That was to open up the lands for development?
17 A If I remember the link was a long-term link.
18 Q 660 I think in early 1991 you got an opportunity to spook to those proposal, isn't
19 that right, in oral submission?
15:42:54 20 A Yes.
21 Q 661 Just before I move that oral submission is 3575 and I think took place on the
22 5th March 1992. Now, I think at this stage, that is from November 1991 until
23 May of 1992, Bill O'Herlihy had been retained by Monarch, is that right?
24 A Yes.
15:43:17 25 Q 662 Did you know that he had been retained?
26 A Yes because he organised a number of, I participated in two publicity events
27 that he organised, one was an interview or a debate on East Coast Radio with
28 Michael Smith who is one of the objectors and also I think they made the video
29 and they were the only two involvements I had.
15:43:45 30 Q 663 Yes. I think we see a letter to you on the 20th January 1992 at 3533 where you
www.pcr.ie Day 650

117
15:43:50 1 are being advised by Monarch of his appointment, is that right?
2 A Yes.
3 Q 664 What, apart, what function did Mr. O'Herlihy have at this stage in relation to
4 the matter?
15:44:02 5 A I understood that his function was to extol the virtues of the Monarch
6 proposal.
7 Q 665 Yes. Now, I think you give further advice to your clients on the 22nd January
8 1992, if we could have 3538 please. Where you wondered whether there could be
9 some of advantage of Monarch writing to the leaders of the political parties?
11 Q 666 Setting out the objectives.
12 A Largely because of the all party nature of the ERDO study which the political
13 parties had signed up and which seemed to me to be the basis of the entire
14 exercise.
15:44:44 15 Q 667 Just before I leave the matter, I think at that stage the Cherrywood Residents
16 Association, if we look at 3597 were suggesting that a zoning of four houses to
17 the acre and they enclosed their planners report. That's to be found at 3601.
18 I think they were in time to ask that there would be only one house to the
19 acre, isn't that right, but at this stage, it was felt that four to the acre
15:45:13 20 was acceptable.
21 A I have seen the correspondence, yes.
22 Q 668 And this correspondence and these submissions, presumably will be a matter of
23 discussion amongst the planning team within Monarch?
24 A Well I was aware of them, they were copied to me.
15:45:32 25 Q 669 Yes. Now, we know that Councillor Lydon and Hand had signed a motion which was
26 lodged with the council on the May 1992 at 7144 please. Did you have any input
27 into that motion being signed?
28 A No.
29 Q 670 Did you know that Councillor Lydon and Hand had signed such a motion?
15:46:00 30 A No.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

118
15:46:01 1 Q 671 Was there ever a discussion at any of the strategy meetings you attended in
2 relation to this matter as to who would table motions in relation to the
3 proposals at the meetings?
4 A Never.
15:46:14 5 Q 672 But it would be understood and I take it you would have understood that nothing
6 would have got on the agenda unless it was put forward by way of a motion or
7 proposal by some councillor?
8 A I knew the procedures but I had no involvement whatsoever.
9 Q 673 Were you never curious to know which councillors were likely to support the
15:46:34 10 proposals on behalf of Monarch?
11 A No.
12 Q 674 There was never any discussion of it?
13 A Not that I recollect.
14 Q 675 Was there ever any discussion of councillors who were supportive of the Monarch
15:46:45 15 situation?
16 A I can't single out anybody.
17 Q 676 In any event I think the manager produced a proposal which was contained in map
18 92/44 for the area, isn't that right? 7203 please and this was a suggestion I
19 think that the existing pipe sewage would be extended to an action area plan
15:47:29 20 piped sewerage and that an area which had previously been zoned agricultural
21 would be included in that area, isn't that right?
22 A Again, we are going into an area that I had no involvement in.
23 Q 677 No but it's something that obviously would have been of concern to you and to
24 Monarch whether or not the manager was supporting, the manager's views in
15:47:52 25 relation to the matter was clearly of utmost important in relation to Monarch?
26 A I had literally no involvement with Monarch during the process of the making of
27 the plans, my involvement generally came in when the plan had been made and the
28 response was required to the draft plan. But the mechanics of the making of it
29 were beyond me.
15:48:14 30 Q 678 But did you not know or were you not curious to know whether or not the manager
www.pcr.ie Day 650

119
15:48:20 1 was supporting the proposals or submissions that you had put in and had spoken
2 to in late December 1991 and early 1992?
3 A I was generally aware that the principle of the development of the lands for
4 new residential communities was approved by the technical officials beyond
15:48:41 5 that, I didn't.
6 Q 679 And didn't Monarch brief you in relation to the merits of what were being
7 proposed by them. For example on the 21st May 1992, if we look at 3695, you
8 were sent a series of bullet points in connection with the Cherrywood village,
9 is that right?
15:48:59 10 A Yes.
11 Q 680 Why did you receive that correspondence?
12 A I presume this was in relation to Monarch's ongoing campaign, they had designed
13 and prepared a model of the form of development that might have been provided
14 ultimately on the Cherrywood lands. And I think, what was the word, I think
15:49:26 15 they were selling that.
16 Q 681 Isn't that a briefing document effectively?
17 A I don't know.
18 Q 682 3696 please.
19 A Yes, they are generally plus points.
15:49:43 20 Q 683 Exactly. And you didn't have to be convinced because your employers were
21 already relying on your advice, so presumably they were giving you briefing
22 points so that you could brief people in relation to it, isn't that right?
23 A Yes, but I didn't brief anybody.
24 Q 684 You are saying you didn't brief anybody?
15:49:59 25 A No.
26 Q 685 Could you be mistaken in that, Mr?
27 A I don't think so, I just said one particular councillor was a friend, I
28 mentioned the merits of the scheme as far as I remember, the vote was, the
29 person's vote was negative. Otherwise, I had no contact with any councillors
15:50:19 30 in relation to this scheme.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

120
15:50:23 1 Q 686 This letter was forwarded to you on the 21st May, isn't that right?
2 A Yes.
3 Q 687 And I think the upcoming vote was on the 26th May. 27th May. Can I ask you,
4 do you recall a motion in relation to moving the line of the motorway, which
15:50:37 5 was proposed by Councillor Fox?
6 A No.
7 Q 688 Do you have recall any debate or discussion in relation to a strategy that the
8 motorway line be moved.
9 A Well obviously in the general plans we had been preparing for the area which
15:50:59 10 saw the motorway as being the ultimate south western line of the development
11 area.
12 Q 689 Well it wouldn't be unreasonable in the context of that situation to have a
13 motion which would consider moving the line of the motorway west wards, there
14 by increasing the take east of it and therefore increasing the possible
15:51:20 15 residential zoning area?
16 A It wouldn't be unreasonable.
17 Q 690 Did you put forward a strategy that a motion which the be considered,
18 suggesting that the line of the motorway be moved?
19 A My basic strategy at all times was the motorway should be the extreme limit of
15:51:38 20 the development land on the southwest.
21 Q 691 Did you know for example that the manager had been written to by Monarch, if I
22 could have 3714 in the context of a motion being proposed by Councillor Fox
23 suggesting that the line of the motorway be moved so as to accommodated a golf
24 course?
15:52:07 25 A I see that.
26 Q 692 Do you recall the circumstances under which that letter came to be written?
27 A No.
28 Q 693 That would have been the first letter I suggest to you, to the planning
29 department that you hadn't been involved with?
15:52:28 30 A I don't recollect the letter.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

121
15:52:30 1 Q 694 You don't recollect that letter?
2 A No, I don't.
3 Q 695 And you don't recollect any discussion in relation to tabling a motion that the
4 line of the motorway be moved?
15:52:42 5 A Not the tabling a motion.
6 Q 696 Yes. Now, I think there was, on the occasion, you have heard evidence from
7 councillor or Mr. Barrett in relation to the success of his motion that the
8 zoning on the lands would be of one house per acre, isn't that right, at that
9 meeting or that vote on the 27th May 1992?
15:53:09 10 A Well I was here but I really lost thread of the various motions which were
11 proposed and the consequences of the motions.
12 Q 697 The 1991 draft plan has been published, submissions have been received, the
13 manager has put forward a proposal, I've put it on the screen, councillors
14 Lydon and McGrath have proposed that manager's proposals be adopted. That has
15:53:33 15 been unsuccessful and there were a series of motions and the last of those
16 motions is by Councillor Barrett that the lands remain at one house -- or be
17 zoned at the density of one house per acre?
18 A Yes.
19 Q 698 Do you recall any discussion following on that motion within Monarch?
15:53:49 20 A No.
21 Q 699 The Councillor Gilmore motion in relation to the centre, the C zoning, that has
22 been successful, do you recall any discussion following on the success of that
23 motion?
24 A No.
15:54:02 25 Q 700 Do you recall being at any meetings where there were post mortems held on the
26 outcome or what had transpired at the meeting on the 27th May 1992?
27 A No, in general political matters weren't discussed in my presence.
28 Q 701 Is that correct now in that you will recall earlier this afternoon I showed a
29 series of meetings at which you were present, where political matters were
15:54:23 30 discussed?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

122
15:54:23 1 A In the sense of making representations to ministers regarding the bringing
2 forward of infrastructure.
3 Q 702 There is no doubt but that Monarch understood that the support of councillors
4 was essential, isn't that right? And in a letter of the 2nd October 1992 at
15:54:48 5 3837 to GRE, if we look at 3838 on the second page, it says "In order to
6 achieve these results, it was and is necessary to continue contact with those
7 representatives favourable to our side. Unfortunately there still is a strong
8 core of members opposed to any development and will take every opportunity to
9 limit development of the lands. We must continue to hold our support and
15:55:18 10 recent discussions with other parties suggest that additional support has been
11 attracted to our side."
12 A Yes.
13 Q 703 Do you recall any discussions by way of strategy or otherwise within Monarch
14 where it was agreed that an increased councillor support was required for the
15:55:41 15 development?
16 A No, the only discussions I remember related to the publicity campaign to, as I
17 said, extol the virtues of the proposal generally.
18 Q 704 Now, there are three letters all dated the 30th July 1993 which appear to be
19 amount to submissions in relation to that published plan, if I could have 4321,
15:56:14 20 and whilst the council doesn't appear at this stage to be able to furnish to
21 the Tribunal with the actual letter received, I am just wondering if you can
22 recall making a submission at that stage in relation to the plan. You see that
23 letter 4321 is addressed to the principal officer, Dublin County Council?
24 A I was looking at that in my file and I gather it came into my office, there's a
15:56:43 25 note at the top which says 'not sent'.
26 Q 705 That's one of the three, that's at 8556, the one you are looking at is 4321
27 and there's a further one at 7221, do you recall making a submission in July
28 1993 on behalf of your clients in relation to the published plan?
29 A I am pretty certain I did.
15:57:04 30 Q 706 And in order to do that and to make that submission, you would have to be aware
www.pcr.ie Day 650

123
15:57:11 1 of the outcome of the meeting on the 27th May obviously?
2 A Well the submission is made to the published amendments.
3 Q 707 Yes, and the published amendments are C zoning town centre and also A
4 residential density of one to the acre?
15:57:30 5 A Yes.
6 Q 708 Can you recall what your submissions, if any, were at that stage on behalf of
7 your clients?
8 A Well they would be in the text of the proposal.
9 Q 709 You see the difficulty we have, Mr. McCabe, and I don't know if you can resolve
15:57:45 10 it for us, is that we have three different texts, in other words three
11 different letters all saying -- they are all signed by you but they all seek
12 different objectives on behalf of Monarch.
13 A Do the council not have receipt of it?
14 Q 710 So far the council have been unable to provide us with the copy of the letter
15:58:17 15 received.
16 A I see. I don't know how to answer that.
17 Q 711 First of all, can you give any explanation as to why there would be three
18 different submissions made on behalf of your clients. Three different
19 submissions, all signed.
15:58:42 20 A Unless they were three drafts.
21 Q 712 Three drafts.
22 A Which were unsent.
23 Q 713 I will circumvent it in this way, can you tell the Tribunal what you were
24 submitting to the council at this stage ought to be, ought to contain, ought to
15:59:03 25 be contained on the lands vis-a-vis --
26 A I am sure the submission I wished to make was that ordinary densities should
27 prevail.
28 Q 714 When you refer to ordinary densities, are we talking about 20 houses to the
29 hectare?
15:59:30 30 A Again without seeing a letter I would have regarded upwards, up to 20 to the
www.pcr.ie Day 650

124
15:59:35 1 hectare, that is eight to the acre would have been an appropriate density. But
2 without actually seeing the letter, I can't tell you exactly what I would have
3 said.
4 Q 715 Now I think somebody at this time had come up a strategy that perhaps a science
15:59:55 5 and technology park might be put up on the site? Can you recall who came up
6 with that strategy?
7 A No, I must say I was out of the loop on that but I do remember that it seems to
8 have been resolved by Monarch as a separate issue. I was involved making
9 submissions, advocating it but I am not terribly sure where the idea came from.
16:00:20 10 Q 716 Is it unusual you wouldn't have been eventually involved in an issue like that?
11 A Not really.
12 Q 717 Is it a type of thing you would have suggested to your clients as perhaps
13 providing a planning game to the incoming council?
14 A Science and technology parks were a relatively new development at that time, it
16:00:38 15 seemed to be an appropriate one.
16 Q 718 Yes, but it wasn't your proposal?
17 A It wasn't my proposal, no.
18 Q 719 You don't know where it came from?
19 A No.
16:00:48 20 Q 720 You know who devised the strategy?
21 A No.
22 Q 721 I think on the, in that context I think there was a visit to Montpelier in
23 September or prior to September 1993, is that correct?
24 A I don't know, I wasn't on it.
16:01:04 25 Q 722 You weren't on that trip?
26 A No.
27 Q 723 You did know, however, that there was an upcoming council meeting which would
28 confirm or reject the May 1992 zoning on the lands, isn't that right?
29 A Again, I can't say that I was aware there was a council meeting coming up
16:01:27 30 because I generally didn't make it my business to find out when council
www.pcr.ie Day 650

125
16:01:39 1 meetings were I didn't take any particular interest in the process of making
2 the plan.
3 Q 724 You had been very involved up to the submission in November 1989, isn't that
4 right?
16:01:46 5 A Yes.
6 Q 725 You had been very much involved in putting in the submission in 1991.
7 A Yes.
8 Q 726 You had put in the oral submission in 1992. You had been sent the bullet
9 points prior to the council meeting in May 1992.
16:02:02 10 A Yes.
11 Q 727 You may or may not have put in a submission in July '93 but you certainly
12 prepared three possible submissions?
13 A Yes.
14 Q 728 But saying that apart from that, you took no real involvement in relation to
16:02:16 15 what was, after all, the largest development in south County Dublin or proposed
16 largest development in south County Dublin at this time?
17 A No, what I am saying is that I took no particular interest in the internal
18 process of the council in coming to its decisions, in fact it seemed very
19 bewildering to me. I -- my duty was to respond to the outcome of those
16:02:46 20 decisions when they were published as a draft plan.
21 Q 729 No, I am talking now about the involvement you might have had with your
22 clients, Monarch, by way of discussions and strategy leading up to those
23 meetings and the persons employed by them in the lead up to those meetings.
24 For example in the lead up to the May 1992 meeting, you had been written to and
16:03:08 25 advised of Mr. O'Herlihy's involvement and I think you have given evidence to
26 the Tribunal of your involvement with him in relation to the matter at that
27 time.
28 A Yes.
29 Q 730 You were written to shortly prior to May 1992 vote and given the bullet points
16:03:25 30 in relation to the advantages of this site, isn't that right?
www.pcr.ie Day 650

126
16:03:27 1 A Yes.
2 Q 731 And we have put up the three submissions which you made in July 1993, isn't
3 that right?
4 A Yes.
16:03:33 5 Q 732 So you were involved within the strategy being devised within Monarch, isn't
6 that right?
7 A Yes I suppose I was.
8 Q 733 Because you had been involved in the strategy since May or June 1989, is that
9 right?
16:03:52 10 A Yes.
11 Q 734 You were still part of the strategy team as was presumably Mr. O'Herlihy up to
12 May 1992 as were Muir & Associates, Dr. Meehan, all the other experts, is that
13 right, Mat Lichfield, you had met Delia Lichfield and we had seen that?
14 A Yes.
16:04:09 15 Q 735 I am just wondering can you tell the Tribunal what the strategy was being
16 devised at this stage, this is a key stage now, we are moving up to September
17 and on through to December 1993?
18 A I suppose the general hope was that the council would adopt a plan which would
19 in general provide for ordinary residential density on the great area of the
16:04:34 20 land, provide for shopping, associate ancillary shopping and preserve amenities
21 and within the context of a well made plan.
22 Q 736 But for the council to do anything, the councillors had to do it, isn't that
23 right?
24 A Yes.
16:04:51 25 Q 737 Who was looking after the councillors at this stage, Mr. McCabe?
26 A Well presumably from the documentation you sent me, Mr. Lynn.
27 Q 738 Leaving aside the documentation I sent, you were sent to by the Tribunal, from
28 your recollection now, can you tell the Tribunal who was looking after the
29 councillors at this stage?
16:05:09 30 A I was aware that Mr. Lynn was the person who liaised with the councillors.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

127
16:05:13 1 Q 739 Did you know for example that Monarch had been generous in the support of
2 councillors in the 1991 local elections?
3 A No.
4 Q 740 You yourself as part of a strategy had in fact invited or suggested that the
16:05:28 5 party leaders would be written to, isn't that right?
6 A Yes.
7 Q 741 And we have seen evidence of where you earlier suggested a visit might be made
8 to the minister on another issue, is that right?
9 A Yes.
16:05:38 10 Q 742 Well did you have any contribution as to how the councillors might be dealt
11 with at this stage?
12 A No.
13 Q 743 Did you know for example that Monarch had been generous to various candidates
14 in the 1992 general election?
16:05:50 15 A No.
16 Q 744 Was there any discussion of the councillor intentions as known by Monarch in
17 the lead up to the 1993 vote?
18 A No, not that I remember.
19 Q 745 Did you know that Mr. Dunlop for example had been brought on board?
16:06:09 20 A No, I didn't know that until I got documents from this Tribunal.
21 Q 746 Is there any reason why Mr. Dunlop's involvement would have been made known to
22 you?
23 A I can't think of any.
24 Q 747 Did you know Mr. Dunlop?
16:06:21 25 A As I said to the Tribunal, I met the man 15 years ago for ten minutes.
26 Q 748 You had never come across Mr. Dunlop in your career as a planner prior to this?
27 A I was aware of his involvement with the Quarryvale rezoning.
28 Q 749 Leaving that aside for the moment, Mr. Dunlop was known to you as a lobbyist I
29 take it?
16:06:47 30 A Yes. I mean not known to me, known I mean generally.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

128
16:06:48 1 Q 750 Not specifically but generally would have been known as a lobbyist?
2 A Yes.
3 Q 751 Did it ever occur to you to suggest to Monarch that perhaps Mr. Dunlop's
4 services might be taken on board?
16:07:03 5 A No.
6 Q 752 Why not?
7 A My view was I was a professional planner and my job was to make the best
8 planning case and hope that that would succeed.
9 Q 753 You had given other, if I could describe it, political advice to your
16:07:22 10 principles?
11 A I think a suggestion seeing the minister regarding bringing forward
12 infrastructure or writing to the party leaders on a matter which they had
13 already taken a view I wouldn't have thought constitutes political advice.
14 Q 754 But did you advise your clients or did you understand them to know that the
16:07:42 15 voting intentions of the councillors was crucial?
16 A No.
17 Q 755 Was there ever any discussion of how the Monarch proposals would find its way
18 on to the agenda of the council?
19 A No.
16:07:54 20 Q 756 And you say you never knew that Mr. Dunlop had been employed?
21 A Certainly not.
22 Q 757 You had been crucially involved, isn't that right, throughout the period?
23 A Yes.
24 Q 758 In writing to their partners or their joint venture partners on the 2nd
16:08:16 25 September 1993 at 4344, Monarch set out the likely costs for the September to
26 December 1993 period, if I can have 4349 please. And if we just concentrate on
27 the first three items there, that is Mr. Dunlop, yourself and Mr. Meehan. You
28 see that Mr. Dunlop was receiving or was likely to receive 4,000 per month
29 whereas in fact you were I think 1,000 a month.
16:09:01 30 A Yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 650

129
16:09:01 1 Q 759 And yet you were the expert, isn't that right?
2 A Yes.
3 Q 760 And you had been providing all the advice as far as back as May 1989?
4 A Yes.
16:09:11 5 Q 761 Does it surprise you that Mr. Dunlop's remuneration would be greater than yours
6 at this time?
7 A It does seem a significant amount of money.
8 Q 762 Were you on a success fee as a matter of interest?
9 A No.
16:09:33 10
11 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Quinn it's nearly quarter past four.
12
13 MR. QUINN: Unfortunately Mr. McCabe has obliged the Tribunal by being here
14 today, I understand he has some difficulties tomorrow and I am not sure if the
16:09:44 15 Tribunal were to sit early, if it would. I would envisage that I would be no
16 more than a half and hour or three quarters of an hour and if the Tribunal were
17 to sit at ten perhaps.
18
19 CHAIRMAN: Would that suit you Mr. McCabe tomorrow or some day?
16:09:59 20 A It's not possible to go on?
21
22 CHAIRMAN: Not this afternoon because we have other commitments.
23 A Well I am not hands of the Tribunal.
24
16:10:05 25 CHAIRMAN: Well I mean we can offer you tomorrow at 10 o'clock and possibly
26 finish shortly after half ten or alternatively some other time you could talk
27 to --
28 A No, ten o'clock tomorrow.
29
www.pcr.ie Day 650

130
16:10:21 1
2 MR. SANFEY: Chairman I should say I will have some short questions I hope no
3 more than 10 or 15 minutes
16:10:31 5 CHAIRMAN: All right. We might be talking about three quarters of an hour
6 tomorrow.
7 A Okay.
9 CHAIRMAN: Ten o'clock tomorrow.
16:10:41 10 A Thank you.
11
13 FRIDAY, 9TH JUNE, 2006 AT 10.00 A.M.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
www.pcr.ie Day 650

1
10:10:44 1 THE TRIBUNAL RESUMED AS FOLLOWS ON
2 TUESDAY 13TH JUNE 2006 AT 11 AM:
4 CHAIRMAN: Good morning Ms. Dillon.
11:05:34 5
6 MS. DILLON: Morning sir.
8 MR. QUINN: Mr. Michael Joseph Cosgrave please.
11:05:38 10 MICHAEL JOSEPH COSGRAVE, HAVING BEEN SWORN
11 WAS QUESTIONED AS FOLLOWS BY MR. QUINN:
12
13 CHAIRMAN: Morning Mr. Cosgrave?
14 A. Good morning.
11:06:07 15 Q. 1 Morning Mr. Cosgrave.
16 A. Good morning.
17 Q. 2 Mr. Cosgrave, you are a member of the Fine Gael party I think?
18 A. That's right.
19 Q. 3 You were a member of Dublin Corporation from 1974 to 1985?
11:06:16 20 A. That's right.
21 Q. 4 And a member of Dublin County Council, I think, from 1985 until January '94
22 when you became a member of Fingal County Council, is that correct?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. 5 And I think you were asked by the Tribunal to supply a statement in relation to
11:06:32 25 your dealings with personnel connected with the Monarch Group and in particular
26 in relation to lands at Cherrywood, isn't that right?
28 Q. 6 And I think you provided two statements which are more or less the same and the
29 first is to be found at page 296 of the brief, that is to say the Tribunal's
11:06:48 30 typed version of your manuscript statement but I don't think you will find that

www.pcr.ie Day 652
2
11:06:54 1 it differs from your typed statement which is to be found at 294 and 295, and I
2 think dated the 25 of February 2006 you wrote to the Tribunal and said you
3 would have had contact with Mr. Richard Lynn who may have canvassed your
4 support for the project, isn't that right?
6 Q. 7 And you say with regard to political donations you had previously informed the
7 Tribunal of 1,000 pounds received from Mr. Dunlop towards the expenses in the
8 Senate elections in 92, 93 and to the best of your recollection you received a
9 political donation of 500 pounds from Monarch Properties prior to the November
11:07:31 10 92 general election, isn't that right?
11 A. That's right.
12 Q. 8 And I think that's also what you also told the Fine Gael inquiry into these
13 matters, is that right?
11:07:38 15 Q. 9 Just dealing in the first instance with the payments that you might have
16 received from Monarch, Mr. Cosgrave, if I could have page 3241, this is a
17 document supplied to the Tribunal on discovery by Monarch and you will see
18 about two thirds of the way down there is a reference to a payment on the 13th
19 June 1991 to MJ Cosgrave, F G, local election expenses is the designation or
11:08:03 20 purpose for the payment and it's in the sum of 300 pounds?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. 10 And if I could have 3255 this is an extract from the payments cash book of
23 Monarch and you will see there, just the first five or six entries, you will
24 see on the 13 of June 1991, Michael J Cosgrave, F G, cheque number 3689, 300
11:08:30 25 pounds?
26 A. That's right.
27 Q. 11 Did you receive in June 1991, 300 pounds from Monarch Properties, Mr. Cosgrave?
28 A. I may have, but I cannot recollect that.
29 Q. 12 Yes, if you did receive it how do you think you came to receive it?
11:08:41 30 A. I'd imagine it would be by cheque.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
3
11:08:44 1 Q. 13 Yes?
2 A. And that that would be the way, but as I say I don't really recollect it.
3 Q. 14 Did you know Mr. Lynn in 1991?
4 A. Oh, I would I'd say, yes.
11:08:54 5 Q. 15 How did you first come to meet with and know Mr. Lynn?
6 A. Well, he would be in the area of the council, you know lobbying on behalf of
7 his clients and he would approach you on different projects. He may have
8 written to me also on projects, I'm not sure of that.
9 Q. 16 But he certainly sought your support for various projects that he had?
11:09:16 10 A. He would have sought my support for various projects I'm sure.
11 Q. 17 Was he a person therefore that you would have sought contributions from for
12 your local election?
13 A. No.
14 Q. 18 You never sought a contribution from him?
11:09:26 15 A. Never, never.
16 Q. 19 You see Mr. Smyth, Noel Smyth and Partners Solicitors to the Monarch Group, if
17 I could have 1579 please, wrote to the Tribunal on behalf of his clients on the
18 22nd of June 2000 and on the third paragraph of that letter he says in
19 relation to the 1991 list, and I'm just showing you the 1991 list?
11:09:46 20 A. That's right.
21 Q. 20 All the contributions are believed to have arisen on foot of requests for
22 assistance to defray local election expenses, save as set out no records have
23 been located in this regard?
24 A. Yeah.
11:09:59 25 Q. 21 It is Monarch's and Mr. Lynn's understanding I understand, that any payments
26 made in 1991 were made as a result of a request for payment?
27 A. I don't recall approaching Mr. Lynn for a donation at any time.
28 Q. 22 Did you, was it your practice to solicit donations?
29 A. No.
11:10:17 30 Q. 23 Ever?

www.pcr.ie Day 652
4
11:10:17 1 A. Never.
2 Q. 24 So any payments you would have received would have been received in an -- would
3 have been received by you without having been solicited from the donors?
4 A. Absolutely.
11:10:29 5 Q. 25 Including --
6 A. I have never written, to my recollection, to anyone about a donation or I have
7 never asked, as far as I can recollect, anyone about a donation.
8 Q. 26 Now that's the 1991 donation, I think you told the Tribunal that you received
9 500 pounds in November 1992?
11:10:46 10 A. That's right.
11 Q. 27 Prior to the election in November 92, I think you were a candidate in that
12 election is that right?
13 A. I was indeed, yes.
14 Q. 28 Who did you receive that money from?
11:10:55 15 A. That money, I believe would have come from Monarch, from the documentation I
16 have received.
17 Q. 29 Yes?
18 A. It has enlightened me quite a lot, so that I presume it would have come from
19 Monarch with a covering letter but I have no documentation from that time.
11:11:09 20 Q. 30 Well you had no documentation when you were telling the Fine Gael inquiry and
21 you were telling the Tribunal that you had received that money isn't that
22 right.
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. 31 So you must have been relying on your memory or other documentation you had
11:11:20 25 within your possession?
26 A. My memory.
27 Q. 32 Your memory. So you have a recollection of receiving 500 pounds from Monarch
28 for the 92 general election, is that correct?
29 A. I remember receiving a donation from Monarch.
11:11:31 30 Q. 33 Yes?

www.pcr.ie Day 652
5
11:11:31 1 A. In that election.
2 Q. 34 Yes?
3 A. On the first interview I had with this Tribunal.
4 Q. 35 Yes?
11:11:37 5 A. I pointed out that I had received a donation, but I wasn't certain exactly what
6 it was, but I would check and then when I did check I discovered another cheque
7 which I forwarded to this Tribunal, which was in later years, I think it was
8 199 --
9 Q. 36 We will come to that in a moment?
11:11:55 10 A. But that was my recollection of the time, it was 500, but I am now satisfied
11 it was a thousand when I see the documentation.
12 Q. 37 Yes, because the thousand, if we could have please 3586, just in relation to
13 the 500, your evidence I think in, as referred to in your statement earlier
14 this year, which I have just referred to at 296, was that the 500 from Monarch
11:12:22 15 was received prior to the November 92 general election, isn't that right, could
16 I have 296 please? This is your letter to the Tribunal Mr. Cosgrave?
17 A. This is my letter to the Tribunal, yes that's right.
18 Q. 38 Yes. And you are dealing with monies that you may have received isn't that
19 right?
11:12:38 20 A. That's right.
21 Q. 39 And you say that it was 500, it was from Monarch and it was prior to the
22 November 92 general election?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. 40 And that was consistent with what you had told the Fine Gael inquiry, isn't
11:12:50 25 that right?
26 A. That's right.
27 Q. 41 So, as to the amount and as to the date of payment you were satisfied in
28 February of 2006 and indeed in May 2000 when you attended before the Fine Gael
29 inquiry, that it was 500 pounds and it was for the 92 general election, isn't
11:13:13 30 that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 652
6
11:13:13 1 A. General and Senate election I suppose, they were both.
2 Q. 42 Well you didn't refer to the Senate election, isn't that right?
3 A. That's right, I didn't.
4 Q. 43 If we could go back to 296, you said 500 pounds from Monarch Properties prior
11:13:26 5 to November 1992, isn't that what you were telling the Tribunal?
6 A. That's what I was telling the Tribunal.
7 Q. 44 In fact I think you reiterated that in a letter of the 9th March 2006, if I
8 could have 299 please, you said to the best of my recollection I received a
9 political donation of 500 pounds from Monarch Properties prior to the November
11:13:46 10 1992 election, isn't that right?
11 A. That's right.
12 Q. 45 So it was prior to the election and it was prior to the November 92 election,
14 A. That was my memory.
11:13:53 15 Q. 46 And it was 500 pounds?
16 A. My memory was 500 pounds.
17 Q. 47 Yes. In fact I think either in addition or in substitution for that 500, you
18 did in fact receive one thousand pounds in December 1992, isn't that right?
19 A. December --
11:14:09 20 Q. 48 If we could have 3586 please? If you look at the fourth last entry on that
21 list Mr. Cosgrave?
22 A. Right.
23 Q. 49 You see on the 16th of December 1992?
24 A. It says Senate elections.
11:14:27 25 Q. 50 Yes. The general election had taken place in November, isn't that right?
26 A. That's right.
27 Q. 51 So prior to the general election would have been prior to the 25th of November,
28 I think it was 92?
29 A. I think it was the 18th.
11:14:39 30 Q. 52 Prior to the 18th, yes prior to the 18th of November, isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 652
7
2 Q. 53 But whereas in fact the records show that you received a separate and possibly
3 additional payment of 1,000 pounds on the 16th of December 1992?
4 A. I received a payment as it has come to my attention now of a thousand pounds
11:14:59 5 only.
6 Q. 54 You say that it's only a thousand pounds?
7 A. Yeah. It's not 1500.
8 Q. 55 That's the point I want to clarify with you, but if it is this thousand, first
9 of all it is twice what you had told the Tribunal as having received from
11:15:14 10 Monarch, isn't that right?
12 Q. 56 And it is not before the general election 1992, it's --
13 A. The Senate election.
14 Q. 57 It's the Senate election?
11:15:22 15 A. It was paid in December, the election was over, the general election was over,
16 so therefore it was into the Senate election.
17 Q. 58 If we could have 8380. You see Monarch have other witnesses that have given
18 evidence of having received two payments, one for the general election and one
19 for the Senate election?
11:15:40 20 A. No.
21 Q. 59 I'm just wondering could you have equally received two payments, one for the
22 general election and one for the Senate election?
23 A. No.
24 Q. 60 How could you get something, such a simple thing so obviously wrong
11:15:55 25 Mr. Cosgrave?
26 A. My memory failed me, that's the only thing I can say. We are going back a long
27 time, you know.
28 Q. 61 How many cheques for 1,000 pounds would you have received other than
29 Mr. Dunlop's, in the general or Senate election for 92/93?
11:16:11 30 A. I think two, I'd have to check that.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
8
11:16:15 1 Q. 62 Two in addition to Mr. Dunlop's?
2 A. No, no. Mr. Dunlop.
3 Q. 63 Mr. Jones?
4 A. No, no.
11:16:25 5 Q. 64 No?
6 A. No.
7 Q. 65 If we go back to the election, sorry your statement to the Fine Gael inquiry on
8 the 12th May 2000, and that's at 266. You were satisfied, if we look at 267,
9 you were satisfied at that time that it was in fact 500 pounds you had received
11:16:58 10 from Monarch, isn't that right?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. 66 Whereas in fact it was 1,000 pounds?
14 Q. 67 And you say not 1500?
11:17:08 15 A. Not 1500, no.
16 Q. 68 And then I think you also received, as you have indicated, a further
17 contribution in 1997, if we could have 6322 please on the third of June 1997
18 you received 495 pounds, isn't that right?
19 A. 495, that's correct.
11:17:29 20 Q. 69 Yes. Were these the only contributions you received from Monarch?
21 A. Definitely, yes.
22 Q. 70 And who would have given you those cheques?
23 A. I would imagine they would have arrived by post.
24 Q. 71 Did you who would you have acknowledged or to whom would you have sent an
11:17:47 25 acknowledgement in respect of those cheques?
26 A. I didn't send any acknowledgements.
27 Q. 72 You didn't send any acknowledgements?
28 A. No.
29 Q. 73 Did you ever thank anybody for the contributions?
11:17:55 30 A. Well, if you saw someone who had given you a contribution you would probably

www.pcr.ie Day 652
9
11:17:59 1 thank them, but like it wasn't the thing that was foremost on my mind at the
2 time, you know.
3 Q. 74 Yes. Did you ever thank Mr. Lynn for the contributions?
4 A. I doubt it very much.
11:18:11 5 Q. 75 Did you ever acknowledge receiving the money?
6 A. No.
7 Q. 76 Did you ever meet Mr. Monahan and thank him for the money?
8 A. I never met Mr. Monahan.
9 Q. 77 You never met Mr. Monahan?
11:18:23 10 A. To my knowledge I never met Mr. Monahan.
11 Q. 78 Would it be fair to say Mr. Lynn was the only person from within Monarch that
12 you would have had any contact with?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 79 Did Mr. Dunlop seek your support for the Monarch proposals?
11:18:35 15 A. Oh, I would say so, yes.
16 Q. 80 You did, I think, your first vote in relation to and your only vote in relation
17 to the Monarch proposals appears to have occurred on the 11th November 1993, if
18 we could have 7263 please.
19
11:19:06 20 This was a proposal by Councillor Marren and Councillor Coffey, isn't that
21 right?
22 A. That's right.
23 Q. 81 Do you recall that motion?
24 A. I don't really, but you know it happened because we can see it in the minutes.
11:19:17 25 Q. 82 Yes. Well, would it have been in connection with that motion that Mr. Lynn
26 would have sought and Mr. Dunlop, would have sought your support?
27 A. I think Mr. Dunlop would be more canvassing my support than anyone else.
28 Q. 83 I see.
29 A. I doubt if Mr. Lynn, he may have mentioned it to me in the lobby or in the --
11:19:38 30 in one of the hotels where we went for a break and that type of thing, but

www.pcr.ie Day 652
10
11:19:41 1 other than that I cannot remember Mr. Lynn asking me to support it as such, I
2 think Mr. Dunlop carried out most of the canvassing where I'd be concerned.
3 Q. 84 Yes. And you would have presumably advised Mr. Dunlop that it was your
4 intention to support this proposal?
11:19:59 5 A. I would, yeah.
6 Q. 85 You voted against, I think, a proposal that it would be, that the site would
7 retain a density of one house to the acre, isn't that right?
8 A. Yeah, that's right.
9 Q. 86 Can I ask you why you supported this proposal?
11:20:12 10 A. Well I didn't see the logic in it. One house per acre is very small, I
11 couldn't see how that would help develop the site as such, you know, and there
12 was a crying need at that time for people who were leaving the shore and
13 working abroad, there was a crying need for jobs, and I made no secret of this.
14 I have always been supportive of development.
11:20:39 15 Q. 87 If we could have 2720, this is a map Mr. Cosgrave, which sets out the site that
16 you supported?
17 A. Right.
18 Q. 88 You would be reasonably familiar with the area, voted in favour of this and
19 that?
11:20:54 20 A. Well, it's so long, the map is correct you can be sure of that.
21 Q. 89 It's just, I am just slightly curious Mr. Cosgrave, if you were so pro
22 development?
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. 90 And since the manager was proposing that the entire area coloured yellow be
11:21:10 25 zoned four houses to the acre, why you didn't support or vote that the entire
26 area coloured yellow be zoned at four houses to the acre?
27 A. Well as I say, I was pro development, I suppose if it were zoned at four to the
28 acre it opens up the site and maybe future down the road they could come back
29 in for further extension of the planning permission.
11:21:35 30 Q. 91 But why not do it at the time, why not -- if you are so pro development why

www.pcr.ie Day 652
11
11:21:40 1 only support the Monarch end of the site, why not promote the entire site,
2 particularly since the manager was supportive of the entire site being zoned at
3 four houses to the acre?
4 A. I cannot answer that one, I'm sorry. The motion would be put, there would be a
11:21:59 5 debate, you listen to the debate and you make up your mind.
6 Q. 92 Yes?
7 A. It's probably that was the popular thing in the chamber at the time to do.
8 Q. 93 But you were very much pro development you say, isn't that right?
9 A. That's right.
11:22:10 10 Q. 94 So an increase in density of lands, particularly lands that had the support of
11 the manager, was something that you would be very much in favour of?
12 A. But this was the motion I had before me in the house.
13 Q. 95 Could you have put forward your own motion?
14 A. Well could I have at that hour, just before the motion.
11:22:26 15 Q. 96 Could you not have put forward either a proposed amendment to the Marren Coffey
16 motion or alternatively put forward a proposal that the manager's
17 recommendations be accepted.
18 A. The answer to your question is yes, you could have, but I didn't.
19 Q. 97 I am just wondering why you didn't Mr. Cosgrave, was it because Mr. Dunlop had
11:22:44 20 asked you to support only the Monarch proposal?
21 A. I don't remember him saying that to me, but he did ask me to support the
22 proposal.
23 Q. 98 Thank you very much Mr. Cosgrave?
11:22:53 25
27
28 JUDGE FAHERTY: Just one matter Mr. Cosgrave, we know Mr. Dunlop came on board
29 for Monarch sometime?
11:23:04 30 A. Pardon.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
12
11:23:06 1
2 JUDGE FAHERTY: Mr. Dunlop came on board for Monarch sometime I think in
3 mid -- between 92 and 93, I think?
4 A. Right.
11:23:14 5 JUDGE FAHERTY: Do you recall when he first spoke to you about Monarch?
6 A. I don't really because Mr. Dunlop had several, several proposals which he was
7 involved in and like he would approach you about all his proposals, specially
8 when they were coming before council.
9 JUDGE FAHERTY: And you were Fingal, you were, that was your area, your ward
11:23:38 10 was up in North County Dublin?
11 A. Mine is the Howth/Malahide working area.
12 JUDGE FAHERTY: Could I just ask you, when Mr. Dunlop would have asked you
13 about Monarch, did you make any inquiries yourself about the lands?
14 A. Not that I can recall, but like I would have listened to the debate in the
11:23:56 15 chamber and I may have inquired from the local councillors in that area as to,
16 you know, the merits of the property.
17 JUDGE FAHERTY: Well, have you any recollection of doing that Mr. Cosgrave?
18 A. I don't really, but it was my habit to listen to the debate. And if I was
19 unclear about anything, you would ask maybe the representative from the area,
11:24:18 20 you know, to clear the matter up for you.
21 JUDGE FAHERTY: Fair enough. Thanks.
22 CHAIRMAN: All right, thank you very much Mr. Cosgrave.
24
11:24:27 25 THE WITNESS THEN WITHDREW
26
27 MR. MURPHY: Chairman, Mr. Dunlop please.
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 652
13
11:24:56 1 FRANK DUNLOP, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS QUESTIONED AS FOLLOWS
2 BY MR. MURPHY:
11:25:21 5 CHAIRMAN: Good morning Mr. Dunlop.
6 A. Morning Chairman. Morning.
7 Q. 99 Good morning Mr. Dunlop.
8 A. Good morning Mr. Murphy.
9 Q. 100 Mr. Dunlop, I think you have provided the Tribunal with two statements to date
11:25:48 10 in the Monarch Module, the first being October 2000 and the second being
11 September 2003, is that right?
13 Q. 101 Do you wish those statements to be part of the evidence before the Members of
14 the Tribunal?
11:26:00 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 102 Thank you. Did you have an opportunity before coming to the witness box today
17 to re read your two statements, did you read your two statements before coming
18 in today?
19 A. Yes, I read them this morning.
11:26:24 20 Q. 103 Thank you. Did you read the private interviews that you had with the Tribunal
21 in May 2000?
22 A. Some time ago, yes.
23 Q. 104 All right. In re reading those private interviews from May 2000 and these two
24 statements that I have just referred to?
11:26:48 25 A. Yeah?
26 Q. 105 Did you find them difficult to follow?
27 A. Not particularly, other than in the -- some inconsistencies in them.
28 Q. 106 Did you find them confusing?
29 A. I think confusing, Mr. Murphy, is sort of probably a polite word in the context
11:27:16 30 of the totality of this, my involvement in this Module, but for ease of

www.pcr.ie Day 652
14
11:27:22 1 procedure, I would say yes, confusing.
2 Q. 107 The reason I am asking you the question is because I have read the statement,
3 the two statements and your private interviews on a number occasions and I
4 found them extremely confusing, extremely difficult to follow and quite
11:27:35 5 contradictory?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 108 Do you accept -- do you agree with that?
8 A. Yes I would, I wouldn't disagree with that.
9 Q. 109 Thank you. I will come to it in a bit more detail later on.
11:27:44 10 A. Fine.
11 Q. 110 Would you, do you agree Mr. Dunlop, that you have grossly understated to the
12 Tribunal the amount of money that you received from Monarch?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 111 Do you agree that you told, in private, the Tribunal in private interview, that
11:28:05 15 the agreement in relation to a fee did not include a success fee and that
16 subsequently you invoiced Monarch in the sum of, in, for a success fee in the
17 sum of 50,000 plus VAT?
18 A. Correct, yes.
19 Q. 112 Do you agree that in private interview you named two councillors as councillors
11:28:31 20 to whom you, as councillors whom you bribed?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. 113 And that when it came to your, the two statements I have referred to, you
23 dropped those two councillors and replaced them with a different two?
24 A. Correct.
11:28:45 25 Q. 114 Would you agree with me, Mr. Dunlop, that all of that amounts to a gross
26 misleading of the Tribunal?
27 A. No.
28 Q. 115 In what way does it not?
29 A. Well, in the context of the private sessions and the date on which they took
11:28:58 30 place and in the circumstances in which they took place and without the benefit

www.pcr.ie Day 652
15
11:29:03 1 of the issue that we have referred to repeatedly in this context from this box
2 and in this room, the road map and when I had time to consider it, all of the
3 issues involved, including having an audit done in relation to payments, that's
4 when we made the statement in 2003.
11:29:26 5 Q. 116 What for example, what bearing would that have on the councillors whom you
6 identified in private session and, as having, as you having bribed them, how
7 would what you have just, the response you have just given the Tribunal, how
8 would that have any bearing on who you would have paid money to for their vote?
9 A. Well, in the context of the private session there is undoubtedly no, no
11:29:50 10 difficulty in my mind in relation to the two named councillors in the private
11 session as being deeply involved with me on a number of occasions, and I
12 incorrectly named them in the private session in relation to this Module.
13 Q. 117 All right. I will have to come back to that, Mr. Dunlop, I'm afraid. I
14 understand through Mr. Redmond, that you accept that you were paid the sum of
11:30:21 15 85,000 pounds by Monarch?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. 118 All right. Now, unfortunately notwithstanding that Mr. Dunlop, I have to go
18 with a little bit of detail, I hope not too much, into the payments?
19 A. Fine, yeah.
11:30:32 20 Q. 119 And I think you will agree with me that on three occasions in the year 2000 you
21 informed the Tribunal that you had been paid the sum of 25,000 for Monarch, for
22 Cherrywood?
24 Q. 120 Yes. The first occasion was on the 9th of May 2000, which was a public hearing
11:30:56 25 giving evidence on oath, isn't that right?
26 A. Correct.
27 Q. 121 When you referred to two tranches of 15,000, a cheque for 15,000 pounds and a
28 cheque for 10,000 pounds is that correct?
29 A. Correct.
11:31:06 30 Q. 122 And then you repeated that I think on a number of occasions in the course of

www.pcr.ie Day 652
16
11:31:11 1 private interviews in May 2000, is that right?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. 123 And you repeated it again in your first narrative statement to the Tribunal in
4 October 2000, isn't that right?
11:31:19 5 A. Correct.
6 Q. 124 So at the end of 2000 as far as the Tribunal was concerned it was 25,000 that
7 you got?
9 Q. 125 All right. Now, if we just come on to 2001 for a moment and I think you will
11:31:37 10 agree with all of this, in March 2001 the Tribunal wrote to your solicitors in
11 relation to financial information generally and in particular -- sorry,
12 including Monarch, and the Tribunal was informing you in that letter that it
13 had received information from Monarch which, to the effect that you had
14 received 52,500 from Monarch, isn't that right?
11:32:06 15 A. Correct, yes.
16 Q. 126 And on the 9th May 2001 your solicitors replied to the Tribunal and enclosed a
17 letter from Coyle & Coyle, your accountants, that their letter being 8th of May
18 2001, and that letter again, I will be coming back to it, I will put it up on
19 the screen, but just in general terms, that letter set out a schedule of
11:32:30 20 payments that you were now notifying the Tribunal that you had received from
21 Monarch and it was in the sum of 75,000 pounds, isn't that right?
23 Q. 127 Now that sum we know is -- there was a 15,000 included in that in error which
24 was subsequently correct?
26 Q. 128 So throughout I will be really, when I say 75,000 there we'll short circuit it
27 and it's really 60,000 pounds, isn't that right?
28 A. That's the point I was just going to make to you. In 2001 after the audit we
29 confirmed to the Tribunal that we had received in the order of 60,000.
11:33:07 30 Q. 129 Yes?

www.pcr.ie Day 652
17
11:33:08 1 A. And notwithstanding anything that has taken place in the interim, if an audit
2 was still done today we would still say 60,000.
3 Q. 130 Fine. Yes. So in summary then, in 2000 you were telling the Tribunal 25,000,
4 in response to the Tribunal's information to you about 52,500 from Monarch you
11:33:30 5 came back and you confirmed in 2001 60,000?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. 131 That by a further letter, 21st of December 2001, from your solicitors to the
8 Tribunal, that sum of, I think it may well have been confirmed as 75,000 but it
9 means 60,000?
11:33:47 10 A. It means 60,000 thousand, yes.
11 Q. 132 All right. Now could I just ask you Mr. Dunlop there, why did you tell the
12 Tribunal on a number of occasions in 2000 that you had received 25,000 from
13 Monarch?
14 A. Because I did, that was in my mind. That was the -- certainly to my
11:34:13 15 recollection at the time that was the agreed fee that I arrived at with a
16 representative of Monarch.
17 Q. 133 Yes. And Mr. Dunlop, what was it that changed your mind within a few months?
18 A. Between 2000 and 2001?
19 Q. 134 Yes, between October 2000 and May 2001?
11:34:43 20 A. Well, I think it's that you have fairly graphically outlined, when we got
21 letters from the Tribunal saying that they had information available to them
22 from the accounts of Monarch that we had got more money than the 25, we
23 conducted the audit, we conducted an internal audit or our accountants
24 conducted an internal audit and came up with the 60.
11:35:05 25 Q. 135 So, would it mean then in fact you told your accountants Coyle & Coyle that you
26 had received 25,000 but they came back to you having done the audit and said
27 you didn't you received 60?
28 A. Well when we got the documentation from the Tribunal Obviously we circulated it
29 had to Coyle & Coyle and we asked them to either confirm or disabuse the
11:35:26 30 Tribunal of the truth or otherwise of the documentation.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
18
11:35:29 1 Q. 136 Well, was the Tribunal furnishing you with documentation that you didn't have
2 yourself internally?
3 A. Yes, it was. We had already supplied some documentation to the Tribunal, I
4 can't remember exactly what it was at the time now, but we had supplied some
11:35:47 5 invoices and some payment schedules from the accounts of Frank Dunlop and
6 Associates, but we had not done an audit.
7 Q. 137 But I think what you are saying is that for the purpose of the audit you were
8 giving your accountants documentation that had been furnished to you by the
9 Tribunal and that you didn't have yourself?
11:36:10 10 A. Yes, I think that is what occurred yes.
11 Q. 138 Well, I'd like to know if it did occur or didn't, Mr. Dunlop, because I think
12 it's important?
13 A. Well, I can't absolutely say to you definitively. Certainly you are absolutely
14 correct when you say that our statements in relation to the 25, we then were
11:36:29 15 written to by the Tribunal saying that they had indications or evidence or
16 support documentation to the effect that we had received more than 25, and I'm
17 subject to correction on this, I'm sorry I can't be more clear for you, that it
18 was on that basis that we asked that the accountants do an audit as to how much
19 exactly we had got.
11:36:59 20 Q. 139 Do you know Mr. Dunlop, for the purpose of telling the Tribunal 25,000, three
21 times in 2000, do you know what documentation you had that you referred to for
22 giving that information?
23 A. Yes, I think we had -- I think I had documentation, I think I had a receipt
24 note.
11:37:18 25 Q. 140 Would it be a remittance advice?
26 A. A remittance.
27 Q. 141 In respect of the 15?
28 A. In respect of two payments, one certainly of 15.
29 Q. 142 Yes, yes?
11:37:27 30 A. And again subject to correction on the date of transmission of that

www.pcr.ie Day 652
19
11:37:32 1 documentation to the Tribunal, I think we made that available to the Tribunal.
2 Q. 143 Yes. But are you saying then that it was just in respect of those two payments
3 which bore out your 25,000 but you didn't have another shred of paper that
4 related to the balance that made up 52,500 or 60?
11:37:52 5 A. No, we may have or our accountants may have had other documentation which -- I
6 did not certainly examine.
7 Q. 144 Sorry to interrupt you Mr. Dunlop?
8 A. No no, fine.
9 Q. 145 Did you Mr. Dunlop, you prepared -- sorry, you went to your accountants for an
11:38:07 10 audit in 2001 as you have told us, did you go to your accountants at all before
11 public evidence in May 2001, private interviews in 2001 and a statement in
12 October 2001?
13 A. No, we did not.
14 Q. 146 All right. Would your accountants in that year have had documents in relation
11:38:24 15 to all of this that were not in your possession?
16 A. They may well have had, yes.
17 Q. 147 So, you told the Tribunal three times 25,000 without referring to your
18 accountants?
19 A. Yes, I don't have any recollection of referring to my accountants prior to any
11:38:39 20 of those statements.
21 Q. 148 Was it your intention to mislead the Tribunal in saying 25,000?
22 A. No, because that was, as I said to you ten minutes ago, was my recollection as
23 to the agreed fee with a representative of Monarch.
24 Q. 149 So Mr. Dunlop, did you think as an experienced businessman --
11:38:54 25 A. What?
26 Q. 150 Just one second please, if you let me finish the question then you can
27 criticise it, do you think as an experienced businessman that to come into the
28 Tribunal three times and say 25,000 from your recollection without going to
29 your accountants is good enough?
11:39:10 30 A. Well, that's why I was going to stop you there. Experienced businessman is a

www.pcr.ie Day 652
20
11:39:14 1 little bit excessive in my context. I would not describe myself as an
2 experienced businessman but I was asked to give evidence in relation to, on one
3 occasion in public here in making a list as to monies I had received, I was
4 asked in private session of my relationship with Monarch, I told it as best
11:39:34 5 could I at the time, and I was asked subsequently what my recollection was as
6 to payment. Certainly it was not my intention to mislead and you did describe
7 the totality of my relationship with Monarch as confusing and certainly --
8 Q. 151 No, I didn't Mr. Dunlop, what I suggested to you was that your description of
9 it was confusing?
11:39:59 10 A. Yes well --
12 A. Well that's what you say, yes.
13 Q. 153 And you agreed with me?
14 A. Well it is confusing, yes.
11:40:09 15 Q. 154 It's not that your relationship with Monarch is confusing?
16 A. Well, that was confusing as well.
17 Q. 155 It's how it was interpreted to the Tribunal was confusing?
18 A. Well, that was confusing as well.
19 Q. 156 But Mr. Dunlop, just coming back to this thing for a second, because you have
11:40:24 20 been in private business since '87, I think, is that right?
21 A. Yes. '86, yes.
22 Q. 157 Nearly 20 years, 20 years, does that not constitute a considerable business
23 experience?
24 A. Well, it does to a small degree yes, but not in a very experienced businessman,
11:40:41 25 I'm not in the PLC quality.
26 Q. 158 Mr. Dunlop, to use one of your own phrases, are we from different planets here?
27 A. No parallel universe is the phrase I used.
28 Q. 159 It's a better one, I think you used both. But are we on parallel universes
29 here if 20 years doesn't make you a highly experienced businessman?
11:41:01 30 A. No, I am not going to get into a semantical discussion with you about who is

www.pcr.ie Day 652
21
11:41:05 1 and who is not a highly experienced businessman. I was a businessman and I was
2 running a small business.
3 Q. 160 Mr. Dunlop sorry, you needn't -- I am getting into this with you.
4 A. Yes.
11:41:13 5 Q. 161 If you are telling the Tribunal, on oath, that you are not an experienced
6 businessman after 20 years in private business and successful private business,
7 I mean, I'd like you just to confirm that you are saying that or are you
8 retracting it?
9 A. No, I suppose Mr. Murphy it's sort of an innate modesty, I wouldn't describe
11:41:34 10 myself as a highly experienced businessman, it's just a question --
11 Q. 162 I didn't say successful or good, I just said experienced?
12 A. I was experienced certainly in the field that I was in, in getting clients and
13 servicing the clients that I had, that was certainly fairly experienced --
14 Q. 163 Thank you. Mr. Dunlop why don't you agree with me in the first instance when I
11:41:53 15 put the question instead of wasting a few minutes as to what your answer is
16 before we come to you agreeing with me?
17 A. Well, I don't know, I can't answer that question, you are asking the questions
18 I am just --
19 Q. 164 But you are the only person who can answer it, Mr. Dunlop?
11:42:08 20 A. Well, I am just telling you, I would not describe myself in those terms.
21 Q. 165 You have just described yourself in those terms?
22 A. I am an experienced PR lobbyist, I'm not in the --
23 Q. 166 That's not a business?
24 A. I'm not in the, in the stratospheric plc category.
11:42:29 25 Q. 167 You say you didn't intentionally, sorry, I think you said you didn't intend to
26 mislead the Tribunal in saying 25,000. You didn't take even a reasonable care
27 in coming into the Tribunal with your figure of 25,000 insofar as you didn't
28 refer to your accountants, would you agree with that?
29 A. I would agree I didn't refer to my accountants and if that is not taking
11:42:54 30 reasonable care I would agree.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
22
11:42:55 1 Q. 168 All right. And it may be if you had gone to your accountants then they would
2 have been able to tell you 60 thousand?
3 A. They may well have done, yes.
4 Q. 169 Now Mr. Dunlop, if I can just ask you then about the two subsequent -- you are
11:43:31 5 now accepting that it was 85,000?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 170 And this is made up of two further cheques, one for 15,000 -- I will probably
8 get my sums wrong here Mr. Dunlop, one for 15,000 and one for 10,000, isn't
9 that right, you have seen those?
11:43:47 10 A. I was just about to compliment you on your mathematics but you have obviously
11 decided no, the -- my statement was that I got 25 in tranches of 15 and 10. I
12 subsequently agreed, after the audit, that we got 60 and if the audit was
13 conducted again today in the absence of documentation it would still be 60, but
14 I agree on the provision of, I have had sight of a cheque of 15 and of 10,
11:44:20 15 which brings it to 85.
16 Q. 171 Just in relation --
17 A. Is that not correct.
18 Q. 172 Yes, yes?
19 A. Yes.
11:44:30 20 Q. 173 I am going back just a little bit Mr. Dunlop for a second in relation to the
21 25,000 and it arises now in the difference between 60 and 85?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 174 You are someone who has given considerable evidence to the Tribunal about the
24 amount of money you have paid to different councillors?
11:44:44 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 175 Varying from low hundreds up to thousands?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 176 How can you possibly give that evidence on the one hand and say on the other
29 that I can't remember, my best recollection throughout 2000 is 25,000, but now
11:44:59 30 it's 85,000 when the documentation is shown to me?

www.pcr.ie Day 652
23
11:45:02 1 A. Well, I don't see any inconsistency in it. I have already said to you that the
2 initial agreement with the representative of Monarch was for 25,000. Obviously
3 there were subsequent agreements or --
4 Q. 177 I wasn't asking, sorry to interrupt you Mr. Dunlop I, want to keep it as short
11:45:19 5 as I can. I wasn't asking you about the agreement I was asking about what you
6 were paid?
7 A. I have said ten minutes ago that I agree I was paid 85,000.
8 Q. 178 I think you understand the question I put to you Mr. Dunlop, would you please
9 answer?
11:45:30 10 A. But I mean when I go to answer you Mr. Murphy you tell me that I am either
11 digressing or holding the Tribunal up.
12 Q. 179 No. I didn't say either thing Mr. Dunlop.
13 A. I don't see any difficulty in saying what I have said, that to the best of my
14 recollection at the time I said 25,000, let's park that. Move on, when the
11:45:55 15 audit was done by our accountants we came to 60,000. We told the Tribunal
16 that. I have no difficulty in accepting that I got 25,000 extra in tranches of
17 15 and 10, because up to this morning I have been shown the cheques, I have
18 seen sight of the cheques.
19 Q. 180 And if we come in tomorrow and give you 50, documents for 50,000 or a hundred
11:46:21 20 thousand you will be saying you have no trouble agreeing with that Mr. Dunlop,
21 isn't that the position?
22 A. No, I wouldn't say I have any difficulty in just agreeing with it.
23 Q. 181 How long will this go on for?
24 A. Well, I am just saying to you, if you come in tomorrow morning with a cheque
11:46:34 25 saying that I got 50,000, which I'm absolutely 100 per cent certain I didn't,
26 but let's see whether you come in tomorrow morning with a cheque for 50,000, I
27 would say fine. I certainly have no recollection of getting 50,000, I did
28 invoice Monarch for 50,000 pounds but I never got it.
29 Q. 182 Now, Mr. Dunlop, so okay the position as of today is that in May 2000 you swear
11:46:58 30 that it's 25,000. You agree with the Tribunal that, sorry you tell the

www.pcr.ie Day 652
24
11:47:05 1 Tribunal it's 60,000 in 2001 and now you say on oath that it's 85,000, isn't
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 183 All right. And you are also saying that that's it?
11:47:17 5 A. I'm also saying that I invoiced the company Monarch for 50,000, but I am saying
6 to you that I did not get 50,000.
7 Q. 184 Does that mean you might get 50,000 tomorrow from Monarch?
8 A. Well, they might be generous enough if they want to, but the invoice is still
9 out there.
11:47:33 10 Q. 185 But subject to that invoice, you are saying Mr. Dunlop, subject to that invoice
11 you are saying that's it?
12 A. To the best of my recollection, yes and on foot of all of the documentation
13 that I have reviewed I do not recollect getting anything else from Monarch.
14 Q. 186 Yes. Unless we turn up some documents?
11:47:53 15 A. Well, if you do I will examine it and I will look at it and I will either
16 confirm or disabuse you of the truth.
17 Q. 187 Is there any chance for example that maybe there is another firm of accountants
18 working for you who might have papers that you haven't gone to?
19 A. No, there is not.
11:48:07 20 Q. 188 No. Mr. Dunlop, could I just ask you in relation to these two payments that
21 you are agreeing this morning about, 10,000 and 15,000, they are actually two
22 payments that the Tribunal put you on notice of in 2001 as information coming
23 from Monarch, so in other words when the Tribunal wrote to you in 2001 they
24 told you about those two payments, now I just, I'm afraid I don't know off the
11:49:07 25 top of my head if you got documentation, because you certainly said the
26 Tribunal was furnishing you documentation in the other matters, but the
27 Tribunal told you that Monarch had told the Tribunal that Monarch had paid you
28 15,000 and 10,000 on respective dates. And yet you did not adopt those
29 payments in coming back to us with your 60,000?
11:49:30 30 A. Yes. No, well similar to yourself, off the top of my head I can't recollect

www.pcr.ie Day 652
25
11:49:37 1 when the Tribunal did or did not tell us, but if they did there was no evidence
2 to suggest that those payments been made or we were not provided, unless I am
3 wrong, we were not provided with any information as to that effect, including
4 up to in recent days in relation to a cheque for 10,000.
11:49:58 5 Q. 189 Yes. But Mr. Dunlop, what you are saying is Coyle & Coyle and you notified the
6 Tribunal of 60,000 because in part of new documentation coming from the
7 Tribunal, from Monarch, isn't that right?
8 A. Yes, just for -- I don't wish to repeat myself Mr. Murphy, but I cannot give
9 you the dates. You probably have them at your fingertips there. We were
11:50:29 10 contacted by the Tribunal to the effect that evidence had been provided to the
11 Tribunal by Monarch that extra payments had been made, we did an audit and as a
12 result of that audit, including all of Frank Dunlop and Associates books, cash
13 books, receipt books, lodgements, whatever, we came up with 60 and we told the
14 Tribunal that.
11:50:52 15 Q. 190 Yes. Could I have page 491 please? This is actually -- maybe what I should do
16 would be to go to 499 first please. Mr. Dunlop, this is the schedule that
17 Coyle & Coyle came back to the Tribunal with in 2001?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 191 Uncorrected, 75,000?
11:51:28 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 192 Now what the mistake relates to?
22 A. The 15.
23 Q. 193 If you go up to 19th of May 1993, 15,000, that in fact was an invoice which was
24 paid by the two 7,500's below it?
11:51:42 25 A. Correct, yes.
26 Q. 194 It's included in error?
27 A. It's included in error.
28 Q. 195 So if we now go to page 491 we can deal with the corrected schedule, so in fact
29 Mr. Dunlop what was happening there was you were telling the Tribunal that you
11:51:55 30 were paid 15,000 more than you believed you were?

www.pcr.ie Day 652
26
11:51:57 1 A. Correct.
2 Q. 196 But in fact we now know you were getting closer to the real figure?
3 A. Well in the first instance it was a double count.
4 Q. 197 Yes?
11:52:06 5 A. 15 and two separate 7,500's. So when you take out the 15 and you account for
6 the two 7,500's you get the 60.
7 Q. 198 Now, Mr. Dunlop, if you go down to the bottom of the page there you see it says
8 "accordingly the above schedule should read as follows 'Frank Dunlop and
9 Associates Limited receipts from Monarch Properties -- this is the Tribunal,
11:52:26 10 sorry --
11 A. Where are you now, Mr. Murphy, what are you reading from?
12 Q. 199 Sorry halfway down the page 491?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 200 Accordingly the above schedule should read as follows, let's ignore the above
11:52:37 15 schedule, 'Frank Dunlop and Associates Limited receipts from Monarch
16 Properties' and it gives a date of each payment?
17 A. Mm-hmm.
18 Q. 201 The F. D. A. L amount which is your account, Frank Dunlop Associates Limited
19 amount that you got?
11:52:50 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 202 This is what you are agreeing you got?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 203 Then it says traced to lodgements and I think the Y letter that goes down there
24 should be under traced to lodgements, is that all right?
11:53:04 25 A. I accept your word for it, yes.
26 Q. 204 I'm afraid --
27 A. Yes, yes.
28 Q. 205 I suppose it's -- anyway, and then --
29 A. I don't know what Y stands for.
11:53:13 30 Q. 206 Sorry, I think what it is is that you see Y is on the right-hand side of five

www.pcr.ie Day 652
27
11:53:19 1 of the six figures?
2 A. Yes, yes.
3 Q. 207 I think it means that those, if you look at the asterisk on the second one?
4 A. Yes.
11:53:27 5 Q. 208 And go down below to the asterisk remittance advice from Monarch Properties but
6 not traced to F. D. A. L, I think it probably means that your accountants are
7 telling us that that Y means the others weren't traced so they didn't go into
8 the business account?
9 A. I'm not so sure about that. That all the ones listed with Y behind it were not
11:53:51 10 listed to the business account, they were.
11 Q. 209 Sorry, I beg your pardon?
12 A. It's The opposite.
13 Q. 210 What it says is --
14 A. What you mean to say, Mr. Murphy, with due respect, is that those payments with
11:54:01 15 the Y after it are payments that my accountant have traced as being lodged to
16 F. D. A. L.
17 Q. 211 Sorry you are absolutely right, you are absolutely right. The 10,000, the
18 second one was not traced to your account, your business account, the others
19 were?
21 Q. 212 I beg your pardon. Now the third column is per Tribunal?
22 A. Homer nods Mr. Murphy, don't worry. Good boy.
23 Q. 213 Yes, exactly and then I think that that is -- sorry I know that's the
24 information we gave you that came from Monarch?
11:54:30 25 A. Yes, which is quite surprising.
26 Q. 214 Sorry, what's surprising?
27 A. Well 52,500 and we are saying that we got 60,000.
28 Q. 215 What's surprising?
29 A. It's surprising that Monarch with all it's capabilities and audit facilities
11:54:49 30 and all the rest are telling the Tribunal that I got 52,500 whereas when we did

www.pcr.ie Day 652
28
11:54:55 1 our audit we came up with 60.
2 Q. 216 Right. Does that mean that two people made a bags of it, is that what you are
3 saying?
4 A. I'd prefer if both of us made a bags of it, but what I am saying is that when
11:55:06 5 we did our audit in all of the documentation and information available to our
6 accountants we came up with 60 and traced 60.
7 Q. 217 And when the Tribunal did its audit it comes up with 85.
8 A. Sure, yes.
9 Q. 218 The point I want to just make here Mr. Dunlop is that as I say, the third
11:55:21 10 column per Tribunal means Monarch has told the Tribunal and the Tribunal is
11 telling you 52,500?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 219 Now you will see under per Tribunal, 26th of May 93, 10,000 pounds?
14 A. Yes.
11:55:37 15 Q. 220 And go down to the 15,000 underneath that, against the 2nd of November 1993?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 221 They -- sorry, they are, if you compare the Tribunal column, 52,500 with your
18 column 60,000?
19 A. Yes.
11:55:59 20 Q. 222 You adopt three of the per Tribunal figures and don't adopt those two figures,
21 the 10,000 and 15,000?
22 A. From that document that you have in front of me.
23 Q. 223 From that document?
24 A. That is palpably clear, yes.
11:56:17 25 Q. 224 And this is the, these are the two payments we are talking about this morning
26 that you now agree bring it up to 85?
27 A. Correct and these are the two payments that I have suggested to you earlier on
28 and you are absolutely correct, these are the two payments that there was no
29 documentation whatever available to us. You may point to this, saying the
11:56:38 30 Tribunal had evidence from Monarch that they had paid this, to my knowledge or

www.pcr.ie Day 652
29
11:56:42 1 recollection we had no evidence to suggest that we had received those payments.
2 Q. 225 Okay.
3 A. Now I may be wrong, I may be wrong on that point.
4 Q. 226 I will come to that in a moment Mr. Dunlop, the only point I want to make there
11:56:58 5 is that when the Tribunal sends you the 52,500 figure and you come back with
6 the 60,000?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 227 You don't adopt those two figures, you do today, you are saying, I think, that
9 you had no documentation to support those figures, to confirm those figures,
11:57:19 10 but why didn't you sort of say to the Tribunal 'look could we ever have your
11 underlying documentation that you must have got from Monarch, I'm assuming now
12 the Tribunal didn't send to you and I don't know the answer to that, but I mean
13 the Tribunal is putting up 52,500, you are coming back, you are putting up 60
14 in response but omitting that 10 and the five there, surely you'd come back
11:57:42 15 through your solicitors and your accountants and say to the Tribunal 'Monarch
16 say it is paid me those two payments ten and five, please give me the
17 documentation and I will let you know, like we have done today and I will let
18 you know whether I was paid or not'?
19 A. Well, I can't account for the sort of, the line of query that you have put in
11:58:05 20 the sense that I can't speak for the way the accountants treated the matter,
21 the accountants obviously treated the matter on the basis of all of the
22 documentation they had available to them, and I had in the company, and in fact
23 we might have been quite pleased with the fact that we were able to suggest
24 that we had got 60,000 instead of 52,500 which Monarch were saying on the basis
11:58:26 25 of what the Tribunal was saying.
26 Q. 228 Yes. I suggest to you, Mr. Dunlop, that at least it's a very, very casual
27 attitude to the Tribunal?
28 A. I don't think so Mr. Murphy. I don't think you can suggest that. I'm not
29 going to have a debate about that with you, but I mean I don't think you could
11:58:57 30 suggest that.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
30
11:59:19 1 Q. 229 Mr. Dunlop I want to just take that 10,000 figure up with you for a second, and
2 if I could please ask for 4219, now Mr. Dunlop, this is as we have said, this
3 is one of the two cheques which you accept today were, you received from
4 Monarch?
12:00:00 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 230 All right. And the reason you didn't accept, you didn't agree that, that you
7 had received that at an earlier stage, was because you had no documentation
8 relating to it, isn't that right?
9 A. I think so, yes.
12:00:15 10 Q. 231 Yes. Now Mr. Dunlop, if you look at 4219 that's a remittance advice?
11 A. It is yes.
12 Q. 232 Monarch Property Services Limited paying the money?
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. 233 To Frank Dunlop?
12:00:31 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 234 And it says "Dear Sirs, we enclose here with our cheque number 8109 in the sum
17 of 10,000"?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 235 All right. Now I mean that obviously was send, you got the cheque it was
12:00:46 20 obviously sent to you?
21 A. Documentation -- the original or a copy of that documentation obviously was
22 sent to me with the cheque.
23 Q. 236 And what happened to it?
24 A. I don't know.
12:00:54 25 Q. 237 Right. But you didn't have it and you don't have it?
26 A. Well obviously I am looking at it now and I have seen it in some of the
27 briefing material, but to the best of my recollection we did not have that.
28 Q. 238 Yes. And if I could look at 4223 please -- excuse me, cheque payments book, if
29 you go down, this is Monarch cheque payments book?
12:01:36 30 A. Oh yeah.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
31
12:01:37 1 Q. 239 Just to show the money coming out, or sorry recorded as being paid, if you go
2 down five lines, you see Frank Dunlop and Associates and 10,000?
3 A. Yes, yes.
4 Q. 240 That's Monarch saying that they paid that sum to you?
12:01:49 5 A. Mm-hmm.
6 Q. 241 And if we go to 4224, which is their bank account, and if you go down to the
7 third of June 1993 you will see cheque 8109, 10,000?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 242 All right? So that's the 10,000 coming out of Monarch account, all right?
12:02:17 10 A. Correct.
11 Q. 243 So Monarch paid the cheque of 10,000, isn't that right?
12 A. Sorry, yes, I beg your pardon, sorry.
13 Q. 244 What are you referring to?
14 A. No, just having my notes here, in relation to payments made and the scheduling
12:02:38 15 of documentation.
16 Q. 245 What is it you are looking at?
17 A. Payments from Monarch.
18 Q. 246 Yes?
19 A. And when, just as --
12:02:45 20 Q. 247 Is that the one we were looking at on the screen a moment ago?
21 A. Yes, exactly -- no, this is an internal document my solicitors prepared for me.
22 Q. 248 Oh, I see.
23 A. Just in relation to the payments for Monarch I was just trying to reconcile it
24 with this one here.
12:02:59 25 Q. 249 Yes?
26 A. And it's -- we don't have it.
27 Q. 250 Well it --
28 A. We don't have it. Which --
29 Q. 251 No --
12:03:09 30 A. Which goes back to the original of what I said.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
32
12:03:11 1 Q. 252 Yes?
2 A. Is that notwithstanding the fact that a remittance notice obviously was sent
3 with a cheque, I don't know what happened to the remittance notice if it was in
4 evidence in the books it would have been recorded by the accountants. I don't
12:03:27 5 know what happened to it, and obviously on the journey that you have started in
6 relation to tracing the payment from Monarch's remittance note to the payments
7 book of Monarch and to the withdrawal from, or the debit from the bank account,
8 and then seeing the cheque is the next item on the agenda I should imagine and
9 my signature on the back of it, that is the evidence, that is the only evidence
12:03:56 10 that I have that that payment was made.
11 Q. 253 Yes. That's why it doesn't feature in the document you are looking at there?
12 A. Correct, yes.
13 Q. 254 And, of course, before the remittance advice there would be your invoice
14 presumably, is that right?
12:04:10 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 255 Did you always issue an invoice?
17 A. Yes, we always issued an invoice, yes.
18 Q. 256 And, so anyway your files are missing the invoice and the remittance advice?
19 A. Yes, there is a gap. There is a gap in relation to two issues.
12:04:25 20 Q. 257 Yes?
21 A. Just two. To summarise, if it is possible to do so in this context, to
22 summarise, there are two issues which are at the core of this line of
23 questioning, that you have quite legitimately adopted. One is one for 15 and
24 the other is for the ten. You are asking me about this one in relation to the
12:04:44 25 ten, I have absolutely no difficulty in recognising the remittance note,
26 notwithstanding it says Frank Dunlop as distinct from Frank Dunlop and
27 Associates. I see Dominic Glennane's signature on the top of it, who is the
28 financial officer for Monarch Properties, I see the tracing of the journey of
29 the payment through the cash book of Monarch Properties, out of their bank
12:05:10 30 account and as I said the next logical step is to show me the cheque, my

www.pcr.ie Day 652
33
12:05:16 1 signature and it's disbursement or it's disposal in some fashion or other.
2 Q. 258 You accept there would have been an invoice?
3 A. Yes. I would be very surprised if there wasn't an invoice.
4 Q. 259 And so somewhere along the line invoice and remittance advice have got mislaid
12:05:37 5 or lost?
6 A. Yes, but without getting into another area or backing into a cul-de-sac, if the
7 invoice was for ten one would automatically expect that it would be VATed so if
8 the invoice was for ten, was that inclusive of VAT or was VAT not added, or if
9 VAT was added was it not paid? That I cannot answer you.
12:06:06 10 Q. 260 What's that got to do with whether or not there is an invoice and whether or
11 not you have lost it?
12 A. I am just saying to you that if there was an invoice the logic would be that it
13 would be VATed and if it was for ten plus VAT it would be what? 12,100.
14 Q. 261 Tell me what do you make of this amount of ten you were paid, is this inclusive
12:06:29 15 of VAT or exclusive of VAT?
16 A. I suspect very strongly that it was exclusive of VAT.
17 Q. 262 So where is the VAT?
18 A. The VAT either was not paid or was not included in the invoice, that's the
19 point I am making.
12:06:39 20 Q. 263 Yes, who would have had to pay the VAT, you?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 264 But I mean, so you know, you are accepting that you got the 10,000?
23 A. I have no difficulty in saying I got the 10,000 yes.
24 Q. 265 Are you also saying that you should have paid 21 per cent on top of that to the
12:06:54 25 VAT people?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 266 Which you didn't do?
28 A. Well obviously if this is not recorded.
29 Q. 267 Yes?
12:06:58 30 A. In the books of Frank Dunlop and Associates as being receipted, invoiced plus

www.pcr.ie Day 652
34
12:07:04 1 VAT and receipted, therefore there would not -- a VAT payment would not occur
2 because it wasn't recorded in the books.
3 Q. 268 It isn't recorded, isn't that right?
4 A. As far as we are concerned it's not.
12:07:17 5 Q. 269 No. Did that happen much or is this a unique payment that didn't pay VAT?
6 A. No I think I have given evidence to the effect previously that invoices were
7 issued without VAT.
8 Q. 270 Okay. So there was nothing unusual about not paying the VAT?
9 A. I wouldn't say there was nothing unusual about it, but it wasn't, this is not,
12:07:37 10 this would not have been the first occasion on which it occurred.
11 Q. 271 Well Mr. Dunlop, but you did, anyway normally there would be an invoice but we
12 just don't have it here?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. 272 Document 507 please for a second, this is in respect of the first 15,000 which
12:08:01 15 is part of the 25,000, that's a remittance advice, we have no invoice?
16 A. Right.
17 Q. 273 What do you say about that?
18 A. Obviously I received it. I thought there was an invoice for that amount
19 Mr. Murphy, no, are you sure there is not an invoice for that?
12:08:33 20 Q. 274 I can't hear you?
21 A. Are you sure there is not an invoice for that amount?
22 Q. 275 Well I am suggesting to you there isn't?
23 A. Yes sorry no, I'm fast forwarded to another one of the same, of --
24 Q. 276 Do you think there was an invoice?
12:08:53 25 A. Let's just --
26
27 MR REDMOND: Mr. Chairman there is an invoice, I think 4633?
28 A. Yes.
29 CHAIRMAN: Can we go to 4633?
12:09:07 30 A. Yeah.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
35
12:09:08 1 Q. 277 That, have we got it up? That's a different invoice isn't it.
3 JUDGE FAHERTY: We are not talking about that, we are talking about March?
4 A. March.
12:09:19 5 Q. 278 So could we go back to please, no -- well yes, we have dealt with that.
7 CHAIRMAN: Could you go back to 507?
8 Q. 279 Mr. Dunlop, I think you think that maybe there is an invoice for that?
9 A. Sorry, I may have been confused with that one that Mr. Redmond alluded to. I
12:09:48 10 knew there was an invoice for 15 in some context, but, no I don't have a copy
11 invoice here.
12 Q. 280 And why?
13 A. I just don't know.
14 Q. 281 I mean I think you said a moment ago as an explanation for the other invoice
12:10:04 15 missing that it was unusual?
16 A. Yes, yes.
17 Q. 282 So it's -- you invoiced but it's missing?
18 A. Well, I can't see why Monarch would make a payment to me on a remittance advice
19 note without an invoice of some sort.
12:10:20 20 Q. 283 All right.
21 A. I mean I doubt very much if any of the financial representatives, controllers
22 in Monarch would issue payment on a verbal understanding.
23 Q. 284 Okay. But it just means it's missing?
24 A. Yes.
12:10:35 25 Q. 285 Could we go to 513 please, this is a cheque for 10,000, it's the second payment
26 and ten and 15, maybe they make the 25 that was in your mind, I mean I don't
27 know, but it's the second payment, 10,000, that's a remittance advice and there
28 is no invoice?
29 A. You don't have -- we haven't supplied you with an invoice, we don't have an
12:11:03 30 invoice.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
36
12:11:04 1 Q. 286 I'm suggesting to you Mr. Dunlop there is no invoice and I'd like to you say
2 what the position is?
3 A. Well I don't have evidence of an invoice either. I don't have a copy of the
4 invoice.
12:11:14 5 Q. 287 So the three that I have taken out so far, there is no invoice notwithstanding
6 that you invoiced and you always have them and so on?
7 A. Well, again I put it to you in the context that it would be a highly unlikely
8 for Monarch to pay me 25,000 pounds or 35 thousand pounds or whatever sum of
9 money without an invoice.
12:11:30 10 Q. 288 Can we take it all these, VAT doesn't apply either?
11 A. No, not on that one either.
12 Q. 289 Sorry it applies but you don't pay it?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. 290 All right, if we go to 515 for a second that's the 15 we were talking about,
12:12:08 15 which is an invoice that is --
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 291 Taken over by the 2,000, 7500 by twice -- that invoice is paid I think in two
18 sums, tranches to use your word, 7500 and 7500, it's the one we talked about in
19 the schedule?
12:12:27 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 292 Right?
22 A. Right okay.
23 Q. 293 So that's the sort of thing you would have been expecting in the other three
24 cases?
12:12:33 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 294 An invoice like that and that one has VAT?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 295 And I suppose we have no idea why we have that one and we don't have the
29 others?
12:12:41 30 A. No, I can't give you a cogent explanation for that at this remove.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
37
12:12:46 1 Q. 296 And then, sorry 4219, that's the cheque we are dealing with, that's the one we
2 have already, we know we haven't got the invoice in that, could I have 4390
3 please which is a document we have received from Monarch in their discovery and
4 if you go down please to invoice 2068 where it says Frank Dunlop, then it says
12:13:21 5 amount 9680 and then it says copy of Dunlop's invoice. We only have one
6 invoice for 12,100 pounds even though we have made payments of 42,500, Eddie
7 and I think that's Eddie Sweeney in Monarch, is that right?
8 A. Well, I presume, there was only one Eddie, I'm assuming.
9 Q. 297 Eddie must get invoices?
12:13:46 10 A. Mm-hmm.
11 Q. 298 Anything to say?
12 A. Well, Eddie must get the invoices. Eddie was the man I dealt with in Monarch.
13 Q. 299 Could you now Mr. Dunlop make a bit of sense of what you have been telling me
14 for the last ten minutes, namely that you invoice in every case and it would
12:13:59 15 only be exceptional if there wasn't an invoice and Monarch wouldn't dream of
16 paying you unless they got an invoice?
17 A. Yeah.
18 Q. 300 Can you just explain what you were telling the Tribunal for the last few
19 minutes?
12:14:11 20 A. I will repeat it for you, we would issue invoices for our clients and I cannot
21 see a situation in which we would be paid money by Monarch, of the company in
22 stature of Monarch at the time, without invoices.
23 Q. 301 But what we have just read out is in the teeth of what you have just said
24 because Monarch are saying that they paid out 42,500 without invoices?
12:14:33 25 A. Well, you see you are asking me to put myself in the shoes of Monarch or Mr,
26 who is this, this Mr. Caslin's shoes in relation to this, I do not ever
27 recollect Mr. Sweeney asking me for invoices or past invoices or pursuing me
28 for invoices.
29 Q. 302 All right. Now can we go back to, sorry not go back to, can we turn to 4221
12:15:05 30 please. Now, this is the Monarch Property Services Limited cheque, drawn on

www.pcr.ie Day 652
38
12:15:20 1 it's account at 73 Clanbrassil Street, AIB, and it's a cheque in the sum of
2 10,000. The date is the 26 of May 1993, made out to Frank Dunlop and
3 Associates, isn't that right so far?
4 A. Correct, yes.
12:15:37 5 Q. 303 And the number of the cheque 8109 and that's the cheque we are talking about
6 isn't that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 304 Made out to you. And then if we go to just the bottom of that page where we
9 have I think your signature, is that right?
12:15:53 10 A. Well that is not my signature, it is my name, but I have never written my
11 signature in that fashion before or since.
12 Q. 305 That's what I was wonder Mr Dunlop?
13 A. Well I'm glad you made the point. I'm not -- I cannot give you an explanation,
14 I saw this this morning, I cannot give you an explanation, it is certainly my
12:16:25 15 name obviously, but my signature has come up on this screen thousands of times
16 during the course of this Tribunal, that is not my signature.
17 Q. 306 Can I just ask you, you say you saw this this morning?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 307 Was this not on, I know Mr. Redmond has told me, I think we faxed something to
12:16:47 20 you yesterday, I'm not quite sure what it was?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. 308 Was this not in your brief?
23 A. No, it was not.
24 Q. 309 I see?
12:16:52 25 A. I saw this first thing this morning at 8 o'clock.
26 Q. 310 Right.
27 A. In my solicitor's office.
28 Q. 311 I am sorry about the fact you didn't get it?
29 A. No, no that's fine. I don't want to cause unnecessary confusion, but I have no
12:17:08 30 difficulty whatsoever in identifying the fact that Monarch Property Services

www.pcr.ie Day 652
39
12:17:13 1 Limited has issued the cheque in the name of Frank Dunlop and Associates and
2 that it is a company cheque, payable to a company, that there is a signature on
3 the back of it, which purports to be mine, it is not mine. I have never used
4 that format in signing my name, ever.
12:17:39 5
6 CHAIRMAN: Well, do you recognise the signature, do you recognise the
7 signature?
8 A. I don't. I'm sorry Chairman.
12:17:46 10 CHAIRMAN: Could it be somebody in your office?
11 A. It could well be, yes, it could well be, that is a possibility, I wouldn't -- I
12 wouldn't deny that for a minute, but at the same time the only answer that I
13 would add to that is why would it be necessary for anybody in my office to sign
14 the back of a company cheque if the company, if the cheque was being traded in
12:18:13 15 some fashion or other or was being lodged or was being cashed? I mean if I was
16 going to cash that cheque --
17
18 CHAIRMAN: Was that cheque picked up in your lodgement?
19 A. No. We have no, we have no history of this payment or this cheque other than
12:18:34 20 what the Tribunal have made available to us in recent days, sorry Mr. Murphy I
21 hope that doesn't cause unnecessary confusion, but I mean it would be
22 disingenuous of me to suggest that -- I have no difficulty about the front of
23 the cheque, there is no doubt whatsoever that that cheque is made payable to my
24 company.
12:19:01 25
26 CHAIRMAN: Well, on the front of the cheque there is what looks like Ulster
27 Bank in Lucan, is it?
28 A. Yes, there is a stamp Ulster Bank Lucan, yes.
29
12:19:09 30 CHAIRMAN: Well, have you any association with that bank?

www.pcr.ie Day 652
40
12:19:12 1 A. No, I have not.
2 Q. 312 And on the back of the cheque there is something written close to your name?
3 A. You mean immediately behind it or just under it.
4 Q. 313 Kind of at right angles?
12:19:27 5 A. Yes, is that cleared or cleaned or cleared? Clearing I think is the word,
6 clearing, C-L-E-A-R-I-N-G.
7 Q. 314 Try again?
9 JUDGE FAHERTY: Clearys?
12:19:46 10 A. Cleary.
11 Q. 315 Pardon?
12 A. Cleary. C-L-E-A-R-Y.
13 Q. 316 There might be an S at the end of it?
14 A. Clearys -- I just don't know.
12:19:57 15 Q. 317 No, no, but what's your best attempt?
16 A. Well, if I was asked to interpret that I would say that it's CLEARING.
17 Q. 318 How do you make CLEARING out of that, Mr. Dunlop?
18 A. Well it's a question of -- it's a question of visual impact Mr. Murphy, it's
19 not a question of scientific -- it could be Cleary, it could be Cleary.
12:20:21 20 Q. 319 It could be Clearys, S?
21 A. It could be Clearys, yes it could be, yes, sorry yes.
22 Q. 320 Do you think that may be what it is?
23 A. Yes, could be.
24 Q. 321 You'd have looked at that, is that the first time you looked at that?
12:20:34 25 A. Why it is, yes.
26 Q. 322 You got that cheque this morning, sorry that page, you saw it for the first
27 time this morning?
28 A. Yeah.
29 Q. 323 Did you recognise then it wasn't your signature?
12:20:42 30 A. Yes I did.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
41
12:20:43 1 Q. 324 You didn't look to see what other writing there was on it?
2 A. No.
3 Q. 325 That couldn't be true Mr. Dunlop?
4 A. Well it's -- I mean, as I said I'm just looking at it here now and --
12:20:54 5 Q. 326 What's that got to do with it, Mr. Dunlop. I'm suggesting to you that it
6 couldn't be true, you having seen a cheque for the first time this morning that
7 purports to bear your signature and you didn't look at every other thing that
8 was written on it?
9 A. Well I didn't and that is the truth.
12:21:10 10 Q. 327 That's what you swear to?
11 A. That's exactly. I remember I am the one bringing your attention to the fact
12 that that that is not my signature. That is not my signature.
13 Q. 328 If you haven't done it Mr. Dunlop it would have been brought to your attention?
14 A. Oh good.
12:21:26 15 Q. 329 And I want to ask you then, what's the status of the cheque and the 10,000,
16 because until this morning you were disputing having got this, then this
17 morning the Tribunal is told you accept you got it and now you are saying this
18 is not your signature?
19 A. Yeah well I mean you take it logically if you will, which I presume is what you
12:21:45 20 want to do. Up to the point of close of business yesterday there was no
21 documentary evidence to suggest that this payment had been made. This morning
22 at 8 o'clock I was presented with this document and I can attest to the fact
23 that the people who were present when they presented it with me.
24 Q. 330 I have no difficulty with that Mr. Dunlop?
12:22:08 25 A. Fine, well if you have no difficulty with that point, let me follow on
26 logically then to suggest to you that when you put this cheque up on the screen
27 I have no difficulty in recognising that it's a Monarch cheque, it's made
28 payable to Frank Dunlop and Associates and as the Chairman pointed out there is
29 a stamp of Ulster Bank on it, which again might I add, had the Chairman not
12:22:28 30 done so, I had not averted to, I just looked upon it as evidence from the

www.pcr.ie Day 652
42
12:22:34 1 Tribunal that we had got 10,000 pounds from Monarch.
2 Q. 331 Mr. Dunlop, this is nonsense. For six years, well, no, is it since 2001, for
3 five years you have told the Tribunal effectively that you weren't, you didn't
4 get this 10,000?
12:22:52 5 A. There was no evidence that we got the 10,000.
6 Q. 332 Well, it's not all about evidence Mr. Dunlop?
7 A. Well, what it is about then?
8 Q. 333 Because you are the person getting the money and issuing invoices?
9 A. No, no.
12:23:05 10 Q. 334 Because clearly what you are doing Mr. Dunlop is you are not giving something
11 up until it is presented to you in a document from the Tribunal otherwise there
12 is no evidence and it doesn't exist?
13 A. No no, that is -- that is a very warped version of the facts if you allow me to
14 say so, Mr. Murphy. To go back ad nauseum from 25 to 60, there is no evidence,
12:23:28 15 we had no evidence, documentary or otherwise in relation to the receipt of
16 15,000 and 10,000. We accepted, because we saw a cheque of 15,000 -- sorry.
17 Q. 335 Yes?
18 A. Do you want me to go back on that?
19 Q. 336 Mr. Dunlop are you saying you didn't get this page 4221 or are you saying your
12:23:54 20 solicitors didn't get it, because I want to suggest to you that that, this page
21 was in the brief?
22 A. Well I certainly haven't seen this page. This page as far as I am concerned
23 was presented to me this morning.
12:24:10 25
26 MR. REDMOND: Mr. Chairman for the avoidance of doubt those pages were not
27 included in the brief that were circulated.
28 Q. 338 Sorry I beg your pardon that's fine. I'm sorry Chairman, Mr. Dunlop --
29 A. Mr. Murphy, it's not usual for me, I hasten to add and you have been present
12:24:25 30 here before when I have given evidence and it's quite unusual for me to adopt

www.pcr.ie Day 652
43
12:24:31 1 this attitude. I am here to cooperate as much as I possibly can with the
2 Tribunal, certainly it is obvious that the Tribunal, notwithstanding the large
3 amount of resources that are available to it, is in the category of Homer
4 nodding on occasion. I got this document this morning, it was not in the
12:24:54 5 brief. Now, whoever is suggesting that it was in the brief, as Mr. Redmond has
6 pointed out, is incorrect. Which is a lot of incorrections in relation to
7 what's happening this morning.
9 CHAIRMAN: It wasn't in the brief.
12:25:07 10 Q. 339 It wasn't in the brief and I have apologised to Mr. Dunlop for suggesting that
11 it was.
12 A. Thank you.
13 Q. 340 Sorry, it was in the brief but they didn't get it, I don't know what that
14 means. But Mr. Dunlop, could I just correct this for one second, the question
12:25:23 15 of whether or not it was in the brief we have it now, the inaccuracies are
16 coming from you and we have had a litany of them this morning in relation to
17 how much you have understated your money to the Tribunal etcetera?
18 A. Mm-hmm.
19 Q. 341 Now I think I was asking Mr. Dunlop the status of this amount because for six
12:25:50 20 years you have said you didn't get, you weren't paid this, you now say what
21 that means is there was no evidence, you were given the evidence this morning,
22 you accept you got it, now you say this isn't your signature, this would be the
23 signature that -- I mean if this isn't your signature it's forged, isn't that
24 right?
12:26:05 25 A. Well, obviously somebody else wrote my name on the back of that cheque.
26 Q. 342 Right. Could you tell me how often in your 20 years as a businessman, you have
27 permitted somebody else to write your name on a cheque?
28 A. Not very often. I cannot recollect, I recollect one occasion, one --
29 Q. 343 Is that it?
12:26:25 30 A. No, no, no. The exact circumstances I cannot recall, but I can do so for you

www.pcr.ie Day 652
44
12:26:31 1 subsequently when I think about it, but I do recollect on one occasion asking a
2 member of my staff to make a lodgement and I gather that he had to sign the
3 back of the cheque when he was making the lodgement. The reason I am pausing
4 for a moment is is that I cannot recollect whether he signed my signature on
12:26:56 5 the back of the cheque purporting that it was mine or that he signed his own
6 and was worried about it. I just can't recollect but it would not be my
7 practice to give anybody permission to sign the back of a cheque with my
8 signature.
9 Q. 344 I think the Tribunal can infer from what you just said that you didn't give
12:27:12 10 your consent to this signature?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. 345 That means it's forged?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. 346 Thank you. And do you recognise the handwriting?
12:27:24 15 A. No, I don't.
16 Q. 347 And does that not mean that you didn't get that cheque, that cheque went to
17 somebody else?
18 A. No, no.
19 Q. 348 Who forged your signature?
12:27:33 20 A. No, that's a leap too far I might suggest, Mr. Murphy.
21 Q. 349 All right. Why is that?
22 A. Well because, if we take it again, logically.
23 Q. 350 Do, yeah?
24 A. It's a Monarch Property Services cheque, it's is made out to Frank Dunlop and
12:27:46 25 Associates for a specific amount, it's highly unlikely that it was being paid
26 to me for the benefit of somebody else. So, I mean the cheque was sent to me
27 obviously, and if there is a remittance notice or remittance advice notice in
28 Monarch Properties to that effect.
29 Q. 351 Sure we don't know anything about whether it got to you, it's is not in your
12:28:08 30 books?

www.pcr.ie Day 652
45
12:28:08 1 A. Correct.
2 Q. 352 Not that -- isn't that right?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. 353 All right. So it may never have got to you, if may have been intercepted
12:28:15 5 somewhere in Monarch, it may have been intercepted somewhere else and somebody
6 wrote your name?
7 A. It could well be. I don't have any recollection.
8 Q. 354 But Mr. Dunlop --
9 A. I don't have any recollection of getting the cheque and I certainly have no
12:28:28 10 recollection whatever of giving anybody permission.
11 Q. 355 Yes but what I am suggesting -- sorry, the inference from all of that
12 Mr. Dunlop has to be that you didn't get that amount?
13 A. No I don't accept that. You are not following logical line of thought
14 Mr. Murphy, the next question is the important one.
12:28:56 15 Q. 356 Mr. Dunlop, I am doing my best to follow your answer but I can't follow it so
16 could you give it to me again?
17 A. No, it does not mean that I did not get that cheque.
18 Q. 357 Why not?
19 A. I could have got the cheque and given it to somebody else.
12:29:09 20 Q. 358 What about the signature?
21 A. I gave nobody any permission to forge my signature on the back of a cheque.
23 A. And certainly, if it is a cheque to Frank Dunlop and Associates that would be
24 lodged, being lodged or even cashed or traded by me, it wouldn't necessarily
12:29:26 25 follow that it had to be signed on the back. If I was trading that cheque, if
26 I went into the bank with that cheque, known in the bank and said I want cash
27 for this, it is highly unlikely that I would be asked to sign the bank of it.
28 Q. 360 You see what I am wondering about just at the moment in the light of the fact
29 that it's not your signature, you say it's not your signature Mr. Dunlop, I am
12:29:47 30 wondering did you get it and I am just wondering and your response to that is

www.pcr.ie Day 652
46
12:29:51 1 the example is that maybe you gave it to somebody else, now do you think that's
2 what you did?
3 A. I don't know. I have no recollection in relation to this cheque at all.
4 Q. 361 All right. Have you often given a cheque to somebody else?
12:30:01 5 A. No.
6 Q. 362 Have you ever?
7 A. I would not say definitively, no, because that might not be the truth, but it
8 would be highly unusual.
9 Q. 363 And I presume if you were giving it to somebody else you would actually sign it
12:30:23 10 so they could make use of it, would you have done that -- sorry you -- you
11 jesticulated in agreement with me there, isn't that right?
12 A. Sorry yes, if I was giving that cheque to somebody else I would sign it, I
13 don't know what the exact banking term is to ensure that this was a tradeable
14 instrument, and that it had the endorsement of the payee as to, for it to be
12:30:53 15 traded, but there is no evidence that I have done that.
16 Q. 364 No, but if you were giving a cheque to somebody else like that?
17 A. Yes, it would be normal.
18 Q. 365 You sign it?
19 A. Normal practice.
12:31:02 20 Q. 366 Do you think you ever did that, do you think you ever gave a cheque to somebody
21 and signed the back of it so they could negotiate it?
22 A. I may have done, I just cannot say definitively that I did not. But the only
23 thing I will say to you in ease is that if I did it would be on very, very rare
24 occasions.
12:31:18 25 Q. 367 Okay. But I think you said never would you have given it, handed over the
26 cheque to somebody and not put your signature on it, you wouldn't just hand a
27 cheque to somebody?
28 A. Highly unusual.
29 Q. 368 Highly unusual?
12:31:30 30 A. Yeah.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
47
12:31:31 1
2 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dunlop, did you ever, did you owe money to Clearys at that
3 time?
4 A. Maybe that's why I didn't recognise the name Clearys. No I did not, no.
12:31:50 5 Q. 369 Do you think maybe that, sorry I am just wonder Mr Dunlop is that what you are
6 saying you think maybe what happened here is you got the cheque and you gave it
7 to somebody without signing it?
8 A. It could be yes Mr. Murphy, I am not going to say definitively to you that that
9 is not the case because that would be silly.
12:32:05 10 Q. 370 All right, it could be the case?
11 A. It could be the case.
12 Q. 371 Why would you give a cheque to somebody without signing it?
13 A. That's what's odd.
14 Q. 372 Is it not a bit more than odd?
12:32:15 15 A. Like? Unusual.
16 Q. 373 Now what do you know about Clearys Mr. Dunlop?
17 A. It's a shop in O'Connell Street, I have been in it a couple of times.
18 Q. 374 Do you know any other Clearys?
19 A. Do I know any other Clearys, no I don't. No I don't, you mean a retail outlet
12:32:40 20 or a name?
21 Q. 375 Name, do you know anybody by the name of Cleary?
22 A. No -- I don't think so it doesn't spring to mind anyway.
23 Q. 376 And in particular do you know anybody by the name of Cleary in a shop, in a
24 business, in a retail, in any place where you might buy something?
12:32:58 25 A. No I don't -- it doesn't spring to mind anyway.
26 Q. 377 You are quite hesitant?
27 A. No, because I am trying to be, trying to help you Mr. Murphy, I don't want to
28 say automatically yes or no to anything in case, just in case there may be a
29 possibility.
12:33:16 30 Q. 378 All right. So do you know the name Cleary or Clearys in connection with any

www.pcr.ie Day 652
48
12:33:26 1 pub?
2 A. No.
3 Q. 379 Are you sure?
4 A. It doesn't -- I may do, it doesn't spring to mind, I know the names of pubs but
12:33:45 5 I don't know, it doesn't spring to mind.
6 Q. 380 Okay. You don't know a pub by the name of -- you don't know Clearys in
7 connection with a pub?
8 A. Where are we talking about, where is the pub?
9 Q. 381 I am just asking you?
12:34:00 10 A. Clearys it doesn't spring to mind, is there an address?
11 Q. 382 Do you know a P and C Murphy trading as Clearys?
12 A. No, it doesn't spring to mind.
13 Q. 383 When you say it doesn't spring to mind Mr. Dunlop, you did pause quite
14 considerably to answer a question which is very, very simple, do you know an F
12:34:33 15 and S Dunlop who own a pub, you know, do you know --
16 A. I wish we did.
17 Q. 384 Do you know P and C Murphy trading as Cleary?
18 A. I wish F and S did own a pub, but no, I have no -- you can come along and tell
19 me that you must have known Clearys pub in such-and-such a street or whatever,
12:34:52 20 you may well do that, I may well do, it doesn't spring to mind it's not
21 something in the forefront of my mind, as to your latter question in relation
22 to somebody called Murphy, it doesn't spring so mind.
23 Q. 385 Do you know a P and C Murphy?
24 A. P and C Murphy. Well I know Murphys but I don't, various Murphys.
12:35:12 25 Q. 386 Are they P and C?
26 A. P and C? No.
27 Q. 387 Difficult is it?
28 A. A little more expansive, Peter and Camilla?
29 Q. 388 No, just, you tell me if you know a P and C Murphy, try Patrick?
12:35:27 30 A. Paddy Murphy, Patrick Murphy.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
49
12:35:38 1
2 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Murphy is there a P and C Murphy.
3 Q. 389 Sorry Chairman.
12:35:42 5 CHAIRMAN: Do we know about P and C Murphy?
6 Q. 390 Well do you know, Chairman, if I can just maybe in this way, Mr. Dunlop, do you
7 know a Patrick Murphy trading as Clearys in Sarsfield Road in Inchicore?
8 A. No, I do not.
9 Q. 391 And I understand that that's a pub where Mr. Lawlor got cheques cashed for him
12:36:13 10 you are smiling and you are nodding?
11 A. No I just -- I don't know a Clearys trading as Murphys in Inchicore, I don't
12 know whether I have heard that that was one of the places that Mr. Lawlor got
13 cash, cheques cashed or not, I don't know.
14 Q. 392 No.
12:36:30 15 A. I do know that there was some reference to some pub at some stage during
16 another Module of the Tribunal where Mr. Lawlor got cheques cashed but
17 certainly I can't recollect whether that was the one or not.
18 Q. 393 You can't recollect if that was the one or not, so you think that Mr. Lawlor
19 has cashed that cheque, this cheque?
12:36:47 20 A. No I didn't say that. I said there was evidence in another Module of
21 Mr. Lawlor cashing cheques in a pub, again the name of the pub escapes me it's
22 not relevant anyway, as far as I am concerned, it may be relevant as far as you
23 are concerned Mr. Murphy, but no. I have no evidence to suggest that this
24 cheque was traded by Mr. Lawlor in a pub.
12:37:13 25 Q. 394 You have no evidence again, but what about leaving aside the evidence, what you
26 might know that wouldn't be written on a page or anything like that Mr. Dunlop?
27 A. I don't know.
28 Q. 395 Have you any knowledge as to whether or not Mr. Dunlop ever had anything to do
29 with this cheque at all, Mr. Lawlor, sorry?
12:37:31 30 A. No I haven't actually, I have no evidence. I have no knowledge. I have no

www.pcr.ie Day 652
50
12:37:38 1 recollection, he may well have, he may well not have.
2 Q. 396 But you know -- he may or may not be involved with it, but if he is you know
3 nothing about it?
4 A. No, no.
12:37:49 5
6 CHAIRMAN: Well Mr. Dunlop, are you saying that you definitely did not give
7 this cheque to Mr. Lawlor?
8 A. No, I am not saying that Chairman, sorry.
12:37:58 10 CHAIRMAN: Surely, surely would you remember if you gave a cheque for 10,000
11 pounds to anyone?
12 A. Yes.
13
14 CHAIRMAN: And particularly Mr. Lawlor or somebody, some other politician?
12:38:11 15 A. Yes, I fully agree with you I would, if I did that I would, it would be logical
16 to suggest and rational even to suggest that I would recollect that. I have no
17 recollection of giving a cheque for 10,000 pounds in my company's name to
18 Mr. Lawlor.
19
12:38:26 20 CHAIRMAN: But do you think it's possible that that might have happened?
21 A. It is possible that Mr. Lawlor had this cheque by some other means, but I have
22 no recollection of my giving this cheque to Mr. Lawlor.
23
24 CHAIRMAN: But if Mr. Lawlor had this cheque and cashed it, he must have got
12:38:43 25 it from you or somebody in your business?
26 A. That would appear logical, yes.
27 Q. 397 But a moment ago you agreed that you wouldn't, I mean it would be odd you said?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 398 That it would be odd to give a cheque to somebody without signing it yourself?
12:39:03 30 A. Yes I did and it would be. I repeat it would be odd.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
51
12:39:06 1 Q. 399 And you wouldn't give it to somebody and give your, give your consent to that
2 person signing it?
3 A. No, correct.
4 Q. 400 So I think that means that if a third party got that cheque they didn't have
12:39:24 5 your consent to getting it or to writing your name on it?
6 A. I think that would appear to be eminently logical, yes.
7 Q. 401 And you seem to think it may have been, Mr. Lawlor, I know you can't say
8 definitively it wasn't or it was, you seem to think it may have been
9 Mr. Lawlor?
12:39:42 10 A. No no, you are the man, Mr. Murphy, what first mentioned Mr. Lawlor's name.
11 Q. 402 Did I, that's correct?
12 A. I didn't. I was waiting for you to do it but I didn't do it.
13 Q. 403 Why were you waiting for me to do it?
14 A. Because when the Chairman said Ulster Bank, Lucan, which again I repeat on
12:40:00 15 sight of this cheque I had not adverted to, a red light went off in my head.
16 Q. 404 Tell us about the red light?
17 A. Lucan, Mr. Lawlor, they are synonymous.
18 Q. 405 You didn't see any of that until now?
19 A. No.
12:40:15 20 Q. 406 Because you didn't bother looking at the rest of the cheque this morning,
21 notwithstanding it's not your signature and when you see it now you see Lucan
22 and you think of Mr. Lawlor but you don't mention it to the Tribunal now
23 immediately in the midst of it?
24 A. You are the man asking me the questions, Mr. Murphy, and I was waiting for you
12:40:32 25 to ask me.
26 Q. 407 Mr. Lawlor, you don't ask?
27 A. I'm not Mr. Lawlor, Mr. Dunlop.
28 Q. 408 Mr. Dunlop you are not seriously asking me to believe that, are you?
29 A. No, no, I am telling you exactly what has occurred to the best of my ability in
12:40:45 30 relation to this cheque, when I saw it and the discussion we are now having

www.pcr.ie Day 652
52
12:40:49 1 about it.
2 Q. 409 We are having a little game Mr. Dunlop, you are a mouse and I am trying to
3 catch you, is that what it is, that you won't give me any information until I
4 ask the question?
12:40:57 5 A. No. You are duty bound to ask me the question, as per the remit of the
6 Tribunal. I am the person who answers the questions when you ask them.
7 Q. 410 Well I'll take issue with you on that Mr. Dunlop because you have a duty from
8 that witness box to tell the whole truth. Now I am asking you in considerable
9 detail about a forged, a cheque in respect of which there has been a forgery?
12:41:21 10 A. Yes, well what more would you like me to tell you that I haven't told you
11 already.
12 Q. 411 This precisely, Mr. Dunlop. As we went through to use your own phrase ad
13 nauseum and repeatedly Clearys and trying to work out who they were and you
14 don't know who they are?
12:41:38 15 A. I don't.
16 Q. 412 But the explanation I have given for it may well be correct, in the meantime
17 you have spotted the Lucan thing and the red light has gone in your mind about
18 Lawlor but you haven't suggested to the three judges that this cheque, while
19 it's not your signature and you don't know who wrote it, and you don't know who
12:41:56 20 Clearys are, there is a red light in your head saying Lucan equals Lawlor?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 413 Now please tell me, please tell the Tribunal why you didn't proffer that?
23 A. Well you are -- you are the person asking questions in relation to this cheque,
24 I have given you a time line in relation to sight of this cheque, you have
12:42:18 25 already apologised.
26 Q. 414 This is irrelevant, Mr. Dunlop?
27 A. Sorry Mr. Murphy.
28 Q. 415 This is irrelevant, would you please answer the question?
29 A. Mr. Murphy, like you know we can expedite matters if I can answer the question
12:42:29 30 and I will expedite matters by listening to the question.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
53
12:42:32 1 Q. 416 We'll expedite matters if you answer the question but you are not doing that?
2 A. Not to your satisfaction obviously.
4 CHAIRMAN: Wait now, Mr. Dunlop do you suspect that cheque may have gone to
12:42:44 5 Mr. Lawlor?
6 A. I have, yes, I do suspect.
7 Q. 417 Now Mr. Dunlop, will you please say why you suspect that?
8 A. Well I --
9 Q. 418 Tell us everything about it?
12:42:53 10 A. Yes right, if you'd let me again without interrupting.
11 Q. 419 I won't say another word?
12 A. Good man. I had first sight of this cheque this morning at 8 o'clock, to be
13 precise, a little bit after 8. I look at the cheque, my solicitor says we have
14 received this documentation from the Tribunal overnight, it proves that you got
12:43:13 15 the 10,000 that was in dispute from Monarch. I said fine. That's grand, okay?
16 We'll, if we are asked, if I am asked by Mr. Murphy did I get 85,000 from
17 Monarch I will say yes. Which I did, very early on in the course of this
18 examination. Which you will recall.
19
12:43:32 20 You put this cheque up on the screen, I bring your attention to the fact that
21 it's not my signature, although it is my name. You then go into a disposition
22 in relation to whether it's Clearys, clearings or whatever, the Chairman brings
23 my attention to the fact that there is a stamp on it from Ulster Bank Lucan and
24 I have given you the evidence without repeating it again, that a red light went
12:44:01 25 off in my mind as soon as the Chairman highlighted that, up to that point and
26 now, I have no recollection of ever giving this cheque, receiving this cheque
27 or giving this cheque to any other person, or allowing any other person to put
28 my name on the back of it.
29 Q. 420 Now Mr --
12:44:21 30 A. Is that clear?

www.pcr.ie Day 652
54
12:44:22 1 Q. 421 Mr. Dunlop, if I might come in now and what you have just said is a complete
2 repetition of what you have been saying over the last, earlier and to what the
3 question related to, arising out of the Chairman asking did you believe that
4 this was Mr. Lawlor who had, I think, written your name and I asked you --
12:44:48 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 422 Why you thought Mr. Lawlor was -- and I asked you to tell us in detail why you
7 thought Mr. Lawlor was involved in this and you gave us a repetition of 8
8 o'clock this morning?
9 A. Yeah.
12:45:00 10 Q. 423 So could you now please answer the question, which is why do you, Mr. Dunlop,
11 in the witness box, believe that Mr. Lawlor is involved with this cheque that
12 you did not give to him?
13 A. No sorry, when I answered the question to the Chairman I said it is possible
14 that this cheque was traded by Mr. Lawlor and that my name on the back of it is
12:45:23 15 a forgery, whether by Mr. Lawlor or any other person. I have no recollection
16 of ever giving a cheque for 10,000 pounds in the name of Monarch Property
17 Services Limited to Mr. Lawlor or allowing him to trade it, or execute it. So
18 I have no -- I have no recollection of ever giving, receiving this cheque which
19 has been my point up to 8 o'clock this morning, and I have no recollection of
12:45:55 20 ever giving this cheque or allowing Mr. Lawlor to trade this cheque.
21 Q. 424 Mr. Dunlop you are a very well educated, intelligent person, I think you
22 understand the question. You are not attempting to answer it and I am going to
23 stay here asking the question until you answer it. I want to know why the red
24 light went on in your head and why you thought that Lawlor, who was nowhere
12:46:29 25 near this cheque on the face of the back or front of it, why in your mind with
26 all your association over the years with Mr. Lawlor, why you think he comes
27 into the picture?
28 A. I have already answered that question. In the context of the Chairman bringing
29 my attention to the stamp on the cheque.
12:46:51 30 Q. 425 But Mr. Dunlop, the stamp is, I understand that?

www.pcr.ie Day 652
55
12:46:58 1 A. Good.
2 Q. 426 But why, why because Lucan equals Lawlor in your mind?
3 A. No synonymous, I said not equal.
4 Q. 427 What does it bring -- I mean sorry, maybe if I ask you to go a bit further with
12:47:15 5 it, if Lucan is synonymous with Mr. Lawlor in your mind and the red light goes
6 on, why? I mean what is coming to your mind thereabout Mr. Lawlor and this
7 cheque? I mean I understand Lucan equals Mr. Lawlor, that's fine, but on a
8 cheque here, I don't understand how it comes to your mind, unless there is
9 more?
12:47:37 10 A. More what.
11 Q. 428 You know -- more information, there is something --
12 A. Sorry, I beg your pardon, not in relation to this cheque, not in relation to
13 this payment, not in relation to anything that I did or did not do in allowing
14 any other person, a third person or otherwise trade this cheque on a forged
12:47:55 15 signature of my name on the back.
16 Q. 429 But Mr. Dunlop, if you, if someone shows you a cheque it could be from anybody
17 written out to you with any cashed -- a cheque made out to you for whatever
18 amount and because Lucan appears in the bank stamp you think of Lawlor, that's
19 fine, Mr. Lawlor, that's fine. But it wouldn't put a red light on. I mean why
12:48:33 20 do you think of -- are you thinking of Mr. Lawlor because you think what
21 happened here is that Mr. Lawlor somehow got his hands on this cheque, not from
22 you because you have told us that you didn't give it to him?
23 A. No, I have no recollection of doing so is what I said.
24 Q. 430 No, but maybe he got, maybe he got his, he got his hands on the cheque is that
12:48:54 25 what you are thinking.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dunlop, I mean what you said there a couple of moments ago I
28 think is you said that you have no recognise recollection of giving him the
29 cheque?
12:49:08 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
56
12:49:09 1
2 CHAIRMAN: Can we take it therefore that there were occasions, certainly one
3 or more occasions when you did give Mr. Lawlor a third party cheque? Because
4 if somebody says I have no recollection of giving him this particular cheque it
12:49:24 5 would suggest that it wasn't unusual that you might have given him a cheque,
6 most people would be able to say I never gave anybody a cheque of that size, I
7 never gave Mr. Lawlor a cheque of that size or any cheque, can we take it that
8 you do recollect on occasion giving Mr. Lawlor third party cheques and that
9 while you don't recollect specifically giving him this one this could be one of
12:49:53 10 those?
11 A. No, no to both Mr. Chairman. No I do -- it would not have been my practice and
12 I do not recollect ever doing it, giving me Mr. Lawlor a cheque, as a third
13 party executor of an instrument made out to me and certainly I have no
14 recollection of dealing with this particular cheque in that fashion. There was
12:50:17 15 an occasion that I have given evidence before, both in private and I think in
16 public, that there was a payment to Mr. Lawlor, but that was on foot of a false
17 invoice, not on foot of a cheque made payable to me.
18
19 CHAIRMAN: But could somebody in your office have given him this cheque?
12:50:35 20 A. Highly unlikely. Most unlikely, in fact I would absolutely and categorically
21 rule it out.
22
24 Q. 431 Sorry Mr. Dunlop, categorically that that --
12:50:47 25 A. That anybody in my office would have given a cheque to Mr. Lawlor.
26 Q. 432 Okay. But do you think what happened here is that Mr. Lawlor, you think, do
27 you think Mr. Lawlor wrote your name on the back of the cheque?
28 A. Well, while you were asking me various questions there I have been trying, and
29 I don't -- I can't remember what Liam Lawlor's handwriting was like, so I can't
12:51:15 30 attest to the fact that that may well be his writing, I don't know. I just

www.pcr.ie Day 652
57
12:51:26 1 don't know Mr. Murphy.
2 Q. 433 Now if, sorry Lucan is synonymous with Mr. Lawlor, red light flashes?
3 A. Yeah.
4 Q. 434 So Mr. Dunlop does that mean it's a possibility in your mind that Mr. Lawlor
12:51:44 5 got this, Mr. Lawlor got this cheque somehow and he got the money for it?
6 A. It is a possibility, yes.
7 Q. 435 And it wouldn't surprise you or would it?
8 A. Well I think that's an unfair question, but I mean in the context of what we
9 are doing here, the answer has to be as straightforward as I possibly can give
12:52:03 10 it, it wouldn't surprise me.
11 Q. 436 And would it be, I know, I think you have said that you wouldn't have given him
12 permission to sign your name and you wouldn't have, you wouldn't hand it over
13 anyway without signing your name, but would it be with your blessing, I mean
14 could it be that Mr. Lawlor could get a cheque like that made out to you and he
12:52:22 15 would have your blessing in cashing it?
16 A. Well, no, he wouldn't have my blessing in cashing -- well, that begs a number
17 of questions Mr. Murphy, which I think would be necessary to go through before
18 answering that question, as to how he got his hands on the cheque and as I have
19 said to you I have absolutely no recollection of ever giving Mr. Lawlor a
12:52:41 20 cheque of that amount, or and I have answered the Chairman saying it is well
21 nigh impossible to suggest that anybody in my office would have done so. So
22 it's a question of the method of acquisition of this cheque, I mean -- it
23 reinforces.
24
12:52:56 25 JUDGE FAHERTY: Sorry to interrupt you, just on that point, a little while ago
26 in answer to Mr. Murphy you said it was possible that Mr, the late Mr. Lawlor
27 might have gotten this cheque by other means?
28 A. Yes.
29
12:53:07 30 JUDGE FAHERTY: I think those were the words you used, perhaps you, when you

www.pcr.ie Day 652
58
12:53:12 1 gave that answer you might tell us what, if you ruled out yourself handing over
2 the cheque or anybody in your office or connected with your business handing
3 over the cheque as I understand it?
4 A. Yes.
12:53:22 5
6 JUDGE FAHERTY: But notwithstanding that, you did say a little while ago you
7 mentioned he may have got it by other means?
8 A. Yes.
12:53:29 10 JUDGE FAHERTY: Having ruled yourself out of the equation and ruled your
11 office out on your evidence, what other means then --
12 A. Well, he could have got it from Monarch.
13
12:53:38 15 Q. 437 And had that happened previously or after?
16 A. No, I have no -- certainly not as far as I am aware, that has never happened
17 before.
18 Q. 438 Okay, could you just explain then to me, I know you are not saying that's how
19 it happened, isn't that right?
12:53:52 20 A. Exactly. Because I have -- I have no evidence to suggest that that is the way
21 it happened.
22 Q. 439 No, but you suspect it?
23 A. Suspicion in evidence Mr. Murphy, you know well enough, you are a senior
24 counsel that that's not sufficient, you cannot equate the two.
12:54:12 25 Q. 440 And could you just explain to me, because I can't see it Mr. Dunlop, how would
26 it come about that Monarch would give a cheque made out to you to Mr. Lawlor?
27 A. I don't know, in answer to the honourable judge who asked me if I rule out
28 myself and if I rule out my office and members of my staff, the judge asked the
29 next logical question is how would this, how would it come about that
12:54:41 30 Mr. Lawlor, if this is Mr. Lawlor, that how would he have acquired or come into

www.pcr.ie Day 652
59
12:54:48 1 possession of this cheque, which was the question that I suggested to you was
2 the logical question in relation to trying to divine some sort of sense out
3 this.
4 Q. 441 Mr. Dunlop in the ordinary way cheques that come to you from Monarch or
12:55:01 5 whoever, do they go to your office?
6 A. Oh, yes, they would go -- they would, well there would be two ways of doing it.
7 Either by arrangement for collection or they would be sent by post.
8 Q. 442 Right and if so by post to your office?
9 A. Yes.
12:55:19 10 Q. 443 And I mean obviously they are looked after there but they could be lying around
11 there couldn't they?
12 A. Normally what happened, it doesn't happen any more because the business is by
13 way of virtually defunct, but what normally happens is the post is opened in
14 the morning, if there are cheques in them they are given to the officer in
12:55:41 15 charge of recording receipts in relation to it, they are handed back to me and
16 I lodge them, cash them or otherwise or I might ask somebody in the office if
17 you are going to the bank lodge that.
18 Q. 444 They are supervised?
19 A. They are supervised yes.
12:55:56 20 Q. 445 Would Mr. Lawlor be somebody who would have visited your office from time to
21 time?
22 A. Very frequently.
23 Q. 446 Very frequently?
24 A. Yes.
12:56:03 25 Q. 447 All right, so he could have got the cheque there without your permission?
26 A. He could have, yes, but I mean I am not saying that.
27 Q. 448 No, no I know. And but really the only other, the only alternative would be
28 that he got it from Monarch?
29 A. That's why I thought that was the logical answer to the honourable judge's
12:56:25 30 question.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
60
12:56:25 1 Q. 449 And was there, had that ever happened, were you aware before ever Monarch
2 paying money to Lawlor in respect of, by way of a cheque to you?
3 A. No, no I definitely did not.
4 Q. 450 Were you ever aware of that happening in other situations in respect of other
12:57:12 5 developments where a developer or a landowner would make a cheque out to you
6 and it would go to Mr. Lawlor or to anybody else?
7 A. No, I don't think so.
8 Q. 451 You don't think so?
9 A. No. I'm just, in relation to any of the, any developments that I have been
12:57:30 10 involved with, I don't think any developer would have made a cheque out to me
11 and it was traded by Liam Lawlor -- I don't think so, no.
12 Q. 452 Mr. Dunlop I think that that isn't a 'I don't think so category'. I suggest
13 that it's such an extraordinary method of using to pay somebody that the
14 person, the company would make a cheque out to a consultant, somebody who is
12:58:00 15 doing work for them but in fact give that cheque to a third party who would
16 then, they know would negotiate it, so I think you should be able to tell the
17 Tribunal, definitively whether or not you have any experience of it?
18 A. No, to the best -- no I don't have any other experience it have is the simple
19 answer. But I am just attuning myself to your, your thought processes as to
12:58:22 20 what is extraordinary and not extraordinary, but no I don't have any evidence
21 that that ever occurred as far as I am concerned, that a developer or builder
22 issued a cheque to me or a company.
23 Q. 453 Mr. Dunlop if I can cut across you, this isn't a question of having evidence,
24 whether the Tribunal has it or you?
12:58:44 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 454 You are aware of whether or not there was another instance of a company, let's
27 leave it -- sorry whether it's Monarch or anybody else?
28 A. Yeah.
29 Q. 455 Giving a cheque made out to you to a third party?
12:59:01 30 A. The company giving the cheque to a third party? No I have no evidence of that.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
61
12:59:06 1
2 CHAIRMAN: All right, Mr. Murphy, it's just one o'clock we'll adjourn until
3 two o'clock.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 652
62
12:59:23 1 THE TRIBUNAL RESUMED AS FOLLOWS AFTER LUNCH:
4 MR. MURPHY: Mr. Dunlop, the 85,000 which you accept, which you accept that
14:06:44 5 you got from Monarch, is that the height of it?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 456 Is that it?
8 A. No more.
9 Q. 457 No more. And could I ask you did you ever negotiate a cheque in the Ulster
14:07:00 10 Bank in Lucan?
11 A. No.
12 Q. 458 In any -- did you ever have any dealings whatever with them?
13 A. None.
14 Q. 459 Thank you. And Mr. Dunlop, you are still accepting that you got 85,000 from
14:07:23 15 Monarch, notwithstanding all the evidence this morning about this cheque for
16 10,000, is that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 460 So the 10,000 made out to you, your signature is forged, it's cashed in Lucan,
19 you have no recollection of it and you seem to believe that a third party,
14:08:07 20 whoever, got hold of it and cashed it. You accept that it's your ten grand
21 from Monarch?
22 A. Well, it's made out to me. It's made out to my company, it's from Monarch
23 services, there is -- it's made out to Frank Dunlop and Associates in the sum
24 of 10,000 pounds, the rest we know as of this morning.
14:08:27 25 Q. 461 Mr. Dunlop, I have never heard of anybody accepting or agreeing that they got a
26 payment of a sum of money in the circumstances that they didn't get it?
27 A. Well, Mr. Murphy, until this morning at 8 o'clock I would have said that the
28 only issue in dispute was that 10,000.
29 Q. 462 Yes?
14:08:52 30 A. Okay. You accept that? You produced a cheque this morning at 8 o'clock made

www.pcr.ie Day 652
63
14:09:01 1 out in the sum of ten thousand, made out to me. My instructions to my
2 solicitor immediately were fine, if a cheque has been produced made out to
3 Frank Dunlop and Associates we accept that we got it.
4 Q. 463 Yes. Even --
14:09:16 5 A. Following on that, the cheque was put up on the screen, I immediately
6 identified that it was not my signature.
7 Q. 464 And that doesn't mean you change your position in relation to the ten and lead
8 you to the conclusion that you didn't get the ten and therefore it's 75 you got
9 from Monarch and that you'd like to take it up with Monarch as to why you
14:09:41 10 didn't get the other ten?
11 A. I have no intention of taking it up with Monarch, the matter is closed, over
12 and done with.
13 Q. 465 All right. And can I suggest to you that the reason that having got the,
14 having seen the ten, the cheque for ten, that the reason that you agreed to
14:10:02 15 the, you agreed that the figure that you agreed with the Tribunal that the
16 figure that you got from Monarch was 85, was to avoid having to give any
17 evidence in relation to this cheque?
18 A. Absolute rubbish.
19 Q. 466 Well why did you agree it?
14:10:23 20 A. Why did I agree what.
21 Q. 467 Why did you agree that you received ten when you didn't, why do you accept now
22 vis-a-vis the Tribunal that you got it?
23 A. The Tribunal has produced a cheque from Monarch made out to Frank Dunlop and
24 Associates, as of midnight last night the only issue in question as far as I
14:10:40 25 and my legal advisers were concerned was 10,000. This morning I was shown a
26 cheque made payable to Frank Dunlop and Associates for 10,000 from Monarch
27 Property Services Limited, I immediately indicated to my solicitor fine, they
28 produced a cheque that's it, we accept responsibility.
29 Q. 468 Mr. Dunlop, so you got 85,000 from Monarch and if I'm correct in this, five of
14:11:23 30 those cheques making up 50,000 went through the office accounts, the Frank

www.pcr.ie Day 652
64
14:11:31 1 Dunlop and Associates Limited accounts?
2 A. Are you saying that or -- I mean I don't have -- if that is, if that is the
3 evidence produced by Coyle & Coyle my accountants that is the evidence.
4 Q. 469 That's my, sorry I am not too sure if it's produced. I can go through each of
14:11:46 5 them if you like and I understand that in respect of five of them and may I
6 have for, on the screen please, if we just go back to that schedule, 491, and I
7 will go through these individually if you like, but I understand that the,
8 looking at the bottom of the page the lower schedule?
9 A. Yeah.
14:12:19 10 Q. 470 That the 15,000 went through AIB College Street?
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. 471 And the second one, the 10,000 did not and in fact that, there is an asterisk
13 on that which, I think is coming from your, from Coyle & Coyle that they
14 couldn't trace it and as far as I am aware that didn't go through the accounts
14:12:46 15 in any event, sorry what I wanted to - I wanted to list with you the five that
16 I understand went through the account of Frank Dunlop and Associates?
17 A. Okay.
18 Q. 472 First one 15,000?
19 A. Yeah.
14:12:57 20 Q. 473 12 of March 93. The third one, no sorry, yes, the third one for 7,500 dated
21 2nd of July 93?
22 A. Mm-hmm.
23 Q. 474 I understand that went through College Street. I understand that the next one
24 went through College Street as well, 7,500 on 17 of September 1993. And I
14:13:31 25 understand the last two, 15,000 and five thousand went through AIB College
26 Street, the two dates there, 22 of December and 9 of August 95. Now will I
27 bring you through your bank, your account to show you that?
28 A. No, I think I accept Mr. Murphy, if you are saying it is your belief it
29 happened. It's contingent on what Y means but this is what my accountant has
14:13:55 30 produced from the documents available to him.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
65
14:13:57 1 Q. 475 Yes. Yes, I hope I am right in that now but I think I am?
2 A. Okay, I accept that.
3 Q. 476 And the three, of the eight payments -- I'm sorry, maybe I need to explain
4 this, of the 60,000 there on the F. D. A. L amount right?
14:14:26 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 477 That is now going to become 85 because we are going to bring over two cheques
7 from the per Tribunal column?
8 A. 15 and the 10.
9 Q. 478 Correct?
14:14:36 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 479 And the ten is that one there at the 26 of May?
12 A. Mm-hmm.
13 Q. 480 And then the first of the two 15s?
14 A. Yes.
14:14:42 15 Q. 481 So if we can just imagine those in the column for your office account?
16 A. Okay.
17 Q. 482 Sorry now -- yes, what I mean is just imagine them in there for the purpose of
18 being eight payments?
19 A. Yes.
14:14:56 20 Q. 483 And I understand that three of those, in other words the three remaining ones
21 did not go through the company's books or account, in other words the first
22 10,000 and I will open this up to you now in a moment, the first 10,000, the
23 second of 26 May 93 which comes across from the other column and the 15,000
24 that come across on 2 of December 1993 I hope I'm not complicating that?
14:15:32 25 A. No no, it's quite clear.
26 Q. 484 Now and in respect of those -- so I am only talking about three cheques now at
27 the moment. The first ten, the second ten and the first 15?
28 A. Okay.
29 Q. 485 Now the first 10 is one that you have put us on notice of throughout?
14:15:50 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
66
14:15:51 1 Q. 486 And the other two are the two that Monarch told us about and we have agreed you
2 now accept that, isn't that right?
3 A. Yes, that's correct.
4 Q. 487 And in relation to the first ten, if I could turn up page 513 please. No I'm
14:16:42 5 sorry, so 513 is the remittance advice from Monarch to Frank Dunlop and Company
6 Limited, the cheque number 7698 the sum is 10,000 pounds, the date of this is
7 12th March 93, all right?
8 A. Yes, correct.
9 Q. 488 That's the remittance advice. Now and we have already established there is no
14:17:00 10 invoice?
11 A. No invoice.
12 Q. 489 And if we could have 4063 please, six from the bottom, 12 of March 93, Frank
13 Dunlop and Company Limited, 10,000 in the cheque payments book of Monarch?
14 A. Yes.
14:17:22 15 Q. 490 Going out of Monarch?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 491 4064 please and the third last of the first column cheque 7698, 10,000 pounds?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 492 The account of Monarch Properties Services Limit, AIB, so 10,000 going out of
14:17:47 20 Monarch's account?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 493 Right. So the money so the money has been paid and there is a remittance
23 advice to you. And 4065 please, which is the cash receipts book for Frank
24 Dunlop and Associates Limited and that 10,000 isn't recorded in your book?
14:18:14 25 A. Correct.
26 Q. 494 Is that all right?
28 Q. 495 Now Mr. Dunlop, sorry for delaying, really I think I probably want to ask you
29 where that 10,000 went, what you did with it?
14:19:06 30 A. Yes, are you asking me.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
67
14:19:07 1 Q. 496 Where that ten went?
2 A. You're asking me, yes. Well, I either cashed it or it could well have been
3 negotiated elsewhere, it could have been lodged to somewhere else, but I cannot
4 definitively say that to you.
14:19:22 5 Q. 497 No. All right. And I have in fact four options, you know that it could have,
6 it didn't necessarily, that it could have gone into your AIB College Street
7 account, that's you and your wife, I think?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 498 And then there is another account in the INBS in Grand Parade and --
14:19:44 10 A. Where?
11 Q. 499 INBS?
12 A. Irish Nationwide Building Society, Grafton Street is it, no, what's the
13 address? Grand Parade.
14 Q. 500 Is it Grafton Street, is it?
14:19:59 15 A. Grand parade is the headquarters of INBS, that's what it is, yes. That's the
16 heading on the notepaper, is it?
17 Q. 501 I'm not looking at notepaper?
18 A. All right.
19 Q. 502 These are options for possibilities as to where it went, which I'm not really
14:20:15 20 interested in, I am going to go through this one and the next two, if you can
21 tell me where, the question essentially is where the 30 grand that didn't go
22 into the Frank Dunlop and Associates account and book, account, what that was
23 used for?
24 A. Sure yes. What's the other two.
14:20:31 25 Q. 503 The other two are the other two cheques?
26 A. Oh the other two cheques you said you had four options.
27 Q. 504 No, no, sorry I beg your pardon. I have four options in relation to that ten
28 it might have gone into either of those two accounts and I have option in
29 relation to the other two cheques which are the other ten and other 15?
14:20:49 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
68
14:20:49 1 Q. 505 But my point is really is that they didn't go into your Frank Dunlop account
2 and it amounts to 30,000 and it's monies coming from Monarch?
3 A. Mm-hmm.
4 Q. 506 Of the 85, it's 30 out of -- it's 35 out of 50 not going through the company
14:21:08 5 account so maybe could you shorten things by letting me know where it would
6 have gone?
7 A. Well it could either, in relation to your options, my options, it could have
8 either been used, some of it could have been used personally, some of it could
9 have been used for other purposes it could have been lodged into the INBS
14:21:26 10 account or and used, used for other purposes I just cannot definitively say to
11 you, but it's certainly, from a logic point of view, did not go into the
12 company account, were negotiated by me and obviously either into the personal
13 account or into INBS.
14 Q. 507 Or you might just have cashed it?
14:21:48 15 A. It is quite likely that I might have cashed it, or cashed part of them.
16 Q. 508 All right. Of them and lodged?
17 A. And lodged the remainder.
18 Q. 509 Some it have. But from what you said this morning you wouldn't have been
19 paying them to give them over to other people anyway, that wasn't a practice?
14:22:04 20 A. No.
21 Q. 510 No okay. And I think that those, those sums wouldn't have been declared for
22 tax purposes, is that right?
23 A. Well all, any receipts in relation to any lodgements made to any bank account
24 partially or wholly have all been declared to the Revenue Commissioners but
14:22:26 25 that's a separate issue.
26 Q. 511 Would that be now though, but back then?
27 A. Back then no but now.
28 Q. 512 I beg your pardon. But when they went, if some of this 30,000 went into either
29 your account with your wife or the INBS account then the revenue wouldn't have
14:22:40 30 known?

www.pcr.ie Day 652
69
14:22:40 1 A. Sorry, Mr. Murphy, that's my fault in misunderstanding you, yes correct. Yes.
2 Q. 513 All right. Now you said other purposes, what do you have in mind there?
3 A. Well, I may well have used some of the money for other purposes in relation to
4 politicians, I cannot definitively say to you because as you know and as I have
14:23:04 5 given evidence to the fact already, that I had accounts from which I withdrew
6 money in cash for the purposes of giving to politicians.
7 Q. 514 Yes?
8 A. Yes, this would include the -- this would include the INBS account. Yes.
9 Q. 515 And yes, and there is an account in Rathfarnham, there was?
14:23:25 10 A. Yes but that, there was an account in Rathfarnham, yes.
11 Q. 516 But that's different is that what you want to say, you said but?
12 A. No, no, that was used. It was part of what I described way back in May 2000 as
13 a war chest.
14 Q. 517 War chest. Now sorry the same for the INBS account?
14:23:40 15 A. Well, if I required money and it was easy accessible through the INBS account,
16 I withdrew cash.
17 Q. 518 All right, would you have done it through your account with your wife in
18 College Street, would that have been used for paying politicians as well?
19 A. No. Unless I lodged money, I lodged a cheque and did not lodge the whole
14:24:01 20 amount and kept some back in cash.
21 Q. 519 Yes.
22 A. But I would not have withdrawn money the F and S account for the purposes of
23 paying politicians.
24 Q. 520 Well, I can tell you certainly that in some instances there were lodgements
14:24:18 25 where you did lodge amounts, in fact the very first option if, I will go into
26 it in a moment, but that account in College Street, the joint account of
27 yourself and your wife, a thousand, there is a lodgement on the 12th March 93,
28 a lodgement of a thousand?
29 A. Yes.
14:24:33 30 Q. 521 So, if it was the ten it may that be you lodged one and kept nine in cash?

www.pcr.ie Day 652
70
14:24:41 1 A. Yes, it could be, I wouldn't dispute it, the possibility, but I wouldn't
2 definitively say so either.
3 Q. 522 No?
4 A. Yes.
14:24:45 5 Q. 523 And I think I read somewhere that you said that you had to have what you called
6 a stash of cash?
7 A. Yes, depends where you read it Mr. Murphy.
8 Q. 524 Well I read it, I don't know whether it was interviews or evidence or was it, I
9 don't think, it wasn't your statement but it was your words?
14:25:00 10 A. Yes, so long as it was in this forum not in any outside forum.
11 Q. 525 Oh no, no?
12 A. Right.
13 Q. 526 Sorry, do I understand does a stash of cash mean a bag of cash at home or does
14 it mean an account you can take cash out?
14:25:13 15 A. No, no, it means a bag of cash, ready, available cash for my use.
16 Q. 527 All right. Now could I -- just did you have any rule of thumb Mr. Dunlop that
17 if you got a figure from a developer, whether it's five thousand or 50,000,
18 that roughly, in rough terms a percentage of it would be kept for politicians?
19 A. I think, sorry, I shouldn't say I think, I have given evidence to this effect
14:25:40 20 before in another Module.
21 Q. 528 Yes?
22 A. To the point that in negotiating a fee with a particular developer, builder,
23 client or whatever it happened to be, that certainly in my mind.
24 Q. 529 Yes?
14:25:54 25 A. I would know that a certain amount of money would be necessary, it was then up
26 to me to negotiate or diminish it as much as possible.
27 Q. 530 I perfectly understand that?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 531 But the question I am in fact asking you is yes, in your own mind if you get
14:26:11 30 five or ten or 50 does Mr. Dunlop say to himself 'now you know, ten per cent or

www.pcr.ie Day 652
71
14:26:18 1 50 per cent of that is mine and the rest I will use for disbursements'?
2 A. Yes, but you take it on each particular Module.
3 Q. 532 Yes?
4 A. In some instances it was more than I anticipated and in some instances it was,
14:26:30 5 I was left with nothing.
6 Q. 533 I am just wondering would there be a rule of thumb? You know, would it be ten
7 per cent or 40 per cent, I know it doesn't, can't apply in every case?
8 A. I always knew in the context of the people who approached me to, for
9 development whether or not it was going to be required.
14:26:51 10 Q. 534 Whether or not what was going to be required?
11 A. Monies were going to be required to politicians to get this through the system.
13 A. Okay. I would never -- I don't think, I don't recall ever sort of saying well
14 ten per cent of this is going.
14:27:05 15 Q. 536 Not to them now, I'm talking in your own mind?
16 A. No, I am talking about my own mind. In my own mind I would never have said ten
17 per cent of this, it would depend on the negotiation with the politician who
18 asked for money.
19 Q. 537 Yes, but surely in your own mind when you were negotiating and we will come on
14:27:21 20 to it in a second here as to what your fee would be, but when you are doing
21 that you must be taking into your, into account this particular Module, this
22 particular developer, the politician that it will be necessary to talk to and
23 to pay and you must build into your brief fee as it were the, whatever the
24 total of the disbursements will be as best you can calculate?
14:27:42 25 A. In general terms, yes.
26 Q. 538 And could you tell me, what kind of -- how would you build that in?
27 A. Well, since we are dealing with this Module let's stick with this Module.
29 A. In this particular Module and my entry into the particular exercise, an awful
14:27:58 30 lot of work had already been done, I was aware that the work had already been

www.pcr.ie Day 652
72
14:28:01 1 done, albeit not from the company itself but from my own evidence and watching
2 what was happening, and given the circumstances in which I was introduced to
3 this particular client I probably would have said there was going to be some, I
4 am going to have to deal with some and there was a comment made to me in the
14:28:26 5 negotiation in relation to the fee by one of the individuals from Monarch
6 Properties to the effect that he knew that I had to do certain things.
7 Q. 540 Yes, and I will come to that Mr. Dunlop but I don't think that's quite what I'm
8 looking for, just and I was talking more in general terms, but for example if
9 we just go into this particular one just on this point for a moment, what was
14:28:49 10 in your head at the first meeting in relation to how much you'd have to pay
11 out, very approximately?
12 A. Well, gosh I couldn't -- I just -- I wouldn't hazard a guess, but I would not
13 deny on the other hand that the thought was going through my mind that this is
14 going to take, I am going to have to deal with one or two or three or four, I
14:29:11 15 don't know how many individuals to ensure that this gets through.
16 Q. 541 All right. What I am getting back to is the 50,000 that went to the office
17 account and the 35 thousand that didn't?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 542 I am just wondering in rough terms, this is all coming from Monarch, a
14:29:32 20 developer, and so in rough terms, of that you wouldn't have been paying
21 politicians out of the 50 that went to the office account?
22 A. No.
23 Q. 543 You'd be paying them out of the 35 that went elsewhere?
24 A. Mm-hmm.
14:29:43 25 Q. 544 And what sort of, well maybe you can say, how much of it went elsewhere?
26 A. Well only four of it went elsewhere.
27 Q. 545 Is that your evidence?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 546 Is that an unusual percentage, is that a very, very low percentage, four
14:29:58 30 thousand out of 85?

www.pcr.ie Day 652
73
14:29:59 1 A. Yes, in the particular incidence it is, but you have to take the circumstances
2 of the particular instance into account.
3 Q. 547 That's fine yes, but it's unusual?
4 A. I would say it's at the lower end definitely.
14:30:11 5 Q. 548 Lower end, yeah. So, in other words then of the 85 you made 81 thousand?
6 A. The company made 50 and I made 31.
7 Q. 549 The company made 50 and you made 31?
8 A. Does that add up?
9 Q. 550 Yes and four for councillors?
14:30:27 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 551 All right. I think the same point Mr. Dunlop that I'm making here applies to
12 the other two payments. The other two cheques were cheques, if we go back for
13 a second to 491, we were looking at the first cheque for 10,000 and now in
14 respect of the other 10,000 and the other 15,000, they were two payments which,
14:31:55 15 I can go through it if you like, but as far as we can see, did not go through
16 the office account?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 552 And what you have just said in respect of the first 10,000 presumably applies
19 anyway, it's as you say, 31 thousand?
14:32:11 20 A. Correct.
21 Q. 553 Was yours, four of the 35 went to councillors?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 554 I think, I hope I'm right, I think that means I don't need to go into those
24 Mr. Dunlop in any further detail?
14:32:51 25 A. Okay.
26 Q. 555 Could I have 569 please. Mr. Dunlop on that page if you go down to line five
27 please, question 93, sorry these I should say are the interviews in May 2000
28 and Counsel for the Tribunal asked you as follows "You mentioned a success fee,
29 was it also agreed between yourself and Mr. Sweeney that in the event you
14:33:37 30 succeeded you would get a success fee? Answer: No, there was no success fee

www.pcr.ie Day 652
74
14:33:42 1 involved on this particular occasion. Question: Right, so if you had
2 succeeded you would still have only got the 25. Answer:" that's the 25,000.
3 Answer: I was fairly confident in my own mind that this was going to be the
4 case. Question: That you weren't going to succeed. Answer: That it wasn't,
14:33:59 5 even if I did succeed I wasn't going to get any more?"
6 A. Mm-hmm.
7 Q. 556 You told the Tribunal that there was no success fee, isn't that right?
8 A. Yes, yes.
9 Q. 557 Now, if I could come on please to 4133. Now Mr. Dunlop I just want to ask you
14:34:48 10 for a second, could you just have a very quick look at that and I will come
11 back to it, 4133, it's an invoice, Frank Dunlop and Associates, to Monarch, 10
12 of April 93, invoice, in fact it's the one Mr. Redmond referred to this
13 morning, 12,100, I don't ask you to look at it in detail if you just take that
14 in for a second, and could we then please look at 4772 which is invoice number
14:35:24 15 955 for 31,371 Irish pounds?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 558 Isn't that right, do you see that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 559 All right. And then if we go on to 5697, which is an invoice, 6th December 93,
14:35:42 20 bearing the same number as the previous one, 955, for a different amount,
21 22,296.94?
22 A. Mm-hmm.
23 Q. 560 And then we, and then the fourth one, the final one, is -- sorry 4839, and
24 that's an invoice 14 of December 93 invoice, number 1251 for 60,500. I want to
14:36:10 25 take the four of those invoices for one second and maybe you can explain them
26 for me, I don't understand where they fit into the whole pattern?
27 A. Okay. Right okay. Well, how do you mean you don't understand how they fit in.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: I wonder Mr. Murphy if perhaps Mr. Dunlop might tell us at this
14:36:30 30 stage what agreement he says he entered into with the people from Monarch,

www.pcr.ie Day 652
75
14:36:38 1 because I assume these invoices followed on from that agreement in some shape
2 or form?
3 A. Yes.
14:36:45 5 CHAIRMAN: But at the moment we don't have evidence from Mr. Dunlop as to how
6 he came to deal with Monarch, which presumably lead to invoices and payments
7 being made.
8 Q. 561 All right Chairman. Well then I wonder if -- yes, I wonder then could I just
9 leave that for a second and come to it, move on to something else and come to
14:37:12 10 it when I'm dealing with his meeting with Monarch, if that's all right with the
11 Tribunal.
12
13 CHAIRMAN: Yes it's just that if he is going to explain how, what these
14 invoices mean --
14:37:25 15 Q. 562 You'd prefer to have it in the context of whatever --
16
17 CHAIRMAN: Well, it would be easier if we were to have evidence about how his
18 relationship with Monarch commenced and developed. That might be simpler.
19 Q. 563 Well I'd prefer then if I may to postpone this rather than to bring the other
14:37:47 20 thing forward. And I will just be coming to what you are talking about now in
21 a moment, if I may. Mr. Dunlop, another topic, the question of payments to
22 councillors and if we look at 573 please and in fact before I just look at that
23 page Mr. Dunlop I just want to ask you how it is that in May 2000 in a private
24 interview with the Tribunal, this would have been after your public evidence in
14:38:50 25 April, a result of which I think was that you took a decision to come clean as
26 it were with the Tribunal and make full disclosure, would that be right?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 564 So, in the course of a private interview in May 2000 you referred to the fact
29 that you had paid monies in this development, Cherrywood, to Mr. Lydon and
14:39:19 30 Mr. Hand?

www.pcr.ie Day 652
76
14:39:19 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 565 Could you just explain to the Tribunal why you mentioned them as people you,
3 councillors you paid in this Module?
4 A. Yes. In the context of the private sessions at the time in 2000 certainly
14:39:40 5 those two particular politicians were in the forefront of my mind and as I said
6 to you earlier on this morning, subsequently, on foot of a review of the road
7 map, as I have referred to it on numerous occasions, and on examining all of
8 the circumstances in which this particular development took place, I realised
9 that that was wrong, and I, I changed it.
14:40:16 10 Q. 566 Yes. When you say, could you just please explain to me what you mean by when
11 you looked at the road map, I mean now in the context of what you are saying
12 about these councillors, what does that mean?
13 A. Yes, well in relation to my involvement with this particular development and
14 all that took place, my relationship with Monarch, how I was introduced to
14:40:36 15 Monarch.
16 Q. 567 Yes?
17 A. What was required, what was being done by Monarch itself, who was doing it.
18 Q. 568 Yes?
19 A. My particular view of what was happening, my recollection of what had occurred
14:40:48 20 as far as I was concerned and the fact that I had taken a view in relation to
21 what was happening without my involvement.
22 Q. 569 What was happening what?
23 A. What was happening without my involvement, in other words the relationship
24 between others and politicians.
14:41:05 25 Q. 570 Yes. Sorry is that what looking at the road map means?
26 A. What looking at the road map means, looking at all of the motions, all of the
27 maps, all of the -- anything that is extant, either in my own documentation
28 which I had discovered to the Tribunal, or documentation that the Tribunal had
29 which they sent me, and viewing all of that and my relationship with Monarch, I
14:41:33 30 made the 2003 statement is it, 2003.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
77
14:41:37 1 Q. 571 No, I am thinking of the 2001, sorry October 2000?
2 A. Yes, October 2000, I beg your pardon.
3 Q. 572 Perhaps I should have completed the picture though we discussed it earlier, May
4 2000 is your private interview and you name Mr. Lydon and Mr. Hand, October
14:41:54 5 2000 is your first narrative statement and you name Mr. Fox and Mr. McGrath,
6 correct?
7 A. Yes.
14:42:02 10 Q. 574 And what I want to know Mr. Dunlop is how after the events of the public
11 hearings in April 2000 when you came in to come clean with the Tribunal you
12 make the mistake of telling the Tribunal that you paid Messrs Lydon and Hand?
13 A. Well, I have already said to you that in the circumstances of the private
14 interviews which were shortly after the public session.
14:42:24 15 Q. 575 Yes?
16 A. In a wide review of all of the involvement that I had with Dublin County
17 Council over a period of six, five or six years, this is what I said, it was
18 wrong. And when I made my statement in 2001 or late in -- late in October
19 2000.
14:42:48 20 Q. 576 October 2000, yes?
21 A. 9th of October 2000 if my recollection is correct, I corrected that.
22 Q. 577 You didn't really correct it. You didn't refer to the fact that you had
23 mentioned two people incorrectly, you just simply name two different people?
24 A. Yes.
14:43:04 25 Q. 578 Mr. Dunlop what did you look at between May and October 2000 that reminded you
26 that it was Mr. Fox and Mr. McGrath not the other two?
27 A. Well, it's a mixture of what I looked at in relation to the road map that I
28 have outlined to you.
29 Q. 579 I interpret that as meaning motions and things, is that right?
14:43:23 30 A. And my recollection and recall as to who I was dealing with and how I dealt

www.pcr.ie Day 652
78
14:43:27 1 with them in the particular circumstances.
2 Q. 580 Mr. Dunlop, would you not have seen any of those motions before coming into the
3 private hearings in May 2000, would you not have had a look at those?
4 A. In the private --
14:43:39 5 Q. 581 Presumably before coming in to talk to Counsel for the Tribunal in private
6 hearing you would have seen the motions?
7 A. No, I don't think so, I don't think I did.
8 Q. 582 You don't think you?
9 A. No, in fact I am quite sure we didn't, we went into private session, at the
14:43:55 10 invitation of the Tribunal, to review my involvement with Dublin County Council
11 and politicians.
12 Q. 583 Yes?
13 A. And during the course of the private interviews various, sorry let me just go
14 back two steps. I asked from this box in May 2000 that if the Tribunal
14:44:13 15 provided the road map, the documentation in relation to all of the developments
16 that had taken place in Dublin County Council within a given period, 1990 to -
17 from 1990 onwards, 1991 onwards, that I might be able to assist them.
18 Q. 584 You asked for that when you were in the witness box?
19 A. It's in the transcripts.
14:44:34 20 Q. 585 Very good?
21 A. And the Tribunal then invited me into private session and, I have spoken about
22 this before Mr. Murphy, but I mean, we then went into private session and
23 various questions were asked of me in private session some of which are
24 relevant, some of which are totally irrelevant and you have the transcripts now
14:44:55 25 as a result of a High Court case.
26 Q. 586 Yes?
27 A. Of the private sessions.
28 Q. 587 Yes, but what you have just said I think was that in evidence in April or May
29 2000 you said that if to the Tribunal, that if you could get the road map and
14:45:07 30 motions and things it would assist me to assist the Tribunal in being -- in

www.pcr.ie Day 652
79
14:45:07 1 trying to put the jigsaw together?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. 588 Right. And did you get those?
4 A. From the Tribunal, we got a huge amount of documentation from the Tribunal, not
14:45:23 5 all at once in a variety of tranches.
6 Q. 589 So, I presume you made sure that you got whatever you needed before you came in
7 to discuss, to talk, into private session?
8 A. No, no sorry Mr. Murphy, unless I am making myself terribly unclear. What
9 happened was in public session I suggested to the Tribunal, Mr. Hanratty if my
14:45:44 10 recollection is correct, that if the Tribunal provided all of the documentation
11 in relation to developments in Dublin County Council.
12 Q. 590 You have said all that and I understood it Mr. Dunlop, could you move on from
13 it please?
14 A. Right.
14:45:56 15 Q. 591 You are just repeating yourself.
16
17 CHAIRMAN: No I think --
18 A. No, no, sorry Mr. Murphy.
19
14:46:00 20 CHAIRMAN: Wait now, I think Mr. Dunlop understood you to be wondering?
21 A. Yes.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: Why he hadn't or if he had checked that in May 2000 in May 2000.
24 Q. 592 Yes Chairman?
14:46:13 25 A. He says he didn't.
26 Q. 593 In private session in May 2000 but he is saying in public session, in April or
27 May 2000 he asked the Tribunal for this documentation before coming in.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: Not before, not before May?
14:46:27 30 A. Not before May.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
80
14:46:29 1
2 CHAIRMAN: He got it then between May and October.
3 Q. 594 I see, all right.
14:46:32 5 CHAIRMAN: When he gave a different account.
6 Q. 595 Then I misunderstood.
8 CHAIRMAN: But he didn't have it, we accept he certainly didn't have it from
9 the Tribunal in May 2000 when he came in.
14:46:45 10 Q. 596 All right. So the difference between May 2000 and October 2000 is that you had
11 documentation which refreshes your memory and reminds you that it was Mr. Fox
12 and Mr. McGrath and not Mr. Lydon and Mr. Hand, is that right?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. 597 Yes. And yes all right. What was the document, what was it in particular that
14:47:17 15 put on a little red light Mr. Dunlop, because you had just, you said in May
16 2000 you named two people for accepting bribes isn't that right, it's a serious
17 matter, isn't it?
18 A. Oh, yes.
19 Q. 598 Yeah and what was it that between May and October 2000 that you looked at, that
14:47:33 20 said 'gosh I got that wrong, it's two other people'?
21 A. Yeah, well I never suggested and I'm not now suggesting that it was any
22 particular document.
23 Q. 599 No?
24 A. And what I prefaced my remarks to you earlier on by saying was that the
14:47:48 25 availability of all of the documentation reminded me of my relationship with a
26 variety of people in relation to particular developments.
27 Q. 600 But Mr. Dunlop, I mean your private interviews, Mr. Lydon and Mr. Hand are all
28 over them?
29 A. Mm-hmm.
14:48:05 30 Q. 601 So I mean, I wouldn't be able to distinguish in reading what I have from you to

www.pcr.ie Day 652
81
14:48:10 1 date, statements and private interviews, I wouldn't be able to distinguish
2 between Mr. Lydon, Mr. Hand, Mr. Fox and Mr. McGrath it couldn't possibly have
3 told you, all four of them are so involved and named so often, I don't see how
4 looking at the whole lot would suddenly say it's not those two it's another
14:48:29 5 two?
6 A. Well, I can't account for your understanding of that. What I am saying to you
7 is quite clearly that in the period in which I looked at a variety of
8 documentation supplied to me by the Tribunal and recollecting my relationship
9 with Monarch and what I knew was being done by Monarch themselves in relation
14:48:51 10 to lobbying, I made the statement I did on the 9th October 2000.
11 Q. 602 All right. And without averting to the fact that it was in error that you
12 named the two people back in May?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 603 Yes. Could I just remind you of what you said in May, 573, if we go down to
14:49:20 15 line 16 please, yes, you were correcting something, March 1993 that's about a
16 payment, line 17 "What my role in the context of coming in at that late stage
17 was in the minds of other people I do not know, I cannot account for, but you
18 can take it as certain that, notwithstanding the fact that they may have been
19 in receipt of monies from other people, I did give money to Lydon?
14:49:46 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 604 Hand was already on the books if you describe it?"
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 605 Question. What do you mean he was already on the books. Answer: He had got,
24 he was getting, he had got a substantial amount of money in 1991 question:
14:50:00 25 From you answer: Yes."
26
27 Isn't that very positive terms in which to be naming those two people without
28 looking at your road map?
29 A. Yes, yes.
14:50:14 30 Q. 606 How did you get it so wrong, Mr. Dunlop?

www.pcr.ie Day 652
82
14:50:16 1 A. Because these people were involved with me on a number of occasions.
2 Q. 607 If we move on to page 574, line 14 "Whatever Hand would have got from me, he
3 would have been getting on an ongoing basis but he was crucially involved. I
4 definitely gave money to Lydon in relation to Cherrywood?"
14:50:40 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 608 How can you, in May 2000, in a spirit of reconciliation with the Tribunal come
7 up with that language about these two gentlemen and a few months later say
8 that, a few months later decide that that was wrong?
9 A. Six months later. That's what I did.
14:51:02 10 Q. 609 Yes?
11 A. That's what I said. It's on record and my statement of 9th October 2000 is
12 also on record.
13 Q. 610 Yes. How do you rate your memory Mr. Dunlop?
14 A. Well, well increasing age, I suppose it happens to us all, but I would rate it
14:51:23 15 as reasonable.
16 Q. 611 How do you explain in Monarch to take it as an example, but we have had
17 instances of it in other Modules, how do you explain not recalling that you got
18 as much as 85,000 for a, for your work in this connection and for saying that
19 you got 25,000, and how can you explain naming two wrong councillors?
14:51:57 20 A. You can't get everything right, Mr. Murphy.
21 Q. 612 That's your explanation?
22 A. Yep.
23 Q. 613 Does it mean you have got it right the second time?
24 A. Yes.
14:52:06 25 Q. 614 How do you know that?
26 A. I am absolutely positive.
27 Q. 615 You see Mr. Dunlop, I can't understand how you can forget in May 2000 and
28 throughout 2000 when the serious matter of coming in here, presumably prepared,
29 and to talk about how much, among other things how much you got from the
14:52:34 30 developer, and how you get it wrong by 60,000 pounds in, and at the same time

www.pcr.ie Day 652
83
14:52:48 1 say that you paid 50 pounds to a councillor or 250 or 300 or a thousand or five
2 thousand. I can't reconcile those two things. I don't understand how one can
3 be infallible and the other not?
4 A. Well, you know I have just, what I have just said to you Mr. Murphy is what I
14:53:08 5 am saying in evidence. I have given you the history of it, you have re priced
6 the history of it and that is my evidence.
7 Q. 616 Would you agree that it's highly implausible?
8 A. No, I would not.
9 Q. 617 And how can you, how many developments were you involved in, 20?
14:53:27 10 A. Roughly. I think 18 if my memory serves me right but certainly in or around
11 20.
12 Q. 618 And how many councillors did you pay in the different developments?
13 A. Well, I can't give you the exact number.
14 Q. 619 No, no?
14:53:43 15 A. But certainly you are looking at something in the teens.
16 Q. 620 15 say?
17 A. In or around.
18 Q. 621 Okay 20 different developments roughly?
19 A. Yes.
14:53:55 20 Q. 622 15 roughly councillors?
21 A. Regularly.
22 Q. 623 Pardon?
23 A. Regularly.
24 Q. 624 Yeah, no I understand the regularly, all of them regularly?
14:54:03 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 625 They are kind of on a list?
27 A. Correct.
28 Q. 626 The same people cropping up?
29 A. Correct.
14:54:08 30 Q. 627 As I think you have said?

www.pcr.ie Day 652
84
14:54:15 1 A. Correct.
2 Q. 628 But when they don't appear, I can understand Mr. Dunlop if a particular
3 councillor appears in all, is paid in all 20 of them or some reason like he is
4 paid in the north side ones as opposed to the south or vice versa or two always
14:54:26 5 go together, but when you have gotten entirely different permutations and
6 different amounts of money I don't see how you can get that right from your
7 memory?
8 A. Well --
9 Q. 629 Particularly, may I add particularly when you are getting 25,000 wrong by
14:54:42 10 60,000?
11 A. Well you know I can't -- I was just trying to make an analogy with you but
12 nothing comes immediately to mind, but I mean there are various things that you
13 recollect more vividly than others.
14 Q. 630 Now could you just go on with that please, what is it about this you recollect
14:55:03 15 more vigorously than others?
16 A. I will recollect for example particular events that took place in this room in
17 2000 and doubtless in five years time I will recollect this little interview
18 with you.
19 Q. 631 Yes Mr. Dunlop, but you couldn't possibly forget that a number of years
14:55:19 20 earlier, 92 to 2000, seven years earlier you picked up 85,000 pounds from this
21 developer and yet you told the Tribunal 25,000 and on the other hand that you
22 bribed Messrs Hand and Lydon when in fact you meant, when in fact it was two
23 other people, you could not get that information wrong?
24 A. That's your view.
14:55:44 25 Q. 632 Do you think that there will be another view Mr. Dunlop?
26 A. No, I don't think there can be another view. I have said what I have said.
27 Q. 633 You don't think there can be another view, does that mean you agree with me?
28 A. No, I am saying that what I am saying is my evidence.
29 Q. 634 Why yes. But it's nonsense isn't it?
14:56:01 30 A. That's about the fifth time during the course of this day that you've used that

www.pcr.ie Day 652
85
14:56:04 1 phrase, Mr. Murphy.
2 Q. 635 But isn't it, Mr. Dunlop?
3 A. No, it's not nonsense.
4 Q. 636 I definitely gave money to Lydon in relation to Cherrywood in May 2000 and no
14:56:24 5 mention of him in October 2000?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 637 Mr. Dunlop, recently Ms. Olivia Mitchell gave evidence and -- I haven't got
8 page number, but if I can just say to you, read out?
9 A. Who, who did you say gave evidence.
14:56:47 10 Q. 638 Olivia Mitchell?
11 A. Oh right yes, sorry.
12 Q. 639 Page 53 of day 645 please.
13
14 CHAIRMAN: Perhaps you would read out because it takes a couple of minutes to
14:57:11 15 get a page up, it will come up on the screen then, if Mr. Dunlop wants to
16 double check.
17 Q. 640 Page 53 and line 14, wait now probably I should go a little bit earlier, sorry
18 I will go up to line five and Mr. Quinn asks you.
19 "In that list at number 21 he identifies a payment to Olivia Mitchell, FG, 500
14:57:39 20 pounds cash, you see that?
21 Answer: I do.
22 Question: Is that the payment that you were referring to in 1992?
23 Answer: This is in 1992, he gave me a donation in 1992. Now my memory, I
24 never actually counted the money myself, my husband thinks it's less than that
14:57:56 25 and Frank Dunlop himself confirmed to me that he gave me 300 pounds" I'm at
26 line 12.
27 Question: When did he confirm that to you?
28 Answer: In the very early stages of the Tribunal.
29 Question: And in what circumstances.
14:58:13 30 Answer: He rang me up and asked me how much he gave me and I said before I

www.pcr.ie Day 652
86
14:58:18 1 spoke, he said I have a record of giving you 300 here pounds, and I said Frank
2 I thought it might be more than that, and I said no I have a clear memory it
3 was 300. My husband thought it was less. I'm not disputing it because I just
4 don't remember.
14:58:35 5 Question: But one thing you do dispute is that you sought it.
6 Answer: Absolutely."
7 Now this is somebody to whom you made a payment and she says, sorry first of
8 all did you ring her up in those circumstances?
9 A. Could you invert the conversation, just invert the conversation and you will
14:58:54 10 get to the reality, I am ringing her asking her how much I gave her, she is
11 ringing me to know how much she did get from me.
12 Q. 641 Sorry?
13 A. That's not what she says, that's what I am telling you.
14 Q. 642 I'm --
14:59:10 15 A. She is saying that I rang -- he rang me up and asked me how much he gave me.
16 Q. 643 Oh, yes, yes that's not what happened?
17 A. Are you following me.
18 Q. 644 No, I'm not?
19 A. But line 15.
14:59:21 20 Q. 645 Yes?
21 A. Answer A "He rang me up and asked me how much he gave me and I said before I
22 spoke, he said I have a record of giving me 300 pounds and I said Frank I
23 thought it might be more."
24 Q. 646 Yes, sorry can I just take the slow route?
14:59:39 25 A. I certainly never rang up Olivia Mitchell and asked her how much I had given
26 her. The --
27 Q. 647 All right that's fine?
28 A. The panic was that politicians were ringing me up to know how much they got
29 from me.
14:59:50 30 Q. 648 You didn't ring a single politician to know how much you had given them from

www.pcr.ie Day 652
87
14:59:54 1 the time that this Tribunal was --
2 A. I spoke to a number of politicians and we have had this out before.
3 Q. 649 Don't mind the fact that we have had it out before Mr. Dunlop, let's have it
4 out now?
15:00:06 5 A. Mr. Murphy please, let's proceed in a sort of a rational way. A number of
6 politicians rang me wanting to know how much money I had given them and in what
7 circumstances.
8 Q. 650 Yes. I follow?
9 A. Right. Okay. This falls --
15:00:22 10 Q. 651 Did you ring anybody?
11 A. This falls into the same -- I cannot say absolutely I did not ring anybody.
12 Q. 652 Come on, Mr. Dunlop. Look you are swearing to the Tribunal that you recall
13 politicians ringing you?
14 A. Yes.
15:00:35 15 Q. 653 To know had you paid them?
16 A. Correct, yes.
17 Q. 654 And they wanted to know that like anything?
18 A. Desperately.
19 Q. 655 Now you remember that clearly?
15:00:43 20 A. Yes, I do
21 Q. 656 Are you telling all, whoever is here, that you cannot say whether or not you
22 rang a single politician to check with them did you pay them, how much,
23 whatever?
24 A. I did not ring any politician specifically and say how much did I give you. I
15:00:59 25 spoke with a large number of politicians in relation to their request as to how
26 much they had got from me.
27 Q. 657 Now be that as it may, Ms. Mitchell says "He said I have a record of giving you
28 300 here pounds" she says that you said you had a record?
29 A. Yes.
15:01:22 30 Q. 658 I'd like to know what you say about that?

www.pcr.ie Day 652
88
15:01:26 1 A. I never said it, that's hearsay, she is saying this to you.
2 Q. 659 That is not hearsay Mr. Dunlop. That is her saying something and you are being
3 asked to, you are being asked to comment on it?
4 A. Correct. Correct.
15:01:37 5 Q. 660 It's something, a conversation that she says took place between you and her,
6 that is not hearsay, now would you please answer the question?
7 A. Right. No I did not.
8 Q. 661 So she makes that up. That you used the word record?
9 A. Correct. I have no --
15:01:52 10 Q. 662 Why would she do that?
12 Q. 663 No. All right. But anyway, she has made it up, because you didn't use the
13 word record in your conversation is that right?
14 A. The only record of payments to politicians are those made by cheque and they
15:02:11 15 were few and far between as the evidence to this Tribunal has seen.
16 Q. 664 Yes. Now the question was Mr. Dunlop, are you saying that you did not use the
17 word record, did you not say in your conversation with Ms. Mitchell I have a
18 record of --
19 A. I couldn't have said it.
15:02:30 20 Q. 665 I didn't ask you could you say it?
21 A. No, I did not say it, that's the answer, I said it to you twice.
22 Q. 666 You didn't say it. Fine.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 667 And I presume you can't think of a reason why she'd make it up?
15:02:45 25 A. I have no idea.
26 Q. 668 And of course it would make complete sense Mr. Dunlop, wouldn't it, if you were
27 able to go to a record, whatever form that record might take, and say it was
28 Ms. Mitchell one day blank pounds, somebody else another day etcetera, that
29 would make, that would absolutely shore up your recollection of what you paid
15:03:14 30 and what you received, isn't that right if you had a record?

www.pcr.ie Day 652
89
15:03:17 1 A. That's a hypothetical statement, if it did -- if it did, yes is the answer.
2 Q. 669 I'm not saying you did?
3 A. No, I am just pointing out it's a hypothetical statement.
4 Q. 670 It's not hypothetical Mr. Dunlop. If --
15:03:30 5 A. It is.
6 Q. 671 If you had a record that set out every bit of money you paid to politicians it
7 would be understandable that you could in 2000 or 2001 or today say how much
8 you paid each of them?
9 A. Yes is the answer.
15:03:44 10 Q. 672 Without it, it's not understandable.
11 A. To you it may not be.
12 Q. 673 But to you it is?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 674 And surely Mr. Dunlop, when you were making payments to people you get in a big
15:04:04 15 sum from, either you get it in before or after, you get in a big sum,
16 substantial sum or small sum from a developer, surely you need to keep check
17 yourself, if you are making payments perhaps at different times of the year so
18 that you know how much your pot of gold is being diminished by, are you
19 listening to me or have you gone and wandered off?
15:04:26 20 A. I beg your pardon? Would you like me to repeat the question you asked.
21 Q. 675 Well you look as if you are making notes or something Mr. Dunlop?
22 A. I'm not making notes, no I am not.
23 Q. 676 Would you answer the question please?
24 A. Yes. If you refrain from making comments other than asking questions I will
15:04:44 25 answer the question. The answer is no. I would not need to keep a record in
26 relation to - I knew.
27 Q. 677 Yeah?
28 A. And I knew what I gave to people and I knew what I was asked for.
29 Q. 678 Yeah?
15:04:55 30 A. Is that clear.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
90
15:04:56 1 Q. 679 It's perfectly clear Mr. Dunlop. You knew that, you knew if you paid
2 Ms. Mitchell 300 or somebody else 3000 but you get it wrong when it's 25,000
3 from Monarch to become 85,000?
4 A. 25,000 as the agreed fee from Monarch on an audit which turns out to be very
15:05:16 5 correct notwithstanding your comments earlier this morning about my accountants
6 getting it, making a balls of it, 25,000 as the agreed fee, 60,000 as per the
7 accounts of Frank Dunlop and Associates.
8 Q. 680 I said no such thing this morning?
9 A. Well you went as far as saying it.
15:06:08 10 Q. 681 Mr. Dunlop, on some day?
11 A. On Sunday? Or some day --
12 Q. 682 On some day either someone approached you or you approached someone about you
13 becoming involved in Cherrywood?
15:06:28 15 Q. 683 Please tell me what that date was and who it was, whether you approached
16 somebody or somebody approached you?
17 A. Well I certainly didn't approach anybody Mr. Murphy. I was approached by a
18 representative of Monarch, Mr. Sweeney, by telephone, and I met Mr. Sweeney and
19 Mr. Sweeney explained to me the circumstances in which he and his company found
15:06:57 20 themselves in relation to a development in Cherrywood.
21 Q. 684 Now, Mr. Dunlop, I'm sorry to interrupt you there, I do want to go into all of
22 that but I'm sorry the first question is, I just want to get precisely the
23 beginning?
24 A. Yeah, yeah sure, that's understandable.
15:07:12 25 Q. 685 And it was Mr. Sweeney who phoned you?
26 A. Mr. Sweeney who contacted me, yes.
27 Q. 686 Sorry did he phone you or what did he do?
28 A. The only way that I can help you there Mr. Murphy is that again I have a record
29 of a meeting with Mr. Sweeney whom I did not know I hasten to add, I had never
15:07:34 30 met before, Mr. Sweeney contacted me, rang me and I went to see Mr. Sweeney.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
91
15:07:42 1 Q. 687 Mr. Dunlop, why did you keep records of meeting when you didn't need records of
2 payments or receipts?
3 A. Well, you know you like to make sure that you keep appointments.
4 Q. 688 Anyway your record, what was the contact Mr. Sweeney made with you?
15:07:57 5 A. Mr. Sweeney contacted me and I met him.
6 Q. 689 No by phone or what?
7 A. Yes, by phone.
8 Q. 690 He phoned you?
9 A. I cannot say to you that there was any other, if what you quite understandably,
15:08:12 10 I don't mean to be offensive, if what you'd like to imply was somebody was an
11 intermediary or contacted me and said go and see Eddie Sweeney in Monarch,
12 that's not the case. I was contacted by Eddie Sweeney by phone.
13 Q. 691 How do you know by phone?
14 A. Well there is no, I hadn't met Mr. Sweeney prior to that.
15:08:31 15 Q. 692 Can you show me, is there a telephone attendance or is there a message to ring
16 him or anything like that?
17 A. Well, I don't have one here.
18 Q. 693 Have you seen any, have you any documentary evidence of a phone call?
19 A. No, the only documentary evidence I have is my first recorded meeting with
15:08:45 20 Mr. Sweeney is on the --
21 Q. 694 9th March?
22 A. The 8th March 93.
23 Q. 695 8th March 93?
24 A. 5 o'clock on 8th March 93, Monday.
15:09:00 25 Q. 696 Just go back a second. Anyway your evidence is he phoned you, Mr. Sweeney of
26 Monarch?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 697 You had never dealt with Mr. Sweeney before?
29 A. No.
15:09:17 30 Q. 698 Had you ever dealt with anyone in Monarch before?

www.pcr.ie Day 652
92
15:09:19 1 A. When you say dealt, on a business basis.
2 Q. 699 Well, what do you think?
3 A. Well, you used the word.
4 Q. 700 You tell me the basis on which did you have dealings, I don't know?
15:09:30 5 A. Well I certainly, I had met Mr. Phil Monahan either socially or by accident.
6 Q. 701 I see. But business dealings?
7 A. Oh, business dealing, no.
8 Q. 702 No business dealing?
9 A. No.
15:09:46 10 Q. 703 With Mr. Monahan?
11 A. With Mr. Monahan, no.
12 Q. 704 Or any of the other Monarch people?
13 A. No.
14 Q. 705 Before March 93?
15:09:54 15 A. Not to my knowledge, no.
16 Q. 706 What does 'not to your knowledge' mean?
17 A. Well, no is the answer.
18 Q. 707 Thank you. Sorry Chairman I'm looking for a reference and I just seem to have
19 lost it. Sorry Mr. Dunlop I'm looking for a reference there and I just can't
15:11:07 20 find it, I might get it and I might come back to it. Sorry, prior to the 8th
21 March 93, prior to the phone call from Mr. Sweeney no dealings, no business
22 dealings with anybody in Monarch?
23 A. No.
24 Q. 708 With Monarch or anybody in Monarch?
15:11:22 25 A. No.
26 Q. 709 All right. At that stage, now March 93, you are very heavily involved in the
27 Development Plan and on behalf of developers and landowners in relation to
28 rezoning, isn't that right?
15:11:41 30 Q. 710 And you would at that stage I imagine have had quite a reputation for success

www.pcr.ie Day 652
93
15:11:45 1 in, and assistance in relation to rezonings would that be right?
2 A. I can't account for other people's opinions but I would say that's probably
3 right, yes.
4 Q. 711 All right. When Mr. Sweeney phoned you what did he say to you?
15:12:30 5 A. He wanted to meet me about Cherrywood and I agreed to meet him.
6 Q. 712 What time of the day or afternoon was the phone call?
7 A. Gosh, I can't tell.
8 Q. 713 How many days before the meeting?
9 A. I would imagine -- sorry I shouldn't say I would imagine. I don't know to be
15:12:55 10 honest with you.
11 Q. 714 Have you any, have you much of a recollection of the phone call, I mean do you
12 remember it well or --
13 A. Well, I do recall being contacted by phone by Mr. Sweeney.
14 Q. 715 Yes?
15:13:06 15 A. I do recall going to see Mr. Sweeney.
16 Q. 716 Just leave that for a second, just the phone call?
17 A. Yeah sure.
18 Q. 717 All right. Would you tell me, this is a difficult, this is a work, this is a
19 project that gets you 85,000 ultimately?
15:13:23 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 718 So could you just tell us and the phone call is out of the blue, you don't
22 expect it, you have had no hint of it or expectation of it or anything like
23 that?
24 A. No, no I have had no hint of it but I was aware of what was going on in Dublin
15:13:40 25 County Council in relation to Cherrywood because I had met and had discussed,
26 had spoken with various representatives, two representatives of Monarch who
27 were lobbying at the time.
28 Q. 719 Who were they?
29 A. Mr. Richard Lynn and Mr. Phillip Reilly.
15:13:57 30 Q. 720 Yes?

www.pcr.ie Day 652
94
15:13:57 1 A. Yeah, they were in Dublin County Council on a variety of occasions, Mr. Lynn
2 more than Mr. Reilly I hasten to add but I knew what was going on and I had
3 spoken to them about Cherrywood and what was going on in Dublin County Council.
4 Q. 721 Now can I just, because I don't want to go into that aspect of it just at the
15:14:14 5 moment in detail?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 722 But you did, you knew what was going on in, with, in relation to Cherrywood
8 before Mr. Sweeney phoned you?
9 A. Yes.
15:14:24 10 Q. 723 Is the phone call out of the blue?
11 A. Yes I would say so, yes.
12 Q. 724 Had you some hint from Mr. Reilly or Mr, who did you say Mr. Lynn?
13 A. Mr. Lynn, yeah.
14 Q. 725 That they might be getting in touch with you.
15:14:38 15 A. No I don't think I had, and I have, I find it extraordinary that nobody in
16 Monarch seems to know why I was hired or what I was doing in relation to
17 Monarch, so why would I have any hint from Mr. Lynn that I was going to be
18 hired because he said in his statement that he knew nothing about it.
19 Q. 726 Okay. And can you just, in a word or in a sentence tell me what was your
15:15:03 20 knowledge of where Cherrywood was, where Cherrywood was on the first of March
21 93?
22 A. Well, it was in --
23 Q. 727 1st of March 93?
24 A. The 1st of March 93.
15:15:13 25 Q. 728 Well, sorry, I beg your pardon the time of the phone call?
26 A. As and from the 1st of March 93, well there was a lot of controversy about
27 Cherrywood, there was a lot of discussion Mr. Murphy by politicians local and
28 otherwise in, at the council, not in the chamber, but at the council and in the
29 environs of the council about the difficulties that were being faced in
15:15:39 30 relation to the zoning application that Monarch wanted as distinct from what

www.pcr.ie Day 652
95
15:15:47 1 they might get. There was a very, very carefully professionally organised and
2 orchestrated campaign against the Cherrywood Development by Monarch, organised
3 locally, some of those people were present in the council and it's environs, I
4 saw them there. Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly alluded to them, told me who they were
15:16:16 5 and generally speaking the whole Cherrywood issue was controversial.
6 Q. 729 Yeah lovely, okay. And was the, was what they were looking for -- I'm sorry I
7 don't want to go into details but was there a problem for Monarch at this time?
8 A. Yes, what Monarch -- I find this quite difficult to deal with logically in the
9 sense that you don't want to deal with some aspects it have but let me answer
15:16:48 10 you.
11 Q. 730 No only just a short, a little summary I want?
12 A. And if there is something that is not in accord with as you see it please tell
13 me. The situation was Monarch made an application as all developers or
14 builders had to do in relation to the Development Plan.
15:17:04 15 Q. 731 All right?
16 A. What they had applied for and what they were likely to get were two different
17 things. Internally in Monarch there seemed to have been some dispute as to
18 whether or not what they had applied for originally could be achieved with some
19 pressure or whether or not a compromise was going to have to take place.
15:17:23 20 Q. 732 Did you know all this before talking to Mr. Sweeney?
21 A. No, I did not know all of that.
22 Q. 733 But Mr. Dunlop this is what I am asking for, I only want your state of mind and
23 knowledge about all of this before seeing Mr. Sweeney, I just want it in a word
24 or a sentence like Monarch, the thing was in trouble, the project, you know?
15:17:42 25 A. You see Mr. Murphy how difficult it is to answer your question when you leave
26 it so open ended.
27 Q. 734 I don't think it is Mr. Dunlop?
28 A. My understanding is simple, Cherrywood was on the books in Dublin County
29 Council, it was highly controversial and was going to continue to be highly
15:17:58 30 controversial notwithstanding anything that happened by anybody.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
96
15:18:01 1 Q. 735 Okay, thank you?
2 A. Is that clear.
3 Q. 736 Thank you. Did you know that from Mr. Reilly and Mr. Lynn and chats or did you
4 know if yourself from other people?
15:18:09 5 A. Oh no, no, what I knew about Cherrywood was from a mixture of people including
6 politicians in the council and from Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly.
7 Q. 737 Before the phone call from Mr. Sweeney had you given any advice to Monarch
8 formally or informally or anyone on behalf of Monarch?
9 A. I might have suggested various things to Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly, but in fact I
15:18:32 10 probably did, if I was to, if I was to lean in any direction I would say, yes,
11 I probably did.
12 Q. 738 All right we'll take it you did?
13 A. Mm-hmm.
14 Q. 739 Was one of your suggestion that maybe you'd come on board?
15:18:45 15 A. No I never suggested that.
16 Q. 740 Or significant like it?
17 A. No.
18 Q. 741 All right. I think I can take it now that the phone call wasn't out of the
19 blue Mr. Dunlop, is that right?
15:18:55 20 A. Well, it was out of the blue in the sense, I knew what was going on, like I
21 knew about other developments in Dublin County Council.
22 Q. 742 You were half expecting the phone call?
23 A. No, I don't think so. And I didn't get telephone calls from every developer or
24 builder who had an application before Dublin County Council even though I knew
15:19:15 25 what was going on.
26 Q. 743 Was it unusual for you to get a phone call, to get a contact, a communication
27 from the actual developer as opposed to an intermediary in relation to these
28 developments. I mean you had to be introduced to them, sorry you had to come
29 to them in some way, was it usually through an intermediary or was it from the
15:19:34 30 client itself?

www.pcr.ie Day 652
97
15:19:35 1 A. Well it varied. I am just trying before I answer that, I am just trying to
2 think of ones that were from the client and ones that were from intermediaries.
3 Q. 744 Simplify it, give me an example of another developer that contacted you
4 directly, that there wasn't an intermediary, like here?
15:19:55 5 A. Well, we have had the recent ones where there was an intermediary for example
6 the last couple of Modules, where there was a specific intermediary who
7 introduced various clients, brought clients to me on that basis.
8 Q. 745 Sorry Mr. Dunlop you misunderstood me, here in this one in Cherrywood there is
9 no intermediary. Mr. Sweeney gets on the phone to you?
15:20:15 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 746 I want an example of another development?
12 A. Oh, Sorry yes.
13 Q. 747 Where it was the client, it was the company, you know it was whoever they are,
14 who contacted you rather than intermediary, you have 20 developments, another
15:20:33 15 developer that contacted you directly?
16 A. Yes, I think one we have just recently dealt with, Ballycullen Farms.
18 A. Mr. Chris Jones rang me.
19 Q. 749 Mr. Jones rang you?
15:20:43 20 A. Yes, but transpired subsequently that somebody else had introduced or had put
21 the notion in Mr. Jones' head but Mr. Jones --
22 Q. 750 That's fine. The phone call came?
23 A. I can't account for who might have been suggesting that I be hired.
24 Q. 751 That's another question Mr. Dunlop but in Ballycullen, is it?
15:21:00 25 A. Ballycullen yes.
26 Q. 752 Mr. Jones made -- he invited you, he was the person who phoned you and said
27 would you?
28 A. He asked me to come and see him, yes.
29 Q. 753 At the instigation of?
15:21:11 30 A. As it transpired, though I have no absolute proof of this, that Mr. Liam Lawlor

www.pcr.ie Day 652
98
15:21:16 1 had suggested it to him.
2 Q. 754 All right. Of the 20 developments how many did Mr. Lawlor introduce you to,
3 roughly?
4 A. I'd say a good few.
15:21:24 5 Q. 755 Five?
6 A. Definitely five.
7 Q. 756 Ten?
8 A. Maybe not quite ten.
9 Q. 757 Nine?
15:21:33 10 A. I think after the introduction by law lord to various developments and other
11 developers began to realise that I was as you described it yourself, some
12 moments ago, successful, they began to make contact with me.
13 Q. 758 I'd just like to know who they are now Mr. Dunlop because that's interesting,
14 but the, Mr. Lawlor was the person who introduced you in something between five
15:22:00 15 and ten developments?
16 A. I don't think I have an accurate figure on that but I can go down through the
17 list of them.
18 Q. 759 We might do that later?
19 A. Yes of course, yes.
15:22:07 20 Q. 760 All right. And Mr. Lawlor introduced you in say between five and ten of them,
21 and because then you had success they began to come on the phone themselves to
22 you?
23 A. Well some of them yes, and let me.
24 Q. 761 Who apart from Mr. Jones who was introduced by Mr. Lawlor?
15:22:24 25 A. Well, let me deal with it on the basis of the more recent Modules where I have
26 given evidence to the effect that a named person brought various developers or
27 builders to me, to meet me. One was in the Lissenhall Module that we have just
28 concluded.
29 Q. 762 Would that be Mr. Collins?
15:22:45 30 A. Correct. Then you have the Walls Module in Kinseally which is not yet

www.pcr.ie Day 652
99
15:22:52 1 concluded.
2 Q. 763 Would that be Mr. Collins?
3 A. Correct. There is one that has not been opened yet, but is on circulation for.
4 Q. 764 Who introduced you there?
15:23:01 5 A. Mr. Collins.
6 Q. 765 That's three for Mr. Collins?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. 766 How many more did Mr. Collins introduce you?
9 A. I would say probably one or two more.
15:23:12 10 Q. 767 All right?
11 A. But to go back to your original question --
12 Q. 768 No, no, sorry before do you, Mr. Dunlop, just I am not tying to you this but
13 Mr. Collins is about five developments and Mr. Lawlor is between five and ten,
14 did you put that closer to the ten or closer to the five?
15:23:27 15 A. You know I'd prefer to just look at it, look at the list and give you an
16 accurate figure.
17 Q. 769 All right. So, anyway that would be somewhere between ten and 15, would the
18 remainder be people like Mr. Sweeney where the company gets in touch
19 themselves?
15:23:41 20 A. Yes and for example you asked me for another example.
21 Q. 770 I did?
22 A. Yes, right, we'll say Mr. Joe Tiernan of Tiernan Homes, he rang me directly.
23 Q. 771 Mr. Tiernan?
24 A. But it subsequently transpired without either gentlemen.
15:23:58 25 Q. 772 Yes?
26 A. Indicating that it was the case, that in that instance as well Mr. Lawlor had
27 suggested to Mr. Tiernan that he --
28 Q. 773 Well, now is that in your five?
29 A. Yes, that would be in my mind
15:24:11 30 Q. 774 Sorry, no, no?

www.pcr.ie Day 652
100
15:24:12 1 A. In my mind for Mr. Lawlor.
2 Q. 775 In the five to ten?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 776 All right?
15:24:17 5 A. But notwithstanding that here is Mr. Tiernan ringing me.
6 Q. 777 Like Mr. Jones?
7 A. Correct, like Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Jones.
8 Q. 778 And Mr. Sweeney?
9 A. Yes, the reason I mentioned --
15:24:28 10 Q. 779 So did Mr. Lawlor introduced you, he was behind the invitation from
11 Mr. Sweeney?
12 A. As I said in my statement it subsequently transpired that Mr. Lawlor said to me
13 you know, you have been to see Eddie or you know, you have been, so --
14 Q. 780 No, wait now that wouldn't mean he was responsible for bringing you in?
15:24:48 15 A. No, no, but he may have recommended me to him.
16 Q. 781 All right, is that in your five to ten from Mr. Lawlor?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 782 All right wait now, okay you have Mr. Lawlor and Mr. Collins are the two people
19 who introduce you to developers and landowners?
15:25:01 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 783 Is there another intermediary, is there a third person who makes those kind of
22 introductions?
23 A. Offhand I can't -- offhand I can't think of another, may do in a moment, but --
24 but generally that was the, that was the method.
15:25:25 25 Q. 784 Do you think you could possibly forget if there was a third person who made
26 introduction, who was responsible for getting you into one of these things?
27 A. I mightn't immediately have remembered, I mightn't immediately recall now in a
28 particular instance like this as you have taken this route.
29 Q. 785 All right but Mr. Dunlop?
15:25:42 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
101
15:25:42 1 Q. 786 The general things in the developments was you were introduced to the company
2 by Mr. Collins or Mr. Lawlor?
3 A. The general thing, yes.
4 Q. 787 Now name one development where that didn't happen and it was the company got on
15:25:52 5 the phone or whatever they did to make contact with you, without having been,
6 had it suggested to them by Mr. Lawlor or Mr. Collins?
7 A. Yes, offhand, I can't.
8 Q. 788 Can I take it that the 20 or so developments that you were involved in, you
9 were introduced to all of them by Mr. Collins or Mr. Lawlor?
15:26:15 10 A. Or the developer made contact with me which subsequently transpired that they
11 had been advised.
12 Q. 789 I think that's covered by the question?
13 A. Okay fine.
14 Q. 790 Is that right, all of them -- I hesitate to say all of them, Ms. Dillon says
15:26:33 15 St. Gerard Bray may not have come into that category?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. 791 And Fox and Mahony?
18 A. Fox and Mahony we have never established whether or not Mr. Mahony was advised
19 by another politician other than Mr. Lawlor
15:26:51 20 Q. 792 All right.
21 A. But the reason Mr. Mahony made contact with me, this is reprising evidence in
22 another Module, Mr. Murphy, but I don't have any difficulty about that.
23 Q. 793 I'm sorry about that Mr. Dunlop?
24 A. No, I don't have any difficulty about that, the reason Mr. Mahony contacted me
15:27:02 25 and I met him with Mr. Noel Fox was because Mr. Mahony said that GV had made a
26 mess of it, so there was a discussion -- a discussion between --
27 Q. 794 Sorry Mr. Dunlop, Chairman.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: I think we'll have to stick with Monarch only because we have had
15:27:18 30 all this evidence.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
102
15:27:19 1 Q. 795 Sorry, that's probably my fault Chairman. Mr. Dunlop, if I can come back to
2 just the 20 though with the exception of say two, the two I have just
3 mentioned, 18 were introduced by Mr. Collins and Mr. Lawlor, that's fact?
4 A. Yes.
15:27:33 5 Q. 796 And if necessary, if we don't know already you can identify the ones which, who
6 introduced you to which?
7 A. But you must contextualise Mr. Murphy, I don't know when the contact is made
8 with me initially, Mr. Sweeney doesn't say listen I am ringing you because Liam
9 Lawlor told me to or Chris Jones doesn't ring me and say listen I am ringing
15:27:51 10 you because Liam Lawlor told me to or PJ Walls doesn't say listen I am ringing
11 you because Tim Collins asked me. Tim Collins rings me and says I want to
12 bring somebody to you. In the Lawlor context it's you discover subsequently
13 that Mr. Lawlor has been responsible by virtue of two things. One, Mr. Lawlor
14 looks for money or secondly Mr. Lawlor tells you something that you know he has
15:28:18 15 either been in discussion with the principal or had advised the principal.
16 Q. 797 Mr. Lawlor looks for money is one of the ways of finding out that he introduced
17 you?
18 A. Correct, Lawlor would come along and say you know, I advise that you be brought
19 on this there and can I have.
15:28:34 20 Q. 798 Is there a kind of a finder's fee?
21 A. If that's the way you'd like to describe it.
22 Q. 799 An introducer's fee?
23 A. Introducer's fee.
24 Q. 800 Is there one in this case?
15:28:46 25 A. Sorry Mr. Murphy I need to - the kidneys are not as good as they used to be.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: All right we'll rise for five minutes.
28
29 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED FOR A SHORT BREAK AND RESUMED AGAIN AS FOLLO
15:29:23 30

www.pcr.ie Day 652
103
15:29:23 1
2 A. Thank you Chairman.
4 MR. MURPHY: Sorry Chairman.
15:36:40 5
6 Mr. Dunlop, I just want to interrupt that for one second because the reference
7 I was looking for a little bit earlier, I think I have just found, and I was
8 asking you a short while ago, you have never dealt with Mr. Sweeney before no,
9 had you ever dealt with anyone in Monarch before, when you say dealt on a
15:37:01 10 business basis, what do you think -- anyway, Question: You tell me the basis
11 on which you have dealings. Answer: I don't know. I met Mr. Phil Monahan
12 social see by accident, Question: I see business dealings. Answer: Oh
13 business dealing no. Question. No business dealing Answer: No Question.
14 With Mr. Monahan. Answer: With Mr. Monahan, no. Question: Or any of the
15:37:21 15 other Monarch people Answer: No. Question: Before March 93. Answer: Not
16 to my knowledge, no. Question: What does not to your knowledge mean? Answer:
17 Well, no is the answer.
18
19 Page 572 please. Page 572 is private interviews Mr. Dunlop and at the end of
15:37:56 20 the page if you look at page, line 27 "I was paid 25,000 in two tranches, one
21 of 15 and one of then. I had got other monies from Monarch previously but that
22 was purely from public relations work, it had nothing whatsoever, it was purely
23 the public relations aspects of various things and I then kept in touch with
24 Richard Lynn. They had to reduce it down to an easy facility phrase, they had
15:38:19 25 their men in place"
26 I think you were going on to another things. You said a few minutes ago you
27 had no dealings before 93 with anyone from Monarch?
28 A. Mm-hmm, yes, sorry.
29 Q. 801 Not at all?
15:38:32 30 A. I don't know what that refers to.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
104
15:38:34 1 Q. 802 All right?
2 A. Show that to me again, go back to the previous page.
3 Q. 803 Yes, 572. If like to have a look at it there, line 27.
4 A. Yes, I see it. Yes, I don't know what that means, previously, monies received
15:39:05 5 previously from Monarch? That doesn't ring a bell with me.
7 CHAIRMAN: Well, did you do any other work for Monarch besides --
8 A. No, I don't.
15:39:15 10 CHAIRMAN: Even subsequently?
11 A. I don't recall doing any other work for Monarch.
12 Q. 804 Mr. Dunlop how would you say to whoever was asking you these questions in May
13 2000 "I got other monies from Monarch previously but that was purely from
14 public relations work, it was purely the public relations aspect and I then
15:39:45 15 kept in touch with Richard Lynn" how would you make it up?
16 A. I am just wondering is there a confluence here of reference. I got other money
17 from Monarch in relation to this -- I have no recollection -- I do not believe
18 I did any other work for Monarch.
19 Q. 805 You got other money from Monarch in relation to this, what is that?
15:39:58 20 A. In relation to Cherrywood.
21 Q. 806 That's not other money?
22 A. No and if you turn the page again, continue on. "It had nothing whatsoever, it
23 was purely the public relations aspect of various things and I then kept in
24 touch with Richard Lynn" no. I don't know. Unless the -- it refers to -- I
15:40:20 25 have no recollection of doing any other work for Monarch.
26 Q. 807 Mr. Dunlop you have to explain this, I mean we are not stupid?
27 A. Did I suggest you were?
28 Q. 808 But you have told counsel to the Tribunal in May 2000 -- I mean --
29 A. But there is no evidence that I have done any work.
15:40:42 30 Q. 809 Mr. Dunlop, these are your words?

www.pcr.ie Day 652
105
15:40:43 1 A. I know, yes.
2 Q. 810 They are your words, we don't need evidence. Your words are evidence, you are
3 studying law. Your words are evidence Mr. Dunlop. Now please explain to the
4 three Members of the Tribunal what that means when you swore a few moments ago?
15:41:01 5 A. I have already said to you two minutes ago I do not know what it means because
6 in the context of Monarch my involvement with Monarch related to Cherrywood. I
7 have no -- I do not recall any other work with Monarch for which I was paid by
8 Monarch, in relation to public relations or any other matter, I'm aware of
9 Monarch, was aware of Monarch as a company, I was aware of Phil Monahan, I said
15:41:30 10 I met Phil Monahan on a number of occasions, socially or otherwise and that's
11 it.
12 Q. 811 Unless and until the Tribunal produces a document, what you call evidence?
13 A. Mm-hmm.
14 Q. 812 To show that that's not right?
15:41:47 15 A. Well you have asked me the question and I am saying to you I don't know what
16 that means. And --
17 Q. 813 5972 please. Sorry, I said 59, I beg your pardon 7972. Your diaries,
18 Mr. Dunlop, Thursday 1st of November, I believe it's 1990 as opposed to 91
19 that's up there for reasons that we went into it before I think?
15:42:35 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 814 9.30 The Square, what does that mean?
22 A. Presumably it means The Square in Tallaght.
23 Q. 815 Any significance?
24 A. I don't think so, when was The Square opened.
15:42:44 25 Q. 816 No idea, Mr. Dunlop?
26 A. It was around that time I think.
27
28 JUDGE FAHERTY: It was December 1990.
29 Q. 817 Had you anything to do with the square Mr. Dunlop?
15:42:52 30 A. No nothing.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
106
15:42:52 1 Q. 818 That's fine, all right. Now if we go on to - sorry 7973 please, 1990, Tuesday
2 October 23rd your diary, opening of Tallaght Town Centre. I don't know is it
3 8.30 FF HQ that's a different thing, no opening of Tallaght is at 11.30, is
4 that right?
15:43:17 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 819 11.30 opening of Tallaght Town Centre that's your diary, what does that mean?
7 A. Obviously I was invited to the opening.
8 Q. 820 All right. So do you remember that?
9 A. I remember being there, yes.
15:43:31 10 Q. 821 Remember being there?
11 A. I don't think I paid too much attention to the actual opening, I was there with
12 another person for the specific purpose of meeting or introducing that other
13 person to a politician.
14 Q. 822 And Monarch were involved with the Tallaght centre were they?
15:43:55 15 A. Yes, they were, yes.
16 Q. 823 All right, had you anything to do with Monarch was that why you were there?
17 A. No, I had nothing whatsoever to do with Monarch.
18 Q. 824 Were Monarch developers of Tallaght?
19 A. In conjunction with somebody else, maybe they hadn't joined with somebody else
15:44:11 20 at that stage but certainly they were the developers of Tallaght, yes.
21 Q. 825 Who invited you?
22 A. Who invited me? That I cannot say specifically. I can't say who invited me, I
23 cannot say.
24 Q. 826 No idea?
15:44:38 25 A. Well no sorry I cannot say who invited me that doesn't mean I don't have an
26 idea.
27 Q. 827 I beg your pardon?
28 A. I was there, I have already said to you I was there with another person for the
29 purpose of introducing that other person to a politician, I believe the
15:45:01 30 suggestion that we be there at the opening came from Liam Lawlor to this other

www.pcr.ie Day 652
107
15:45:10 1 gentleman and myself, that's why I can't say to you who invited me, I don't
2 remember getting an invitation, I don't remember being specifically invited but
3 we were there, but the purpose that we were there was to meet another
4 politician.
15:45:28 5 Q. 828 Now, okay, were you a guest?
6 A. Well certainly if Mr. Liam Lawlor suggested we were there we were a guest, we
7 were guests in some fashion.
8 Q. 829 How could, I don't understand, how would Mr. Lawlor be inviting you to, how
9 would you be his guest at this?
15:45:44 10 A. Well Mr. Lawlor suggested that we be there for the purposes of meeting another
11 politician, and we went there for that purpose.
12 Q. 830 Who would have been sponsoring, who would have been issuing invitations to the
13 opening?
14 A. Presumably Monarch.
15:46:00 15 Q. 831 Monarch?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 832 Had Mr. Lawlor anything to do with Tallaght?
18 A. That I can't say whether he had or not.
19 Q. 833 Okay?
15:46:06 20 A. I have no evidence to that effect.
21 Q. 834 You would say Monarch were the people who were hosting the opening?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 835 And Mr. Lawlor contacted you, is that it and said come along?
24 A. Yes.
15:46:18 25 Q. 836 And the purpose being to meet somebody?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 837 A politician?
28 A. What year again is this.
29 Q. 838 It's 19 -- I don't know.
15:46:28 30

www.pcr.ie Day 652
108
15:46:28 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: 90.
2 Q. 839 1990?
3 A. Yes okay.
4 Q. 840 Yes?
15:46:32 5 A. Yes I think I'm right, I think I have got it right yes.
6 Q. 841 You think you got what right?
7 A. That it was suggested we be there by Mr. Lawlor, I don't recollect getting an
8 invitation from Monarch, but it was suggested by Mr. Lawlor that we be there,
9 so Mr. Lawlor organised it in some fashion or other.
15:46:50 10 Q. 842 Would that constitute an invitation from Mr. Lawlor?
11 A. Yes, I presume in summary, yes.
12 Q. 843 When I asked you a moment ago who invited you you hadn't a clue?
13 A. Well, I certainly don't recollect getting an invitation, one gets an invitation
14 specifically in paper form by, to an event or a function, don't recollect ever
15:47:09 15 getting that, my recollection is that I was, another person and I were
16 recommended to be there for the purposes of meeting another politician.
17 Q. 844 Who was the other person that Mr. Lawlor --
18 A. Well he hasn't been named in this. Do you want me to write down.
19 Q. 845 Yeah sure?
15:47:31 20 A. Do you want me to write down the name of the other politician to meet just to
21 expedite matters.
22 Q. 846 Chairman.
23
24 CHAIRMAN: All right you can write it down but we're not concerned with this
15:47:47 25 at the moment.
26
27 (Mr. Dunlop writes down names)
28 A. And this is the company for which he worked and this is the politician.
29 Q. 847 Sorry the other person, Mr. Lawlor is suggesting that you and this other
15:48:12 30 politician who worked for a company should attend?

www.pcr.ie Day 652
109
15:48:15 1 A. Yes.
3 A. Mr. Lawlor suggested to this other person and myself that the Tallaght Town
4 Centre was opening, that we should be there with, and a convenient method of
15:48:27 5 meeting this other politician would be at that.
6 Q. 849 And was this another one of these introductions like -- I'm just sorry
7 Mr. Dunlop maybe I am missing somebody, Mr. Lawlor asked, suggested that you
8 would turn up to meet a politician?
9 A. Yes.
15:49:06 10 Q. 850 You have written his name down?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 851 But there is a second name?
13 A. That's the other person I am talking about, that the other person and I be
14 present.
15:49:14 15 Q. 852 Oh, I beg your pardon?
16 A. Is that okay?
17 Q. 853 That you and the other person?
18 A. Yes, went at Mr. Lawlor's.
19 Q. 854 To meet the politician?
15:49:20 20 A. Recommendation and that it would be, it would be convenient to meet this other
21 politician in a semi social context, which was the opening of the Tallaght Town
22 Centre.
23 Q. 855 And the kind of convenience is what?
24 A. The convenience of the running into this politician and saying by the way I am
15:49:45 25 X, Y or Z and I would like to talk to you about A, B, C.
26 Q. 856 That you are, sorry that you are the person who would --
27 A. No, the other person, the first name on the list.
28 Q. 857 Yes. Sorry, that -- yes that it would be vehement for him to meet the
29 politician?
15:50:04 30 A. Correct.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
110
15:50:06 1 Q. 858 And what, say he's --
2 A. And say to him that he was proposing or being involved in something or other
3 and that this would be a convenient method of talking to this politician in an
4 informal context.
15:50:20 5 Q. 859 Is this another development?
6 A. Yes, it is but it is not a Module.
7 Q. 860 No, no fine I'm not going any further with it?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. 861 But it's another Module?
15:50:30 10 A. No, no it's not another Module.
11 Q. 862 Another development, in the Development Plan?
12 A. No, no, it was not in the Development Plan.
13
14 CHAIRMAN: At the rate we are going it might become one.
15:50:40 15 Q. 863 Sorry Chairman.
16
17 CHAIRMAN: At the rate we are going we it might become another one.
18 Maybe get back to the meeting, Mr. Dunlop's introduction to Monarch in relation
19 to Cherrywood.
15:50:56 20
21 Q. 864 Apparently Chairman, Mr. Dunlop it may be another Module, is that right?
22 A. No, no, it's not another Module, it is not listed as a Module, it has never
23 been a Module and it is outside the Development Plan.
24 Q. 865 How do you decide all these things?
15:51:17 25 A. Well sorry, I am just operating on the basis of the documentation that is
26 provided to me by you, not by you, I mean you collectively, this institution, I
27 mean it is not listed as a Module, I have never seen it listed as a Module, I
28 have never been asked to give evidence in relation to it as a Module, provide a
29 narrative statement in relation to it as a Module and it has never appeared on
15:51:41 30 the horizon either in this screen or any other screen.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
111
15:51:44 1
2 CHAIRMAN: All right we'll just leave.
3 Q. 866 That's fine, I don't want to be taken as accepting any of that Mr. Dunlop
4 because I have no idea?
15:51:50 5 A. You can take it as definite from me.
6 Q. 867 That's fine from you?
7 A. Yes, from me.
8 Q. 868 The final thing I just want to ask about, why were, I can understand why --
9 sorry Mr. Lawlor wants to introduce the person with the development from to the
15:52:03 10 politician, but I can't see why you are there?
11 A. Because I am advising, I am advising the person named first on the list.
12 Q. 869 Okay?
13 A. I have been recruited by the person first on the list and his company to advise
14 them, Mr. Lawlor is obviously advising them as well, as per usual.
15:52:24 15 Q. 870 Okay. I thought that possibly that reference in the diary might be --
16 A. What?
17 Q. 871 Are you all right, Mr. Dunlop?
18 A. Yes, I'm fine.
19 Q. 872 I thought the reference in the diary might have meant that it was connected
15:52:41 20 with Monarch, with Monarch and?
21 A. Understandably, yes I can understand your interpretation of that, it refers to
22 the opening of Tallaght and I am there in a different context.
23 Q. 873 But we are left with you in private interview with what we've read out about
24 monies previously and what you've said earlier this afternoon about no business
15:53:07 25 dealings with Monarch prior to March 93?
26 A. Yes, I fully understand why you asked the question Mr. Murphy there is no
27 problem.
28 Q. 874 Oh, yes, now I'm sorry, before the short break a moment ago Mr. Dunlop, I was
29 asking you, you said something about I think Mr. Lawlor, if he -- I can't
15:53:38 30 remember specifically, if he might, I think, look for money?

www.pcr.ie Day 652
112
15:53:41 1 A. Yeah, yes.
2 Q. 875 And I was saying finders fee and we were talking about that and for introducing
3 you to a project?
4 A. Correct.
15:53:49 5 Q. 876 And I think I was, had just asked you maybe did that happen in Cherrywood?
6 A. No it did not.
7 Q. 877 Did Mr. Lawlor ask you for money in Cherrywood?
8 A. No he did not.
9 Q. 878 Did you pay him money in Cherrywood?
15:54:01 10 A. No I did not.
11 Q. 879 Did anybody else pay him in Cherrywood that you are aware of?
12 A. I am not aware that they did.
13 Q. 880 Yes. And were, I think 18 out of the 20 developments it was you were
14 introduced to by Mr. Lynn, by Mr. Collins or by Mr. Lawlor?
15:54:33 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 881 And I don't think you have, with is the exception of the two, those two the
17 other two, are there any other developments where in fact it wasn't either of
18 those that introduced you or brought about the introduction it was the
19 developer him or herself?
15:54:50 20 A. Yes and again there is one other, it's name escapes me, it's on the north
21 side -- and I'm never quite sure whether this particular individual, he never
22 admitted to it, came to me, you know as it were ab initio on his own, of his
23 own volition or that another politician other than Liam Lawlor or another
24 individual other than Tim Collins had recommended him to me, it is a Module
15:55:22 25 that will be coming up.
26 Q. 882 So you followed up the phone call from Mr. Sweeney with a visit to him in his
27 offices?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 883 In Harcourt Street, what was the station?
15:55:45 30 A. In Harcourt Street, yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
113
15:55:48 1 Q. 884 All right. And that meeting was on what date, is that the 8th of March?
2 A. Yes my record of a meeting with Mr. Sweeney is at 5 pm on Monday the March the
3 8th. Now -- yes, Monday March 8th.
4 Q. 885 Monday March 8th a meeting with Mr. Sweeney?
15:56:17 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 886 And that was the first time you entered that office?
7 A. Yes I don't believe I was ever in that office before.
8 Q. 887 How would you have been if you hadn't done any work for them?
9 A. Yes, correct.
15:56:35 10 Q. 888 It was the first time you met Mr. Sweeney?
11 A. Certainly the first time I met Mr. Sweeney.
12 Q. 889 And the first time you had anything to do with Cherrywood?
13 A. Other than as I have outlined to you, meeting representatives of Monarch in the
14 lobby of Dublin County Council.
15:56:50 15 Q. 890 And can I be clear of that, that was completely informal, it was social, it was
16 casual, you weren't retained or anything?
17 A. No, no, this was Richard, Mr. Lynn and Phillip, Phil Reilly.
19 A. Just talking among ourselves and explaining our various problems or
15:57:09 20 commiserating one another over various problems.
21 Q. 892 And I think you indicated that in either your statement or your interviews, yes
22 and who was present at that meeting Mr. Dunlop?
23 A. Just the two of us.
24 Q. 893 And what time did the meeting take place at?
15:57:45 25 A. My diary says 5 o'clock.
26 Q. 894 5 o'clock. Now there is an important thing that I just want to clear up at
27 this stage Mr. Dunlop, because it was causing me some confusion in reading your
28 statements and your private interviews?
29 A. Yeah.
15:57:59 30 Q. 895 You know that an important motion took place in May of the previous year, in

www.pcr.ie Day 652
114
15:58:05 1 the council in relation to Cherrywood, don't you?
2 A. In May of 92.
3 Q. 896 Yes?
4 A. Yes, which motion now?
15:58:16 5 Q. 897 I want to get this absolutely straight?
6 A. Right.
7 Q. 898 At this stage, because otherwise we'll waste an awful lot of time?
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. 899 In May 92 there was a motion, sorry there were a number of motions?
15:58:33 10 A. Yeah.
11 Q. 900 I am not going to go into them in detail, Mr. Lydon proposed the manager's
12 motion for in relation to, in relation to which would provide for the density
13 of houses per acre for the Monarch lands?
14 A. Mm-hmm.
15:58:54 15 Q. 901 Just, I'm sorry I don't, maybe I don't think you need to refer to anything just
16 at the moment?
17 A. I just want to get the time line right, it's important the time line is
18 correct.
19 Q. 902 It's very important, it's May 92?
15:59:05 20 A. Well on foot of you saying it's very important that's why I want to get the
21 time line right, yeah I have it.
22 Q. 903 And I won't go into the detail but there were 11 motions that day the first one
23 was that Mr. Lydon's motion in relation to the lands was defeated 35 to 33, and
24 it ended up with Mr. Barrett's motion which provided for one house per acre for
15:59:35 25 the lands. Now that was in May 92 and I just want to make sure we're all
26 talking about the same thing?
27 A. Yeah, yes. I see -- my time line is suggesting that on the 27th of May 1992
28 there was consideration of DP 92/44 and there was 11 motions.
29 Q. 904 Yes.
15:59:59 30 A. There was a motion in the name of Lydon and McGrath.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
115
16:00:02 1 Q. 905 I think I have said all that Mr. Dunlop. There is no need for you to repeat it
2 to the Tribunal?
3 A. No, I just want to satisfy myself that we are talking about the same thing, yes
4 correct.
16:00:12 5 Q. 906 May 92, you are clear on that?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. 907 All right. Now you were not on board, you were not on Cherrywood's board on
8 that date?
9 A. No.
16:00:21 10 Q. 908 You didn't come, and I don't mean board of a company, you weren't on the team?
11 A. No.
12 Q. 909 You didn't come in until March 93?
13 A. No.
14 Q. 910 Because you do say in your interviews, sorry in your statements and in your
16:00:34 15 interviews on a number of occasions you do say you came in the end of 92, early
16 93 etcetera and that's fine?
17 A. Yes, that's in private sessions.
18 Q. 911 No, no. Yes private sessions and in your statement you talk about?
19 A. Yeah, correct.
16:00:47 20 Q. 912 Between the end of 92 and March 93 and there is other evidence along those
21 lines, but certainly at one stage you say that you must have got your dates
22 wrong and you, because of Mr. Barrett's motion and that you must have been on
23 the team earlier than you thought, and I didn't, wasn't sure what the position
24 was, but you have now confirmed --
16:01:10 25 A. No, I wasn't on board.
26 Q. 913 In May 92 you were not there and you weren't there until March 93?
27 A. No, I was not on the board. I was aware of what was going on because I was
28 there.
29 Q. 914 But that was a social casual business?
16:01:23 30 A. Yes, correct.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
116
16:01:24 1 Q. 915 Isn't that right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 916 All right. Chairman what would you like to do?
16:01:51 5 CHAIRMAN: I am just wondering, we can sit for another 15 minutes or so, you
6 won't be long I take it with Mr. Dunlop tomorrow.
7 Q. 917 I will Chairman.
9 CHAIRMAN: You will? How long.
16:02:06 10 Q. 918 I don't know.
11
12 CHAIRMAN: Could you give the Tribunal some --
13 Q. 919 We have somebody fixed for 10 o'clock who will take an hour.
14
16:02:16 15 CHAIRMAN: All right and then how long approximately would you be then to
16 finish Mr. Dunlop?
17 Q. 920 I would have thought I will take the day, there is a witness specially fixed at
18 4 o'clock tomorrow.
19
16:02:42 20 CHAIRMAN: We'll sit for another 20 minutes or so.
21 Q. 921 Now Mr. Dunlop, the meeting, the afternoon, Monday, the only people at that
22 meeting are yourself and Mr. Sweeney, whom you haven't met before?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 922 And he was the person who phoned you, but I think you said it was -- sorry, I
16:03:17 25 think you said it was set up by Mr. Lawlor, that Mr. Lawlor was responsible for
26 mentioning your name to Mr. Sweeney?
27 A. Well, what I have said is that Mr. Lawlor said to me subsequent to the meeting
28 that he knew that I had --
29 Q. 923 That the meeting had taken place?
16:03:30 30 A. Yes and from that I --

www.pcr.ie Day 652
117
16:03:32 1 Q. 924 All right?
2 A. I, legitimately or otherwise, deduced that, deducted that, deduced that he had
3 been responsible in some fashion or other for the suggestion.
4 Q. 925 I think if you are deducing that I think it's possibly, and your experience in
16:03:48 5 other cases, it's probably the case, is that right?
6 A. Yes, I would accept that.
7 Q. 926 But he hadn't said anything to you about the fact of that?
8 A. No.
9 Q. 927 All right. Now 571 please, line 19 your answer in private interviews
16:04:18 10 Mr. Dunlop, is "The introduction was facilitated by Liam Lawlor with Eddie
11 Sweeney at Monarch's offices in Harcourt Street" which is what you have said "I
12 met with Eddie Sweeney and Liam Lawlor at that office. Sweeney explained to
13 me" etcetera etcetera?
14 A. Yes.
16:04:37 15 Q. 928 Now what does that mean?
16 A. Well, as I have said in my statement, I went and I spoke to Eddie Sweeney,
17 there was no other person present, I did meet with Mr. Sweeney and other
18 representatives of Monarch on various occasions with Mr. Lawlor present.
19 Q. 929 No, no, the first meeting Mr. Dunlop, you said a moment ago that you were there
16:05:10 20 on your own with Mr. Sweeney?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 930 And this is the introduction, so on, you said I met with Eddie Sweeney and Liam
23 Lawlor at that office where you are saying that in fact at that first meeting
24 you met Mr. Lawlor?
16:05:24 25 A. I know that's what it says. What I am saying is there was no other person
26 present with Mr. Sweeney when I met him first, yes I did meet with Mr. Sweeney
27 and Mr. Lawlor and others on various occasions in that office, in the board
28 room, not in Mr. Sweeney's office in particular, but in the board room.
29 Q. 931 Yes. So what you said there to the Tribunal in private interview is wrong?
16:05:52 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
118
16:05:52 1 Q. 932 Mr. Lawlor was not present at the first meeting?
2 A. He was not present at the first meeting, he was present at other meetings.
3 Q. 933 How many meetings did you have with anybody in relation to Monarch, in their
4 offices first of all, how many times did you go to their offices after March,
16:06:11 5 after this date?
6 A. Well I can't give you an exact figure but I think they are all documented in,
7 certainly in my diary.
8 Q. 934 Yes?
9 A. And I can't put a figure on it.
16:06:25 10 Q. 935 Roughly?
11 A. Let's count, that's the easiest thing to do, isn't it?
12
13 CHAIRMAN: Well, just for the moment Mr. Dunlop was it more than six or seven?
14 A. Yes, certainly more than six or seven, certainly.
16:06:53 15
16 CHAIRMAN: Well that will do?
17 A. Sorry just for clarification, there were certainly more than six or seven
18 meetings, it doesn't necessarily mean all of them were with Mr. Eddie Sweeney.
19 I had meetings with Richard Lynn, I had meetings with one of which Mr. Phil
16:07:12 20 Monahan was present and other board members of Monarch, but yes certainly
21 Chairman, more than six.
22 Q. 936 So you had more than six meetings in Monarch's office, is that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 937 The first one with was Mr. Sweeney on his own and other times with different
16:07:40 25 people?
26 A. Correct.
27 Q. 938 Page 576 please. Question 12 towards the bottom of the page.
28 "Question: Did you ever meetings in the offices of Monarch in relation to
29 this, apart from the initial meeting with Eddie Sweeney and Liam Lawlor?
16:08:08 30 Answer: After that first one.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
119
16:08:11 1 Question: Yes.
2 Answer: Yes I did, I was there on one other occasion, again in the presence of
3 Eddie Sweeney, Liam Lawlor and a gentleman I think whose name I mentioned
4 already Murray. Noel Murray, yes, and to which meeting Phil Monahan made a
16:08:26 5 fleeting visit, just came in stood in the room, said we are getting there,
6 we'll get there, we'll get what we want, I have been looking after things and
7 then he walked out" then something about Mr. Lynn participating in that
8 meeting. So, according to you Mr. Dunlop, you only had two meetings in
9 Monarch's offices, and for the second time according to this, Mr. Lawlor was at
16:08:50 10 the first one?
11 A. Right. Let me just short circuit this if I may and if it's acceptable to you,
12 the only time I ever met Mr. Sweeney was in his office, I did not meet
13 Mr. Sweeney in Dublin County Council, I have never met Mr. Sweeney socially,
14 the only place I met him was in Harcourt Street and while I was stopped doing
16:09:22 15 so I was on, in the process of counting the number of entries in my diary to
16 Mr. Sweeney and they are as the Chairman asked me, they are certainly more
17 than, they are certainly more than six or seven.
18 Q. 939 So anyway the point being anyway?
19 A. Yes I met him more than twice.
16:09:48 20 Q. 940 In his office?
21 A. In his -- I never met him anywhere other than his office. I met other people
22 from Monarch elsewhere but I never met Mr. Sweeney.
23 Q. 941 You are absolutely clear about that?
24 A. Yes.
16:09:57 25 Q. 942 And on the one hand you only had two meetings in his office but then you are
26 telling us now that you had more than six meetings?
27 A. As per my diary.
28 Q. 943 Yes. Why did you say to Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Hanratty, Mr. Hanratty and
29 Mr. Gallagher in May 2000 when you were coming clean with the Tribunal, why did
16:10:17 30 you say to them that you only had two meetings in Monarch offices and

www.pcr.ie Day 652
120
16:10:21 1 Mr. Lawlor was at the first one?
2 A. That I cannot tell you.
3 Q. 944 It wasn't true, isn't that right?
4 A. No it wasn't accurate at that point, no and I did not, had not trawled through
16:10:32 5 my diaries at that stage.
6 Q. 945 But sure you would have known, wouldn't you when you met them twice or more
7 than six times, isn't that right?
8 A. You might.
9 Q. 946 All right. So Mr. Dunlop then the conversation that you had with Mr. Sweeney,
16:10:57 10 presumably I don't know, you asked him why you were there or he said -- sorry,
11 what did he say to you on the phone, did he ask you would you come on board or
12 he wanted to take your advice?
13 A. No he wanted to talk to me, he wanted -- and while I cannot say definitively he
14 wanted to talk to me about Cherrywood I think it would be, you know -- he
16:11:23 15 either said it or I assumed that it was Cherrywood he wanted to talk to me
16 about.
17 Q. 947 About what, did he say like any more detail?
18 A. No, no.
19 Q. 948 He'd like to talk to you maybe he said about Cherrywood and you said yes and
16:11:37 20 you arranged a meeting?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 949 You went in to him in his office?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. 950 And how long of a conversation, how long did the meeting last?
16:11:45 25 A. I can't tell you that, it was certainly wasn't short, but it certainly wasn't
26 excessively long either but I mean half an hour or more.
27 Q. 951 Half an hour, okay. So what did he, and what did he say to you?
28 A. What he said to me, he explained the background to what he wanted to talk to me
29 about, he wanted to talk to me about Cherrywood and the difficulties that they
16:12:25 30 were facing.

www.pcr.ie Day 652
121
16:12:27 1 Q. 952 Mm-hmm.
2 A. And in relation to Dublin County Council, he was of the view that they would
3 get some type of zoning but that it might be less than what the company
4 anticipated and if they weren't careful they might get nothing. I'm not saying
16:13:09 5 they were his exact words, I am giving you the culture of the meeting. And --
6 Q. 953 The what of the meeting?
7 A. The culture of the meeting, what the subject of the discussion was Cherrywood
8 and he was outlining the difficulties that they were facing with Dublin County
9 Council, that there was some internal difference of opinion about whether or
16:13:44 10 not the company should persist in seeking to achieve what it had originally
11 looked for or whether or not they should compromise and I was left with the
12 impression that the opinion of the owner of the company, Mr. Monahan, was that
13 the company should persist or however difficult it was going to be or fight the
14 battle in the Development Plan, for what it had originally looked for, as
16:14:29 15 distinct from compromising. Now, he did say to me that Richard Lynn and
16 Phillip Reilly had extensive contacts with councillors and that they had done a
17 good job, that they had -- which was something I knew already myself because I
18 knew of the extent of the contact that they had with the councillors. And that
19 he thought I might be of help in, I think I said in my statement, in
16:15:22 20 unscrambling some of the confusion that had taken place among, at council
21 level, as a result of various things that happened up to that point which
22 brings into focus the reference that you made earlier on, to a motion in 1992,
23 which had been defeated, notwithstanding the fact if my recollection is
24 correct, that the motion on which the councillors were voting was recommended
16:15:57 25 by the manager for a specific zoning and a specific number of housing units per
26 acre, but nonetheless low and be hold, but maybe in a spirit of consistency
27 with which councillors operated in Dublin County Council they voted against the
28 manager and the motion was lost, and so another attempt to re introduce the
29 matter or to have the matter re introduced had to be undertaken.
16:16:35 30

www.pcr.ie Day 652
122
16:16:35 1 We talked about the contact that Richard Lynn had and that Phillip Reilly had,
2 there was a comment about the extensive contact that Mr. Phil Monahan had with
3 politicians, and if the company wasn't careful the whole thing could collapse,
4 they would end up with nothing. Neither one house to the acre nor four houses
16:17:21 5 to the acre or a district centre or anything. Mr. Sweeney indicated to me that
6 he knew of my relationship with Dublin County Council and that I had been
7 successful in other matters and used words to the effect that you know, you
8 have to do what you have to do to get things done in Dublin County Council.
16:18:08 10 We had a discussion about costs, about fees and we agreed 25,000. I didn't --
11 yes I did, I mentioned that. Yes, I think that, as I say the culture and tone
12 of the conversation was along those lines, and would I, would I undertake to
13 help out and I said I would. That's the meeting I think.
14
16:19:21 15 CHAIRMAN: All right Mr. Murphy, I think we'll leave it there and take it up
16 tomorrow morning. Mr. Dunlop needn't be here until when?
17
18 MS. DILLON: I think 11 o'clock, the Tribunal is sitting at 10 am tomorrow
19 morning to facilitate Mr. Gilmore. Mr Gilmore is facilitating the Tribunal by
16:19:39 20 coming at ten tomorrow and his evidence is expected to be concluded by 11.
21
22 CHAIRMAN: All right. So it's 11 o'clock for Mr. Dunlop.
23
24 MS. DILLON: Yes, not before 11 o'clock.
16:19:52 25
26 CHAIRMAN: 10 o'clock for us.
27
28 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING DAY
29 WEDNESDAY 14TH JUNE 2006 AT 10 AM.
30

www.pcr.ie Day 652
1
2 1ST JUNE, 2006, AT 10:30 A.M.:
10:38:06 5
8 MR. QUINN: Mr. GV Wright, please.
10:38:13 10 MR. KENNEDY: Chairman, I make the usual application on behalf of Mr. Wright.
11
12 CHAIRMAN: Sure.
13
14 MR. THOMAS GV WRIGHT, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS QUESTIONED
10:38:24 15 BY MR. QUINN AS FOLLOWS:
16
17 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Mr. Wright.
18 A. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
19
10:38:43 20 Q. 1 MR. QUINN: Good morning, Mr. Wright.
21 A. Good morning.
22 Q. 2 Mr. Wright, I think you were a member of Dublin County Council from 1985 to
23 1993 and thereafter a member of Fingal County Council, isn't that right?
10:38:55 25 Q. 3 I think you were the whip of the Fianna Fail members of Dublin County Council
26 at some stage or the leader of the Fianna Fail members of Dublin County
27 Council.
28 A. I was whip.
29 Q. 4 What period was that?
10:39:11 30 A. Probably after the local elections of '91.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
2
10:39:15 1 Q. 5 So between June, July of '91?
2 A. Yeah, I think so.
3 Q. 6 Until, when did you cease -- were you a whip right up until December '93?
4 A. Yes.
10:39:26 5 Q. 7 So between June '91 and December '93 you were the whip of the Fianna Fail
6 councillors in Dublin County Council?
7 A. Yes, I think you're right. I hope I'm right in saying that, sorry.
8 Q. 8 Now, I think you were written to in February of this year and again in March.
9 If I could have 2339 in connection with lands at Cherrywood. Isn't that
10:39:46 10 right? And you were asked a series of questions in relation to those lands and
11 you were asked to provide a statement. I think yesterday evening your
12 solicitor faxed through to the Tribunal, a statement which is at 8492 of the
13 brief. And in that statement I think you say at paragraph one that you had
14 received approaches from Phil Monahan, Richard Lynn and Noel Murray in relation
10:40:10 15 to the Cherrywood lands. Isn't that right?
16 A. That's correct
17 Q. 9 And these are the people that you had contact with in relation to the
18 Cherrywood lands?
19 A. Correct.
10:40:16 20 Q. 10 I think you then went on to say that you had limited contact with Phil Monahan
21 having been approached by him on one or maybe two occasions. Most of my
22 contacts would have been with Richard Lynn whom I would describe as a lobbiest
23 on behalf of the Cherrywood project. Did you know Mr. Lynn in the context of
24 lobbying on behalf of other projects other than Monarch related projects?
10:40:35 25 A. At later times.
26 Q. 11 Yes. You would have known him in that period?
27 A. In later times, yes.
28 Q. 12 But in the period that you were the whip of the Fianna Fail councillors you
29 would have associated him with the Cherrywood project and Monarch in
10:40:49 30 particular?

www.pcr.ie Day 646
3
10:40:49 1 A. Basically, yes.
2 Q. 13 You say Mr. Lynn would have approached me on numerous occasions seeking my
3 support for the Cherrywood project and I also recall that he visited my
4 constituency office in Malahide on at least one occasion. Can you recall that
10:41:01 5 occasion and the circumstances under which he came?
6 A. I can. I remember the meeting took place.
7 Q. 14 When did the meeting take place?
8 A. I'm not sure.
9 Q. 15 And at whose invitation did the meeting take place?
10:41:09 10 A. I'm sure it was Mr. Lynn's.
11 Q. 16 And was it by prior appointment?
12 A. I'm sure it was. I think I mentioned later on that I would have known another
13 director of the company at the time as well.
14 Q. 17 Yes. Can you recall what was discussed at the meeting?
10:41:21 15 A. I would have thought if I remember correctly, that he made proposals of some
16 sort of the ...
17 Q. 18 Of Cherrywood, in relation to Cherrywood?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 19 You go on to say that Mr. Noel Murray whom I mentioned I would have known
10:41:37 20 through mutual involvement in local community matters in the Portmarnock and
21 Malahide area, would have sought my support for the Cherrywood proposals on
22 behalf of Monarch.
23
24 So really what you are you are suggesting there I think is, that the situation
10:41:47 25 was that you were being lobbied by Mr. Murray who was with Monarch, but a local
26 supporter, Mr. Lynn and Mr. Monaghan. Is that correct?
27 A. That would be correct. Yeah.
28 Q. 20 And you go on then at 8493 to say that "In an earlier statement 17th of
29 November 2004 in the context of another module you identified a payment from
10:42:08 30 Monarch in the sum of 1,000 pounds." Isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 646
4
2 Q. 21 That's what you say you had received by way of a payment during the 1992
3 General Election. I think you were a candidate in the 1992 General Election.
4 Isn't that right?
10:42:19 5 A. I was.
6 Q. 22 Now, I think that's exactly what you also told the Fianna Fail Inquiry. Isn't
7 that right?
9 Q. 23 If we could have 2295, please. I think you advised the Fianna Fail Inquiry
10:42:31 10 that in the 1992 General Election campaign, you had received a sum of 1,000
11 pounds from Monarch and that the donation was unsolicited political donations
12 for election and constituency purposes, isn't that right?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. 24 In a moment we'll come to this but I think the reality is that you received a
10:42:48 15 further 2,000 pounds in December of the same year.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 25 That you did not bring to either the attention of the Tribunal or that inquiry.
18 Is that correct?
10:42:57 20 Q. 26 You go on to say that "I also acknowledge this particular payment in my
21 discussions with Fianna Fail and it's confirmed in the report issued by Fianna
22 Fail." And this report is also part of the brief of documents that relate to
23 this particular module.
24
10:43:07 25 Just in relation to that. I think in a prior module you also discovered that
26 there was a payment that you had received I think was it from Mr. Jones?
28 Q. 27 That you hadn't brought to the attention of that inquiry also at that time?
29 A. Yes.
10:43:18 30 Q. 28 Since that evidence have you been contacted in any way by the inquiry or by

www.pcr.ie Day 646
5
10:43:25 1 Fianna Fail in relation to your edition at the time?
2 A. No.
3 Q. 29 Then you go on to say that "I have also noted that in the list of payments
4 provided by Mr. Noel Smyth on behalf of Phil Monahan, with a letter of 22nd of
10:43:39 5 June 2000 there are two further payments for 300 pounds paid to me on the 13th
6 of June 1991, and a further sum of 2,000 pounds paid on the 16th of December
7 1992. 300 pounds described in the list of payments is in respect of the Local
8 Elections expenses in the December 1992 payment is described as being in
9 respect of Senate Election expenses."
10:44:01 10
11 It's fair to say that when you came to compile this statement you had the brief
12 and you knew that --
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 30 That the documentation was going in so to show that you had in fact received
10:44:11 15 this money?
16 A. Yes. That's correct.
17 Q. 31 Just in relation to that. If I could just perhaps, if we could get up the
18 actual Monarch discovery itself. If we could have 1581. This shows a
19 payment on the 13th of June. It's the third last from the bottom "GV Wright,
10:44:25 20 FF Local Election expenses 300 pounds". And I think you know accept that that
21 was received by you?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 32 Would you have sought that support?
24 A. No, I don't think so.
10:44:35 25 Q. 33 You don't believe so. In their discovery to the Tribunal and in their
26 correspondence with the Tribunal. If I could have 1579. Solicitors on
27 behalf of the Monarch interests, so to speak, have advised the Tribunal that in
28 relation to the 1991 list, which is the one we have just been looking at. All
29 the contributions are believed to have arisen on foot of requests for assist to
10:44:56 30 defray Local Election expenses, save as set out, no records have been located

www.pcr.ie Day 646
6
10:45:01 1 in this regard.
2 As I understand it, Monarch are there saying and in their evidence will be when
3 they come to give evidence that in fact any payment made at that time was
4 solicited. You dispute that?
10:45:14 5 A. I have no record of any request.
6 Q. 34 Well was it your practice to issue requests for payment?
7 A. No. Only on fundraising events.
8 Q. 35 So you say that you didn't request?
9 A. No.
10:45:26 10 Q. 36 Either the 300 pounds payment?
11 A. No.
12 Q. 37 They do say in that letter, they go on to say in the last paragraph in relation
13 to the 1992, '93 payments, that "again it is believed that these contributions
14 would have arisen on foot of requests for assistance to defray such expenses".
10:45:42 15 Did you seek?
16 A. That wouldn't be my recollection.
17 Q. 38 That wouldn't be your recollection.
18 A. No.
19 Q. 39 Okay. So you say that Monarch in '91 gave you 300 pounds which wasn't
10:45:52 20 solicited?
22 Q. 40 And in November '92 gave you a further 1,000 pounds and then in December '93
23 gave you a further 2,000 pounds, is that right?
10:46:03 25 Q. 41 And none of those payments have been solicited?
27 Q. 42 Just in relation to the 1,000 pounds. We see that cheque. If I could have
28 8364, please. This is on the 17th November 1992, a cheque made payable to GV
29 Wright, do you see that?
10:46:19 30 A. I do, yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
7
10:46:20 1 Q. 43 If I could have 8365, please. There are numbers on back of the cheque. Do
2 you recognise that No. 30013187. Is that an account?
3 A. I don't recognise it.
4 Q. 44 Okay. Do you know where this money was negotiated?
10:46:38 5 A. I believe it was sent to the office.
6 Q. 45 Yes.
8 MR. KENNEDY: Chairman, I think that account has been -- just off the top of my
9 head -- I think that account has been discovered to the Tribunal long since.
10:46:48 10 I believe it to be an ICS Building Society conducted through Bank of Ireland
11 Malahide. And that's long since identified by Mr. Wright. And the Tribunal
12 are aware of it.
13
10:46:59 15
16 MR. KENNEDY: I think that is the account in question. You can see the
17 spelling of Malahide.
18
19 CHAIRMAN: Yes, Bank of Ireland anyway.
10:47:08 20
21 Q. 46 MR. QUINN: This is the National Irish -- the Irish Civil Service Building
22 Society account, is that right, Mr. Wright?
23 A. Yes.
24
10:47:19 25 MR. KENNEDY: And that business is conduct the through the Bank of Ireland
26 branch in Malahide that's the way -- there is a linkage between ICS and Bank of
27 Ireland, Chairman.
28
29 Q. 47 MR. QUINN: Now, we don't have the 2,000 pounds cheque 2960, please.
10:47:32 30

www.pcr.ie Day 646
8
10:47:32 1 This appears to be a cheque dated the 16th of December 1992 or a request for a
2 cheque of the 16th of December 1992, cheque No. 73519. And for 2,000 pounds.
3 Do you recall receiving that payment?
4 A. I do. Well I make a point at this moment in time. It may have been sent to
10:47:57 5 the office as well. I just make the point, I believe at that stage I was
6 probably in the Senate campaign at that stage.
7 Q. 48 Yes.
8 A. And in the context of that, I could be out of the office for a week or maybe
9 more at times.
10:48:10 10 Q. 49 Yes. If we could have 3957, please. This appears to be the internal request
11 and you are named second on that list. 2,000 pounds GV Wright Fianna Fail.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 50 You say that's a payment made to you at that time which had not been requested
14 or sought by you. Did you know that the payment had been made?
10:48:32 15 A. I now know.
16 Q. 51 I know. Did you know in December 1992 that the payment had been made?
17 A. It's quite possible that I wouldn't have been in the office when that cheque
18 arrived.
19 Q. 52 At this time you were the --
10:48:44 20 A. I'm basically saying I would have been on a Senate campaign and a Senate
21 campaign takes you out of the office, you could be down in the country. It's
22 basically a country wide campaign. And you could be out of the office for a
23 week.
24 Q. 53 You were the whip of the Fianna Fail grouping within the office at this time,
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 54 You would probably have been the most influential councillor within the Fianna
28 Fail grouping at the time?
29 A. No.
10:49:07 30 Q. 55 You dispute that?

www.pcr.ie Day 646
9
10:49:08 1 A. Of course I do.
2 Q. 56 And what function did you have as whip?
3 A. Whip basically as a secretarial basis. You would work it as a secretary.
4 Q. 57 You.
10:49:19 5 A. There was no whip within the party system when I was there.
6 Q. 58 You had no whip at all?
7 A. Of course there was a whip. No whip in relation to anybody's vote.
8 Q. 59 You were a member of Fianna Fail -- sorry. You were a member of Dublin County
9 council as a Fianna Fail councillor before the June '91 election?
10:49:36 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 60 And I think Mr. Dunne had in fact been the whip at that time, is that right?
12 A. He was, yes.
13 Q. 61 Evidence has been given here by Fianna Fail colleagues of your's including
14 Mr. Madigan. That Mr. Dunne organised and effectively shepherded councillors
10:49:51 15 to vote on particular issues. Did you see or observe or were you ever the
16 subject of any such --
17 A. I think the majority of my colleagues would dispute that.
18 Q. 62 Would dispute that?
19 A. Although basically everybody I would suspect, would vote with their own
10:50:05 20 intentions and that was always the way I operated.
21 Q. 63 Did you organise the meetings in your capacity as whip that took place above
22 the licenced premises in Conways?
23 A. I would have. Yes. On the basis, can I just make the point there.
24 Q. 64 Yes.
10:50:19 25 A. I think I mentioned the last time. The only facilities within the council was
26 a room that would take about 10 or 12 people.
27 Q. 65 And were you instrumental in your capacity as whip in organising the agenda and
28 when and what matters would be discussed at council?
29 A. The agenda would be the agenda of the council.
10:50:37 30 Q. 66 Did the council ever liaise with you on what would be discussed?

www.pcr.ie Day 646
10
10:50:41 1 A. No, I wouldn't be sending out any agenda.
2 Q. 67 No, no, I'm not saying you would send out the agenda. But did you ever discuss
3 the upcoming agenda and agree it with other whips or council officials?
4 A. No.
10:50:50 5 Q. 68 There was never any liaison?
6 A. Other than the council itself maybe wanting a certain agenda.
7 Q. 69 Exactly. Did the council officials ever discuss an upcoming agenda or what
8 might be included in an agenda with you in your capacity as whip?
9 A. Yeah. That could happen now and again but not on a regular basis.
10:51:09 10 Q. 70 Yes. Now --
11 A. There would be based sorry, Mr. Quinn, they would be based on whether the
12 council had some business that they wanted through at a certain date and time.
13 Q. 71 If we could -- Mr. Lynn has submitted a number of expenses claim forms, which
14 have been the subject of the, this module.
10:51:30 15
16 If I could have 4320. This is one such form in relation to the company
17 Cherrywood Properties Limited, which is the Carrickmines company. It's dated
18 the 30th of July 1993. It's in relation to the Draft Development Plan. It's
19 in D Lydon/GV Wright and there is an expenses claim which I'm not particularly
10:51:54 20 concerned about. Do you recall meeting Mr. Lynn in July '93 in the company of
21 Mr. Lydon in relation to Cherrywood?
23 Q. 72 Could such a meeting have taken place?
24 A. It's possible.
10:52:06 25 Q. 73 Had it taken place, where would it have taken place?
26 A. I couldn't tell you. Most of my contacts with Mr. Lynn would have been in
27 Dublin County Council itself.
28 Q. 74 Yes.
29 A. In the offices itself. Other than the one or two occasions that he may have
10:52:21 30 come to the constituency office.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
11
10:52:22 1 Q. 75 Otherwise they would have taken place in the County Council office?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 76 Did you have an office in the council.
4 A. No.
10:52:28 5 Q. 77 If the meetings were it take place at the council where --
6 A. There is a Fianna Fail room. There's a party room for each party.
7 Q. 78 Do you recall meeting Mr. Lynn or Mr. Monahan or any other representatives of
8 Monarch's in that Fianna Fail room in --
9 A. I would have thought I would have met Mr. Lynn, I'm sure of it.
10:52:45 10 Q. 79 At that room. Did you ever see Mr. Lynn in the lobby of the Fianna Fail or of
11 the council sorry?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 80 Now, on the 12th of November 1993. If we could have 4655, please. Again,
14 there is a further expenses claim form in respect of the Cherrywood Properties
10:52:59 15 Limited. Described as an expense in connection with the Draft Development
16 Plan GV Wright. Do you see that?
17 A. I do.
18 Q. 81 That would have been the day following the meeting at which the lands were
19 zoned at four houses to the acre, isn't that right?
10:53:16 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 82 Do you recall meeting --
22 A. I don't.
23 Q. 83 Mr. Lynn or any of the Monarch representatives in or around that vote of the
24 11th November?
10:53:22 25 A. I couldn't give an answer to that. I just haven't got a recollection.
26 Q. 84 Yes. 26th of November 1993. If we could have 4738, please. The further
27 meeting Draft Development Plan, GV Wright. Did you meet Mr. Lynn on November
28 '93?
29 A. I could have.
10:53:40 30 Q. 85 Okay.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
12
10:53:40 1 A. As I say, I mean, I have no -- knowing of what Mr. Lynn put in for expenses.
2 Q. 86 I'm not particularly concerned about the amounts. I would be anxious to what
3 they were spent on. We'll ask Mr. Lynn that. The dates are really what I'm
4 concerned about and the actual corroboration of meetings between you and Mr.
10:54:01 5 Lynn.
6 A. He may have over the period, as you know, the file went on for so long. He
7 may well have been updating various councillors on that.
8 Q. 87 But the matter had been completed at this stage on 12th, 13th of November, 26th
9 of November '93. Did you ever meet Mr. Lynn in Leinster House?
10:54:19 10 A. I probably, would have, yes.
11 Q. 88 How would that have taken place?
12 A. He that may have asked to see me. I was the leader and chief whip of the
13 party from '91 onwards in the Senate. I would have been very involved over a
14 full week in the Dail.
10:54:34 15 Q. 89 So you actually had the dual role of being the whip of the Fianna Fail members
16 of Dublin Council after '91 and also the whip of the Fianna Fail Senators in
17 the Senate?
18 A. And for a period of time the whip when I was also leader of the Fianna Fail in
19 the Senate. Yes.
10:54:49 20 Q. 90 Leader and whip?
21 A. No, leader.
22 Q. 91 Leader.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 92 So you were whip and subsequently leader of the Fianna Fail Senators?
10:54:57 25 A. Correct.
26 Q. 93 And you were throughout the --
27 A. Correct.
28 Q. 94 Whip of the councillors?
29 A. Correct.
10:55:01 30 Q. 95 If I could have 4926. This is a document discovered by Monarch. It appears

www.pcr.ie Day 646
13
10:55:13 1 to be from Quick Stream Couriers. And one of the items that appears to have
2 been couriered is something to you on the 7th of December 1993 at Leinster
3 House. Do you see -- sorry 4926. Do you recall getting something from
4 Monarch in Leinster House in December '93.
10:55:35 5 A. It may have been an update of their proposals. But I have no recollection of
6 that.
7 Q. 96 Yes. Again into early January '94. If I could have 4951. There is a
8 further reference to a possible meeting with you on the 21st of January '94.
9 We see there. Again on the 11th of February '94. If I could have 4972,
10:55:56 10 please. Further meeting and a claim by Mr. Lynn.
11
12 Now, at this stage you were a member of Fingal County Council, isn't that
13 right?
14 A. Yes.
10:56:03 15 Q. 97 Can you tell the Tribunal why Mr. Lynn would be meeting with you in connection
16 with Cherrywood if you are no longer a member of Dun Laoghaire -- or Dublin
17 County Council since Cherrywood fell into Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County
18 Council?
19 A. He may have had other files in the Fingal area.
10:56:19 20 Q. 98 I see. He appears to be putting this to the company Cherrywood Properties
21 Limited?
22 A. I can't understand that.
23 Q. 99 Did Mr. Lynn discuss other files with you in relation to other properties?
24 A. Yes.
10:56:29 25 Q. 100 And were you supportive throughout in relation to the Monarch development in
26 Cherrywood?
27 A. I took the view from the very beginning, the Manager's view that the lands, the
28 totality of the lands should be zoned both for residential and industrial and
29 employment, yes.
10:56:45 30 Q. 101 Yes. I don't think you were present at the first meeting on the first vote in

www.pcr.ie Day 646
14
10:56:50 1 December 1990 when DP90/123 was debated. But I think you did vote in favour
2 of the Manager's proposal as put forward by Councillors Lydon and McGrath on
3 27th of May '92. That was unsuccessful.
4 A. Yes.
10:57:07 5 Q. 102 The manager had brought that map 92/44, right, which would have suggested four
6 houses to the acre on an action area plan. You voted in support of that?
7 A. I would say that would be consistent with everything I've done within the
8 Development Plan.
9 Q. 103 But you voted against all of the motions and then the proposed low density
10:57:29 10 development on the same day?
11 A. Correct. Yes.
12 Q. 104 Including the motion by Councillors Barrett and Dockrell?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. 105 And then I think in November 1993 you supported the Marren Coffey proposal.
10:57:35 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 106 Which would have reinstated the lands at four houses to the acre.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 107 So your stance throughout would have been in support of the development as
19 being the motion by Cherrywood at that time?
10:57:46 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 108 If I could just in return I've dealt with February. There's one on March of
22 5,000. 11th of March '94. GV Wright again Cherrywood. Was Mr. Lynn
23 discussing Cherrywood with you in 1994?
24 A. I don't believe so.
10:58:07 25 Q. 109 If I --
26 A. As I say, I don't know Mr. Lynn's accounting procedures or otherwise.
27 Q. 110 Yes.
28 A. As I say, I had no loan whatsoever at that stage.
29 Q. 111 I am just going to read these for the record, Mr. Wright, so that they will be
10:58:22 30 on record but the expenses claim forms go forward for 15th of April '94 at

www.pcr.ie Day 646
15
10:58:27 1 5057.
2 The 20th of May 1994 at 5111.
3 24th of January '94 at 5232.
4 The 25th November '94 at 5512.
10:58:40 5 The 31st of March '95 at 5570.
6 29th of March 1996 at 5747.
7 24th of May '96 at 5951.
8 7th of June '96 at 5974.
9 And the 18th of April '97 at 66 -- 6311.
10:59:04 10
11 Could I just have that document on screen, please. 6311.
12
13 Again, you see Cherrywood Properties Limited and you see the third line down
14 Development Plan review GV Wright?
10:59:18 15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. 112 Do you see that?
17 A. I do.
18 Q. 113 Now, I think that you did receive on behalf of your election campaign in 1997 a
19 further sum of 1,000 pounds, isn't that right, from Mr. Lynn?
10:59:31 20 A. I'm not sure.
21 Q. 114 In fact, Mr. Murray, I should say.
22 A. Yeah.
23 Q. 115 6323, please. This is a cheque supplied by Monarch Properties Services
24 Limited to Fianna Fail Dublin north. And the enclosure of the letter is
10:59:49 25 directed to you. And it's dated the 3rd of June 1997.
26 A. That may well have been a fundraiser for the constituency.
27 Q. 116 Yes. Well, in fairness to you, the cheque isn't made payable to you. But the
28 letter enclosing the cheque is directed to you?
29 A. I obviously haven't got that in front of me but I suspect it would have been
11:00:08 30 for a constituency fundraiser.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
16
11:00:10 1 Q. 117 When you came to the Fianna Fail Inquiry three years later you didn't mention
2 that you had received a further 1,000 pounds, three years previously from
3 Monarch?
4 A. It may well not have been for me.
11:00:21 5 Q. 118 But you distinguished this 1, 000 from the earlier 3,000 in '92?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 119 In what way do you say that it's different?
8 A. Insofar as that I suspect that it was for a constituency function. That's all
9 I can put that down to.
11:00:35 10 Q. 120 Now, you continued to meet with Mr. Lynn in January June '97 at 6363 again in
11 the context of Cherrywood per Mr. Lynn.
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. 121 At 6376 on 15th of August 1997. And I think Mr. Murray will say that you got
14 a contribution of 500 pounds in June 1999 towards the Local Election expenses.
11:01:04 15 Do you recall receiving 500 from Mr. Murray in '99.
16 A. I do, yes. Can I just say in the context of those meetings -- I can't answer
17 for Mr. Lynn obviously as to why he is associated with Cherrywood. I would
18 have had no role whatsoever.
19 Q. 122 Did Mr. Lynn ever ask you to speak to any of your colleagues in connection with
11:01:22 20 his proposals in Cherrywood?
21 A. He would have asked me to support it.
22 Q. 123 He would have asked you to support it. But did he ever ask you to seek the
23 support of some of your colleagues for the development?
24 A. No. I mean, I think it's quite clear that he was lobbying ever single
11:01:36 25 individual, individually himself.
26 Q. 124 Did you ever lobby any of your colleagues for their support?
27 A. No.
28 Q. 125 Did you ever discuss any of matters if with your colleagues?
29 A. I'm sure it was discussed. There was a file that was going on for three or
11:01:49 30 four years, yes, it would have been discussed. But not in the context -- It

www.pcr.ie Day 646
17
11:01:52 1 was way outside of my area and it would have been dealt with that way.
2 Q. 126 Are you surprised that Mr. Lynn would have been so generous towards you and
3 your campaign over that period, considering that the property in question
4 wasn't within your constituency?
11:02:04 5 A. No. Insofar as Mr. Lynn and myself became good friends. And also I
6 mentioned Mr. Murray was, I dealt with Mr. Murray on several constituency
7 files, both in community and in person.
8 Q. 127 Was Mr. Murray a supporter of yours?
9 A. Yes. Well I think he is.
11:02:22 10 Q. 128 Yes. Is he, for example, in a Cumann or?
11 A. No, no.
12 Q. 129 But you would look on him as a friend and a supporter?
13 A. I would, yes.
14 Q. 130 And as you would Mr. Lynn?
11:02:34 15 A. Yes. Mr. Lynn has kept in touch. Obviously he has been involved in many
16 other projects over the last number of years.
17 Q. 131 Did you ever receive any other monies from Mr. Lynn or Mr. Murray other than
18 the ones we have?
19 A. No, absolutely not.
11:02:47 20 Q. 132 Thank you very much.
21
22 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kennedy do you want to ask a few questions?
23
24 THE WITNESS WAS QUESTIONED BY MR. KENNEDY AS FOLLOWS:
11:02:51 25
26 MR. KENNEDY: Just a few simple matters.
27 I just call up page 2339. It's the letter Mr. Wright got on 6th of February
28 2006 asking for a statement. And just direct the attention of the Tribunal to
29 the second paragraph where the period mentioned is January 1990 to 31st of
11:03:10 30 December 1994. I draw attention to that because Mr. Quinn has dealt with two

www.pcr.ie Day 646
18
11:03:16 1 payments which arose outside of that period. A cheque for 1, 000 in '97 I
2 think which was made payable to Fianna Fail Dublin north. And the 500 which
3 he has just dealt with that Mr. Murray gave in June 1999.
4 Just to put that on the record, Chairman.
11:03:34 5
6 And also to refer back to the cheque that Mr. Quinn drew attention to, that was
7 a copy of which was produced this morning. 1,000 pounds in November 1992.
9 Just I remind the Tribunal that in November of 2004, if we can call up page 238
11:04:00 10 I think. It's obliterated from my -- but it's the last page of his statement.
11 That Mr. Wright gave to the Tribunal. On the 17th of November 2004.
12
13 CHAIRMAN: Uh-huh.
14
11:04:13 15 MR. KENNEDY: He speculated. Page 2338. Sorry, Chairman, it's the previous
16 page.
17
18 He was explaining a lodgement. I would prefer if the page wasn't called up.
19 It includes two payments which relate to another matter which I think we are
11:04:37 20 not at liberty to disclose or to draw attention to here. But in the amounts he
21 mentions there he specifically identifies the Monarch cheque that, a copy of
22 which was produced this morning. As in his view possibly forming part of a
23 lodgement that went into that account.
24
26
27 MR. KENNEDY: That we referred to earlier, the ICS account. So I'm just
28 saying all of this to show that quite some time ago Mr. Wright had discovered
29 that particular account. And had offered a view that that particular cheque
11:05:07 30 was in a particular lodgement. That has now proven to be the case.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
19
11:05:13 1
2 And I think he should be given some credit for that. I have no specific
3 questions of Mr. Wright, Chairman.
7 MR. QUINN: Chairman, just arising out of what my friend has said. There are
8 just two matters which I should address.
11:05:25 10 If I could have 2341. My friend is correct that the first letter the 1st of
11 February 2006 did refer to the period 1st of January 1990 to 31st of December
12 1994 but you received I think, a further letter on the 7th March 2006. Which
13 asked for payments in respect of the named persons on 1st of January 1989 to
14 date. Isn't that right? Just to correct the record in that regard.
11:05:52 15
16 I appreciate my friend's desire not to call up the letter of the 31st of May.
17 We can bring up, because it's included in the brief, the Irish Civil Service
18 Building Society account which you have disclosed to the Tribunal. It's at
19 2328. And if we look at page 2329 we see a composite lodgement there I think
11:06:16 20 of 20,000 odd. And I think you advised the Tribunal that the Monarch payment
21 was included in at least 15,550 pounds of that lodgement, isn't that right?
22 But we don't see the 2,000 pounds December cheque being lodged to that account.
23 A. I couldn't tell you.
24 Q. 133 Thank you very much.
11:06:36 25
26 JUDGE FAHERTY: Just going to ask you Mr. Wright. Back in November '93, I
27 think Mr. Quinn has put it to and I think it's correct. You voted in favour
28 of the motion put forward by Mr. Marren and Ms. Coffey?
29 A. Yes.
11:06:52 30

www.pcr.ie Day 646
20
11:06:52 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: And I think from yesterday I think Ms. Dillon explained --
2 pointed out to me that the motion appeared to be dated 11th of November as I
3 understand it. So it's not clear whether it was -- it doesn't appear to have
4 been in the council offices at any time prior. You understand?
11:07:10 5 A. I do, yes.
7 JUDGE FAHERTY: So it would appear that it was formulated either that day or
8 certainly it's dated that day. And presumably you would have seen it or?
9 A. That's possible, yes.
11:07:20 10
11 JUDGE FAHERTY: Did you have any discussions with Ms. Coffey about the matter
12 can you recall?
13 A. No. She would have explained her position. Anyone that would sign a motion
14 would explain their position.
11:07:29 15
16 JUDGE FAHERTY: That's what I'm saying. Obviously she would have been your
17 Fianna Fail colleague.
18 A. Yes.
19
11:07:34 20 JUDGE FAHERTY: And she was the local representative if you like.
21 A. She would have explained and sought her support, which would happen with any
22 motion signed by any colleague anywhere.
23
24 JUDGE FAHERTY: You told Mr. Quinn earlier that you you had supported the
11:07:48 25 manager way back as far as 1990. He had quite ambitious plans for the whole
26 of the Carrickmines Valley.
27 A. Yes. Correct.
28
29 JUDGE FAHERTY: As I understand it. And again, even though he didn't get his
11:07:58 30 way with the councillors in relation to that back in '92 then when he, when the

www.pcr.ie Day 646
21
11:08:04 1 matter was brought forward again he was still trying to, if you like, bring
2 some aspect of that into his map.
3 A. Correct.
11:08:13 5 JUDGE FAHERTY: The 92/44 map. And I think you voted in favour of that.
6 Now it didn't pass, we know that. It was Mr. Barrett's motion that won the
7 day.
8 A. That's right.
11:08:23 10 JUDGE FAHERTY: And that the density was reduced. But can I just ask you,
11 given that if you like you had rolled in with the manager on those two
12 occasions --
13 A. Yes.
14
11:08:33 15 JUDGE FAHERTY: The manager on 11th of November was saying look, he was
16 recommending delete the whole of change three, which was where all of the
17 lands, including the Monarch lands, obviously a larger tract of lands was zoned
18 at one house to the acre and go back to what had gone out on the first display
19 which was four houses to the acre.
11:08:53 20 A. Correct.
21
22 JUDGE FAHERTY: And did you -- was there any discussion do you recall within
23 Fianna Fail group prior to the vote, as to the merits of what the manager was
24 recommending over and above the actual motion that was put forward on the day?
11:09:10 25 A. I think the motion that was successful would have been seen as a compromise.
26 It would have been seen as a motion that would possibly be successful. The
27 manager had tried on several occasions, as you stated, to deal with the
28 totality of the lands but there wasn't support within the council for it.
29
11:09:28 30 JUDGE FAHERTY: We've seen the map, indeed, and the outline of the -- it was

www.pcr.ie Day 646
22
11:09:32 1 the Monarch lands.
2 A. Correct.
4 JUDGE FAHERTY: Did you know on the 11th of November that -- because there's
11:09:38 5 no mention of Monarch on the motion I think. I think there was none.
6 A. I personally, I probably wouldn't have known that. It was so far out of my
7 area at the time, it wouldn't have been something that I would have been
8 conscious of. I would have known that --
11:09:53 10 JUDGE FAHERTY: Well did you know that Monarch -- Monarch had put in a
11 representation I think.
12 A. Yeah.
13
14 JUDGE FAHERTY: At some point. Wanting the, Mr. Barrett's, what had happened
11:10:05 15 because of Mr. Barrett's motion to go, to be deleted.
16 A. Yes.
17
18 JUDGE FAHERTY: And from what Mr. Quinn tells us, you were certainly the week
19 ending 12th of November -- it's not clear that it was the day obviously. In
11:10:16 20 Mr. Lynn's expense thing, he certainly had a meeting with you some time between
21 5th of November, that's the week ending the 12th. Sometime between 5th of
22 November '93 and 12th of November.
23 A. He may have, yes.
24
11:10:30 25 JUDGE FAHERTY:
26 Q. 134 Did he mention to you, do you recall, that --
27 A. I have no recollection. I'm sure he would have been lobbying. I'm sure he
28 was.
29
11:10:38 30 JUDGE FAHERTY: Because as I understand it, would -- was it normally motions --

www.pcr.ie Day 646
23
11:10:44 1 would Mr. Lynn have put in a representation. There was a letter gone in
2 anyway at some point in November from Mr. McCabe, who was the planner I think
3 for Monarch.
4 A. Yes.
11:10:55 5
6 JUDGE FAHERTY: And they were asking the council and the planners are
7 recommending that the whole of the amendment be deleted go back to four houses
8 to the acre.
9 A. Yes.
11:11:05 10
11 JUDGE FAHERTY: And do you ever recall Mr. Lynn discussing with you that a
12 motion might be put forward asking for four houses per acre for their lands?
13 A. I don't recall that. I think the motion may have been done on the day itself.
14
11:11:24 15 JUDGE FAHERTY: Just on asking you that. It was done on the day. As I
16 understand it, the council maps -- the council map per se that the council
17 would have in the offices would be the various maps. Map 27.
18 A. Yes
19
11:11:39 20 JUDGE FAHERTY: That was put out by the council. Now, I may be wrong here.
21 I just want to understand this. And obviously they would be easily got from
22 the council offices. If somebody wanted to put in a motion and get a map or
23 whatever.
24 A. Yes.
11:11:53 25
26 JUDGE FAHERTY: But we know that the map that was put up here I think in the
27 last few days has the Monarch boundaries, presumably, the boundaries of Monarch
28 on it.
29 A. Yes.
11:12:04 30

www.pcr.ie Day 646
24
11:12:04 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: So somebody would have had to know the Monarch boundaries.
2 I'm just wondering, Mr. Wright, if the motion and map is dated 11th of
3 November. You understand?
4 A. I do, yes.
11:12:19 5
6 JUDGE FAHERTY: And you know, the Monarch boundaries can only come from, I
7 don't know, maybe I'm wrong, from a folio or a registry or some map attached to
8 the title, do you understand?
9 A. I do. Yes.
11:12:26 10
11 JUDGE FAHERTY: Can you explain or do you know?
12 A. Well I'm sure --
13
14 JUDGE FAHERTY: If it was done, we don't know if it was done on the 11th, how
11:12:34 15 this could be achieved?
16 A. Well, basically I'm sure that Monarch would have supplied all of the
17 councillors with their landholdings. They would have supplied that.
18
19 JUDGE FAHERTY: So you are saying that that could come from the council?
11:12:42 20 A. Not just on this file this would happen --
21
22 JUDGE FAHERTY: Well, in fairness I think Monarch had put in a map with their
23 representations certainly back in November.
24 A. Yes.
11:12:51 25
26 JUDGE FAHERTY: But you don't recall any discussion as to why, if there was to
27 be a compromise --
28 A. No.
29
11:12:55 30 JUDGE FAHERTY: Why that would have to just be --

www.pcr.ie Day 646
25
11:12:58 1 A. No.
3 JUDGE FAHERTY: Because the maps, I don't want them to come up again. I'm
4 sure you are familiar enough with them. You may not be indeed. But the
11:13:06 5 potion of lands just immediately above the Monarch boundary --
6 A. Yeah.
8 JUDGE FAHERTY: That ran to what I think is the Druid's Glen, that remained
9 one house to the acre, and indeed all above that was one house to the acre.
11:13:19 10 Do you understand?
11 A. I do.
12
13 JUDGE FAHERTY: Why somebody wouldn't say if we are going to have a
14 compromise. Have a compromise where there may be a more understandable
11:13:30 15 boundary between the four houses to the acre and the one house.
16 A. I can't give you an answer to that.
17
18 JUDGE FAHERTY: I'm just asking ...
19 A. I can't give you an answer.
11:13:38 20
21 JUDGE FAHERTY: All right. Fair enough.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Chairman.
24 A. Thank you, Chairman.
11:13:44 25
27
28 MR. QUINN: Ms. Sheila Terry, please.
29
11:13:48 30

www.pcr.ie Day 646
26
11:13:48 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 646
27
11:13:48 1 MS. SHEILA TERRY HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS QUESTIONED BY
2 MR. QUINN AS FOLLOWS:
4 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Ms. Terry.
6 Q. 135 MR. QUINN: Good morning, Ms. Terry. You were written to you I think like the
7 previous witness on the 1st of February 2006. If I could have 2235, please.
8 You were asked for a statement in relation it your dealings with a number of
9 named individuals and companies concerning Cherrywood lands, isn't that right?
11:14:39 10 A. That's right.
11 Q. 136 And I think the early 1990s you were a member of Dublin County Council?
13 Q. 137 I think you were at the time, a member of the Progressive Democrats, then an
14 independent and latterly a member of Fine Gael, isn't that right?
11:14:55 15 A. That's right.
16 Q. 138 Now, you responded I think on 13th of February of this year. If I could have
17 2237.
18 And you advised the Tribunal that you had no specific memory of any servant or
19 agent of the Monarch Group speaking to you in relation to the lands. Isn't
11:15:12 20 that right?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. 139 You say that you knew "Mr. Richard Lynn, Philip Reilly and the late Phil
23 Monahan." Is that right?
24 A. Yes.
11:15:21 25 Q. 140 I think that you say that Mr. Lynn became an independent consultant lobbiest in
26 recent times, isn't that right?
28 Q. 141 Do you know Mr. Lynn?
29 A. Yes, I do.
11:15:31 30 Q. 142 And do you know him in that context, as an independent lobbiest and consultant?

www.pcr.ie Day 646
28
11:15:33 1 A. I do.
2 Q. 143 You would have known Mr. Lynn back in the early '90s I presume?
3 A. I would presume so. As I said in my letter, I don't remember meeting Mr. Lynn
4 in the early '90s but I would have to presume that I did because he was the
11:15:48 5 lobbiest as I remembered on behalf of Monarch.
6 Q. 144 Do you remember anybody lobbying you in the early '90s in relation to the
7 lands?
8 A. I don't have any specific memory of anybody lobbying me but that's not to say
9 that they didn't. I actually would presume that they did.
11:16:09 10 Q. 145 Did anyone within your party or any of your colleagues, any of your councillor
11 colleagues or indeed anyone else within your party, discuss with you the
12 proposals for the Cherrywood area in the early '90s?
13 A. If would have been policy within the party to discuss the agenda for the day on
14 specific days that we were meeting. But nobody would have asked me to vote
11:16:38 15 for it. We would just have had a general discussion on the agenda for the
16 day.
17 Q. 146 And where would that meeting or discuss take place?
18 A. In the party room in Dublin County Council offices.
19 Q. 147 Now, I think were you elected in June '91, is that right?
21 Q. 148 So you were there for the earlier votes in December '90 or May of '91, isn't
22 that right?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. 149 Your first occasion to vote on these lands came I think in May '92, isn't that
11:17:07 25 correct after they had been put up on public display?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 150 In a more recent letter then I think on 13th of March also you advised the
28 Tribunal of payments that you had received, isn't that right?
11:17:21 30 Q. 151 In relation to the matter. If I could have 2239, please.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
29
11:17:26 1 This appears to have been a cheque received by you in June of 1991 for 300
2 pounds, isn't that right?
3 A. That's right.
4 Q. 152 Now, you hadn't been a councillor, isn't that right?
6 Q. 153 You were a candidate in the June 1991 election?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 154 It would appear from that letter that you hadn't sought the contribution, isn't
9 that right.
11 Q. 155 Did you know a contribution had been sought on your behalf in June '91?
12 A. No.
13 Q. 156 Did you know Monarch Properties in June '91?
14 A. Probably not.
11:18:01 15 Q. 157 When I say Monarch Properties. Did you know of Monarch Properties in the
16 first instance. Secondly, did you know any of the personnel that had been
17 identified in the letter to you that we have been dealing with here?
18 A. I may have heard of Monarch Properties in the context of Quarryvale which was
19 an issue during the Local Elections.
11:18:22 20 Q. 158 Yes.
21 A. But I didn't know any of the lobbiests at that stage.
22 Q. 159 Did you know if contributions had been sought for Monarch in relation to other
23 candidates either by your party, either in your constituency or in other
24 constituencies in June '91?
11:18:39 25 A. No, I didn't know of any such requests.
26 Q. 160 Yes. Did you receive contributions from others in the June 1991 elections
27 which had been sought by others on your behalf?
28 A. To the best of my memory right now I don't think so.
29 Q. 161 Did you ever discuss how Monarch came to be selected as someone that should be,
11:19:08 30 support should be sought for in June '91?

www.pcr.ie Day 646
30
11:19:11 1 A. No.
2 Q. 162 But you did know sometime after June '91 that they had supported you because
3 they wrote directly to you as we see from that letter 19th of June?
4 A. Yes, of course.
11:19:22 5 Q. 163 How did the enclosure of 300 pounds compare to other political contributions at
6 that time for that election?
7 A. For the June '91 Local Elections, that may well have been the biggest
8 contribution I got. Most of my fundraising was done among friends.
9 Q. 164 Yes. So Monarch would have been the single biggest contribution that you
11:19:50 10 would have got as a candidate in that election?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 165 Now, if I could have 3657. This is an internal Monarch document produced to
13 the Tribunal. You will see there about five from the end "ST", which we
14 interpret as Sheila Terry. "PD", you were a member of the PDs, 300 pounds.
11:20:13 15 And you saw the 300 pounds. Whilst we don't have the cheque. I don't think
16 you deny that that was received. And we saw the letter a moment ago enclosed
17 in the file?
18 A. Yes, I would have been put into a specific account for the fundraising for the
19 Local Elections.
11:20:28 20 Q. 166 Yes. Now, you were to receive, I think, throughout your career, other monies
21 from Monarch. Did you get to know personnel within Monarch as you went
22 forward in your political career?
23 A. Only Mr. Lynn.
24 Q. 167 Yes.
11:20:44 25 A. But I would have met Philip Reilly once or twice, as far as I can remember.
26 Q. 168 How did you come and get to know Mr. Lynn?
27 A. Through his lobbying for various projects.
28 Q. 169 Yes. Did Mr. Lynn ever remind you that Monarch had been probably the only
29 contributor outside your immediate family in 1991 to your Local Election?
11:21:09 30 A. No.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
31
11:21:10 1 Q. 170 Did he ever make reference to the support he had given you in 1991 or
2 subsequently in any discussions that you had with him?
3 A. No.
4 Q. 171 Now --
11:21:19 5 A. As far as I can remember.
6 Q. 172 Okay. At 5274 there is an expenses sheet for week ending 25th of July 1990
7 and I think it's probably 1995. I stand open to correction. Where Mr. Lynn
8 has included for the company Cherrywood Properties Limited a Development Plan
9 review expense for S Terry. There seem to be two entries. Do you see second
11:21:46 10 and third entry under the heading "nature of expense" Development Plan review S
11 Terry and then the next line Development Plan review S Terry?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 173 Do you recall meeting Mr. Lynn on successive days or maybe twice on the same
14 day in or around July 1995?
11:22:10 15 A. I don't remember those specific meetings but I would have met him many times,
16 yes.
17 Q. 174 I think you wrote to him on the 16th of May '95. If we could have 5626.
18 This documentation is in the brief. I don't know if you've had an opportunity
19 to read it.
11:22:31 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 175 That's -- that appears to be correspondence from you to Mr. Lynn where you were
22 seeking a contribution to the annual draw for your party, isn't that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 176 I think a contribution was made. If we look at 5627. I think 100 pounds was
11:22:51 25 contributed the on the 18th of May to the Progressive Democrats. Which
26 presumably was on foot of that previous request?
27 A. More than likely.
28 Q. 177 And I think that you may not be aware of it but on 26th of January '95 he
29 appears to consider contributed 200 pounds to the party fundraising as well.
11:23:15 30 You may not be aware of that or were you?

www.pcr.ie Day 646
32
11:23:15 1 A. In my letter I think I outlined a number of times that he contributed either to
2 fundraising events that I held and also a number of times that he bought
3 tickets for the party's draw.
4 Q. 178 Yes. And I think you may have overlooked that particular event. If we could
11:23:34 5 have 2243. This is your letter of the 13th of March. This is a more
6 comprehensive disclosure in relation to these payments. You say 300 pounds in
7 1991. 500 pounds in March 1996. I was going to come to that in a moment.
8 300 pounds in September 1998.
9 When you joined Fine Gael I think in 2000, is that correct?
11:24:07 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 179 And then you went into 500 punts in October 2000. 500 Euro in March 2002.
12 300 Euro in spring 2004. They are all in relation to the fundraisers or golf
13 outings?
14 A. Yes.
11:24:21 15 Q. 180 Isn't that right? And I think 160 Euro on 2004/2005 in relation to Fine Gael
16 national draw tickets. These are fundraising events on behalf of the party,
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 181 Just to go back, if I may, to the payments in 1996.
11:24:41 20
21 If I could have 5750. This is 21st of February 1996. Week ending I should
22 say 21st of February 1996. Again, Mr. Lynn has a Development Plan expenses
23 claim in for the company Cherrywood Properties Limited for 46 pounds. And
24 then on the 14th of March '96 at 5776, he asks or makes a request internally to
11:25:14 25 the accountant of Monarch for a cheque for 500 pounds to Councillor Sheila
26 Terry PD. Do you see that? Would you have sought that payment?
27 A. Is that the one that I have referred to in my letter?
28 Q. 182 Yes, yes you have referred to it.
29 A. Yes, yes, I would have.
11:25:31 30 Q. 183 And we see the cheque then. If we could have 5798. It's a cheque made

www.pcr.ie Day 646
33
11:25:39 1 payable to you on 29th of March 1996.
2 A. That was in respect of a golf outing.
3 Q. 184 A golf outing.
4 A. Yes.
11:25:47 5 Q. 185 Yes. Just going back to the meeting which you had identified there at 5750.
6 For the week ending the 21st of February '96. You were a member of Dun
7 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council after '93?
8 A. No.
9 Q. 186 Can I ask you why Mr. Lynn would be meeting with you and submitting claim forms
11:26:12 10 for meetings with you in relation to property which fell within Dun
11 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council when you were councillor in another ward,
12 another area?
13 A. I wouldn't have had a meeting with Mr. Lynn to discuss --
14 Q. 187 Cherrywood?
11:26:27 15 A. The Cherrywood at that point in time. If it was just dealing with Dun
16 Laoghaire council.
17 Q. 188 Yes.
18 A. I wouldn't have --
19 Q. 189 Do you recall meeting with Mr. Lynn after January '94 and discussing other
11:26:39 20 developments of Monarch's?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 190 Would some of these have been within your council?
23 A. Within Fingal.
24 Q. 191 Within Fingal?
11:26:51 25 A. Yes, and only within Fingal.
26 Q. 192 We you asked in any of those discussions to approach any of your Progressive
27 Democrat colleagues in Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council in relation to
28 lands there?
29 A. No, I was never asked to do that.
11:27:09 30 Q. 193 Mr. Lynn never asked to you do that?

www.pcr.ie Day 646
34
11:27:11 1 A. No.
2 Q. 194 Another councillor from Fine Gael, Councillor Faherty, has said that she was
3 asked. You say that you were never asked?
4 A. No, I was never asked.
11:27:22 5 Q. 195 Now, I think in March 1996. Then if we could have 2248, please. The letter
6 enclosing that cheque for 500 pounds while signed by Mr. Lynn is from a company
7 King of The Castle Limited. Do you know or were you aware of a company called
8 King of The Castle Limited?
9 A. I remember the name distinctly because it was a strange name, yes.
11:27:44 10 Q. 196 Unusual.
11 A. Yes. I never really knew who the company or who was behind the company. Just
12 Mr. Lynn that I knew.
13 Q. 197 Just in relation to that. What I'm really trying to establish was did you
14 know that you were getting the money object on behalf of Monarch or did you
11:27:59 15 think Mr. Lynn on his own behalf was contributing to you?
16 A. I presumed it was from Mr. Lynn. But I actually -- I suppose I would have
17 thought he was connected with King of The Castle and more than likely that it
18 was coming from that company. But I didn't. At that time, I think I didn't
19 realise that that was the same as Monarch.
11:28:27 20 Q. 198 Yes. Did you associate --
21 A. I'm still not sure.
22 Q. 199 Sorry. Did you associate Mr. Lynn with Monarch in the early '90s?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 200 And at some stage I think he went out on his own and became an independent
11:28:44 25 lobbiest or consultant.
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 201 This was '96. Was he still with Monarch in 1996?
28 A. Um, I'm not sure. I'm not sure when he went as an independent lobbiest.
29 Q. 202 Yes. You again met him, I think, he says for the week ending 8th of August
11:29:00 30 1997. If we could have 6375, please. Do you recall meeting him and could

www.pcr.ie Day 646
35
11:29:09 1 you have met him in relation to the Development Plan review in connection with
2 the Cherrywood Properties Limited?
3 A. Not in connection with anything that was being dealt with by Dun Laoghaire
4 County Council. It would have been for some other project in Fingal.
11:29:27 5 Q. 203 Yes. Mr. Dunlop was retained in, it would appear, sometime in '93 in relation
6 to these lands. Do you ever recall discussing the lands with Mr. Dunlop?
7 A. I don't recall ever discussing them with him.
8 Q. 204 Or him ever discussing them with you?
9 A. No.
11:29:45 10 Q. 205 Did you know that Mr. Dunlop was lobbying on behalf of Monarch in 1993?
11 A. Not particularly. I mean, I knew Mr. Dunlop was around but I never really had
12 any dealings with Mr. Dunlop.
13 Q. 206 Yes. Well you do appear to have had meetings with Mr. Dunlop?
14 A. Yes.
11:30:10 15 Q. 207 Just on that.
16 A. Well with him.
17 Q. 208 And he --
18 A. Did he discuss some other lands. Was it Ballycullen? I can't remember, to be
19 honest.
11:30:23 20 Q. 209 You do appear in his diary for meetings in April '93. And you appear to have
21 left a message for him on 19th of April '93. If we could have 4152, please.
22 And there's a meeting in his diary for the 19th of April '93 at 4154. You
23 think that that was in relation to other lands or other developments that Mr.
24 Dunlop was involved in?
11:30:52 25 A. I actually don't know what that meeting was about.
26 Q. 210 But you say that you never met him in relation to Cherrywood or Monarch?
27 A. Well I have no recollection of meeting with him in relation to it. But I may
28 have. I don't know. To be honest.
29 Q. 211 If we take the meeting then on the 27th of May 1992. If we go to 7207. The
11:31:21 30 manager had produced a map 92/44 to the council at that meeting, where he was

www.pcr.ie Day 646
36
11:31:26 1 suggesting I think that the lands in Cherrywood would be zoned A1 on four
2 houses to the acre?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 212 And I think you supported that proposal, isn't that right?
11:31:36 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 213 Do you recall the debate and do you recall how you came to support that
7 proposal?
8 A. Sorry, would you ask that question again.
9 Q. 214 Do you recall the debate in the council which led to that vote or those series
11:31:49 10 of votes that we are going to deal with?
11 A. I just generally remember the over all debate about the lands.
12 Q. 215 Would it be fair to say that Mr. Lynn would have lobbied you by this time in
13 relation to the lands?
14 A. More than likely.
11:32:01 15 Q. 216 And would have sought your support, as he had, as other councillors have told
16 us, in relation to the Monarch position in respect of these lands?
17 A. Yes, he would have.
18 Q. 217 And you supported the Manager's proposal which would have, had it been
19 successful, rezoned these lands at four houses to the acre, isn't that right?
11:32:20 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 218 You also I think supported other proposals which possibly would have rezoned
22 the lands at one house to the acre, even on septic tank, isn't that right? If
23 we could have 7209. At 7209 there is a motion by Councillors Gordon and
24 Reeves which we see at 7210, which provided that "The council would resolve
11:32:54 25 that the lands marked AP outlined in red on the attached map which had been
26 signed for identification purposes by the proposer of the motion be AS2." which
27 as I understand it, is septic tank one house to the acre in the review of the
28 Development Plan. You voted in favour of that proposal?
29 A. Yes. Yes, sorry, your question?
11:33:18 30 Q. 219 Do you recall how you came to support that proposal which seems to differ from

www.pcr.ie Day 646
37
11:33:24 1 your earlier support for the manager's proposal that they be zoned at four
2 houses to the acre on piped sewerage?
3 A. I don't recall how I came to make the decisions at this point in time I can't
4 remember. But obviously a lot of debate would have taken place in the
11:33:44 5 chamber.
6 Q. 220 And would some debate have taken place outside the chamber amongst the
7 Progressive Democrat members of the council?
8 A. Well, as I said at the outset, we went -- we usually went through the agenda on
9 the day of meetings. Now, that didn't always happen either but generally we
11:34:10 10 would have met before the meetings to go through the agenda. Just to discuss,
11 you know, the work of the day. But there was never any decisions taken as to
12 how we would vote but there would be general discussion about the work of the
13 day.
14 Q. 221 Well, can I ask you, what was the consensus within the Progressive Democrats in
11:34:29 15 relation to these lands at this time?
16 A. I couldn't tell you what the consensus was right now. I think -- there
17 wouldn't have been a consensus. Generally looking back over the voting
18 patterns, some people voted for motions and others voted against them. Now,
19 there wasn't a set pattern.
11:34:57 20 Q. 222 Did you ever tell your colleagues, your Progressive Democrat colleagues that
21 you knew Mr. Lynn and that Mr. Lynn had sought your support in relation to the
22 proposals and indeed had been a contributor to your election campaign in 1991?
23 A. I don't remember actually telling them. I think it would have been generally
24 known. Everybody knew Mr. Lynn. He would -- I would guess he had approached
11:35:25 25 everybody as to whether I told them that he had contributed to my campaigns or
26 not, it may not be something that I would specifically tell them. But on the
27 other hand, if, when I was having a golf outing we would talk about who was
28 there or some of my colleagues may even have been at the golf outing and come
29 to the meals.
11:35:54 30 Q. 223 Or did any of your colleagues tell you that they had been supported by Mr.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
38
11:35:59 1 Lynn?
2 A. Again, I --
3 Q. 224 You have no recollection.
4 A. I have no recollection of that. But I know that he would have supported other
11:36:07 5 fundraising events of other people's.
6 Q. 225 There was I think a motion by Councillors Gilmore and O'Callaghan to have the
7 lands zoned for a town centre, isn't that right, at that meeting in May '92? A
8 proposal that you vote the against. If we could have 7214, please.
11:36:24 10 Do you recall how you came to vote against a town centre for these lands?
11 A. I don't recall how I came to that decision.
12 Q. 226 Okay. Now, as it happened, a motion by Councillor Barrett and Dockrell which
13 you supported that the lands be zoned one house to the acre, was successful and
14 the lands went on display at one house to the acre, isn't that right?
11:36:53 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 227 Rather than the four houses, which had been the incoming map which had been
17 identified on the incoming map, isn't that right?
18 A. Well, I can't disagree with you. I presume you have your facts right.
19 Q. 228 Okay. And then I think the map came back before the council on the 11th of
11:37:11 20 November 1993. And there was a further debate. Do you recall if Mr. Lynn in
21 that intervening period had spoken to you in relation to the lands, that is
22 between May '92 and November '93?
23 A. I can't recall whether he did or not. But, I mean, Mr. Lynn would have been
24 around, you know, if there were votes that he was -- had an interest in, I
11:37:39 25 think I could safely assume that he would have spoken to me.
26 Q. 229 Now, if I could have 7217. This is a map and the area coloured yellow in the
27 map is an area which has been proposed for residential zoning at one house to
28 the acre. As a result of the successful motion of Councillor Barrett and
29 Dockrell.
11:38:15 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
39
11:38:15 1 Q. 230 And you had voted for that. A motion was tabled at the meeting on the 11th of
2 November 1993 suggesting that the area coloured yellow within -- sorry.
3 Coloured yellow and within the red lines as we see it there, be zoned at four
4 houses to the acre. And that the balance of the yellow lands would remain at
11:38:37 5 one house to the acre.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 231 And you voted in favour of that motion. That was a motion tabled by
8 Councillor Marren and Councillor Coffey. Now, can you tell the Tribunal how
9 you came to vote on that motion in November '93?
11:38:56 10 A. Again, I can't remember how I arrived at that decision. But my decisions in
11 the chamber would have been based on the debate put forward in the chamber on
12 the day.
13 Q. 232 Looking at the map on screen. Do you see any reason why if the council were
14 minded to zone lands at four houses to the acre, that all of the lands coloured
11:39:25 15 yellow couldn't have been zoned at four houses to the acre?
16 A. Today, I mean, and looking at it there. Without the benefit of, you know, a
17 full debate and somebody going through it as to the benefits or the lack of
18 benefits of doing so is very difficult for me to remember today why such a
19 decision would have been reached.
11:39:52 20 Q. 233 But looking at it there, looking at that map, do you see any reason why lands
21 outlined in red ought to be zoned at four houses to the acre when the balance
22 of the lands, the yellow shaded lands, should remain at one house to the acre?
23 A. Well, looking at the map there, the northern part of the yellow may be on the
24 slopes of the mountain. Would that be correct?
11:40:25 25 Q. 234 I'm not sure but --
26 A. If that was the case maybe one --
27 Q. 235 The planners and the manager had suggested four houses to the acre on the
28 northern part as well as the southern part?
29 A. Uh-huh.
11:40:37 30 Q. 236 So presumably they wouldn't have identified four houses to the acre if they

www.pcr.ie Day 646
40
11:40:43 1 believed it could take four houses to the acre and was capable of development?
2 A. I don't know how I based my decision but obviously as I said it would have been
3 based on the arguments put forward on the day by other councillors.
4 Q. 237 Would you agree with me that looking at that map it's something that would
11:41:05 5 require some explanation?
6 A. Possibly but I would have -- I mean, I would have to be taken through it in
7 more detail before I could arrive at ...
8 Q. 238 You have no recollection of the debate or the contribution of any of the
9 parties as to this?
11:41:31 10 A. I don't, no.
11 Q. 239 Thank you.
12 A. Thank you, Mr. Quinn.
13
14 CHAIRMAN: Just, when you were voting for those lands or for that particular
11:41:43 15 motion. Would you have been aware or were you aware that the motion, that the
16 lands to attract the higher density were Monarch lands?
17 A. Were Monarch lands?
18
19 CHAIRMAN: Yes.
11:41:57 20 A. Um.
21
22 CHAIRMAN: O mean clearly, somebody had gone to the trouble of extracting from
23 the larger area, the smaller area. And there's a clear boundary marked out on
24 the map which you'd have seen at the time you were voting.
11:42:16 25
26 Now, would you have been aware or were you aware or do you think you would have
27 been aware that this reduced area was in fact the Monarch lands?
28 A. Again, I'm sorry that I can't be, you know, more clear for you on these
29 specific lands but some times we did know the ownership of the lands and other
11:42:41 30 times we didn't. We may have known that from submissions, representations

www.pcr.ie Day 646
41
11:42:49 1 that had been made in terms of material that we would have been given or, you
2 know, the reps that were sent in from the various landowners or people who
3 wrote in submissions. But as to whether or not I knew on the day that those
4 lands outlined in red were the ones owned by Monarch, I can't tell you today
11:43:12 5 specifically.
7 CHAIRMAN: But do you think it would have been likely that councillors,
8 including yourself, would have asked or wondered why this smaller area was
9 going to attract the higher density or what was so special or unique or
11:43:33 10 different about it that it was going to be treated differently to the rest of
11 the land? It wouldn't have gone unnoticed, I presume, looking at that map,
12 that this was -- that this was one piece of a larger piece?
13 A. Yes.
14
11:43:51 15 CHAIRMAN: So do you think you'd have asked yourself or councillors would have
16 discussed amongst themselves why is it being done like this or what's so
17 different or special about the section of land that was going to receive the
18 higher density?
19 A. Yes, it does seem obvious today looking at it. I'm not sure why those lands
11:44:21 20 were being dealt specifically for a higher density.
21
22 CHAIRMAN: Because if not, it would suggest that the councillors were just
23 being led, either by a landowner or by people in the council. And it would
24 suggest if they didn't know or didn't ask, it would suggest that they were just
11:44:49 25 being, somebody was coming in with a motion and people were just blindly --
26 councillors were just blindly voting one way or the other. Can you remember
27 if there was discussion or --
28 A. I can't today remember, you know, why that land was treated differently to the
29 other land. I don't remember the discussion on the day and I have no memory
11:45:26 30 of how this land was treated.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
42
2 A. For a higher density.
4 CHAIRMAN: Would it -- does it look strange to you now?
11:45:39 5 A. It does.
7 CHAIRMAN: That -- all right.
9 JUDGE KEYS: You accept that Mr. Lynn was a lobbiest, isn't that correct?
11:45:55 10 A. Yes.
11
12 JUDGE KEYS: And when lobbiests would approach somebody, especially a public
13 representative, asking for their support, surely the first thing that would
14 come to your mind is who is this lobbiest appearing for, who is he
11:46:10 15 representing. Wouldn't that be correct?
16 A. Yes.
17
18 JUDGE KEYS: So when Mr. Lynn approached you at any stage in relation to
19 looking for your support. Surely, on that basis, you'd have asked him well
11:46:25 20 who are you representing?
21 A. Well I knew he was representing Monarch.
22
23 JUDGE KEYS: So therefore, you knew at all times then that over the period you
24 had been voting on not just this motion but the motion in relation to the other
11:46:35 25 land, you'd have known who the owner of the lands were, whether it was a
26 developer or just an owner who might pass on the lands to a developer after
27 rezoning had been completed?
28 A. Yes. I mean, if Mr. Lynn lobbied me for any piece of land, obviously, I would
29 know that I would know the ownership of that land.
11:47:00 30

www.pcr.ie Day 646
43
11:47:00 1 JUDGE KEYS: You see -- I accept that. The reason I ask is that some
2 councillors have given evidence to the effect that A, they were never concerned
3 really about who owned the lands. And also that at the time it never dawned
4 on them to ask who owner was or who in fact was the owner or whether it was a
11:47:17 5 developer or not. And that's why I asked surely it would be very strange for
6 any public representative who is approached by a lobbiest, not to ask who that
7 lobbiest represents. Who they were appearing for, who their client is.
8 You'd accept that?
9 A. Yes. But I would also have to say that I didn't at all times know who the
11:47:39 10 owners of certain pieces of lands were.
11
12 JUDGE KEYS: But if they were --
13 A. In that we weren't lobbied for every piece of land.
14
11:47:48 15 JUDGE KEYS: No. But where you were lobbied, where any councillors was
16 lobbied by a lobbiest --
17 A. Yes.
18
19 JUDGE KEYS: Would you find it surprising that those councillors would not
11:47:59 20 know who that lobbiest was appearing for, who they were representing?
21 A. Yes, I'd find that strange.
22
23 JUDGE KEYS: Absolutely strange.
24
11:48:06 25 CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
26
27 JUDGE FAHERTY: Just wondering, Ms. Terry. These lands, I think it was
28 explained yesterday or somebody mentioned it. That this Carrickmines Valley
29 in south Dublin, south of the county. It was basically I think the largest
11:48:18 30 tract of undeveloped land and it attracted I think as we can see, a lot of

www.pcr.ie Day 646
44
11:48:23 1 motions and debate?
2 A. Yes.
4 JUDGE FAHERTY: You had gone from the position initially, obviously you were
11:48:30 5 new to the council in '91 so you had no input. But by '92 you were supporting
6 the manager after the first display. He wanted the four houses to the acre on
7 an action plan. And even to extend the residential zoning. This was back in
8 '92 and you had voted initially at the beginning of that meeting with the
9 manager.
11:48:50 10 A. Yes.
11
12 JUDGE FAHERTY: And then there was a number of motions in fairness to yourself
13 after that looking for a lower density, one house to the acre.
14 A. Yes.
11:48:58 15
16 JUDGE FAHERTY: And including Mr. Barrett's successful motion. And you voted
17 for that and you've explained that you've said that obviously you had listened
18 to debate. Do you understand?
19 A. Yes.
11:49:13 20
21 JUDGE FAHERTY: So by the end of May '92 you seem to come to the view that the
22 best plan of action was one house to the acre. You understand?
23 A. Yes.
24
11:49:23 25 JUDGE FAHERTY: And that's what I think went out on the display.
26 A. Yes.
27
28 JUDGE FAHERTY: And -- but by November '93, if you like, you had swung back
29 again to four houses to the acre on part of the lands. And I'm just
11:49:41 30 wondering, why do you think you decided then in '93 to go for this? Do you

www.pcr.ie Day 646
45
11:49:51 1 recall any debate about the matter?
2 A. I don't recall and I can't explain today why I changed my attitude to that.
4 JUDGE FAHERTY: I see. All right. Thank you very much.
11:50:11 5
6 CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. It's ten to twelve.
8 MS. DILLON: Mr. Colm Tyndall, please.
11:50:16 10 I know that the Tribunal normally takes a break at this time every morning.
11 But we have two witnesses in some difficulty. Mr. Tyndall is one.
12
13 CHAIRMAN: Well then we'll sit.
14
11:50:23 15 MS. DILLON: And the next witness, Mr. O'Callaghan has to be finished by
16 lunchtime I understand also. So if it's possible ...
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 646
46
11:50:32 1 MR. COLM TYNDALL HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS QUESTIONED
2 BY MS. DILLON AS FOLLOWS:
4 MR. O'DONNELL: I apply for representation.
11:50:48 5
6 CHAIRMAN: Certainly. Mr. O'Donnell.
8 Q. 240 MS. DILLON: Good morning, Mr. Tyndall. You were elected in the elections of
9 1991 as a member of the Progressive Democrats to Dublin County Council, isn't
12 Q. 241 And thereafter in 1994 when the council split into three you became a member of
13 South Dublin County Council, isn't that right?
14 A. That is also correct, yes.
11:51:10 15 Q. 242 So that insofar as you had an involvement in the Cherrywood lands, that is
16 confined to June 1991 to December 1993, isn't that the position?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 243 Now, you have provided a statement to the Tribunal. And I'll raise a number
19 of matters with you arising from that statement. But first I want to take you
11:51:29 20 through your contribution to the planning and zoning of these lands. If
21 that's already, all right?
22 A. That's fine.
23 Q. 244 Now, I think if I could show you first of all the map at 7021. And the
24 decision on this map which will come up on screen beside you had been made
11:51:46 25 prior to you becoming a member of the council. But this is the map that went
26 out on the first public display. And the yellow lands on that map are the
27 residentially zoned lands in the Carrickmines Valley.
28
29 And the outline in red are the Monarch lands within the residentially zoned
11:52:01 30 lands in the Carrickmines Valley. And those lands had gone out on four houses

www.pcr.ie Day 646
47
11:52:09 1 to the acre, do you understand?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 245 The density on those yellow lands was four houses to the acre for the first
4 public display. And after the first public display, as you know, Mr. Tyndall,
11:52:20 5 the matter would come back into the council for the council to consider
6 representations and submissions that had been made. And the matter came back
7 before the council in May of 1992. Right?
9 Q. 246 Now, you are recorded as being in attendance at a meeting on 13th of May 1992.
11:52:38 10 At 7912, please.
11 And at that meeting, this is in effect the introductory meeting in relation to
12 the secondary view of the Carrickmines Valley. At 7194.
13 Under the heading "Carrickmines Valley". A number of land owners are listed.
14 And listed there is representation 001117. Do you see that?
11:53:02 15 A. I do.
16 Q. 247 And the landowner there is lands at Cherrywood Monarch Properties. Now, that
17 meant that a representation had been received in connection with the Cherrywood
18 lands by Monarch Properties. Isn't that the position?
19 A. That is what the record is showing.
11:53:15 20 Q. 248 Yeah. Sorry, it's either correct or it's not correct, Mr. Tyndall.
21 A. Well I cannot recall. If that is what the record is showing so I assume that
22 that is correct.
23 Q. 249 And other landowners in the Carrickmines Valley are also identified but
24 certainly insofar as documents had been circulated to the councillors by May of
11:53:35 25 1992, the councillors would have been provided with any representation that had
26 been received in the course of the first public display?
27 A. Yeah.
28 Q. 250 Included in that representation was a representation from Monarch Properties.
29 Isn't that right?
11:53:47 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
48
11:53:48 1 Q. 251 And within that representation, which I'll show you in a minute, there would
2 have been a map which outlined the Monarch Properties lands. Isn't that
3 right?
11:53:57 5 Q. 252 Now, the manager himself referred in the course of his report on the Cherrywood
6 area. At 7197 of the same meeting of which you were in attendance. He
7 referred in the second paragraph of his report on the Cherrywood area to the
8 Monarch Properties submission. You see that? The manager says "The Monarch
9 Properties submission illustrates one possible option although at a higher over
11:54:22 10 all density whereby this sort of improvement could be achieved." He's talking
11 about an increase in density as a result of the pipe going through the
12 Carrickmines Valley.
13 A. I see that, yes.
14 Q. 253 So certainly for those councillors who were present at the meeting, including
11:54:34 15 yourself, on the 13th of May 1992. They would have been aware of the
16 existence of Monarch Properties. Isn't that right?
17 A. According to the record, yes. But I cannot recall specifically at this moment
18 in time. But yes, that is what the records of the council contain. I mean,
19 I have no reason to dispute that.
11:54:52 20 Q. 254 They would have received the submission --
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 255 117 from Monarch Properties. Because they received all of the submissions,
24 A. Yes.
11:54:59 25 Q. 256 And the manager himself refers to the submission from Monarch Properties in his
26 report?
28 Q. 257 And the lands are being dealt with under the heading of the Cherrywood area.
29 So it is a smaller area within the Carrickmines Valley that being identified in
11:55:14 30 connection with Monarch. Isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 646
49
11:55:16 1 A. Again, that is -- I am taking it as you were saying it as of this moment in
2 time. I cannot recall at that stage but that is what the records are showing.
3 And I have no dispute about that whatsoever.
4 Q. 258 Certainly what the council were considering at this stage were maps 26 and maps
11:55:31 5 27. Maps 26 and 27 relate to the Carrickmines Valley.
6 A. Okay.
7 Q. 259 And when the manager came to talk about the Monarch Properties submission he
8 dealt with it under the heading of the Cherrywood area, isn't that right?
9 A. That's fine.
11:55:49 10 Q. 260 So that's a smaller area within the Carrickmines Valley. Isn't that right?
11 A. I accept what you're saying, yes.
12 Q. 261 And then indeed, at the same meeting at 7198. The manager outlines a synopsis
13 of the representation that had in fact been made by Monarch Properties. Isn't
14 that right? You see there?
11:56:07 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 262 Isn't that the position?
17 A. That would appear to be the position.
18 Q. 263 So at the meeting that took place on 13th of May 1992, all of the councillors,
19 including yourself who were present at that meeting, would have been aware of
11:56:19 20 the representation. Would have been furnished with the map that came with the
21 representation. Would have heard the Manager's Report which identified
22 Monarch as having an interest in the Cherrywood area and would have been given
23 a synopsis of the Monarch's submission, isn't that right?
24 A. Yes.
11:56:32 25 Q. 264 So that all of the councillors who were at that meeting would have been aware
26 of the fact that Monarch Properties was a developer that had an interest in the
27 Carrickmines Valley and specifically in the Cherrywood area. Isn't that
28 right?
29 A. I would have to assume, yes.
11:56:46 30 Q. 265 So I think that the manager at that meeting had put forward a map called

www.pcr.ie Day 646
50
11:56:52 1 DP92/44 at 7203, please.
3 Now, this again is a portion of the map of the Carrickmines Valley. And what
4 the manager was proposing here in connection with this portion of the
11:57:08 5 Carrickmines Valley was an increase in the amount of land that would be zoned
6 residential. And a change in the density from AP to A1P. Isn't that right?
7 A. That's right, that would appear to say, yes.
8 Q. 266 Yes. The manager in his report to the meeting on 13th of May 1992 spoke to
9 that map and recommended that it be passed by the council. The council came
11:57:32 10 to consider it I think including yourself, on 27th of May 1992 at 7205.
11
12 And on the 7206 you will see that when the council came to consider, at 7206,
13 please. Sorry. Yes. You will see when the council came to consider the
14 manager's motion, they were dealing with representation 1117 Monarch Properties
11:58:08 15 lands at Cherrywood, isn't that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 267 And you will also see that what was agreed by the council in that paragraph
18 that "It was agreed that the manager's report and the amendments to the draft
19 plan recommended and illustrated on DP92/44, and motions number 1 to 11
11:58:25 20 contained in Section 31A of the agenda relating representation 1117 Monarch
21 Properties would be discussed together but voted on separately." Isn't that
22 right?
23 A. That's exactly as it says.
24 Q. 268 Therefore it must have been clear, Mr. Tyndall, to every councillor who was at
11:58:40 25 that meeting and who proceeded to vote on the subsequent motion. That the
26 only matters that they were discussing were the Monarch lands at Cherrywood,
28 A. I cannot answer for any other councillor other than --
29 Q. 269 Speaking for yourself?
11:58:50 30 A. As is stated there as a true record, yes. I cannot recall the specifics as of

www.pcr.ie Day 646
51
11:58:55 1 that date.
2 Q. 270 But --
3 A. I accept that it is. I have in dispute with what you are saying in any shape
4 or form.
11:59:02 5 Q. 271 So that what the record shows that the 11 motions that were being voted on
6 which culminated in Councillor Barrett's motion at that time. That all of
7 these motions related to one portion of land which was the Monarch Properties
8 lands within the Carrickmines Valley, that's the heading under which they were
9 being dealt with by the council. Isn't that right?
11:59:21 10 A. That appears to be correct, yes.
11 Q. 272 So that it would be difficult to see, Mr. Tyndall, how somebody could assert
12 that they were unaware when they were voting on a particular motion that it was
13 not to do with the Monarch lands, isn't that right?
14 A. Well, again, there's 11 different motions relating to it this. From what I'm
11:59:42 15 reading now. Again, I am listening to, as you say it, I don't recall the
16 specifics of that date, back in 1992 I think it is. But I accept what you're
17 saying.
18 Q. 273 Yes. And I think in fact at 7207. There were seven votes I think on that
19 eight votes I beg your pardon, on that particular day. But the first vote
12:00:04 20 that takes place is on the manager's proposals. That's proposed by Councillor
21 Lydon and seconded by Councillor McGrath. What was being proposed there was
22 the map DP92/44. And you vote in favour of DP92/44. Isn't that right?
23 That's what the record shows.
24 A. Yes, that seems to be correct.
12:00:24 25 Q. 274 If that was so, you were in favour of increasing the residential area on the
26 Monarch lands and you were in favour of changing the density from AP to A1P,
29 Q. 275 All right. Were you approached by anybody in connection with this from
12:00:39 30 anybody on behalf of Monarch Properties in connection with these?

www.pcr.ie Day 646
52
12:00:43 1 A. I don't recall any specific approach relating to Cherrywood but I have no doubt
2 I would have had discussions with Richard Lynn over quite a period of time.
3 But I don't recall any specific meeting directly discussing the Cherrywood
4 lands at any stage. But I'm not disputing that I would have talked to Mr.
12:01:00 5 Lynn about them.
6 Q. 276 And would you agree that Mr. Lynn as the person lobbying on behalf of Monarch
7 Properties would have an interest in securing your support and indeed other
8 councillor's support for any proposal that would favour Monarch?
9 A. That would make sense.
12:01:13 10 Q. 277 And can you remember whether the meetings of the Progressive Democrats that
11 took place. Whether you recollect the Monarch Properties lands being
12 discussed?
13 A. I cannot recollect any specific. The meetings would have been haphazard. We
14 wouldn't have discussed -- we would have discussed generally the agenda for a
12:01:31 15 day. Which could have consisted of numerous motions, rarely confined to one
16 particular piece of land.
17 Q. 278 Your colleague or your then Progressive Democrat colleague I think, Ms. Terry
18 who gave evidence I think just before you this morning, also voted in favour of
19 DP92/44, isn't that right? That's what the record shows?
12:01:51 20 A. That's what the record shows.
21 Q. 279 Indeed, Councillor Terry is also a person who is recorded as being at the
22 meeting on 13th of May 1992. And therefore, in the same way that you were
23 aware that the lands under discussion were Monarch Properties. She would have
24 been informed at the time that that was the position, isn't that so?
12:02:10 25 A. Well that's something for Councillor Terry. It's not something for me.
26 Q. 280 If she was at the meeting and informed in the same way that you were it follows
27 that she must have been informed isn't that the position?
28 A. Again, I can only answer for myself.
29 Q. 281 Very good. Well indeed, the second motion that came to be proposed on that day
12:02:27 30 at 7210. There are two motions being taken together. The first is the

www.pcr.ie Day 646
53
12:02:39 1 motion in the name of Breathnach, Smyth and Fitzgerald and the second motion is
2 Breathnach and Smyth. And it was agreed that both would be taken together.
3 The second motion, in case there was any doubt about it, relates specifically
4 to the Monarch lands. Isn't that correct? "This council resolves to retain
12:02:54 5 the low density residential zoning of one house per acre on the Monarch lands
6 at Lehaunstown and Cherrywood."
8 Q. 282 So it's Monarch specific. And the first motion refers to the resolving that
9 the lands at Cherrywood marked AP, outlined in red be zoned AS2. Which is one
12:03:13 10 house per acre on septic tank. Isn't that right? So both of these motions
11 are proposing low density, isn't that right?
12 A. Yes, that would appear to be correct.
13 Q. 283 And you vote in favour of that?
14 A. So the record shows, yes.
12:03:26 15 Q. 284 Now, what I would like you to explain to the Tribunal is why having voted in
16 favour of the manager's proposal for increased density immediately prior to
17 these motions, you are now voting for low density on these motions?
18 A. Unfortunately, I don't have -- I can't explain to you now as to why. But I
19 would have looked at each motion as it came before me at the time.
12:03:49 20 Regrettably, the minutes don't show any recollection of the debate or the
21 debates that would have taken place.
22
23 I would have tried to make as informed an opinion on each motion as it came as
24 best I could. Bearing in mind that I wasn't specifically from that particular
12:04:03 25 area.
26 Q. 285 Well would you agree, Mr. Tyndall, that there is an inconsistency in voting for
27 increased density and extended residential land on D92/44 at page 7207 of the
28 brief and then voting for low density thereafter?
29 A. Well I would agree looking at it now. It would appear that way. But I'm
12:04:27 30 sure I would have had very good reason at that particular time to do that.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
54
12:04:30 1 I'm sorry I can't explain it to you at this moment in time. But as I say I
2 would have looked at each motion as it came before me and tried to make the
3 best decision as I could at that stage. Planning wasn't an exact science and
4 I suppose at that stage that's the way it was.
12:04:46 5 Q. 286 So --
6 A. I would have tried as I say to look at each motion that came before me and made
7 a judgement on it.
8 Q. 287 Is it the position then that you accept there is an inconsistency which you
9 believe would have been explicable at the time but that you are not in a
12:05:00 10 position to explain it today?
11 A. Well what I'm saying is that I wouldn't have just voted forever piece of zoning
12 as it appeared in front of me. I would have looked in each motion as it
13 appeared in front of me and tried to make a proper decision relating as to how
14 the appeared before me.
12:05:16 15 As to whether that drew up inconsistencies. Well, unfortunately I can't
16 really respond to that because as I say I would have tried to make a decision
17 on each motion as it appeared. And made my decision accordingly.
18 Q. 288 Yes. From your consideration of the record, as disclosed to the Tribunal in
19 the minutes of this meeting, Mr. Tyndall. Do you accept that having voted for
12:05:32 20 increased density and increased residential land on the manager's map DP92/44
21 that that position is inconsistent with a later decision to support low
22 density?
23 A. It is inconsistent when you look at the records as it shows now. The record
24 does not show that there would have been a debate taking place and there would
12:05:50 25 have been valid reasons, which I cannot recall, put forward as to that change.
26 Q. 289 I think on the third vote on that date at 7211, please. Which again is --
27 it's a motion by Councillor Eithne Fitzgerald. And at the very top of the
28 page again, it's seeking density of one house per acre. And you vote in
29 favour of that again, isn't that right?
12:06:11 30 A. That's right.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
55
12:06:12 1 Q. 290 So you are supporting low density there?
2 A. I am.
3 Q. 291 And I think at the next vote which is on the same page Councillor Lohan and
4 Keogh. And again, it's for low density and I think that at page 7212 you are
12:06:26 5 recorded as voting in favour of that low density also, isn't that the position?
7 Q. 292 And I think the next motion that is dealt with by council is Councillor Smyth
8 and Breathnach and it was to extend the high amenity zoning along the river.
9 And you are recorded on the following page at 7213, as voting against that.
12:06:44 10 Isn't that the position?
11 A. That would appear to be correct, yes.
12 Q. 293 And on the next motion, No. 6, at 7213. The special area amenity order. You
13 vote against that, isn't that the position?
14 A. Yes.
12:06:58 15 Q. 294 You will see that you are at the very bottom of that page.
17 Q. 295 And the next motion, at 7214, which came to be considered was the introduction
18 of a C zoning or a town centre zoning on the lands. And this is a motion by
19 Councillor Gilmore and O'Callaghan. And you will note that the record
12:07:16 20 records you as voting against that, as indeed your colleague Ms. Terry did
21 also. Isn't that the position?
23 Q. 296 Can you recollect now why you would have voted against the imposition of a town
24 centre on those lands?
12:07:31 25 A. Again, I can only repeat that I would have tried to look at each motion as it
26 was presented, listened to the debate both for and against and tried to make an
27 opinion at that stage. That would have been how I dealt with every motion as
28 it was put in front of me. At this moment I cannot recall as to why I would
29 habe done that.
12:07:48 30 Q. 297 You, in voting for DP92/44 you had voted for a change in the density to A1P

www.pcr.ie Day 646
56
12:07:54 1 isn't that right? An area action plan?
2 A. In which vote?
3 Q. 298 In the very first vote?
4 A. Which was four to the acre?
12:08:01 5 Q. 299 No, the very first vote was to vote on the manager's map at 7207.
6 A. Again, if that is how the record shows, yes, I have no dispute with that
7 whatsoever.
8 Q. 300 The map that you are recorded here as voting in favour of the manager's
9 proposals, isn't that right? It's the very first vote that took place. We've
12:08:21 10 looked at it already.
11 A. Yes, I think we've ....
12 Q. 301 Yes. And the map on 7207. That that map can be found at 7203. And this is
13 what you were voting for. You were voting for a change in density from AP to
14 A1P and an increase in the amount of residentially zoned land. Do you see
12:08:46 15 that?
16 A. I see the map, yes.
17 Q. 302 And the map is showing a move from AP to A1P?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 303 And as you know A1P is area Action Plan, isn't that right that?
12:08:57 20 A. Would be correct.
21 Q. 304 And within an area Action Plan, as the manager had outlined on his report to
22 you on 13th of May 1992, provision would be made for appropriate shopping.
23 7197, please.
24
12:09:14 25 You will see here on the second last paragraph the manager in reporting to the
26 council on DP92/44 said in relation to shopping. It's considered essential
27 that shopping be confined to neighbourhood facilities and he had also said in
28 the third -- sorry -- in the fourth paragraph he had said the Action Plan will
29 provide for the provision of necessary community facilities, schools, shopping
12:09:40 30 etc.. So the manager had said that the area action plan would provide for

www.pcr.ie Day 646
57
12:09:44 1 shopping facilities, isn't that right?
2 A. That's what the record shows.
3 Q. 305 You had then voted in favour of the manager when you had voted in favour of
4 DP92/44. And you are now voting against the introduction of a shopping centre
12:10:01 5 or a town centre at the Cherrywood lands at 7214.
6 A. Again, I would have tried to look at each motion as it came before me. And
7 made a decision on that basis, resulting from the debates and so forth and as
8 they came about.
9 Q. 306 And are you in a position to explain that apparent inconsistency to the
12:10:25 10 Tribunal?
11 A. I'm not at this position at this moment in time, no, I cannot recall.
12 Q. 307 And I think the last vote on that date was at 7216. Which is Councillor
13 Barrett's motion. And Councillor Barrett's motion was for the introduction of
14 low density zoning in the Carrickmines Valley at one house to the acre. And
12:10:40 15 you voted in favour of that, isn't that right?
17 Q. 308 As I think as did your colleague Ms. Terry. Now, I would suggest to you,
18 subject to anything you may wish to say to the Tribunal, Mr. Tyndall, that your
19 vote in favour of low density and Councillor Barrett's motion is inconsistent
12:11:00 20 with your vote on the same occasion in favour of the manager's proposal.
21 A. It would appear when you look at it in isolation with not the full content of
22 the record there, but I would suggest that I would have looked at each motion
23 as it came up and tried to make as best an informed decision as I could with
24 what was available to me at that time.
12:11:22 25 Q. 309 Yes. Can you now looking back on it think of any reason why at the early part
26 of the meeting you would have been in favour of increased density and increased
27 residential take on these lands and by the end of the meeting were voting in
28 favour of one house to the acre?
29 A. Obviously it would have been influenced by the debate on that particular day
12:11:42 30 and I would have listened quite intently particularly to the people who would

www.pcr.ie Day 646
58
12:11:48 1 have been more involved and more familiar with that area.
2 Q. 310 After that vote was successful, Mr. Tyndall, the map went out on public display
3 for a second time in mid 1993. And the map that went out is at 7217.
12:12:08 5 Now, what had happened to the lands that were zoned residential in the
6 Carrickmines Valley. They were all now zoned at one house to the acre. A
7 town centre has been placed on a portion of the lands and the balance are zoned
8 agriculture. And you can see the outline of the Monarch lands. And you
9 would agree I think that certainly by this stage you and probably anybody else
12:12:28 10 who had been at these two meetings must have known that Monarch were a
11 landowner in the Carrickmines Valley?
12 A. I would certainly have known that they were a landowner. I would not suggest
13 that I would have known the intricacies of the actual line.
14 Q. 311 I think indeed if we were to take up some of the motions that you had voted
12:12:47 15 upon and the maps signed attached to those motions show the same outline I
16 think. That you had voted on on 27th of May 1992. The individual motions had
17 maps attached to them, isn't that right?
18 A. I think it must be stated also that you would have dealt with tens if not
19 hundreds of maps. It would be very difficult to recall a specific map.
12:13:06 20 Q. 312 Yes.
21 A. And they wouldn't have been dealt with one after another either. There would
22 have been other maps and considerations in between each time.
23 Q. 313 Well insofar as this particular map was concerned. I think the record of the
24 minutes show the only matter that was being discussed on the 27th of May 1992
12:13:22 25 were the 11 motions relating to the Monarch lands at Cherrywood in County
26 Dublin. Isn't that what the record shows?
27 A. I'm quite prepared to accept what the record shows, yes.
28 Q. 314 Because you will note indeed at 7216. That the last motion, which was
29 Councillor Barrett's motion, concluded the meeting. So that from the
12:13:41 30 beginning of the consideration of map 27 to the end. The only matters that

www.pcr.ie Day 646
59
12:13:46 1 were considered were those 11 motions. And that the maps attached to the
2 motions identified the Monarch lands. Isn't that right? Isn't that right?
4 Q. 315 And I think that what happened then was that the matter came to be considered
12:14:07 5 again by the council in November 1993 and at 7234. This is the meeting of the
6 3rd of November. You were recorded as being present. And at that meeting no
7 vote takes place but the manager makes a report at 7255. And I want to draw
8 to your attention that under the heading "change three". Which is the change
9 brought about by Mr. Barrett's motion, which reduced the density to one house
12:14:29 10 per acre. The heading in the minutes of the meeting are Carrickmines Monarch
11 Properties. Change of zoning at lands at Carrickmines from AP to two houses
12 per acre. That's per hectare.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 316 That's one house per acre, isn't that right?
12:14:42 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 317 The manager at the next page, 7256. He records the history of the zoning and
17 he recommends deleting the amendment, isn't that right? You will see
18 recommendation delete amendment.
19 A. Yes, I see that.
12:14:58 20 Q. 318 And what the manager is recommending there, is that Councillor Barrett's
21 amendment be deleted in its entirety. Isn't that right?
23 Q. 319 So certainly those attending at the meeting including yourself 3rd of November.
24 Before you came to consider the matter would have known that what you were
12:15:15 25 considering included Monarch Properties lands. Isn't that right?
26 A. I would have to assume that is correct.
27 Q. 320 And indeed, I think -- at the meeting of the 11th of November, Mr. Tyndall,
28 which came to consider the matter. A number of motions came to be considered
29 by the council but this was the last chance, isn't that right, to change the
12:15:47 30 density on these lands?

www.pcr.ie Day 646
60
12:15:50 1 A. If that's what you say, yes, I accept that.
2 Q. 321 No, it's not what I say. You are the councillor, Mr. Tyndall. You operated
3 this Development Plan.
4 A. I cannot recall the specific dates as to which, when they arose. If that's
12:16:02 5 what the record is showing, I fully accept that.
6 Q. 322 The position in relation to making a Development Plan is that councillors make
7 a plan, it's put on public display?
8 A. That's right.
9 Q. 323 Representations are made to it. It comes back to the council?
12:16:15 10 A. That's right.
11 Q. 324 And it came back in May of '92 to the council. You voted in a certain way and
12 it went out on display again. And it comes back a second time to the council,
12:16:24 15 Q. 325 And after this decision is made the Development Plan is made, isn't that right?
16 A. That -- that would have been 1993.
17 Q. 326 And the Development Plan in fact was made on 10th of December 1993 by Dublin
18 County Council?
19 A. Which would have been just before the councils would have split into their own
12:16:42 20 different areas.
21 Q. 327 In January of 1994?
23 Q. 328 In November of 1993 what I have been putting to you was this was Monarch's last
24 chance to change the density before the plan was finalised. Isn't that the
12:16:53 25 position?
26 A. That would be correct, yes.
27 Q. 329 So the matter came to be considered by you and your colleagues, I think on 11th
28 of November 1993. And there were a number of motions that were considered.
29 7259, please. And the first motion it's not dealt with at this point in time,
12:17:12 30 that is a motion seeking to confirm change three. And that is to confirm low

www.pcr.ie Day 646
61
12:17:18 1 density. It's a motion by Councillor Smyth and Buckley. The second motion
2 at 7260. Is to confirm change three, that's low density, for all of the
3 residential lands and prepare a variation. And motion No. 3 a motion by
4 Councillor Marren and Coffey to accept the manager's recommendation for a
12:17:40 5 portion of the lands and confirm the manager's recommendation for the balance
6 of the lands. And an amendment is proposed by Councillor Barrett. And
7 that's proposed to the first motion. And you vote against Councillor
8 Barrett's amendment at 7261. And on the next page, on the first motion, at
9 7262. Which is to confirm low density on all of the lands. You vote against
12:18:16 10 that motion. Do you see that?
11 A. I do.
12 Q. 330 Now, you have voted for low density in May of 1992 and you had voted for
13 Councillor Barrett's motion. Isn't that right? In May of '92.
12:18:28 15 Q. 331 And you are now voting against low density here?
16 A. That is also correct.
17 Q. 332 It would follow from that, that you had changed your view in the period.
19 A. I think the first motion I voted for was for higher densities.
12:18:43 20 Q. 333 Yes, you had.
21 A. Again, going back to, I would have listened to each debate and tried to make-up
22 my mind on that.
23 Q. 334 But certainly, insofar as you had voted for low density. You had voted
24 initially for higher density. That was defeated. You then voted for low
12:18:58 25 density in May of '92. And you are now voting for low density here, isn't
27 A. Well, it would appear I'm going back to the initial position that I had.
28 Q. 335 I think on the second motion, which is also low density, at 7263, you are
29 recorded as voting against low density again. And on Councillor Coffey and
12:19:16 30 Marren's motion, which is at 7263, you are recorded as voting in favour of it.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
62
2 A. That's what the record shows, yes.
3 Q. 336 And Councillor Coffey and Marren's motion was accompanied by a map, 7227. Do
4 you see that outline?
12:19:44 5 A. I do.
6 Q. 337 That is the outline of the Monarch lands, Mr. Tyndall. And that is the
7 outline of the lands that would have been on most of the motions in May of '92?
8 A. If that's, yes, I accept -- even at this stage looking at it I wouldn't be able
9 to tell you that was the exact map, having seen them just two minutes ago.
12:20:04 10 Q. 338 But certainly having looked at what the manager had said, at the time that you
11 were voting on these lands, you must have known that what you were voting on
12 was Monarch's lands because they had been identified in the heading.
13 A. Well, again, I cannot answer as to what -- 'cos I cannot recall the specifics.
14 Certainly looking at it now, it would appear to be that way. But again, 20/20
12:20:25 15 hindsight is a wonderful thing.
16 Q. 339 Yes. You voted in favour of Councillor Marren and Coffey's motion. Isn't
17 that right?
18 A. This is the last motion?
19 Q. 340 Yes.
12:20:37 20 A. I'm not sure to be honest. That's again -- this was the last one to increase
21 the densities.
22 Q. 341 This is at 7263. Yes, 7263. This motion is Councillor Marren's.
23 A. I did, yes, I did vote.
24 Q. 342 What you were voting for in favour there, Mr. Tyndall, was to increase the
12:20:59 25 density on the Monarch lands to four per acre and leave the balance of the
26 residentially zoned lands at one per acre.
27 A. Again, I would have listened to the full debate and tried to make an informed
28 decision. And I think it is regrettable that the minutes don't show that there
29 would have been wholesome and fairly boisterous debates at that stage, both for
12:21:24 30 and against.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
63
12:21:24 1 Q. 343 So your initial starting position in May of 1992 was in favour of increased
2 density and increased residential zoning. And in the course of that meeting
3 you changed your view and voted in favour of low density. Is that the
4 position?
12:21:35 5 A. There was a duty upon councillors to listen to all relevant facts, including
6 their colleagues. So, yes, I have no problem with saying that I would have
7 changed my mind.
8 Q. 344 And then when it came to November you were voting against low density, having
9 voted in favour of low density in May of '92. And you then voted in favour of
12:21:55 10 increasing the density on the Monarch lands.
11 A. I would have looked at each motion and made a decision on the basis of each
12 motion as presented to me, which would not have basically stated for or against
13 low or high density in any shape or form. It would have been each motion as
14 it came in front of me.
12:22:12 15 Q. 345 Well I think in fairness to yourself, that the density is dealt with on the
16 actual motion at 7226. This the motion that you voted on.
17 A. Yep.
18 Q. 346 And I think in fairness to you yourself, you can't be correct when you say you
19 weren't considering density because it was the only thing you were --
12:22:29 20 A. Sorry, just to clarify, what I was suggesting is that I would have looked at
21 each motion as it came in front of me and voted accordingly. If there wasn't
22 a motion there I couldn't have voted on it.
23 Q. 347 Now, well leaving that aside for the moment. Just looking at the motion at
24 the moment. For the moment, Mr. Tyndall, would you agree that the only matter
12:22:47 25 that you are considering is density?
26 A. On map No. 27, change No. 3?
27 Q. 348 Yes.
28 A. If that's ... yes, it would appear that way.
29 Q. 349 Yes.
12:23:06 30 A. Remain at two per hectare.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
64
12:23:09 1 Q. 350 Yes, because change three was the imposition of density at one per acre as a
2 result of Councillor Barrett's motion.
3 A. Uh-huh.
4 Q. 351 And what this motion is doing is it's changing the density on the lands
12:23:18 5 attached to the map to four to the acre and leaving the rest at one to the
6 acre.
7 A. Okay.
8 Q. 352 All right. Now, if you go back and you look at the map at 7217.
9 Mr. Tyndall, can you assist the Tribunal at all as to why or what were the
12:23:40 10 reasons that would leave the Monarch lands with the density of four to the acre
11 and the balance of the lands zoned at one to the acre?
12 A. I cannot. All I can suggest as to what was going on at that stage, which may
13 have been a compromise put forward to try and get some higher densities
14 through. But I cannot, I'm only speculating because I cannot recall as to why
12:24:08 15 and where to for.
16 Q. 353 Looking at the map, can you see any reason to justify the different densities
17 that were voted on, on the 11th of November '93?
18 A. Again, if I had the benefit of the debate both for and against, well then it
19 would be easier now to make that decision.
12:24:24 20 Q. 354 Yes but looking at that map and with the benefit of your years of experience as
21 a councillor --
22 A. With my years of experience I would be a lot more familiar with lands relating
23 my own particular area and would be very much be open to the debate when it
24 came outside of my area. So I think it's unfair -- I cannot suggest as to why
12:24:43 25 at this moment in time. I can only say to you again that I would have looked
26 at it at the particular time, listened and tried to make an informed decision
27 as best I could at that particular time.
28 Q. 355 Do you agree that when you voted upon that motion you, whatever about any other
29 councillors, must have known that you were voting on the Monarch lands?
12:25:01 30 A. I cannot surmise as to what I must or didn't know. I can only tell you what I

www.pcr.ie Day 646
65
12:25:06 1 do know now and what I'm looking at, at this point in time.
2 Q. 356 Looking at the minutes of the meeting and looking at the documentation that has
3 been outlined to you and which has been circulated, I think you would have to
4 agree that you must have known that you were dealing with the Monarch
12:25:20 5 Properties lands, isn't that right?
6 A. No.
7 Q. 357 You don't agree with that?
8 A. I don't agree with that.
9 Q. 358 Then 7225.
12:25:32 10 A. I accept that I can look at the maps now and it's very, very clearly -- I don't
11 accept and I would be only surmising if I was to state any other thing to you
12 at this moment in time. I do not recall at that particular time that I would
13 have been fully aware of each boundary relating to that map.
14 Q. 359 When you were -- were you ever approached by Mr. Lynn or anybody else on his
12:25:55 15 behalf in connection with supporting the Cherrywood lands?
16 A. I cannot recall specifically being asked about the Cherrywood lands. But I
17 have absolutely no doubt that I would have had discussions. I cannot recall a
18 specific meeting relating to Cherrywood. But again, I am not disputing that I
19 wouldn't have discussed the Cherrywood lands with Mr. Lynn.
12:26:16 20 Q. 360 Did you ever receive any payment or political subscriptions from Mr. Lynn or
21 from Monarch Properties or anybody on their behalf?
22 A. Well I now understand and following documentation received from the Tribunal
23 that I received a payment in 1991 of 300 punts. It would have been before the
24 Local Election, which was held on 27th of June 1991. And this payment was
12:26:44 25 made be it May or June back in 1991.
26 Q. 361 Yes. I think you informed the Tribunal on two occasions I think by letter
27 dated 17th of February 2006. 2268.
29 Q. 362 At paragraph three, "That you never received any payment or benefit from or on
12:27:02 30 behalf of Monarch Properties Limited", a number of companies and then a number

www.pcr.ie Day 646
66
12:27:07 1 of named people or any individual or company associated with them. And then
2 that you had no recollection of any person making representations to you
3 regarding the lands at Cherrywood. But you would now accept that you must
4 have met Mr. Lynn and I think you would accept it's likely that he may have
12:27:21 5 lobbied you in connection with these lands, is that correct?
6 A. I have no -- as I stated in my statement, I have no recollection. But if it
7 is shown -- I have no doubt that there's a possibility of it, I would have
8 spoken to him because I would have met Mr. Lynn on numerous occasions.
9 Q. 363 We are talking about whether or not he was lobbied. And at 2272. On the
12:27:41 10 24th of March 2006 --
11 A. Just to clarify something. That particular statement. You're right. I
12 didn't make any reference to monies that were received which was the 300 pounds
13 which I now acknowledge did arrive in 1991. Just to clarify that if I may.
14 I would have been new to politics, new to the party. I would have only joined
12:28:05 15 the party in May and I wouldn't have had any dealings. The election was in
16 June. I wouldn't have had any dealings at that particular juncture relating
17 to monies that would have come from elsewhere. That's why it wasn't disclosed
18 in that because I had no recollection of it.
19 Q. 364 Sorry, I'm following you. You wouldn't have any dealings with monies coming
12:28:27 20 from elsewhere, Mr. Tyndall, I --
21 A. Just trying to clarify. I hadn't disclosed that 300 pounds at that moment in
22 time because I wasn't aware of it.
23 Q. 365 You had forgotten it?
24 A. I don't believe I was ever aware of it at that stage. I have no dispute. I
12:28:40 25 am not disputing that the monies. I am not disputing that the monies weren't
26 received. What I am saying to you is that I would have joined the Progressive
27 Democrats to run as a local candidate in 1991 or in May of 1991 and my energies
28 at that stage would have been towards getting elected. And I don't recall I
29 would have had a constituency office set up. I don't recall actually seeing
12:29:03 30 the cheque. It's quite simple.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
67
12:29:04 1 Q. 366 And I think on the 24th of March 2006 you provided a second statement to the
2 Tribunal at 2272. In which you reiterated that you had never received, isn't
3 that right, any payment via or on behalf of Mr. Monahan, Mr. Lynn, Mr. Sweeney,
4 Mr. Glennane, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Dunlop, Mr. Frank Dunlop & Associates or Shefran
12:29:23 5 or Mr. Monahan or the Monarch Group, save for an unsolicited payment of 250
6 pounds to Mr. Dunlop." Isn't that the position?
7 A. Which I had previously mentioned to the Tribunal.
8 Q. 367 Yes, we're talking now about the Monarch Properties payment.
9 A. I'm talking about the second letter -- the first letter. Just to clarify
12:29:40 10 again, the first letter asked specific dates and that is why the second
11 clarification only related to that.
12 Q. 368 Yes.
13 A. And the dates actually changed I believe in the second letter from the
14 Tribunal.
12:29:52 15 Q. 369 Yes. In the first letter that you received from the Tribunal, I think you
16 were asked for payments to a particular date I think in fact it was in fact to
17 between the 1st of January 1990 and 31st of December '94. Isn't that right?
19 Q. 370 Now, the payment in June 1991 would fall within that period, isn't that right?
21 Q. 371 In the first letter you gave the Tribunal you said you didn't receive any
22 payments. And you were then asked to provide information relating payments
23 within an extended period, isn't that right?
12:30:23 25 Q. 372 But still including June of 1991.
27 Q. 373 And on the second occasion when you provided the information to the Tribunal
28 you were still of the belief that you hadn't received any money, isn't that the
29 position that?
12:30:33 30 A. Would be correct.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
68
12:30:34 1 Q. 374 Now, I have just been handed a supplemental statement. And I understand
2 that -- I don't think we've had a copy of this before.
4 MR. O'DONNELL: It was given to the Tribunal earlier on this week.
12:30:44 5
8 MS. DILLON: I don't have a copy. I'm not disputing that we got a copy of it
9 earlier on. But -- It certainly I don't think it has been added to the brief
12:30:52 10 but it will be added to the brief.
11
12 MR. O'DONNELL: We have copies of it for you, Chairman, Members of the
13 Tribunal, if you wish to have copies.
14 A. If it would be of any benefit I could explain it to you.
12:31:04 15
16 CHAIRMAN: Well perhaps is it --
17
18 MS. DILLON: That's fine. We can put it up on screen. Simply that it will
19 have to be added to the brief.
12:31:10 20
21 CHAIRMAN: Is it a lengthy statement?
22
23 MS. DILLON: No, it's not.
24
12:31:13 25 CHAIRMAN: Perhaps if it's read out then and we can add it to the brief.
26
27 MR. O'DONNELL: We'll just give you copies.
28
29 (Handed to the Tribunal)
12:31:29 30

www.pcr.ie Day 646
69
12:31:29 1 MS. DILLON: This will be added to the brief and circulated.
3 Now, at paragraph 1 of this statement it states as follows. "It has been
4 suggested in statements tendered to the Tribunal that I received a payment of
12:31:42 5 300 pounds from the Monarch Group on 11th of June 1991. I have no
6 recollection of receiving such a payment. If records demonstrated that such a
7 donation was made I do not dispute that it was duly received by me."
9 And for the avoidance of doubt, I think it might be as well at this particular
12:31:56 10 point in time, Mr. Tyndall --
11
12 MR. O'DONNELL: Perhaps we could finish reading the statement.
13
14 MS. DILLON: No, I'm sorry. I will deal with this in my own way. Thank you
12:32:04 15 as it arises I'm taking the witness.
16
17 You seem to be saying in that paragraph that it suggested that you received the
18 payment. In case there is any dispute about it. If we have 3191, which is
19 an extract --
12:32:15 20 A. Sorry, I don't dispute I received it. I mean I have no reason to dispute that
21 I received a payment.
22 Q. 375 It's simply that you say and I quote from your statement, Mr. Tyndall --
23 A. I didn't recall receiving it. That's how I stated it.
24 Q. 376 And the record I want to draw to your attention is an extract from the cheque
12:32:30 25 payments book from Monarch Properties and if you look at I think 7 from the
26 bottom on that, you will see recorded in the cheque payments book of Monarch
27 Properties a cheque in the sum of 300 pounds. And the payee is Chris Tyndall
28 PD. Sorry Colm Tyndall TD, do you see that?
29 A. Maybe I should check.
12:32:50 30 Q. 377 Do you see that, Mr. Tyndall?

www.pcr.ie Day 646
70
12:32:51 1 A. I do.
2 Q. 378 Yes. And it's the 11th of the 6th 1991. And I think that there are and then
3 indeed at 3193. On 19th of June 1991 there is a debit of that cheque No. 3648
4 in the sum of some 7 or 8 up from the bottom cheque No. 3648, in the sum 300
12:33:13 5 pounds from Monarch Properties Services Limited.
7 Now, to go back to your third statement, Mr. Tyndall, if I may.
9 At paragraph two you say. "Furthermore and for the avoidance of any doubt it
12:33:25 10 is also suggested that I received two further payments namely, A, a payment
11 from Richard Lynn & Associates Limited on the 25th of March 1999, in the sum of
12 500 pounds. And B, a payment from Dunloe Ewart on the 24th of May 1999 in the
13 sum of 500 pounds for a golf classic.
14
12:33:43 15 Again, I have no recollection he have of receiving either of these payments
16 during my time in politics I organised two golf classic tournaments to
17 fundraise my election campaigning. I believe it is more likely than not that
18 the payment A above was also in respect of a golf classic."
19
12:33:59 20 I think that the records provided to the Tribunal from Dunloe Ewart show at
21 page 6752, at item 14 on that list, a golf classic in aid of Councillor Colm
22 Tyndall held on 25th of March 1999 and 500 pounds was contributed.
23
24 And in fact, I think subject to any correction from you, that only one sum of
12:34:22 25 500 pounds is being referred to, Mr. Tyndall. And that you may have made an
26 error in your statement.
27
28 MR. O'DONNELL: No, the second payment is from Dunloe Ewart.
29
12:34:32 30 CHAIRMAN: This is a list of Dunloe Ewart.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
71
12:34:36 1 MS. DILLON: Yes. This is the Dunloe Ewart list. The payment is made by
2 Mr. Lynn on behalf of Dunloe Ewart. So it was not being suggested that there
3 were two payments of 500 pounds. The Tribunal is only aware of one payment
4 subject to Mr. Tyndall being able to clarify it.
12:34:50 5 A. I can clarify it, yes.
6 Q. 379 Well, what you have said is that you -- it is suggested you received two
7 payments. Are you telling the Tribunal you received two payments?
8 A. What is said in the statement is that I received a payment from Richard Lynn &
9 Associates Limited of 500 pounds. In addition to the Dunloe Ewart, yes.
12:35:09 10 Q. 380 That's what you say you received?
11 A. And that is correct, yes.
12 Q. 381 All right. And at paragraph three --
13 A. Just to clarify. The original letter from the Tribunal asked Richard Lynn and
14 that's why I felt I was trying to be helpful not to differentiate between
12:35:25 15 Richard Lynn & Associates Limited and just Richard Lynn.
16 Q. 382 And your records -- are you saying that you based that information on your
17 records, Mr. Tyndall, or the information you have been provided by the
18 Tribunal?
19 A. As I understand it, I think it was from details furnished by the Tribunal.
12:35:40 20 Q. 383 And at paragraph four you said "For the avoidance of doubt, I wish to make it
21 clear that I had and still have no recollection of receiving the payments
22 received to above which is why I did not refer to them in my earlier statements
23 to the Tribunal. Nor have I any contemporaneous records now available of
24 receiving the payments in question. However, if other persons records suggest
12:36:01 25 such payments were made to me I am not in a position to and do not dispute
26 receipt."
27
28 That's dated 29th of May 2006.
29
12:36:08 30 Was that your third statement to the Tribunal, Mr. Tyndall?

www.pcr.ie Day 646
72
2 Q. 384 Thank you very much, Mr. Tyndall. If you answer any questions anybody else
3 may have for you.
12:36:15 5 CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Sorry, does your counsel wish to ask
6 anything?
8 MR. O'DONNELL: Why is it that you believe that you received a payment on the
9 24th of May 1999 from Richard Lynn & Associates and a payment from the 25th of
12:36:34 10 March 1999 from Dunloe Ewart? Is it through your own recollection or is it
11 through documents supplied to you by the Tribunal from both these entries?
12 A. It is through documents supplied by the Tribunal. That I have no dispute that
13 I did receive them. I can only assume at this moment in time, I never had
14 any -- I never did any fundraising other than golf classics.
12:36:54 15 Q. 385 Yes.
16 A. And I can only assume that both of those would have been for participation in
17 the golf outing which I would have held.
18 Q. 386 So, if for example, Dunloe Ewart have misrecorded the timing of the payment and
19 that there is only one payment, you accept that that's correct? But you have
12:37:09 20 no --
21 A. Absolutely.
22 Q. 387 You have no way at this stage of saying whether there were two or one or none
23 except through the records supplied to you by the Tribunal?
24 A. Correct, yes.
12:37:26 25 Q. 388 And that also applies in respect of the earlier payment in June of 1991?
26 A. That is also correct, yes.
27
28 CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you very much.
29
12:37:26 30 JUDGE FAHERTY: Thank you very much.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
73
12:37:26 1
4 MR. QUINN: Mr. Denis O'Callaghan, please.
12:37:30 5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 646
74
12:37:33 1 MR. DENIS O'CALLAGHAN HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS QUESTIONED BY
4 CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon, Mr. O'Callaghan
12:38:00 5 A. Good afternoon, Chairman.
7 Q. 389 MR. QUINN: I know that you have an appointment in the afternoon. So I will
8 try and get through your evidence as best I can.
12:38:09 10 Mr. O'Callaghan, you were written to like other witnesses who have given
11 evidence by the Tribunal. And you supplied a statement on 19th of April 2006.
12 And that statement is to be found at pages 7617 and 7618 of the brief.
13
14 I think you were a councillor for Dublin County Council having been elected in
12:38:29 15 1991. Is that correct?
16 A. That's correct. June of '91.
17 Q. 390 June of 1991. I think you are a member of Democratic Left, is that correct?
18 A. No. I was elected a councillor for the Workers Party in June of '91.
19 Q. 391 Workers Party?
21 Q. 392 And I think Councillor Gilmore and Councillor Rabbitte were also members of
22 that party at that time, is that right?
23 A. That's correct. As were Councillor Breathnach, Billane and Tipping.
24 Q. 393 I think you are familiar with the Carrickmines lands, isn't that right?
12:39:01 25 A. I would have been fairly familiar, yes.
26 Q. 394 And I think together with your colleague Councillor Gilmore, you promoted some
27 motions in relation to the lands, isn't that right?
28 A. I co-signed motions with Councillor Gilmore and Councillor Breathnach, that's
29 correct.
12:39:16 30 Q. 395 Just to return to your statement for the moment. You said that you received

www.pcr.ie Day 646
75
12:39:19 1 no payments or benefits from any other persons associated with Monarch.
3 Q. 396 You'd know the named persons. Nor indeed did you receive monies from Mr.
4 Dunlop or any of his companies, is that correct?
12:39:29 5 A. No, I didn't. That's correct.
6 Q. 397 Now, if we just deal. Your first involvement with the lands would have been
7 in May 1992, isn't that right?
9 Q. 398 And at that stage the manager had put forward proposals in relation to the
12:39:46 10 lands, isn't that right? And those proposals were contained on map DP92/44.
11 And it was more or less to the effect that the area where these lands were
12 situated would be zoned A1 on piped sewage four houses to the acre. I can put
13 up a map if you like, if it would be of assistance. 7203, please.
14
12:40:06 15 This was the situation coming in after the first public display of the
16 manager's recommendations to the councillors. And you see there that they had
17 got to public display on piped sewage four houses to the acre.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 399 He was extending the area to proposed line of the Southeastern Motorway?
12:40:28 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 400 And he was recommending or suggesting an upgrade from AP to A1P, which would
22 have been on an action area plan, isn't that correct?
24 Q. 401 And that manager proposal was put forward based on that map. And proposed by
12:40:44 25 Councillors Lydon and McGrath at that meeting in May '92. And if I could have
26 7207.
27 You voted against the manager's proposals, isn't that right
28 A. That's what the record states, that's correct.
29 Q. 402 Yes. As did your colleagues at that time?
12:41:01 30 A. Correct.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
76
12:41:02 1 Q. 403 Then there were proposals I think by Councillors Breathnach and Smyth as there
2 were by Councillors Gordon and Reeves. The lands would remain at one house to
3 the acre. If I could have 7210.
12:41:16 5 And I think you voted against those proposals, isn't that right?
6 A. That's what the record shows, correct.
7 Q. 404 Yes. If you were against four houses to the acre and against one house to the
8 acre. Can I ask you what you were in favour of at that time?
9 A. I think it is important to explain to you that I would have co-signed a number
12:41:54 10 of motions in relation to the Carrickmines Valley which included a special
11 amenity area order, the district zoning. A number of motions which I would
12 argue had a structured plan for the valley. And we asked that those motions
13 be taken at the beginning of the date. Now, there was a vote on that, which
14 was defeated.
12:42:18 15 Q. 405 Yes.
16 A. So our motions weren't taken.
17 Q. 406 Yes.
18 A. At the beginning.
19 Q. 407 If we come to 7213, please. We come to the first of those motions.
12:42:29 20 Namely, a motion "That the council resolve that a special amenity area order be
21 made for the Shangannagh Loughlinstown Valley", isn't that right?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. 408 And you voted obviously in favour of your own motion there, as did your
24 colleagues?
12:42:42 25 A. Correct.
26 Q. 409 And then of we go to the next page at 7214. We find a second motion. This
27 time a proposal that there would be a land zoned C, which was I think a
28 district centre or a town centre.
29 A. No, district centre.
12:42:57 30 Q. 410 District centre.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
77
12:42:57 1 A. Correct.
2 Q. 411 I think that motion was actually successful, isn't that right?
3 A. The record shows that, that is correct.
4 Q. 412 Can I ask you just in relation to that motion. Had you discussed that motion
12:43:05 5 with any representatives of Monarch before you came to table it?
6 A. In relation to the particular motion?
7 Q. 413 Yes. Or your proposals or your views that it should be a district centre at
8 this location?
9 A. Not to my knowledge. In relation to, specifically in relation to a district
12:43:25 10 centre. I would have had representations from Monarch in relation to their
11 lands over all. I can't recall specifically in relation to a district centre.
12 Q. 414 Did you have much attraction with the representatives of Monarch in relation to
13 the lands at this time, that's 1992?
14 A. Not really. I think I met with Richard Lynn. He may have shown up at our
12:43:49 15 advice clinics which we held at that time across the county. And he may have
16 shown up at one of my advice clinics and discussed his proposals.
17 Q. 415 Yes.
18 A. With both myself and Deputy Gilmore.
19 Q. 416 Yourself and Deputy Gilmore seem to have been very close in relation to the
12:44:07 20 motions. You seemed to propose or seconded each others motions?
21 A. We tended to that as a party.
22 Q. 417 Yes.
23 A. But you would understand. I was a new councillor. Deputy Gilmore was the
24 senior councillor.
12:44:19 25 Q. 418 I appreciate that. So in any event, that was a successful motion. Would it be
26 fair to say that you were seeking to promote some sort of development or maybe
27 job creation projects in the valley at this stage?
28 A. Yes. As you know, there was an extensive PR job done by, on behalf of Monarch
29 Properties in the Loughlinstown and Shankill areas in relation to the
12:44:45 30 development of their lands. There would have been high unemployment in the

www.pcr.ie Day 646
78
12:44:51 1 area at the time, both in Loughlinstown, Ballybrack and in the Shankill areas.
2 And yes, in putting, in supporting a district zoning there, I would have been
3 of the opinion that it was for the public good. Yes, it would create jobs.
4 Q. 419 But you weren't promoting it on the basis that you had been asked to do so by
12:45:14 5 Monarch?
6 A. Absolutely not.
7 Q. 420 Or any of their representatives?
9 Q. 421 Yes. At 7215 we see the third of your motions. Which was a motion that the
12:45:22 10 council would seem seek agreement with the landowner or developer seeking to
11 confine the construction of the number of houses to a smaller area of the site.
12 And that having regard to the C zoning on a portion of land. Is where you
13 were seeking to concentrate the residential development close to the district
14 centre which you had just proposed?
12:45:43 15 A. That motion formed part of our initial wraft of motions which we asked to be
16 taken first.
17 Q. 422 Yes.
18 A. What we were attempting there was to cluster what development was permitted on
19 it. To cluster those houses so as not to impact significantly on the
12:46:06 20 Carrickmines Valley, which was a beautiful valley, as you know.
21 Q. 423 That motion was unsuccessful I think?
23 Q. 424 And then finally, there was a motion tabled by Councillors Barrett and Dockrell
24 suggesting that development would be limited to a density not exceeding one
12:46:23 25 house per acre.
26 A. That's correct, that would.
27 Q. 425 7216, please. I think the 1991 draft plan would have had it at four houses to
28 the acre.
29 A. Yes. I supported.
12:46:38 30 Q. 426 You supported that?

www.pcr.ie Day 646
79
12:46:39 1 A. I supported that motion. It was the last motion I recall on the evening.
2 Q. 427 Yes.
3 A. I supported that motion, yes.
4 Q. 428 And had Councillors Barrett or Dockrell asked you for their support or your
12:46:54 5 support for their motion?
6 A. No, they hadn't.
7 Q. 429 And had Monarch at any stage asked that you would support a motion for either a
8 higher density than one house to the acre or indeed four houses to the acre?
9 A. Not that I can recall, no.
12:47:10 10 Q. 430 In any event, I think the map went on display on the basis that these lands
11 would be zoned on the basis of one house to the acre on piped sewage, isn't
12 that right?
14 Q. 431 And the matter came back before the council in November 1993. Isn't that
12:47:25 15 right?
17 Q. 432 I think you had motions again in November 1993. If we could have 7260.
18 Yourself and Councillor Gilmore had proposed that the lands on public display
19 change 3, map 27 be confirmed as shown. And that the manager be requested to
12:47:48 20 prepare and submit to the new Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council not later
21 than June 1994, a draft variation of the new County Development Plan, isn't
22 that right?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. 433 That motion I think was unsuccessful?
12:48:00 25 A. Um, if my memory serves me right it was unsuccessful.
26 Q. 434 You see at 7262 and 7263 the vote on that. There then I think was a motion by
27 Councillors Marren and Coffey asking that the amendments be deleted, isn't that
28 right? We see there at 7263 "That Dublin County Council resolves to accept the
29 County Manager's recommendation and delete the 1993 amendments in respect of
12:48:24 30 the lands outlined in red on the attached map. And that the balance of the

www.pcr.ie Day 646
80
12:48:29 1 lands remained at two houses to the hectare."
2 If I could have 7217. This is the map, you will see now in a moment on the
3 map. I'm sure you've seen it already this morning.
4 A. Yes.
12:48:40 5 Q. 435 We went through it with other witnesses. The area coloured yellow is an area
6 proposed in one house to the acre, isn't that right? And this motion --
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 436 Of Councillors Marren and Coffey is that the area encompassed by the red line
9 would revert to four houses to the acre. But that the balance of the lands
12:48:59 10 coloured yellow would remain at one house to the acre?
11 A. That's correct and the manager's report was also saying that.
12 Q. 437 The manager's report I think was suggesting that all of the lands --
13 A. Sorry. I apologise, yes. For the whole.
14 Q. 438 Can you put forward any reason as to why the lands encompassed by the red line
12:49:21 15 which coincidentally happen to be the Monarch lands ought to revert to four
16 houses to the acre and that the balance of the lands would remain at one house
17 to the acre?
18 A. I can't really. I can surmise. That the lands outside of the Monarch lands
19 marked in red are lands in the Cabinteely, Lahaunstown, Brennanstown area which
12:49:48 20 were the subject of, if you like, a separate extensive lobbying earlier on by
21 the Carrickmines Valley Protection Association who had lobbied quite
22 significantly in, prior to the Local Elections of '91 and indeed after.
23
24 So it's just a surmise that public reps would be very conscious of the -- of
12:50:23 25 that association who were very active in retaining a number of things. One,
26 low density. Secondly, that I can recall, they didn't want any junctions at
27 either Carrickmines or Wyatville and in fact want the to divert traffic off the
28 M50 to both Shankill and Ballinteer. And thirdly, they weren't quite in
29 favour of industrial zonings around the -- around those interchanges of
12:50:59 30 Wyatville and Carrickmines. So there was a pretty powerful lobby. So it's

www.pcr.ie Day 646
81
12:51:03 1 just --
2 Q. 439 But that lobby effected all of the lands coloured yellow, isn't that right?
3 Not just the lands other than the Monarch lands?
4 A. It did, yes.
12:51:12 5 Q. 440 Yeah. Now, just in relation to the other than the fact that these are Monarch
6 related lands.
7 A. Uh-huh.
8 Q. 441 Can you give any indication or suggestion to the Tribunal any reason why these
9 lands should be singled out as lands that merited four houses to the acre,
12:51:29 10 whereas the balance of the adjoining lands which had the support of the manager
11 at four houses to the acre, ought to be retained at one house to the acre?
12 A. No, is the answer to you.
13 Q. 442 Thank you very much. Now, you then continued on I think as a member of Dun
14 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council, isn't that right?
12:51:49 15 A. That's right, from '94.
16 Q. 443 Yes, '94. And I think again yourself, and particularly Councillor Gilmore
17 promoted the concept I think of a science and technology park, isn't that
18 right, for this area?
19 A. It that would be correct, yeah. Councillor Gilmore probably more so.
12:52:07 20 Q. 444 Particularly in May '94. If I could have 5130, please. This is a report on
21 Councillor Gilmore's suggestion on the science and technology park for the
22 area. Can you recall the circumstances under which Councillor Gilmore came to
23 propose the science and technology park for this area?
24 A. Well I can recall my own. Obviously, I can't speak for Councillor Deputy
12:52:33 25 Gilmore. There was an idea floating at the time, I recall, in relation to the
26 provision of a science and technology park in the Dublin area. And I think a
27 number of local authorities were bidding for that science and technology park.
28 Also I think the colleges, a number of colleagues, Trinity, UCD, DTI, DCU
29 obviously were interested in the idea. And I think there was an EU programme
12:53:07 30 also in relation to it.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
82
12:53:09 1 On Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council it was thought it was a tremendious
2 idea. We had UCD in the county. And that it would -- Dun Laoghaire Rathdown
3 would actually be a partner in it, I think it was if my memory's right, GRE.
4 Q. 445 Yes.
12:53:30 5 A. And that it would be a revenue generating base for the local authority. And
6 again, would create jobs in the area. So my recollection of it was that the
7 idea was warmly welcomed.
8 Q. 446 Welcomed both by the councillors and by the officials presumably?
9 A. Certainly by the councillors.
12:53:48 10 Q. 447 And of course obviously the location of a science and technology park now on
11 the area would require an amendment or a variation to the Development Plan?
12 A. It would require a variation of the County Development Plan, yes.
13 Q. 448 And I think as matters transpired, the issue or the motion Councillor Gilmore's
14 motion, was discussed at a tourism and planning meeting of the council in May
12:54:14 15 '94. And again in June '94, isn't that right?
16 A. Yeah.
17 Q. 449 Do you recall having any discussions with representatives of Monarch at this
18 time in relation to the possibility of the science and technology park?
19 A. No, no.
12:54:29 20 Q. 450 In any event, I think the council, as you say, were very much in favour of the
21 proposal. And in June '94 I think, it was decided that there would be a Draft
22 Action Plan put on display. A delegation would meet with ministers and a
23 letter would be written to a committee or a subcommittee which had been
24 established by the Taoiseach to look into the whole issue of the science and
12:54:53 25 technology park. Isn't that right? 2369. This would appear to be what the
26 record of the meeting of 29th of June decided.
27 A. Correct.
28 Q. 451 The planning and tourism committee, that was the subcommittee presumably?
29 A. It would be a subcommittee of the council, yes.
12:55:21 30 Q. 452 And that seemed be the steering committee in relation to the science and

www.pcr.ie Day 646
83
12:55:26 1 technology issue and also the area action plan, isn't that right?
2 A. Yes, that's where it was appropriate to be raised.
3 Q. 453 And I think by November of 1994, on the 14th of November 1994, the manager was
4 in a position to tell the council that agreement had been reached on terms with
12:55:44 5 GRE and Monarch in relation to the council's perhaps in a science and
6 technology park. And I think it was resolved that there would be put on
7 display, a variation to the Development Plan to cater for the science and
8 technology park, isn't that right?
9 A. If there was an official report of that I'd accept that.
12:56:05 10 Q. 454 Yes. And also I think that that agreement which the manager brokered
11 necessitated other variations by way of an increase in density from agriculture
12 to residential of portions of the Monarch lands?
13 A. I think it had a knock on effect on to certain -- maybe and to the written
14 statement also.
12:56:25 15 Q. 455 Yes. And the written statement.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 456 And I think a map did go on public display. And the matter was reviewed again
18 at a meeting. You voted in favour of those proposals as did 16 other of your
19 colleagues. I think there were only two who voted against the proposals.
12:56:42 20 And the map, 94/85A went on public display. If we have 7464.
21
22 There are nine changes I think proposed there by way of variation. And they
23 effectively provide for the E1, which was now to be a science and technology
24 park. The written statement had to be amended obviously accordingly. Some
12:57:11 25 of the lands that were being changed were one was the agriculture B 4.5
26 hectares. A ten houses to the hectare. 20 hectares of that had to be
27 converted. As did one hectare of C, which was the district centre. And then
28 I think the district centre was replaced by agricultural lands as we'll see at.
29 It's amendment No. 4. And then amendments No. 5 and 6 proposed that
12:57:37 30 agricultural land south of what had been a proposed line of the motorway would

www.pcr.ie Day 646
84
12:57:42 1 now be elevated to in the case of 0.7 hectares C. In the case of 19.5
2 hectares A, which would have been residential. But this time residential on
3 16 houses to the hectare.
4 A. Uh-huh.
12:57:57 5 Q. 457 And I think that would went on public display. It came back before the
6 council in April 1995 when it was voted on. If I could have 2427, please.
7 And again, I think you were one of the 23 Councillors who vote in the favour of
8 the proposal. There being only one councillor who voted against them, isn't
9 that right?
12:58:22 10 A. If that's what the record says.
11 Q. 458 And 2428.
12 A. I accept that.
13 Q. 459 And again, throughout this period, did you have any contact with
14 representatives of Monarch in relation to the matter?
12:58:38 15 A. That period '95 to the best of my knowledge, no.
16 Q. 460 Yes. Now, I think that you were to loose your colleagues Councillors Rabbitte
17 and Gilmore. They became ministers or junior ministers in the Government in
18 late '94?
19 A. In late '94, '95 to June '97.
12:59:00 20 Q. 461 Yes. But unfortunately, I think the science and technology park wasn't given
21 to this district.
22 A. No, that's correct.
23 Q. 462 Did that come as a disappointment?
24 A. Yes, for me personally, yes.
12:59:15 25 Q. 463 Were you involved in seeking to have the park given to the site in Cherrywood?
26 A. No.
27 Q. 464 You didn't lobby for the site to be designated as --
28 A. Only in my contributions on my own council.
29 Q. 465 Only on your contributions to your own council.
12:59:38 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
85
12:59:38 1 Q. 466 I think, I don't want to go through it now. I think the plan did, that is the
2 1993 plan as varied did come up for review then in 1996. And in 1997 maps
3 were produced. I think by January 1998 there was on display, a draft
4 variation of the plan. Which again had submissions from Cherrywood, isn't
6 A. If that's what the record states. That's for the review of --
7 Q. 467 The '93 plan as --
8 A. As varied in '97.
9 Q. 468 As varied back in 1995.
13:00:17 10 A. Yes. You asked me in relation to representations in '97.
11 Q. 469 Yes. No. I'm jumping ahead of myself. I'm not taking it in stages. I'm
12 trying to keep an eye on the time, so to speak.
13 A. Okay.
14 Q. 470 The '93 plan as varied --
13:00:36 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 471 And you have seen the variation and I think it was approved in '95. Isn't that
17 right?
18 A. Yes. That's correct.
19 Q. 472 And then I think the review took place of the 1993 plan as varied in 1996. In
13:00:46 20 other words in 1996 the plan went up for review again in the normal course.
21 A. Yes, the process was commenced.
22 Q. 473 And I think in early '97 maps were produced. And an indication given of time
23 frames etc.
24 A. Yes.
13:01:02 25 Q. 474 But on 26th of March 1997 I think another issue came up for debate in the
26 council. That was the line of the Southeastern Motorway, isn't that right?
28 Q. 475 I think you were instrumental in putting forward the motion in relation to
29 that. If we could have 6291. This is at a meeting of the 26th of March
13:01:18 30 1997. You had proposed and Councillor Pat Fitzgerald had seconded it. That

www.pcr.ie Day 646
86
13:01:26 1 there would be an adjournment of the council until a full Environmental Impact
2 Statement was given and considered by the members in relation to the effect of
3 the motorway. Isn't that right? The line of the motorway had been an issue
4 from early 1990?
13:01:43 5 A. The line of the motorway had been, yes, a major issue both in the Stepaside
6 area and indeed in the, from the Carrickmines -- in the Carrickmines area, yes.
7 Q. 476 And it was hugely ifferential in that it had been long since agreed that
8 development would take place to the eastern side of that motorway line. So
9 the further west the line went, the further the greater the area that had
13:02:05 10 opened up for development, isn't that right?
11 A. I certainly had a view that the line of the motorway should determine
12 development, yes. Back to the sea side --
13 Q. 477 At this stage, that is March '97, you are seeking to stall matters until a full
14 Environmental Impact Statement is reached on the line of the motorway.
13:02:21 15 A. That would be the purpose of the motion, yes.
16 Q. 478 Unfortunately, that motion was lost, isn't that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 479 16 votes against four for and there were no abstentions. Then I think in
19 April '97 your colleagues had put forward the proposal that perhaps the
13:02:40 20 densities would be reinstated in relation to the maps, isn't that right? I
21 think that there were motions, particularly the motion in the name of
22 Councillor Dillon-Byrne, that density on the valley or on the proposed maps
23 would be shown and that they would try and limit the density of the residential
24 density on the development of the Carrickmines area. Do you recall that
13:03:13 25 debate?
26 A. If I can see it on the monitor.
27 Q. 480 If we take the meeting of the 2nd of April 1997. If I have 2556, please.
28 You see there the meeting which had been held on 4th of February 1997. In a
29 motion that the density zoning of all of the maps with the Dublin Draft
13:03:47 30 Development Plan be restored to that density which was designated and in the

www.pcr.ie Day 646
87
13:04:02 1 same manner as Development Plan presently in being, isn't that right?
2 A. Yes. I notice I wasn't present at that meeting.
3 Q. 481 Okay. In any event, I think that motion was unsuccessful. But the manager
4 did give an indication and an undertaking we'll see at 2560 at the same
13:04:07 5 meeting. That he would make available to members a written list together with
6 the relevant maps showing the changes proposed in the Development Plan which
7 had presented at previous meetings. He also informed the members that a
8 number of minor updates of drafting amendments would be made to the written
9 statement and maps before they would be put on public display.
13:04:25 10
11 I think the maps went on public display. Submissions were received in
12 relation to -- or on behalf of Monarch in relation to their lands. And those
13 submissions were considered at a meeting of the council I think in January 1998
14 and voted upon, isn't that right?
13:04:42 15 A. If the record shows that, I'll accept that.
16 Q. 482 Yes. Did you ever receive any offers or suggestions of money from anyone
17 connected with Monarch in relation to your approach to these lands?
19 Q. 483 Did you know of, what appears to be widespread political support by Monarch of
13:05:05 20 your fellow councillors when you were you were a member of the council?
21 A. No.
22 Q. 484 Was it ever referred to at any of the meetings of which at various motions were
23 discussed?
24 A. No, not to my knowledge.
13:05:16 25 Q. 485 Thank you very much.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much,
28
29
13:05:23 30

www.pcr.ie Day 646
88
13:05:23 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: Just one thing, Mr. Quinn. Just something I noticed when you
2 were dealing with the 11th. The confirmation meeting in November. I'm not
3 sure if Mr. O'Callaghan has indicated how he voted. I think the records show
4 he voted against the Marren/Coffey proposed motion. But it might just be as
13:05:40 5 well for it to be put on the transcript. This was in relation to the 1993
6 plan.
7 A. That's correct, my recollection is that I voted against the Marren/Coffey
8 motion.
9 Q. 486 MR. QUINN: You voted against the Marren Coffey motion?
13:05:56 10 A. That's my recollection.
11 Q. 487 You were anxious to retain the zoning at one house to the acre?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 488 And I think you voted in favour of a motion by Councillors Barrett and Dockrell
14 which was amending a Smyth/Buckley motion to add a draft variation by June
13:06:19 15 '94. I may or may not have dealt with that. And then there was one other
16 vote. I think there was a vote that by Councillors Smyth and Misteil to
17 reduce the district centre to agriculture and you voted against that.
18 A. I did, yeah. I was promoting the district centre.
19 Q. 489 You were promoting that. Yes. Thank you.
13:06:38 20
21 CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. O'Callaghan. Ten past two.
22
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 646
89
13:07:33 1 THE TRIBUNAL RESUMED AS FOLLOWS AT 2:00 P.M.
3 CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon.
14:15:58 5 MS. DILLON: Mr. Ned Ryan, please.
7 MR. NED RYAN HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS QUESTIONED BY
8 MS. DILLON AS FOLLOWS:
14:16:30 10 CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon, Mr. Ryan.
11 A. Good afternoon, Chairman.
12
13 MS. DILLON: Good afternoon, Mr. Ryan.
14:16:36 15 Q. 490 I think that you were a County Councillor between 1991 and 1993. Is that
16 correct?
18 Q. 491 And you are a member of the Fianna Fail party, isn't that correct?
14:16:45 20 Q. 492 In 1994 what council did you become a member of?
21 A. Fingal County Council.
22 Q. 493 So that your interest in the subject lands finished in December '93?
23 A. That's right.
24 Q. 494 Now, I think the Tribunal wrote to you and asked you for certain information
14:17:00 25 earlier on this year. And you initially replied by letter of the 13th of
26 February 1996. At 2069, please.
27
28 And you had been asked in the correspondence from the Tribunal to provide
29 information in relation to contacts with certain people from Monarch Properties
14:17:15 30 and information in relation to political donations, isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 646
90
14:17:18 1 A. Is right, please.
2 Q. 495 2069, please. Now, in your reply you said that you had known the late
3 Mr. Phil Monahan and Richard Lynn for a number of years. You had had numerous
4 conversations with Mr. Lynn on the golf course and on social occasions because
14:17:35 5 he lived in the area. You had met Mr. Monahan at functions and that you were
6 sure that Cherrywood came up for discussion on some of these occasions.
8 So would you say that you met Mr. Richard Lynn fairly frequently?
9 A. I would say I met him fairly frequently. You know, he resided in the area.
14:17:53 10 And I'd have bumped into him, you know, on social occasions and probably on the
11 golf course and, you know, in or around the general area.
12 Q. 496 You say "That you do not recall any donation received from the Monarch Group
13 but however if there is evidence to the contrary of any contribution expressed
14 as a political donation for election purposes, I would accept such evidence as
14:18:21 15 I have no record of same."
16 A. Yeah, well, actually, I couldn't recall the details until when I got the --
17 Q. 497 The brief from the Tribunal.
18 A. The brief from the Tribunal.
19 Q. 498 So prior to you getting the brief from the Tribunal you didn't remember
14:18:29 20 receiving any money from Monarch Properties?
21 A. I knew I got some donations but I couldn't remember any of the details, you
22 know, of the final details.
23 Q. 499 With respect, what you had said is you could not recall any donation received
24 from the Monarch Group but if there was evidence to the contrary you'd accept
14:18:47 25 it, isn't that right?
27 Q. 500 I think then you were subsequently supplied with a brief of documentation from
28 the Tribunal, including documentation relating to the payments you had received
29 from the Monarch Group, isn't that right?
14:18:57 30 A. That's right.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
91
14:18:58 1 Q. 501 I think you then did, the day before yesterday provide an additional statement
2 to the Tribunal. Isn't that the position?
4 Q. 502 And in that statement you confirmed receipt of an election donation on the 5th
14:19:09 5 of June 1991, isn't that right?
7 Q. 503 A donation of 2,000 pounds on the 16th of December 1992.
8 A. That's for the Senate.
14:19:19 10 CHAIRMAN: What's the one on the 5th of June '91?
11
12 MS. DILLON: The one on the 5th of June, I think it's 1,000 pounds.
13 A. 1, 000. 1,000 pounds for Local Elections.
14 Q. 504 A 1,000 pounds on the 5th of June 1991. 2,000 pounds on 16th of December
14:19:36 15 1992. And 1,000 pounds on 28th of March 1996. Isn't that right?
17 Q. 505 Now, is it fair to say that you extracted that information from the brief of
18 documents with which you had been furnished and following your consideration of
19 those documents you put in this statement to the Tribunal?
14:19:55 20 A. Yes, my solicitor actually -- he hadn't a chance either looking at the brief.
21 So that was the reason for it.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ryan, you must have known when you wrote to the Tribunal on the
24 13th of February 2006 that you had received substantial donations?
14:20:12 25 A. Well I knew I'd got donations. I wasn't --
26
27 CHAIRMAN: But they were substantial donations. And yet you told the
28 Tribunal that you could not recall any donation.
29 A. Well I didn't intend to mislead the Tribunal. As I said, Chairman, it was --
14:20:29 30 I wasn't sure of the detail. I didn't have --

www.pcr.ie Day 646
92
14:20:34 1 CHAIRMAN: But you could have said that I recall substantial donations but
2 can't recall the precise amounts. But the clear impression from the letter is
3 that you received nothing.
4 A. But, Chairman, I did say that I'd accept, you know -- yeah, I did say if there
14:20:56 5 was evidence of any contribution as a political donation for election purposes.
7 CHAIRMAN: But it's an example of the difficulty the Tribunal frequently has
8 in extracting information from people whom it is obliged to investigate. When
9 we get letters of this nature indicating that nothing, little or nothing, was
14:21:20 10 received and then it transpires that the true position is that substantial
11 donations were received. All right.
12
13 Q. 506 MS. DILLON: Now, I think your second letter is at page 8484, please.
14 At paragraph subparagraph 1, 2 and 3 of this, you confirm the receipt of three
14:21:45 15 donations. The first is of 1,000 pounds, the second is of 2,000 pounds and
16 the third of 1,000 pounds. Isn't that the position?
17 A. That is the position.
18 Q. 507 And that information is extracted from the documentation the Tribunal has
19 furnished to you. Isn't that right, Mr. Ryan?
14:21:58 20 A. That's right, yeah.
21 Q. 508 So that you are not coming to the Tribunal with any information that you are
22 providing to the Tribunal. Rather you are confirming what the Tribunal has
23 independently established. Isn't that the position?
24 A. Well, as I say, I was aware of the fact that I got contributions. But as I
14:22:15 25 mentioned, the detail, you know, I wasn't -- I didn't have the detail.
26 Q. 509 Well prior to you getting the brief from the Tribunal, Mr. Ryan, where did you
27 confirm to anybody that you had actually got money from Monarch Properties?
28 A. Well I wasn't able to confirm. I couldn't really get confirmation.
29 Q. 510 And in June of 2000, at page 2066, Mr. Ryan, you attended at an inquiry by
14:22:48 30 Fianna Fail, isn't that the position?

www.pcr.ie Day 646
93
14:22:50 1 A. Yeah, that's correct.
2 Q. 511 And you are recorded there at the second paragraph as saying that "Ned Ryan
3 informed the committee that he received nothing from Frank Dunlop nor did he
4 receive any from Green Properties. He did not receive donations from
14:23:03 5 developers in excess of 500 pounds." Now, is that a true statement, Mr. Ryan?
6 A. Well, I don't recall making that statement because at the -- when I went to
7 that inquiry actually my brother, who I was very close to, had only died, was
8 some days prior to that. So actually I wasn't focused and I don't recall
9 making that statement.
14:23:30 10 Q. 512 Be that as it may, it's in the published document, isn't that right, Mr. Ryan?
11 It's in the published final Fianna Fail report?
12 A. It is, yes.
13 Q. 513 It is incorrect?
14 A. That is incorrect. Yeah.
14:23:40 15 Q. 514 And since you received the brief of documents from the Tribunal that reminded
16 you that you had received at least 4,000 pounds from Monarch. Have you taken
17 any step to set the record straight in relation to this inquiry?
18 A. Well the letter that came in the other day would have set the record straight.
19 Q. 515 To the Tribunal?
14:23:58 20 A. To the Tribunal.
21 Q. 516 Based on the information the Tribunal gave you?
22 A. Well, and based on what my own recollections were.
23 Q. 517 You misunderstand my question. I'm asking you in light of the fact that the
24 Fianna Fail report contains what you now know to be a factual inaccuracy, since
14:24:19 25 you remembered you had received this amount of money from Monarch. Have you
26 taken any step to inform the Fianna Fail Inquiry that this material is
27 incorrect?
28 A. I haven't, no, not yet.
29 Q. 518 Now, if we just move very briefly through the payments. I think in June of
14:24:37 30 1991. At 3247. You received a sum, you see there, I think, approximately

www.pcr.ie Day 646
94
14:24:47 1 half way down the way page, Mr. Ryan, a sum of 1,000 pounds. For the Local
2 Elections. Isn't that the position?
3 A. Yeah, that's right, yeah.
4 Q. 519 And you accept now that you received that money?
14:25:00 5 A. I do, yes.
6 Q. 520 Yes. And I think that in March of 1992 you wrote yourself to Monarch
7 Properties. 3582, please. Asking Mr. Richard Lynn for golf sponsorship.
8 A. Uh-huh.
9 Q. 521 You will have seen that in the brief.
14:25:27 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 522 And --
12 A. Well, I never actually ran any golf classics or fundraisers myself. That was
13 basically for the Lenihan Cup, which is a golf competition that's played for
14 among all of the golfing societies in Dublin west or it was then.
14:25:48 15 Q. 523 You knew Mr. Lynn well enough to approach him to ask him for a donation or to
16 support the golf classic, isn't that right?
18 Q. 524 And indeed, at the following page at 3583. You thank him in anticipation and
19 you hope everything is going well for him, isn't that right?
14:26:06 20 A. Yeah. That's -- yeah.
21 Q. 525 And there's a notation there that they did in fact support -- they did accede
22 to your request and support the golf classic, isn't that right?
23 A. Yeah.
14:26:17 25 A. Yes, that's the position, yeah.
26 Q. 527 And I think at 3371, Mr. Ryan, the document records second from the bottom that
27 on the 16th of December 1992, you received 2,000 pounds for the Senate Election
28 campaign.
29 A. That's correct, yes. I accept that, yeah.
14:26:38 30 Q. 528 Now, can I ask you, Mr. Ryan, in December 1992. What was the average

www.pcr.ie Day 646
95
14:26:42 1 political donation you would have received at that time?
2 A. Well, I'd say it would be quite small. It would be only, you know, maybe a
3 few 100 pounds.
4 Q. 529 What was the biggest donation you got for that Senate campaign can you
14:26:58 5 remember?
6 A. Well that would certainly be the biggest.
7 Q. 530 Yes. That was the biggest?
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. 531 And notwithstanding that, Mr. Ryan, you had forgotten all about it, is that the
14:27:08 10 position?
11 A. Well I hadn't forgotten about it. In actual fact, I was aware of the fact
12 that I had got a contribution but I thought actually until I got the brief from
13 the Tribunal, I thought that it would be in the region of, you know, I wasn't
14 sure. I thought it would be in the region of one at most.
14:27:29 15 Q. 532 And when you got the first letter from the Tribunal and when you made your
16 first reply. Was it your belief at that stage that you'd received at least
17 1,000 pounds from Monarch for that election?
18 A. Well I reckoned if I'd got -- if I had got a donation, you know, which I
19 accepted I had, I reckoned it would be in that region, you know.
14:27:54 20 Q. 533 Notwithstanding that belief, you told the Tribunal that you didn't recall any
21 donation at all. Isn't that the position?
22 A. Well, no. Actually, I didn't recall the details, you know.
23 Q. 534 Yes. I see. It's just that what you say in your letter at 2069 --
24 A. Sorry.
14:28:09 25 Q. 535 Is that you do not recall any donation received from the Monarch Group?
26 A. Right. I didn't actually. It's the details I hadn't --
27 Q. 536 But I think in March of 1996, at 5777. There's a payment of 1,000 pounds in
28 connection with by-election expenses, isn't that the position?
14:28:38 30 Q. 537 And indeed, at 5780 I think a copy of the cheque is available. Isn't that

www.pcr.ie Day 646
96
14:28:38 1 right?
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. 538 And I think the back of that cheque at 5781, that records your signature.
4 Isn't that right?
6 Q. 539 And when you received that documentation, did that assist you in recollecting
7 that you had received the money?
8 A. It did, yes.
9 Q. 540 And I think in addition, you got a fifth payment in May of 1999. At 6753,
14:29:00 10 from Dunloe Ewart through Mr. Lynn at item 27. You are recorded as receiving
11 500 pounds?
12 A. That's for the Local Election in '91.
13 Q. 541 In '99.
14 A. Yeah, '99. I beg your pardon.
14:29:14 15 Q. 542 Now, can I ask you just specifically about that item there at item 27. You
16 were asked in earlier this year about any payments you had received from
17 Mr. Richard Lynn. And am I correct in understanding that you would have
18 received that sum of 500 pounds through Mr. Lynn?
19 A. Yeah, well, obviously it came through Mr. Lynn. But again, as I said, until
14:29:41 20 such time as I got the detail, you know, I didn't -- I didn't recall the --
21 that it was Monarch or -- well Monarch were no longer operating at that stage.
22 So --
23 Q. 543 Sorry do you want to finish?
24 A. Yeah because well I associated Mr. Lynn more with Monarch than any other
14:30:07 25 organisation, yes.
26 Q. 544 But indeed in the correspondence you got from the Tribunal you were asked about
27 any payments from Mr. Lynn and you didn't disclose this payment either, isn't
28 that right, Mr. Ryan?
29 A. Yeah.
14:30:19 30 Q. 545 So it wasn't until you got all of the documents from the Tribunal that you then

www.pcr.ie Day 646
97
14:30:23 1 confirmed to the Tribunal what the Tribunal had given to you, isn't that right?
3 Q. 546 So if you received another payment from Monarch of which the Tribunal is
4 unaware, that still hasn't been disclosed wouldn't that be the position
14:30:37 5 Mr. Ryan?
6 A. Well that would be the position. But you have the details --
7 Q. 547 Insofar as they've been provided to the Tribunal by Monarch Properties?
9 Q. 548 Now, you have also been provided in the documentation with the records in
14:30:53 10 relation to your voting at local council meetings in connection with the
11 Cherrywood lands, isn't that right?
13 Q. 549 May the Tribunal take it, Mr. Ryan, that you at least would have appreciated
14 that when the lands at Monarch. The Monarch lands at Carrickmines or
14:31:09 15 Cherrywood came up for voting, that you knew those lands were owned by Monarch?
16 A. I would have known them, yeah. I would, yeah.
17 Q. 550 And indeed --
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. 551 Did you ever receive any cash payments from Monarch?
14:31:22 20 A. No, certainly not, no.
21 Q. 552 Did you ever, throughout your political career, receive political donations in
22 cash?
23 A. Well I received small political donations around election time.
24 Q. 553 What would you regard as small, Mr. Ryan?
14:31:37 25 A. Maybe around 200 to 300 pounds.
26 Q. 554 And in the votes that have taken place in connection with the Cherrywood lands.
27 Insofar as you have voted, would you accept in general that you voted in favour
28 of the Monarch interests?
29 A. Well, no, I wouldn't accept that. At that particular time, I mean, you had
14:31:58 30 mass emigration, you had mass unemployment and when this proposal came along I

www.pcr.ie Day 646
98
14:32:05 1 thought it was a very good idea.
2 Q. 555 In May of 1992, on the first votes that took place. You voted in favour of
3 the Manager's map. Isn't that right, DP92/44?
4 A. I assume so, yes.
14:32:19 5 Q. 556 That is the map that was most favourable or the position that would have been
6 most favourable to Monarch. It didn't pass in the event, isn't that right?
7 A. I'm not sure. No, I don't think so, that's right.
8 Q. 557 And I think in November of 1993, when the matter came back before the council
9 that you voted in favour of Councillor Marren and Councillor Coffey's motion.
11 A. Yeah, that would be correct. Yeah.
12 Q. 558 And the effect of that was to increase the density on the Monarch lands.
14:32:50 15 Q. 559 Yes. Now, why did you believe that the Monarch -- that the density on the
16 Monarch lands should be increased, Mr. Ryan?
17 A. Well I suppose at that stage, you know, I expected that, you know, whatever was
18 the original, one to the acre, which was very low density, you know.
19 Q. 560 Yes.
14:33:11 20 A. So I would have accepted, you know, an increase, like. It was still in
21 general terms, you know, the increase, you know, compared with the densities
22 I've seen around since. It's still very low density.
23 Q. 561 Yes. If that was your position, Mr. Ryan, why then did you not promote or
24 suggest that all of the residentially zoned lands in Carrickmines be zoned at
14:33:35 25 four to the acre?
26 A. I can't recall.
27 Q. 562 Why did you agree to the singling out of the Monarch lands for increased
28 density?
29 A. I can't recall now.
14:33:47 30 Q. 563 Did you disclose to anybody in Dublin County Council at that time that you had

www.pcr.ie Day 646
99
14:33:51 1 been in receipt of significant sums of money from Monarch prior to your voting
2 in November 1993?
3 A. No, I didn't, no. Nor I didn't try to influence any other councillors.
4 Q. 564 Right. And you didn't disclose to anybody that you had been a beneficiary of
14:34:10 5 Monarch's largesse, as it were, before you came to vote in November 1993?
6 A. No.
7 Q. 565 I see. Thank you very much, Mr. Ryan. Would you answer any questions
8 anybody else may have for you.
14:34:21 10 CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Ryan.
11 A. Okay. Thank you, Chairman.
12
13 MS. FOLEY: Mr. Liam Creaven, please.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 646
100
14:34:44 1 MR. LIAM CREAVEN HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS QUESTIONED
2 BY MS. FOLEY AS FOLLOWS:
4 CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon, Mr. Creaven.
14:35:25 5 A. Good afternoon.
7 Q. 566 MS. FOLEY: Good afternoon, Mr. Creaven.
8 Could you give the Tribunal a brief outline of your political history starting
9 from when you were first elected to Dublin County Council?
14:35:36 10 A. I'm sorry?
11 Q. 567 When were you first elected to Dublin County Council?
12 A. Oh, I can't remember the date. I was elected twice.
13 Q. 568 Would it be in 1985?
14 A. Yes.
14:35:46 15 Q. 569 And then again in 1991.
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. 570 And then you moved to Fingal County Council --
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. 571 In 1993. And you are a member of the Fianna Fail party.
14:35:58 20 A. Correct.
21 Q. 572 Could I have page 7633, please. The Tribunal wrote to you in February, the
22 1st of February 2006. And your solicitor replied on the 19th of May.
23
24 CHAIRMAN: I think it's ...
14:36:17 25
26 Q. 573 MS. FOLEY: Following the opening of the module you indicated that you had no
27 detailed recollection of the Cherrywood lands or of their location. So the
28 map on screen there now, Mr. Creaven, gives you a rough idea of the location of
29 the Cherrywood lands.
14:36:31 30 A. Not really.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
101
14:36:36 1 Q. 574 Sorry, Mr. Creaven. Can you see the black area in that map?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 575 That's a rough outline of the Cherrywood lands.
4 A. Yeah.
14:36:51 5 Q. 576 8151, please. This is an extract from your statement to the Tribunal. And
6 through your solicitor you say that to the best of your recollection --
8 CHAIRMAN: That's the wrong page.
9 A. Sorry.
14:37:06 10 Q. 577 MS. FOLEY: 8151, please.
11 The first indented paragraph there you say "That to the best of your client's
12 recollection" or your solicitor replying on your behalf says. "That the only
13 person that you ever met from the Monarch Group is Mr. Richard Lynn whom you
14 met on a number of occasions. Each time in the council chambers."
14:37:34 15
16 Do you know how you first with Mr. Lynn?
17 A. I can't remember the first time. It was during the Draft Development Plan.
18 Q. 578 And was it in connection with the Cherrywood lands?
19 A. I presume it was. He was in the council chamber, in the environs of the
14:37:49 20 County Council talking to everyone and anyone that he met.
21 Q. 579 He certainly says that he had contact with you in respect of these lands, the
23 A. Sorry?
24 Q. 580 He says that he had contact with you in respect of these lands?
14:38:03 25 A. I don't recall him meeting me specifically to talk about the Cherrywood lands.
26 Q. 581 Do you recall talking, discussing the lands with him at all?
27 A. No. But he may well have. I'm sure, you know, in the corridor or whatever he
28 might have said Liam, I hope you support me on this. That could well have
29 taken place.
14:38:24 30 Q. 582 Your solicitor also indicates that you have no recollection of receiving any

www.pcr.ie Day 646
102
14:38:28 1 benefit or payment?
2 A. No.
3 Q. 583 On behalf of the Monarch Group?
4 A. No.
14:38:33 5 Q. 584 Could I have page 3255, please. This is an extract from the cheque journal of
6 Monarch Properties. And it indicates on 13th of June '91 a cheque was written
7 to you. And at page 3241, please.
9 MR. MORAN: Chairman, I mention that in the body of my letter ask for any
14:39:03 10 documentary evidence in relation to payments. I asked for it very
11 specifically. Now, it may have been contained. Sorry my name is Robert
12 Moran, I appear for Mr. Creaven. It may have been contained in the vast
13 brief that was furnished to me. I would have thought in response to my letter
14 that it could have been indicated where these payments were.
14:39:23 15
16 CHAIRMAN: But the information is in the brief. We would expect normally
17 that people and their legal advisors would read the brief.
18
19 MR. MORAN: Chairman, I think that you would appreciate that the brief is vast.
14:39:40 20 You know, I don't think it would have been too much difficulty for the legal
21 team of the Tribunal to notify -- just to drop me a line back to say this is
22 where the payments are.
23
24 I recollect when we were dealing with the, I think it was the Cloughran Module,
14:39:54 25 that there was a set of payments made known to my client that there were
26 queries being raised about. I don't think that there would have been any
27 difficulty to notify me that there was queries in relation to specific
28 documents.
29
14:40:08 30 CHAIRMAN: Well, first of all, how better off would you be if the Tribunal had

www.pcr.ie Day 646
103
14:40:12 1 in fact -- as it were, spoon fed that material back to you, you having earlier
2 received the brief? I mean, it's the duty of any witness to give information
3 to the Tribunal in response to a request for information. They are then
4 furnished with the brief. And if they feel that they have a difficulty in
14:40:35 5 recalling information about payments received, they have a particular duty to
6 read the brief and familiarise themselves.
8 But you can raise, I mean, we'll take your point. It still doesn't take from
9 the fact that we have to hear this evidence from your client today.
14:40:58 10
11 MS. DILLON: Sorry, before my friend does that.
12
13 I understand from Mr. King that he did in fact write and indicate that
14 information in relation to the payment could be found on page 3197. I think
14:41:09 15 that's the position, Mr. King? He did in fact respond to my friend.
16
17 MR. MORAN: Well I merely say that I have no recollection or I did not receive
18 that.
19
14:41:19 20 CHAIRMAN: All right. Well we'll see how we get on.
21
22 Q. 585 MS. FOLEY: And according to Monarch Properties, this payment is listed as one
23 of the donations that they made on 13th of June, 1991. 300 pounds to
24 yourself, Mr. Creaven?
14:41:38 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 586 You have no recollection of receiving this payment?
27 A. I have no recollection.
28 Q. 587 I think you have previously given evidence to the Tribunal in respect of
29 political donations, Mr. Creaven.
14:41:48 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
104
14:41:48 1 Q. 588 Where I think initially to put the Fianna Fail Inquiry your position was that
2 you had never received any donations other than from your family?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 589 And then subsequently you informed the Tribunal that you had in fact received a
14:42:01 5 donation of 1,000 pounds from a developer.
6 A. Yes. Yes.
7 Q. 590 You informed the Tribunal of this in 2003.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 591 And at that point your position was that this was the only donation that you
14:42:10 10 had ever received.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 592 And then subsequently in the Ballycullen Module you said that you had perhaps
13 received 1,000 pounds from the Jones Group. So that that was possible that
14 you had received that amount in February of this year?
14:42:25 15 A. Well, no, I have no recollection of saying I received 1,000 pounds from the
16 company, the Jones --
17
18 CHAIRMAN: I don't think he said he received that.
19
14:42:35 20 Q. 593 MS. FOLEY: I believe I said that he may have. That the Jones Group
21 indicated that this donation and that you didn't recall it but that you may
22 have.
23 A. I said I may have. If there was evidence to show that I did, then I would
24 have accepted that. But personally I have no knowledge of that at all.
14:42:52 25 Q. 594 And it is the same with this donation?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 595 You have no recollection of it?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 596 But now you accept that you may have received it?
14:43:05 30 A. Um.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
105
14:43:05 1 Q. 597 Or is that your position?
2 A. I have no recollection of receiving it. But if there is evidence to the fact
3 that I did, that it was given to me, I'll accept that. But I have no
4 knowledge. I have no recollection of receiving it.
14:43:15 5 Q. 598 Thank you.
6 A. I remember even ringing the company first there was, pardon me. It appeared
7 in one of the daily papers that Monarch Properties had given so much to all
8 councillors. And I remember calling them at that time.
9 Q. 599 Was this very recently, Mr. Creaven?
14:43:37 10 A. Oh, no, it's some time ago. But they never responded to me. I asked them to
11 call me back and they didn't. I just wondered if what they said in the paper
12 was true. I wanted to familiarise myself with that fact. But they didn't.
13 Q. 600 And could I have page 7762, please.
14 This is a note from the Fianna Fail Inquiry, Mr. Creaven, where you indicate
14:44:02 15 that you recall meeting Mr. Bill O'Herlihy, a lobbiest around the council
16 chambers.
17 A. Just, he was at the door as we walked in the chamber he met me, like he met
18 everybody else as they were about to go into the chamber. But no meeting with
19 him as such. And I don't think he -- I can't even recollect what he said to
14:44:23 20 me.
21 Q. 601 You can't recall if he spoke to you about the Cherrywood lands?
22 A. No, no.
23 Q. 602 The lands in question in the 1983 plan were zoned AS1, which is one house to
24 the acre on septic tank?
14:44:51 25 A. Uh-huh.
26 Q. 603 Above the proposed line of the Southeastern Motorway on page 6677, please.
27 And do you see the square line going through the red lands there?
28 A. Uh-huh.
29 Q. 604 The lands above that were zoned one to the acre on septic tank and the lands
14:45:04 30 below that line were agriculture.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
106
14:45:05 1 A. Uh-huh.
2 Q. 605 And that line was at the time the proposed line of the Southeastern Motorway.
3 A. Pardon me.
4 Q. 606 Could I have 6937, please.
14:45:15 5
6 This is a map proposed by the manager in late 1990 to develop these lands. It
7 included residential with an action area plan industrial and a district centre.
8 These were discussed at a number of meetings but I think, Mr. Creaven, you were
9 not present for those meetings.
14:45:39 10 A. Uh-huh.
11 Q. 607 But this is the position as of December 1990 whereupon this map was rejected by
12 the council. Could I have 7019, please.
13 This is the map that was put to the council in May of 1991, and I think you
14 were present, Mr. Creaven, at the meeting. And the proposals on this map
14:46:15 15 include upgrading of the residential to four to the acre.
16 A. Uh-huh.
17 Q. 608 And there's a movement there of the proposed line of the Southeastern Motorway.
18 You voted against this map. Do you have any recollection of this?
19 A. No.
14:46:29 20 Q. 609 This in essence, is what went on the first public display. Could I have page
21 2661, please.
22 I think the General Election -- the Local Election took place in 1991. And I
23 think Mr. Gilbride spoke to us about donations received by councillors during
24 this election. And including donation you received yourself.
14:47:06 25 A. In what?
26 Q. 610 One of the number of councillors that received a donation during this election
27 campaign?
28 A. He said?
29 Q. 611 From Monarch. No, you were. Mr. Gilbride spoke about the councillors
14:47:17 30 speaking about donations from Monarch?

www.pcr.ie Day 646
107
14:47:19 1 A. Yeah.
2 Q. 612 Do you recall this?
3 A. No.
4 Q. 613 In the council chambers?
14:47:22 5 A. No.
6 Q. 614 Could I have page 3596, please. This is an expenses claim form submitted by
7 Mr. Lynn
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. 615 Which indicates that on the week ending 3rd of April 1992 he indicates that he
14:47:51 10 had some contact with yourself, I think it's Mr. Kennedy and A Davitt, which
11 may be Devitt. Do you recall meeting Mr. Lynn in the company of these other
12 people in April '92?
13 A. No.
14 Q. 616 In May 1992 the manager presents a new map. 7203, please. Which is
14:48:20 15 proposing further development on the lands. You supported this map.
16 A. Uh-huh.
17 Q. 617 And all of the other motions that took place that day to decrease density, you
18 were against those motions. Would that be your normal policy or is there any
19 reason why you voted for the development of these lands.
14:48:38 20 A. I have no recollection other than they are the -- I got a video, I think it was
21 in the mail. It was certainly a very good presentation of what they proposed.
22 And I know I said to myself then I will support that.
23 Q. 618 And did any of your fellow councillors speak to you about these lands?
24 A. No.
14:49:05 25 Q. 619 We have heard evidence from other councillors, in particular, say,
26 Mr. Geraghty, that there was a whip in the Fianna Fail party on some of these
27 rezoning motions?
28 A. No, there wasn't a whip as such. You could have been asked and we were asked
29 I'm sure by one of the party members but it wasn't a binding thing.
14:49:25 30 Q. 620 But would there -- would meetings have taken place before council meetings more

www.pcr.ie Day 646
108
14:49:31 1 informal meetings?
2 A. There would be informal meetings in the party room but you didn't have to
3 attend it or you could leave if, when any subject was being discussed. There
4 was no whip to stay there.
14:49:44 5 Q. 621 And it has been suggested that there would be a consensus of opinion at these
6 meetings about the way people were going to vote. Is this your position, that
7 this is not the case?
8 A. I'm sorry. Would there be a consensus of opinion?
9 Q. 622 Before going into the chamber that there would be some agreement on how people
14:50:05 10 were going to vote?
11 A. I would say that was true, yes.
12 Q. 623 But you are saying it would be done by agreement rather than by instruction
13 from a particular individual?
14 A. Yes.
14:50:14 15 Q. 624 Between the time of this first vote in May 1992 and the confirming votes in
16 11th November 1993, Mr. Dunlop was engaged by Monarch Properties.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 625 And during this period there were a number of telephone contacts between
19 yourself and Mr. Dunlop?
14:50:49 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 626 Which have already been discussed here at the Tribunal and a number of
22 meetings?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 627 Did Mr. Dunlop ever discuss the Cherrywood lands with you?
14:50:50 25 A. I'm sure he did. I'm sure he asked me to support it. If he did I'm sure I
26 said I would 'cos I'm on the record for saying that Frank Dunlop and myself
27 were close friends.
28 Q. 628 So you have no specific recollection that you believe that it is --
29 A. Oh, yes. I have no specific recollection but I believe that would be the
14:51:12 30 case.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
109
2 This is a further expenses claim form of Mr. Lynn for the week ending 21st of
3 May 1993. Where he has recorded Draft Development Plan review Liam Creaven
4 and N Ryan. Do you ever recall meeting Mr. Lynn in the company of Mr. Ryan?
14:51:37 5 A. No.
6 Q. 630 And then on the 11th of November 1993. There were a number of votes, again,
7 effecting the Cherrywood lands. And in these you voted against a Draft
8 Variation Plan being proposed for the lands. And against the motion to
9 confirm two houses per acre and for the motion proposed by Mr. Marren and
14:52:06 10 Ms. Coffey.
11
12 I'll get that motion for you now. Sorry, Mr. Creaven.
13
14 JUDGE FAHERTY: 7263.
14:52:22 15
16 MS. FOLEY: Thank you, Judge.
17
18 7263, please.
19
14:52:36 20 And the motion is at 7226. This is a motion proposed by Donal Marren, signed
21 also by Larry Lohan, Betty Coffey Liam T Cosgrave and Anne Ormonde that Dublin
22 County Council hereby resolves to accept the County Manager's recommendation
23 and delete the 1993 amendment in respect of the lands outlined in red on the
24 attached map. And that the balance of the lands remain at two per hectare.
14:53:08 25
26 Could I have the maps side by side, please. At 7227.
27 A. Sorry?
28 Q. 631 Just the map is going up on screen now. At the time of this motion,
29 Mr. Creaven, the lands were all zoned at one to the acre following the May
14:53:28 30 1993 meetings. You had not voted in favour of this. At this point now the

www.pcr.ie Day 646
110
14:53:34 1 motion is being put forward here to restore four to the acre on the lands
2 outlined in red?
3 A. Uh-huh.
4 Q. 632 But that the other surrounding lands remain at one to the acre?
14:53:44 5 A. Uh-huh.
6 Q. 633 Can you assist the Tribunal with any reason that you believe this might be so,
7 that these lands were singled out in this motion for increased density but that
8 the surrounding residential lands remain at a low density?
9 A. Other than that I was asked to do that. That's the only reason I can give
14:54:02 10 you.
11 Q. 634 You voted on the motion as it was put to you?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 635 Did anybody speak to you about this motion, can you recall?
14 A. I can't recall that.
14:54:11 15
16 CHAIRMAN: Who asked you to vote?
17 A. I don't know, your -- Chairman. But I would imagine maybe Mr. Dunlop did but
18 I'm not certain. He would be the one I would imagine that did ask me.
19
14:54:23 20 CHAIRMAN: And would that be sufficient for you to ....?
21 A. Coupled with the fact that I had seen the video that I liked.
22
23 Q. 636 MS. FOLEY: Could I have page 5536, please.
24
14:54:37 25 This is a further expense claim form by Richard Lynn to Cherrywood Properties
26 Limited, dated the week ended the 13th of January 1995.
27
28 At this point you are a member of Fingal County Council?
29 A. Yeah.
14:54:55 30 Q. 637 It indicates that L Creaven and an amount of 3.60 written beside I think might

www.pcr.ie Day 646
111
14:55:03 1 be Ongar Developments?
2 A. Sorry?
3 Q. 638 It might be Ongar.
4 A. Yeah.
14:55:08 5 Q. 639 At this point you are a member of Fingal County Council?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 640 And Mr. Lynn appears to be in contact with you. Do you recall ever having
8 contact with Mr. Lynn about lands other than the Cherrywood lands?
9 A. No.
11
12 This is a letter signed by yourself, Mr. Creaven, and addressed to Mr. Richard
13 Lynn, I think would be Mr. Richard Lynn of Monarch. Dated February 1996.
14 Can you see that there?
14:56:03 15 A. Don't -- I can't remember that letter, now. But it's possible that Liam
16 Fitzgerald asked me.
17 Q. 642 To contact Mr. Lynn?
18 A. To give him a name. And I could well have done that.
19 Q. 643 I think you may have signed the letter. It indicates, it's in your name?
14:56:18 20 A. I'm not too sure it's my signature.
21 Q. 644 The second paragraph of the refer, Mr. Creaven, reads.
22
23 "I am well aware of your extremely busy schedule but I would regard it as a
24 great favour to me personally if you would accept my invitation to sponsor a
14:56:31 25 team and to participate in the event".
26
27 Why would you have used that wording, Mr. Creaven, that it would be a great
28 favour to you personally?
29 A. Well Liam Fitzgerald was a very close friend of mine.
14:56:44 30 Q. 645 Was your relationship with Mr. Lynn such that personal favours?

www.pcr.ie Day 646
112
14:56:49 1 A. Ah, no. I hardly knew Mr. Lynn.
2 Q. 646 And do you recall whether -- that the bottom of the letter indicates that a
3 cheque would be sent forward in the sum of 400 pounds. Do you recall if that
4 was ever --
14:57:02 5 A. No, no, I have no recollection at all of that.
6 Q. 647 You don't. Thank you, Mr. Creaven.
7 A. Sorry.
9 CHAIRMAN: Do you wish to ask?
14:57:14 10
11 MR. MORAN: Sorry, Chairman.
12
13 CHAIRMAN: You can sit down, if you wish.
14
14:57:19 15 MR. MORAN: Just in relation to --
16
17 CHAIRMAN: Could you just pull the microphone.
18
19 THE WITNESS WAS QUESTIONED BY MR. MORAN AS FOLLOWS:
14:57:26 20
21 Q. 648 MR. MORAN: In relation to the last letter. I think the reference to the
22 recipient of the 400 is, is it Mayfield Fianna Fail or? If you just look at
23 the letter there at the very end?
24 A. Yeah.
14:57:37 25 Q. 649 You see the handwritten note?
26 A. Yeah.
27 Q. 650 I mean, you are certainly not the recipient of the 400?
28 A. No, no.
29 Q. 651 Who is it?
14:57:44 30 A. Oh, yeah.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
113
14:57:44 1 Q. 652 Airfield, Fianna Fail?
2 A. To Ayrfield, Fianna Fail. And that's not even my Cumann.
3 Q. 653 Thank you. In relation to Mr. Richard Lynn. You said in your evidence that
4 you met him on occasion at the Council chambers. Did you ever meet him by
14:58:03 5 prior appointment?
6 A. No.
7 Q. 654 Would it be fair that say that all of your meetings with him were of a casual
8 nature?
9 A. Exactly.
14:58:11 10 Q. 655 Now, Mr. Creaven, evidence has been adduced here of payments being made to you.
11 You've never received any evidence of any such payment, other than the notes of
12 Monarch Properties; isn't that right?
13 A. No, that's correct.
14 Q. 656 You've never seen a cheque stub?
14:58:31 15 A. That's right.
16 Q. 657 You've never seen a copy of a cheque made payable to you, nothing of that
17 nature; isn't that right?
18 A. No.
19 Q. 658 Now, if page 363 could be called up.
14:58:42 20
22 Q. 659 MR. MORAN: Sorry. I'm -- I may have taken down the page incorrectly. It
23 was the first of those expense sheets.
24
26
27 MR. MORAN: Mr. Lynn's expense sheets.
28
29 JUDGE FAHERTY: 3956, I'm not sure if that was the first one or not. 3956.
14:59:09 30 56 not 46.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
114
14:59:15 1 MR. MORAN: No. This was just a page of expense.
3 MS. FOLEY: 3596 I think.
14:59:22 5 MR. MORAN: My apologies about this.
6 I think if you look at that, Mr. Creaven, I don't know what information you
7 have about Mr. Lynn's expense accounts and what documentation he had to support
8 them. But wouldn't it appear clear from that, that whilst there is reference
9 made to you there is no payment in any column across from you? Isn't that
14:59:46 10 right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 660 I think it says Draft Development Plan Liam Creaven but no payment whatever,
14 A. Yeah.
14:59:52 15 Q. 661 Tell me Mr. Creaven, have you any idea of how Mr. Lynn incurred expenses or
16 what he expended money on to incur expenses. Have you any idea of that?
17 A. No, I've no idea.
18 Q. 662 Did he ever spend any money on you?
19 A. No.
15:00:07 20 Q. 663 Did he give you a bottle of gin once?
21 A. Oh, at Christmas time, yes.
22 Q. 664 And you have acknowledged that in your correspondence with the Tribunal?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 665 Now, it would be fair to say in relation to your voting at particular meetings
15:00:22 25 in favour of zonings or whatever, that in general you would have a
26 prodevelopment ethos, wouldn't that be fair to say?
27 A. True, yes, I've said that.
28 Q. 666 And would it also be fair to say in general you would vote along party lines.
29 Isn't that correct?
15:00:37 30 A. True.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
115
15:00:38 1
2 MS. DILLON: Sir, just before Mr. Creaven concludes.
4 In fairness to Mr. Donal King, arising out of the objection that was made by
15:00:48 5 Mr. Dore in relation to the lack of information supplied. A letter dated 23rd
6 of May 2006 was sent by Mr. King. And I just wanted to quote from that letter
7 for the transcript.
9 He acknowledges receipt of the fax from Mr. Dore of 19th ins the contents of
15:01:04 10 which have been noted.
11
12 "With regard to the payment of 300 pounds from the Monarch Group to your
13 client. I refer you to page 3197 of the brief which has already been
14 circulated to you. Thereby nullifying any suggestion of surprise on the
15:01:15 15 Tribunal's part. Indifference to your request the Tribunal will schedule your
16 client's attendance to 2 p.m. on Thursday the 1st of June. Yours sincerely."
17
18 So the query was raised. The query was answered
19
15:01:34 20 CHAIRMAN: Did you receive that letter?
21
22 MR. MORAN: Just by way of reply. I did telephone Mr. King yesterday just to
23 get confirmation that it was all right to come here at 2 o'clock today. Now, I
24 operate a busy one man practice. I am not saying that a letter may not have
15:01:40 25 come in. But I certainly was unaware of the contents of the letter. And I
26 did telephone Mr. King, as I think he will freely acknowledge, yesterday
27 afternoon, to confirm that it would be all right for me to show up today at 2
28 o'clock today with my client.
29
15:01:53 30 CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you very much.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
116
15:01:58 1 MR. MORAN: Chairman, I have been advised that it's in order for me to apply
2 for limited representation costs on that basis in relation to this module.
4 CHAIRMAN: Well, I can't deal with costs at this stage. I certainly -- I
15:02:09 5 thought we had done so. Well certainly you can have limited representation.
6 And costs are a matter which won't arise until some time in the future.
8 MR. MORAN: I appreciate that. I just thought I'd mention the matter.
9 Obliged.
15:02:24 10
11 MS. DILLON: Mr. Larry Butler, please.
12
13 MR. ROCHFORD: Chairman, I am solicitor for Larry Butler.
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 646
117
15:02:48 1 MR. LARRY BUTLER HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS QUESTIONED
2 BY MS. DILLON AS FOLLOWS:
4 CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon, Mr. Butler.
15:02:55 5
6 Q. 667 MS. DILLON: Good afternoon, Mr. Butler. You were first elected to Dublin
7 County Council in 1991.
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. 668 After 1993 and in January 1994 you became a member of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown
15:03:05 10 County Council.
11 A. That's right.
12 Q. 669 Your involvement in relation to the Cherrywood lands therefore spans three
13 separate, albeit related matters. One was the making of the 1993 Development
14 Plan. The second was the making of the variation for the science and
15:03:21 15 technology park.
16 A. That's right.
17 Q. 670 And the third was the review of the 1993 plan culminating in the making of the
18 1998 plan, isn't that correct?
15:03:29 20 Q. 671 Now, would it be fair to say from your consideration of the documentation in
21 relation to your time in Dublin County Council, that you appear to have from
22 your voting adopted a pro low density, anti-high density stance in relation to
23 these lands?
24 A. Yeah. I think I made it quite clear in previous evidence here that the
15:03:54 25 Carrickmines Residents Association were very worried at the time about the
26 proposals from the manager for industrialising the complete valley there. As
27 you previously pointed out, with other witnesses you have here, that the
28 manager's proposal was overturned in council before I went in there in '91.
29 So, therefore, the people who I was representing in the Carrickmines area and
15:04:28 30 kind of Foxrock and all of that area there were very pro low density at that

www.pcr.ie Day 646
118
15:04:37 1 time.
2 Q. 672 Yes.
3 A. So I supported that.
4 Q. 673 Yes. I think the record shows that at the meeting in May of 1992 that you
15:04:43 5 voted against the manager's map which was DP92/44?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. 674 And that after that, that you voted in general in favour of low density and
8 that you supported I think Mr. Barrett's motion?
15:04:56 10 Q. 675 And that you were in favour of one house to the acre for the entire of the
11 lands, is that correct?
12 A. That would be correct. But I think in fairness, and I want to expand a little
13 bit there --
14 Q. 676 Please do.
15:05:09 15 A. If I could.
16 Q. 677 Yes, yes.
17 A. I think it's important to bear in mind at the time that there was no
18 infrastructural development there on that particular land at that particular
19 time. There was no Carrickmines Valley sewer. There was no M50. The N11
15:05:24 20 hadn't been developed into the Carrickmines area. And with the lack of
21 infrastructural development at the time. I felt I was doing the correct thing
22 in following that particular line.
23 Q. 678 And were you also of the view or did you hold the view, Mr. Butler, that
24 development should stop at the 1983 line of the Southeastern Motorway?
15:05:46 25 A. Well, I wasn't hung up too much about where the line stopped but I felt that it
26 was important to make sure that there was a line on the plan for the motorway.
27 Even though it was an imaginary line and could be moved one way or the other.
28 But it was vitally important that the N11, before development took place you
29 probably could see in the Dun Laoghaire, when Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County
15:06:17 30 Council came into being that there was huge infrastructural development allowed

www.pcr.ie Day 646
119
15:06:25 1 to take place and it was subject to planning permission actually that the
2 access in and out of the Cherrywood lands would be subject to the N11 access.
3 Q. 679 And in fact, I think it was in clear that the opening up or development of the
4 residentially zoned lands in the Carrickmines Valley required putting in place
15:06:54 5 infrastructure including the Wyattville Road extension, is that right?
6 A. And the Wyattville Road and the kind of, Wyattville fly over. Also it
7 included the actual inner relief road from Wyatville to link eventually with
8 the M50. That was envisaged at that time.
9 Q. 680 And would it be fair to say, Mr. Butler, that from early in your political
15:07:17 10 career from your attendance at public meetings. People would have become
11 aware of the stance that you had adopted in relation to the development of the
13 A. Pretty much, yeah.
14 Q. 681 And that it would have been known that you were in favour of low density in the
15:07:30 15 valley.
16 A. Yeah. But I think it has to be bear in mind, that it was subject to the
17 actual infrastructural development while I was proposing low density because if
18 you had high density there at that time and you had major traffic problems, you
19 know, there was no proper sewerage, there was no water. All of these things
15:07:54 20 were deficient in the earlier proposal in the '91 proposal.
21 Q. 682 And when the matter came back before the council on 11th of November 1993, you
22 voted against the Marren/Coffey motion to increase the density on the Monarch
23 lands only, isn't that right?
15:08:13 25 Q. 683 Now, you had voted in favour of Councillor Barrett's motion in May of '92,
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 684 At one house to the acre. And does it follow from that approach, that it was
29 your view that development of the Carrickmines Valley was premature at that
15:08:27 30 particular point in time?

www.pcr.ie Day 646
120
15:08:28 1 A. Yes, I did. It is premature at that particular time.
2 Q. 685 And it was your view that the pipe needed to go in, is that correct, for sewage
3 before it could be developed?
4 A. Sewerage, water. You know, the development of the N11 access on and off.
15:08:45 5 And as I say, we hadn't decided at that particular time for the M50 line
6 completely. There was a line there but it hadn't been fixed. And on the
7 basis of that I felt that, you know, development was premature.
8 Q. 686 And that appears to have been the view that you held from 1991 from your
9 election to the making of the Development Plan in December 1993, isn't that
15:09:11 10 right?
11 A. More or less, yeah.
12 Q. 687 Now, in that period, can I ask you, Mr. Butler, were you approached by anybody
13 on behalf of Monarch seeking your support?
14 A. I was, yeah.
15:09:19 15 Q. 688 And would you outline to the Tribunal who it was that approached you and how it
16 arose?
17 A. Well Mr. O'Herlihy came to my house when I was first elected to the County
18 Council and I think Mr. Lynn, I can't be sure. There was two people with him.
19 And as I say, I can't be that sure. I think it was Mr. Lynn and somebody
15:09:39 20 else. I didn't know the other gentleman. And, you know, I think I outlined
21 my case pretty well in comparison to what they were talking about. And I
22 asked all of the various searching questions like, you know, that I felt that
23 it was premature. I wouldn't be supporting the proposals that they were
24 making at that time unless I seen, you know, new proposals as to how they were
15:10:07 25 going to deal with traffic and the water problem and the sewerage and the roads
26 at that time.
27 Q. 689 And I think in your statement to the Tribunal. At page 134. You date that
28 meeting with O'Herlihy and the men who came with him at happening shortly after
29 your election in June of 1991?
15:10:26 30 A. Can you repeat that again, please?

www.pcr.ie Day 646
121
15:10:31 1 Q. 690 Sorry. In your statement, which is on screen. You date that meeting as
2 happening shortly after your election?
3 A. Correct, yes.
4 Q. 691 In June of '91?
15:10:39 5 A. That's correct, yes.
6 Q. 692 It would follow from that, would it not, Mr. Butler, that your position or your
7 stance in relation to the development of the Carrickmines Valley would have
8 been known to Monarch and its representatives from the date of that meeting?
9 A. Yeah. Well I think I was, you know, reasonably forth coming in terms of
15:10:59 10 letting the developer know that there was a lot of deficiencies within his
11 proposal.
12 Q. 693 And --
13 A. And they hadn't satisfied certainly what I was looking for or indeed the
14 Carrickmines Residents Association.
15:11:14 15 Q. 694 Yes. Indeed, you say in the second part of paragraph 1 "I told them no.
16 That my first concern was that I was supporting my local residents association
17 point of view" and that you felt that the application was premature.
18 A. That's right.
19 Q. 695 So that your made your position very clear at that meeting.
15:11:31 20 A. I would have said so, yes.
21 Q. 696 And indeed, your voting subsequently replicated that position, isn't that
22 correct?
24 Q. 697 Can I ask you, were you in receipt of any payments or political donations from
15:11:47 25 Monarch Properties or anybody on their behalf?
26 A. As far as I know, I don't believe I ever got any donations from Monarch
27 Properties, now to the best of my knowledge, yes.
28 Q. 698 Indeed, in the documentation that has been discovered to the Tribunal, and with
29 which you have been furnished, Mr. Butler, in common with other people. There
15:11:58 30 is no record of any payments to you from Monarch Properties, isn't that the

www.pcr.ie Day 646
122
15:12:02 1 position?
2 A. No. I think I gave a very comprehensive list of my donations. I think we
3 went to a lot of trouble to produce everything and try and get it as accurate
4 as possible. I think we have done that quite successfully.
15:12:20 5 Q. 699 You have produced all of that documentation, isn't that the position,
6 Mr. Butler?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 700 And you produced it on request from the Tribunal when you were initially asked
9 for matters unrelated to Monarch Properties, isn't that right?
15:12:29 10 A. Oh absolutely, yes.
11 Q. 701 And you have made full disclosure of the receipt of payments and itemised and
12 detailed the persons and parties from whom you received donations, isn't that
13 the position?
15:12:39 15 Q. 702 And not included in that, if I may put it like that, is Monarch Properties or
16 any of their representatives?
18 Q. 703 And indeed, Monarch Properties on their side do not suggest that they made any
19 payments or donations to you. Isn't that the position also?
15:12:51 20 A. That is the position.
21 Q. 704 Yes. Now, I think in early 1994 when you were a member of Dun
22 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council, which became a smaller council, isn't that
23 right?
24 A. Yes.
15:13:02 25 Q. 705 You came to consider the matter of the science and technology park.
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 706 And not wanting in any way to put words in your mouth but would it be a fair
28 assessment to say that the science and technology park was initially driven by
29 the manager of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council?
15:13:19 30 A. It was driven by the manager but I have to say there was a lot of support by

www.pcr.ie Day 646
123
15:13:23 1 the councillors. The science and technology park, as you know, Dun
2 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council and the Dun Laoghaire area have a very high
3 third level educational system. And it was felt at that time that the science
4 and technology park would play a major role in ensuring, you know, good, high
15:13:46 5 paid jobs in the future. And also the important thing I think to bear in mind
6 was that Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council was going to be a one-third,
7 have a one-third ...
8 Q. 707 Interest?
9 A. Investment in the science and technology park. And I believed that was the
15:14:05 10 right way to go because we would be able to, shall we say, direct operations
11 and ensure quality in the science and technology park that we were going to
12 develop.
13 Q. 708 In essence, if I can summarise it. We'll look at a map in a moment,
14 Mr. Butler, and you can correct me if I'm wrong. The manager had had
15:14:26 15 negotiations or discussions with GRE and had come to an agreement with them
16 about effectively a joint venture including Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County
17 Council?
18 A. Yes, I think so, yes.
19 Q. 709 And I think when the matter was initiated by way of a motion from Councillor
15:14:41 20 Gilmore. There was almost universal acceptance amongst the councillors for
21 the idea of a science and technology park?
23 Q. 710 Because it was believed at the time that it would increase industry and it
24 would increase employment in an area that needed such an increase; isn't that
15:14:57 25 the position?
26 A. That is correct. There was 70% unemployment in the immediate area at that
27 particular time. It was -- there's no doubt about, it, like, there was
28 crisis. And, you know, we were, I suppose, people were clutching at straws in
29 many ways, like, hoping that things would get better. Things were very bad.
15:15:19 30 Q. 711 At that time?

www.pcr.ie Day 646
124
15:15:20 1 A. At that time.
2 Q. 712 And this was seen. I think when the manager spoke in his Reports to the
3 proposed variation. It was seen as a chance for Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown to get
4 ahead in the employment stakes?
15:15:32 5 A. Indeed, yes.
6 Q. 713 And there was almost universal acceptance amongst the Councillors for it.
7 Isn't that the position?
8 A. Oh, absolutely, yeah.
9 Q. 714 Yes?
15:15:42 10 A. I think when the Councils broke up I think was a very good thing really.
11 Because you were dealing with land and development in your own particular area.
12 It was very difficult in Dublin County Council to kind of be focused on
13 anything because it's so vast. In lots of cases didn't concern you when it was
14 outside of your own area. I have said before you depended, to a large extent,
15:16:09 15 on the councillors in particular areas. In this case we were able to have our
16 fingers know the pulse all the time and we knew what was happening. We knew
17 the land and we knew how the development was going to happen. When you walk
18 down there now and see the linkage between, say, the N11, the science and
19 technology park, the M50 and the new housing schemes that's going up and town
15:16:37 20 centre plan for eventualities. So, I mean, that's what I call particularly
21 good planning. And I think that's the way it has panned out there in the end.
22 Q. 715 If I could show you the map in relation to that, at 7464, Mr. Butler. Not to
23 delay on this now.
24
15:16:56 25 The area coloured purple, or dark red, is the area that was designated for a
26 town centre; isn't that right?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 716 And that had a cap on retail development in the 1993 plan?
29 A. Correct.
15:17:07 30 Q. 717 The area coloured blue immediately to the north of that was zoned agriculture?

www.pcr.ie Day 646
125
15:17:11 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 718 But it is now being proposed, in this variation, that it will become
3 residential at 16 houses to the hectare?
4 A. Yes.
15:17:19 5 Q. 719 The area across the black dotted line, shaded cream or yellow. That was
6 already zoned residential in the 1993 plan at ten to the hectare. Isn't that
7 right?
8 A. That's right.
9 Q. 720 And then if one moves down to the line of the road, which is by way of circles
15:17:36 10 across the page. The line of that road, which is the Wyatville extension, is
11 being moved slightly; isn't that right?
12 A. Where are we now? Are we change No. 1?
13 Q. 721 If you were to look at change No. 3.
14 A. Change No. 3. Sorry. Okay.
15:17:51 15 Q. 722 And change No. 7.
16 A. 7 and 3?
17 Q. 723 7 and 3. Change No. 3 is moving the town centre. Do you see the black dots?
18 A. Yeah, I see 7, yes.
19 Q. 724 That the town centre lands beneath those black dots was going to become science
15:18:11 20 and technology?
21 A. Yes, yes.
22 Q. 725 And a small portion to the northern end of the town centre was going to become
23 residential?
24 A. Right.
15:18:18 25 Q. 726 Okay. So there was, it's going to be a quid pro quo. What was being lost to
26 science and technology was to be gained at the other end in terms of acreage?
27 A. Yes, that was the change made, yes.
28 Q. 727 And then the area beneath the town centre, which was partially agriculture and
29 partially residential, was going to be rezoned E1, science and technology?
15:18:39 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 646
126
15:18:39 1 Q. 728 So the effect of this from Monarch or GRE's point of view, was they would be
2 left with no lands that were zoned agriculture?
3 A. More or less, yes. But there was also a golf course planned for that
4 particular area as well.
15:18:56 5 Q. 729 But not on those lands?
6 A. Not on those lands.
7 Q. 730 That was on the adjoining blue lands which were owned by Mr. Galvin; isn't that
8 the position?
15:19:03 10 Q. 731 On the Monarch lands outlined on that map. The end result of the variation
11 was that Monarch Property was left without any lands that could not be
12 developed for something or other; isn't that the position?
13 A. That is correct, yes.
14 Q. 732 Whereas they had commenced the process with two portions of agricultural land
15:19:19 15 which were not available for development; isn't that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 733 And the density that was given under the agreement to Monarch Properties was
18 higher than the density on their adjoining lands?
19 A. Well I think the densities had changed as well. I think it's fair to say,
15:19:33 20 densities had changed in the meantime.
21 Q. 734 But that was the end result. That was passed?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 735 That was passed by the Council?
24 A. Yes.
15:19:42 25 Q. 736 And I think you came to consider all of that again in early 1997 when you
26 mentioned the Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council review of the 1993 Dublin
27 Development Plan; isn't that the position that?
28 A. Would be correct, yeah.
29 Q. 737 I think that what happened in the early stages of that plan, Mr. Butler, was
15:20:01 30 that the densities were removed; isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 646
127
15:20:04 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 738 From --
3 A. Yes, yes.
4 Q. 739 From the -- if you could just look at the map at 7465, please.
15:20:16 5
6 And you will see there the Monarch lands outlined in red?
7 A. Uh-huh.
8 Q. 740 And the changes 13 and 14 relate to the removal of density there. And that was
9 something that was being suggested by the manager; isn't that the position?
15:20:28 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 741 And I think motions were brought objecting to that. But they were
12 unsuccessful?
13 A. That's right.
14 Q. 742 What was your own view in relation to the removal of the densities on those
15:20:38 15 lands, Mr. Butler?
16 A. Well, I mean, things were happening, I suppose, they were beginning to come
17 right in terms of the actual development onto the N11. And I had softened my
18 approach somewhat in terms of opposition to the thing and certainly with a
19 science and technology park coming in. So I certainly had softened my
15:21:09 20 approach at that stage. And also I had contact with the residents association
21 in the area at the time. And they seemed to, if they were going to be good
22 class housing, and that sort of thing, they were happy enough at that
23 particular time, you know.
24 Q. 743 That there would be a change in the density?
15:21:31 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 744 Yes. And I think if you look at 7285, please.
27
28 In the course of the display of the first display a number of representations
29 were received by Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council from Monarch Properties.
15:21:47 30 There was a representation No. 359. And that was an application to extend the

www.pcr.ie Day 646
128
15:21:52 1 science and technology zoning into the lands that have the words "rep 359" on
2 that map?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 745 And that was into the Sean Galvin golf course lands?
15:22:00 5 A. That's right. That's where -- that's the one I was talking about. I was
6 ahead of you there for a minute, I'm sorry.
7 Q. 746 That's okay. Those lands had been acquired by Monarch Properties in the
8 intervening period; isn't that the position?
9 A. That's right.
15:22:13 10 Q. 747 And they were now seeking to move the science and technology zoning across the
11 Wyattville Road into those lands?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 748 And immediately north or to the side of that you see the words "rep 362".
14 A. I two, yeah.
15:22:26 15 Q. 749 And that's on the town centre, the existing town centre zoning. That was
16 seeking to remove the cap on retail development?
18 Q. 750 And then you see "rep 360". And that was an application by Monarch to extend
19 the town centre zoning into the adjoining 11 acres?
15:22:44 20 A. Uh-huh.
21 Q. 751 And you will be aware then that a meeting took place in January of 1998 of Dun
22 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council, at which these matters came to be
23 considered, isn't that right?
24 A. Yes.
15:22:54 25 Q. 752 And a number of motions were brought before the Council relating to these
26 matters, including at 2624. This is in relation to moving the science and
27 technology park across the road, as we saw. And there is an amendment; without
28 prejudice to the advancement of the Council's objective to develop a public
29 golf course on the lands. That was an amendment signed by you, isn't that
15:23:24 30 correct?

www.pcr.ie Day 646
129
2 Q. 753 At page 2588.
3 A. That's right.
4 Q. 754 At 2588 you signed the amendment without prejudice to the advancement of the
15:23:34 5 council's objective to develop a public golf course on the lands. And if we
6 go back to 2624. May the Tribunal take from that, Mr. Butler, that you had no
7 objection to the extension of the science and technology park into the lands
8 across the road, across the Wyattville Road provided it go not interfere with
9 the development of the golf course?
15:23:56 10 A. Correct, yes.
11 Q. 755 I think that was passed on a show of hands?
12 A. It was, yes.
13 Q. 756 Can I ask you, maybe you could help the Tribunal, Mr. Butler, why is it that a
14 large portion of the minutes of the Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council don't
15:24:07 15 record who actually voted for or against anything?
16 A. Well I don't know. I have to be just honest with you and say I really don't
17 know why. It's down to the people who were taking the minutes presumably.
18 Q. 757 All right. And again at 2624 you will see representation 360 and I think
19 there was a motion in relation to representation 360 by Councillors Lowry and
15:24:32 20 Conroy at 2625. And that was extending the -- sorry at 2625. That was
21 extending the district centre zoning into the adjoining lands.
22 A. Uh-huh.
23 Q. 758 And that was passed I think on a show of hands also.
24 A. Right.
15:24:46 25 Q. 759 And I think the third application by Monarch as representation 362 which sought
26 to change the cap on retail. And I think that what happened in relation to
27 that was that the manager suggested an alternative at 2628.
28 A. Yeah. I think there just to elaborate a little on that, would be that I think
29 we were -- I mean a lot of councillors were very concerned about having, you
15:25:15 30 know, major, major, shopper centre or town centre in Cherrywood. What effect

www.pcr.ie Day 646
130
15:25:21 1 it might have on Dun Laoghaire. And we had to take that into consideration as
2 well. I think that was one of the things that were the arguments for and
3 against. So I think that's where the manager made adjustments I think.
4 Q. 760 Yes.
15:25:36 5 A. When we brought that to his attention.
6 Q. 761 Yes. And the manager suggested an alternative wording that in fact was
7 adopted by the councillors?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 762 And effectively what it permits is of retail element that will compliment the
15:25:49 10 adjoining uses.
11 A. That's right.
12 Q. 763 And the adjoining uses would have been the science and technology park, the
13 existing retail and the increased density residential.
14 A. Yes.
15:25:59 15 Q. 764 Isn't that right? I think that these were all passed ultimately are contained
16 in the Development Plan 1998 at 7292. And you will see on that map that the
17 science and technology zoning has come across the Wyattville Road. That the
18 area for the town centre has increased and that there is a new objective in
19 relation to retail in place.
15:26:27 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 765 Yes. Do you have any comment at all on the fact that it would appear from
22 that sequence, Mr. Butler, that Monarch Properties succeeded in getting
23 everything that they asked for?
24 A. Well I think there was a question at time because a lot of what they were
15:26:44 25 looking for was very, very good but it was premature, as I think you went
26 through in the beginning when you were asking me the questions.
27 Q. 766 Yes.
28 A. By the time that the N11 had been developed access on and off and then the
29 internal road and the M50 coming on stream. I mean, this is all very good
15:27:04 30 development now. I mean, I think if anybody goes down there and have a look

www.pcr.ie Day 646
131
15:27:08 1 at how the planning is working out there. I think it's excellent. I wish
2 we'd be able to plan other areas like it. I think it would be a model the way
3 it's working out at the moment. I certainly had my reservations to begin with
4 but as the development and infrastructural development came in more or less
15:27:29 5 hand in hand with the development, it improved the whole situation down there.
6 Q. 767 Can I just take you back, Mr. Butler, and ask you, that in 1991 when you were
7 elected and throughout your period up to the end of December of 1993, were you
8 aware that a substantial number of your colleagues in Dublin County Council
9 were in receipt of political payments or indeed payments of any sort from
15:27:52 10 Monarch Properties or its related companies?
11 A. Oh, no. I mean, I never discussed nor nobody has ever discussed payments with
12 me.
13 Q. 768 I see.
14 A. Any of my colleagues.
15:28:03 15 Q. 769 Do you think that it is proper that councillors should receive money from
16 developers and then subsequently vote on or make decisions in relation to that
17 developer's lands?
18 A. Well, I mean, I have to be honest with you. I think if we have a code brought
19 in now, as you very well know, which all donations has to be registered. I
15:28:25 20 think if it's done properly it's fine. I mean, I have received donations
21 myself but I think you will, if you look back on some of the records there, it
22 didn't influence me one way or the other.
23 I voted for some development and I voted against others. If I thought it was
24 bad. It just didn't influence me.
15:28:47 25 Q. 770 Do you think it's better that people should disclose monies that they receive
26 in circumstances where they are subsequently in a position of power in relation
27 by way of voting or otherwise?
28 A. Yes, I certainly would. But, I mean, let's put it this way. There was no
29 regulations. We can all kind of look back and say, you know, great but there
15:29:06 30 was no regulations there at that particular time. And I think we have

www.pcr.ie Day 646
132
15:29:11 1 regulations now. And everybody is adhering to the regulations. I mean,
2 that's -- if you put regulations there and I think that's the good thing about
3 this Tribunal, it has kind of got people thinking and it's got people to do
4 things properly. Which wasn't done in them years. There is no doubt about
15:29:29 5 that.
6 Q. 771 Thank you very much, Mr. Butler. If you would answer any questions anybody
7 may have for you.
9 MR. ROCHFORD: Nothing, Chairman. Thank you.
15:29:37 10
11 CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much
13
14 CHAIRMAN: That's the witnesses then.
15:29:43 15
16 MS. DILLON: Sorry, Sir. Sorry. I beg your pardon
17
18 CHAIRMAN: Half ten tomorrow?
19
15:29:48 20 MS. DILLON: Yes, Sir.
21
22 CHAIRMAN: Or are we sitting earlier?
23
24 MS. DILLON: No, half ten.
15:29:53 25
26 CHAIRMAN: Half ten. Thank you.
27
29 FRIDAY, 2ND JUNE, 2006, AT 10:30 A.M.:
15:30:30 30

www.pcr.ie Day 646
133
15:30:30 1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 646
1
2 15TH JUNE, 2006, AT 10:15 A.M.:
4 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Mr. Murphy.
10:25:04 5
6 MR. MURPHY: Good morning, Chairman.
10:25:14 10 CONTINUATION OF QUESTIONING OF MR. FRANK DUNLOP BY MR. MURPHY
11 AS FOLLOWS:
12 A. Hello. Sorry. Do you mind if I take off my jacket?
13
14 CHAIRMAN: Oh, certainly. You don't want to take off your jacket, Mr. Murphy.
10:26:06 15
16 MR. MURPHY: A little bit later, Chairman. Like the high jumpers in the track
17 suits.
18
10:26:16 20 A. No, it got a bit intemperate here yesterday. The temperature I mean not the
21 exchanges.
22 Q. 1 MR. MURPHY: Good morning, Mr. Dunlop.
23 A. Good morning, Mr. Murphy.
24 Q. 2 I'm hoping to finish my examination of you by lunch hour. So the
10:26:37 25 cross-examination can start after lunch.
26 A. Excellent. You mean after, I understand that there is another witness.
27
28 CHAIRMAN: There is a short witness at two o'clock.
29 A. What time can we expect to be back after that then?
10:26:48 30

www.pcr.ie Day 654
2
10:26:48 1 CHAIRMAN: It would be about a quarter past two then.
2 A. Lovely.
3 Q. 3 MR. MURPHY: Mr. Dunlop, just one little thing that occurred overnight. In
4 relation to. If I could go back to May '92 the County Council meeting and
10:27:00 5 that date, the important meeting. And you were there, you remember, you
6 recall that meeting. You weren't acting for Monarch at that stage?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 4 And do you have any recollection of Mr. Lynn and Mr. Lydon having a contact in
9 the course of that day, in the course of that meeting?
10:27:24 10 A. Well I -- well my answer to that would have to be no. I didn't witness
11 Mr. Lydon talking to Mr. Lynn I think. There was a lot of confusion that day
12 --
13 Q. 5 Yes.
14 A. -- in the council. In fairness to everybody concerned and to say that
10:27:44 15 exchanges between various people's took place. There was a lot of
16 conversations. People were, didn't quite know what had happened. People
17 wanted to know what had happened. And explanations were being sought.
18 Q. 6 So do you say, Mr. Dunlop, sorry. So you don't actually recall seeing Mr.
19 Lynn and Mr. Lydon together during that time?
10:28:14 20 A. I wouldn't say definitively that I do or I did not. I do know that certain
21 comments were made, right across the board.
22 Q. 7 All right.
23 A. And comments were made to me as well.
24 Q. 8 I want to turn something up maybe in your statement and I'll put it to you.
10:28:28 25 Mr. Dunlop, just to help, you remember Mr. Lydon proposed a motion that was
26 defeated 35 - 33?
27 A. Yes, that's correct, yes.
28 Q. 9 And then he withdrew a motion.
29 A. That is correct, yes.
10:28:39 30 Q. 10 Does that help your recollection in any way?

www.pcr.ie Day 654
3
10:28:42 1 A. Well, let me put it this way to you, Mr. Murphy. Without being either
2 definitive or unfair to anybody. What was happening there was that Mr. Lydon
3 would have had to take instructions.
4 Q. 11 Yes.
10:29:03 5 A. And now, that sounds somewhat dismissive or ...
7 CHAIRMAN: Well, sorry, Mr. Dunlop. I think rather than say what he would
8 have had to do.
9 A. Yes.
10:29:15 10
11 CHAIRMAN: Perhaps if you just tell us what you know he did or saw him do.
12 A. Well the motion was put forward. The motion was defeated. He then withdrew
13 the other motion. That took place, I cannot say definitively, that I saw
14 instructions being given to him that that should take place. But certainly in
10:29:34 15 the melee that followed, there was a lot of contact between a lot of people.
16 Q. 12 And what about contact between Mr. Lynn and Mr. Lydon?
17 A. Yes, I would say there was contact.
18 Q. 13 Did you see it?
19 A. No, I can't say I definitively saw it. No.
10:29:50 20 Q. 14 I'll try and find what I'm looking for, Mr. Dunlop and come back to you on it.
21 Mr. Lynn, was Mr. Lynn in the chambers all of the day or in the environs all of
22 the day or in and out?
23 A. Well that I can't attest to because for one simple reason, and I'm subject to
24 correction on this. I think the public gallery in that particular chamber
10:30:10 25 format as it existed then, I think at maximum, at maximum, held ten people.
26 And the press gallery, which was right beside it, inside the door, can --
27 facilitated a maximum of six or seven people. So if you wanted to be in the
28 chamber and I can only give you my own experience. On occasion it was
29 necessary to be in the chamber.
10:30:36 30 Q. 15 Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
4
10:30:36 1 A. And if you wanted to be in the chamber, you got in there, you took your place,
2 you sat there and you didn't come out because if you came out you couldn't get
3 back in.
4 Q. 16 I see. You would know if he was stuck in the chamber for the whole day or
10:30:57 5 stuck in and around the chamber for the whole day or whether he was ...?
6 A. The only way I can answer that, Mr. Murphy, is that if I had a motion of
7 enormous importance going through council, that I was controlling or attempting
8 to control, I would be in the chamber.
9 Q. 17 All right. Page 589, please.
10:31:22 10 Mr. Dillon has just found what I was looking for Mr. Dunlop.
11 A. I knew this was what you were looking for. I mean, I couldn't recall the
12 exact detail myself.
13 Q. 18 Question 61, "Who would make a decision that a particular motion should be
14 withdrawn."
10:31:45 15 A: -- private interviews. "I remember on one particular occasion Richard
16 Lynn signalling Don Lydon to come out of the chamber after he had made a
17 disastrous speech in relation to why this was required and not required and he
18 came back in and he withdrew.
19 Q: Withdrew the motion?
10:31:59 20 A: Yes. The motion."
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 19 Now, can you just say in the light of what you said a moment ago, that you
23 didn't have a recollection seven years ago, no what is it, six years ago you
24 told the Counsel for the Tribunal that you have a recollection of that.
10:32:14 25 A. Yes. I don't have any difficulty about it, Mr. Murphy. As I said to you,
26 putting myself in the shoes of Mr. Lynn. If I was Mr. Lynn I would be in the
27 chamber, I would be controlling the thing and I would signal Mr. Lydon to come
28 out --
29 Q. 20 Well --
10:32:31 30 A. Yes, what I did say -- No, I'll continue on. What I did say is that I

www.pcr.ie Day 654
5
10:32:33 1 remember an occasion when I saw Mr. Lynn signalling to Don Lydon to come out
2 and subsequent to that --
3 Q. 21 Mr. Dunlop, I want to finish this by lunch hour.
4 A. Yes.
10:32:45 5 Q. 22 Did Mr.-- you agree that you said that --
6 A. Oh, I do absolutely, yes.
7 Q. 23 You said to the three judges a few moments ago, that you had no recollection of
8 Mr. Lynn signalling to Mr. Lydon?
9 A. Yes, I have no difficulty about it.
10:33:00 10 Q. 24 Do you now have a recollection because you've been seen this?
11 A. I knew I had said something in private session along the lines that Richard
12 Lynn had made a signal to Don Lydon to come out.
13 Q. 25 Why didn't you tell us that?
14 A. Well, look it, Mr. Murphy, why didn't I -- why don't I say a lot of things.
10:33:18 15 Q. 26 Exactly.
16 A. Look it --
17 Q. 27 Why don't you tell us everything, Mr. Dunlop?
18 A. I've told you everything so far. I've been in this box, for I can't count the
19 number of days and you alone can count the number of pages of evidence, so you
10:33:30 20 can make up your mind. But, yes, there was a relationship between Don Lydon
21 and --
22 Q. 28 That's not the question, Mr. Dunlop, the question is quite simple. Why did
23 you tell three Judges here in the Tribunal a few minutes ago that you didn't
24 see that happening?
10:33:45 25 A. No.
26 Q. 29 You don't have a recollection of it?
27 A. No, I don't have a recollection of it, it's quite simple.
28 Q. 30 Did it happen?
29 A. Yes, it did happen.
10:33:53 30 Q. 31 Now, Mr. Dunlop, yesterday --

www.pcr.ie Day 654
6
10:33:57 1
2 CHAIRMAN: Sorry, just before, because this is important.
3 Are you saying, Mr. Dunlop, that you recollect this occurring on this occasion,
4 the occasion of this particular motion?
10:34:09 5 A. In the circumstances that obtained that day, yes. With the confusion in, the
6 melee that took place in the chamber and outside.
8 CHAIRMAN: Are you saying that on that you did of that occasion see Mr. Lydon
9 being signaled by Mr. Lynn to come out?
10:34:25 10 A. Yes.
11
12 CHAIRMAN: So you do recollect it?
13 A. I do recollect it, yes.
14
10:34:30 15 MR. HUMPHREYS: Gerard Humphreys with Seamus O'Tuathail, for Mr. Don Lydon.
16
17 What the witness said was that I have no recollection. If he has no
18 recollection he cannot go on to say what occurred. Now, there has to be --
19
10:34:42 20 CHAIRMAN: Well he said that's something you can take up with him in
21 cross-examination. That's why. It concerns us as well.
22 He said in private session that he or it would appear that he had a
23 recollection. He said this morning that he had no recollection. He says now
24 he's changed his position again and he says he now has a recollection.
10:35:01 25
26 I mean, that's a matter, you can take up with him certainly. But I mean, I
27 can see the ....
28
29 MR. HUMPHREYS: The difficulty is that he said he had no recollection.
10:35:11 30

www.pcr.ie Day 654
7
10:35:11 1 CHAIRMAN: Sorry, I can't hear you.
3 MR. HUMPHREYS: Sorry the mike is on again. The difficulty is that he said
4 that he had no recollection of this event. And now he is continuing to say
10:35:22 5 what occurred.
6 Now, he either remembers it or he doesn't remember it.
8 CHAIRMAN: Yes.
10:35:27 10 MR. HUMPHREYS: I'll take it up in cross-examination as indicated. But I do
11 see a difficulty with this even at this stage.
12
13 CHAIRMAN: Absolutely. And I share that concern. But I mean, we're taking
14 the evidence here today. He said earlier that he had no recollection. You
10:35:41 15 now say you have a recollection.
16
17 I mean, it's important for Mr. Lydon's position that, I mean, that you be
18 absolutely truthful about this. I mean, is it that you have a half a
19 recollection or no recollection or a recollection?
10:35:58 20 A. Well, with respect, Chairman, I don't think there's any distinguishing
21 between -- what I've said to Mr. Murphy. Mr. Lydon, because Mr. Lydon's
22 relationship with Mr. Lynn. Mr. Lydon would not --
23
24 CHAIRMAN: No, no, it doesn't matter what --
10:36:16 25 A. -- do anything without instructions from Mr. Lynn. In the circumstances where
26 Mr. Lawlor --
27
29 A. Mr. Lydon, sorry.
10:36:26 30

www.pcr.ie Day 654
8
10:36:26 1 CHAIRMAN: We're only interested in what you saw happen on that particular
2 day. Not what you assume happened or think should have happened.
3 A. I accept that.
10:36:34 5 CHAIRMAN: Now, can you clarify the position. Did you see Mr. Lynn calling
6 out Mr. Lydon or did you not see or can you remember one way or the other?
7 A. Well the simple answer to that is yes.
9 CHAIRMAN: Yes.
10:36:48 10 A. I did see Mr. Lynn signalling to Mr. Lydon to come out.
11
12 CHAIRMAN: All right. You can deal with it in cross-examination.
13
14 MR. HUMPHREYS: I'll take it up in cross-examination. It was the difficulty
10:37:05 15 in what he said and then going on to say something else.
16 Thank you.
17
18 Q. 32 MR. MURPHY: Mr. Dunlop, we were talking about your meeting with Mr. Sweeney
19 on the 8th of March.
10:37:14 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 33 And just one thing in relation to that. I want to put to you because I'm not
22 quite sure that you pitched it quite as high as this yesterday. But in your
23 statement, 425 please.
24
10:37:26 25 And if you go down towards the end of the first substantial paragraph. Where
26 it says "The only discussions".
27 A. Yes.
29 A. Yes, sorry.
10:37:57 30 Q. 35 "The only discussions with regard to payments to politicians was with

www.pcr.ie Day 654
9
10:38:01 1 Mr. Sweeney. With my original meeting with him indicated that he knew that I
2 would have to make payments to councillors to achieve success."
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 36 I just want to stop there for a second "and he said that he knew that this was
10:38:13 5 the only way that things could get done".
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 37 This might be my inaccuracy in recollection because you were saying something
8 that you couldn't recall what words he said.
9 A. Yes.
10:38:26 10 Q. 38 "He indicated to you." Is that correct in your statement that he indicated to
11 you that he knew that you would have to make payments to councillors?
12 A. Yes. What I -- I thought I clarified that, particularly with the Chairman
13 yesterday. When he asked me in relation to -- I said specifically that
14 Mr. Sweeney did not say I know that you have to make payments to politicians.
10:38:47 15 Q. 39 You did.
16 A. Did I not say that?
17 Q. 40 You did say that.
18 A. I also said. This was a point that the Chairman raised with me in relation to
19 saying, you have to do what you have to do or I know what you have to do, it is
10:38:58 20 the only way of getting things done.
21 Q. 41 Yes.
22 A. And from that, which I described as the culture of the meeting to you on day
23 one, sorry, not day one, day whatever it was. That that was my interpretation
24 of Mr. Sweeney's knowledge.
10:39:12 25 Q. 42 Yes. It was day one wasn't it?
26 A. Day one of your cross-examination -- of your examination, yes.
27 Q. 43 Oh yes, sorry, I thought you meant meeting. You say in the statement "He said
28 that he knew that this was the only way that things could get done."
29 A. Yes.
10:39:27 30 Q. 44 So he said that.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
10
10:39:28 1 A. He said that he knew. The phrase when I went on to -- when I was asked by the
2 Chairman what phraseology --
4 MR. REDMOND: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mr. Dunlop. Mr. Murphy has just read
10:39:40 5 out a an extract from the statement where it clearly says "indicated that he
6 knew". He is now paraphrasing it and said that he knew.
8 MR. MURPHY: No. The next sentence. I'm sorry Mr. Redmond, the next
9 sentence is and what I said was that he knew that this was the only way that
10:39:50 10 things could get done. He said that. I'm sorry, Mr. Redmond, that's what I
11 mean.
12
13 MR. REDMOND: My misinterpretation and I want just for the purposes of
14 clarification was; It was very clear to me that what Mr. Murphy was saying
10:40:01 15 whether through error or otherwise was that "he said that I would have to make
16 payments to councillors". That he was using "said" instead of indicating
17 throughout.
18
19 Q. 45 MR. MURPHY: Well, Mr. Dunlop, what I'm suggesting to you is that in your
10:40:15 20 statement, your words are "he" being Mr. Sweeney "said that he knew that this
21 was the only way that things would get done". Is that correct that
22 Mr. Sweeney said that part of it to you?
23 A. I know what you -- what I said to the Chairman yesterday was that you have to
24 do whatever you have to do or phraseology to that extent. That is the only
10:40:34 25 way that things can be done.
26 Q. 46 All right.
27 A. And I specifically made it clear, Mr. Murphy, and I hope -- I had hoped I had
28 and I want to make it absolutely clear again here now. That Mr. Sweeney never
29 said to me, Frank, I know that you have to pay X, Y, or Z: he never said I know
10:40:53 30 that you have pay Mr. Murphy, Mr. Redmond, Ms. Dillon, you know, whoever. He

www.pcr.ie Day 654
11
10:40:58 1 never said anything of that nature. He said I know you have to do what you
2 have to do with these politicians. That is the only way things can be done.
3 Q. 47 Well is that all he said?
4 A. Yes.
10:41:07 5 Q. 48 Said that gave you to understand --
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. 49 -- that he knew that politicians would have to be paid?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. 50 Mr. Sweeney -- you gave us a lot of evidence yesterday.
10:41:30 10 A. Dunlop.
11 Q. 51 Mr. Dunlop, you gave us a lot of evidence yesterday afternoon about the
12 meetings with Mr. Sweeney, the first one and on subsequent occasions and going
13 back to Mr. Sweeney about an increase in your fees, isn't that right?
14 A. Yes.
10:41:44 15 Q. 52 Now, do you expect that Mr. Sweeney will agree with that?
16 A. Well, firstly, my first immediate answer to that is I don't know. And
17 secondly, I have seen some documentation in relation to --
18 Q. 53 Yes.
19 A. -- what Mr. Sweeney has said by way of either preliminary statement or
10:42:05 20 narrative statement and Mr. Sweeney seems to have a completely hazy notion of
21 where I came from or how I came to be involved at all.
22 Q. 54 All right.
23 A. Now, that is my --
24 Q. 55 If I can take you to page 2199, please. Now, the third paragraph. If I can
10:42:26 25 read this.
26
27 "The next contact -- the next contact with Liam Lawlor was in 1993/1994 during
28 the Cherrywood campaigns." Sorry. "When he advised on zoning strategy with
29 public relations consultant Frank Dunlop, who was employed as a consultant
10:42:52 30 around the time of the second Cherrywood rezoning was attempted by Monarch. I

www.pcr.ie Day 654
12
10:42:56 1 have no knowledge of when exactly or who appointed Frank Dunlop but can recall
2 that some of the Liam Lawlor/Frank Dunlop meetings were related to the
3 promotion of a number of developments in the Checz Republic especially the Alfa
4 project in Prague." Mr. Sweeney apparently is going to say that he doesn't
10:43:10 5 know when exactly you were appointed or who appointed you.
6 A. That's the point I was referring to myself.
7 Q. 56 You believe that he appointed you?
8 A. Well --
10:43:19 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 58 You believe Mr. Sweeney appointed you?
12 A. Correct. Yes.
13 Q. 59 And if we go on to page 2200, please. The paragraph heading Frank Dunlop and
14 Bill O'Herlihy.
10:43:35 15
16 This is Mr. Sweeney's statement "Spanning a period of about one and a half
17 years I would have met Frank Dunlop about six times." If I pause there for a
18 second, that bears out what you were saying in your evidence about meeting
19 Mr. Sweeney on a number of occasions.
10:43:50 20 A. It's double that actually, according to my rough count yesterday for his
21 references to Mr. Sweeney in my diaries.
22 Q. 60 Would you have met him other than in the Monarch offices?
23 A. No.
24 Q. 61 Because -- all right. Because what you had said in your interviews is twice
10:44:02 25 in the offices. "Some of the meetings would have been about the proposed
26 develop in Prague and some of the meetings would have concerned Frank Dunlop's
27 role as public relations advisors in relation to land rezoning, particularly in
28 Cherrywood to which he was introduced some time after the services of Bill
29 Herlihy were no longer required (road show). I can recall no part in any
10:44:20 30 agreement with Mr. Bill O'Herlihy -- that's irrelevant -- or Frank Dunlop for

www.pcr.ie Day 654
13
10:44:23 1 the services that they provided -- for the services that they provided to
2 Monarch but I believe that such consultancy agreements would probably have been
3 formalised in writing.
10:44:33 5 I personally however, at no time negotiated any agreement or agreed any
6 payments or certified or recommended any payments to Frank Dunlop or Bill
7 O'Herlihy whatsoever. Philip Monahan or Richard Lynn would have dealt with
8 such appointments."
10:44:46 10 Now, would you like to comment on that in the light of what you told us?
11 A. Yeah. We'll take it from the top. Spanning a period of about one and a half
12 years. I met with Frank Dunlop about six times. I've dealt with that. We
13 can refer to the diary if you so wish and give the exact --
14 Q. 62 I'm not interested in that Mr. Dunlop. I'm not interested in the next bit, if
10:45:06 15 you go down "I can recall no part".
16 A. Okay. "I can recall no part". I think I told you yesterday or the day
17 before, I'm not quite sure, if you go through the names of the people in
18 relation to Monarch that I ever met or dealt with. Philip Monahan, I met on a
19 number of occasions socially or accidentally and he attended one meeting and
10:45:29 20 stuck his head in to another. I never negotiated any fee. I never had any
21 writing communication with Mr. Monahan in relation to the Cherrywood project.
22 He never negotiated a fee with me.
23
24 Mr. Lynn: Mr. Lynn and I never discussed my relationship with Monarch
10:45:51 25 Properties in relation to the Cherrywood project other than in circumstances of
26 strategy as to who he should talk to, who he should lobby, who he should
27 campaign, what type of attitude we should adopt. Neither -- he did not
28 appoint me. I don't know who told him I was appointed. He certainly did not
29 appoint me.
10:46:12 30

www.pcr.ie Day 654
14
10:46:12 1 CHAIRMAN: Well --
2 A. Mr. Philip Reilly.
4 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dunlop. Sorry, all Mr. Murphy wants from you is confirmation
10:46:19 5 that you stand over your evidence to the effect --
6 A. I certainly do, Chairman, yes. But he asked me, just in ease of Mr. Murphy,
7 he did say is there any comment you wish to make.
9 CHAIRMAN: Yes but we don't need to know, we just want to know whether you
10:46:37 10 want to in any way alter the evidence you have given, given that Mr. Sweeney
11 will say what he apparently --
12 A. Let me put it another way, Mr. Chairman. I totally disagree with that
13 statement.
14
16
17 Q. 63 MR. MURPHY: Page 4839, please.
18 Now, Mr. Dunlop, I think this is where we were yesterday.
19 A. Yes.
10:47:01 20 Q. 64 I think we were at the bottom of the page "okay" with initials?
22 Q. 65 Now, what would "okay" convey to you there?
23 A. Well, okay would confirm to me that the person who initialled that said this is
24 okay for payment.
10:47:15 25 Q. 66 Right.
26 A. That would be my interpretation of it.
27 Q. 67 That's your best effort at working out who that initial is?
28 A. Oh well my best effort at that is as I said yesterday, it looks to me as either
29 Ed or an elaborate Yes.
10:47:29 30 Q. 68 Would you be inclined to think that it's Mr. Sweeney?

www.pcr.ie Day 654
15
10:47:33 1 A. Having seen it yesterday and looking at it now I don't have any doubt that it
2 is Ed Sweeney.
3 Q. 69 Okay. Right. Which in fact having regard to what I've just read out to you
4 about his statement --
10:47:44 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 70 -- may not be consistent with what he's saying about not having any dealings
7 with fees about you?
8 A. Sorry, give me that again, Mr. Murphy.
9 Q. 71 If that's Mr. Sweeney's signature --
10:47:55 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 72 He is okaying your invoice?
12 A. And then he is saying in his statement he had no dealings with me. Yes, I
13 accept that point.
14 Q. 73 So if the signature there, his signature there bears out what you are saying
10:48:05 15 that you did have your chats with him about money?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 74 Anyway, that's his signature and what that conveys to you is that he has okayed
18 this fee, isn't that right?
19 A. Yes, sorry.
10:48:16 20 Q. 75 Yes. Now -- this. And you told us yesterday that you had this conversation
21 on the phone with one or other of these two gentlemen and they said send it in
22 and we'll see what we can do?
23 A. See how far you would get.
24 Q. 76 Sorry, I beg your pardon. So then you sent out this invoice on the 14th of
10:48:38 25 December 1993, which is shortly after, whatever it is, a few weeks after the
26 successful motion.
27 A. A month I think was it, three weeks, yeah.
28 Q. 77 And -- right. So he had said to you he'll see how far --
29 A. Actually --
10:49:06 30 Q. 78 Is there something?

www.pcr.ie Day 654
16
10:49:07 1 A. No, no, no, just on the time line. I was just interested in your reference to
2 how long after the successful motion it was. I was just looking up what date
3 the successful motion was.
10:49:16 5 JUDGE FAHERTY: The 11th of November. We know that from the record.
6 A. I said a month, yeah.
8 Q. 79 MR. MURPHY: Can you just take us through what happened then in relation to
9 it? I mean, you had this conversation, you wanted a success fee, 60,500. We
10:49:32 10 know that you had no intention of paying the VAT. So success fee is 60,500
11 and he says --
12 A. Excuse me, Mr. Murphy, sorry, you cannot say that I had no intentions of paying
13 VAT. This was Frank Dunlop & Associates Company invoice with VAT attached
14 which would, if it was received to Frank Dunlop & Associates with the VAT
10:49:51 15 attached go through the books as other invoices had from Frank Dunlop &
16 Associates to Monarch.
17 Q. 80 No, I understood from what you said yesterday when you were agreeing the 25,000
18 at the beginning --
19 A. Oh that was a different invoice. This is an invoice with VAT attached --
10:50:03 20 Q. 81 All right.
21 A. -- through the company books.
22 Q. 82 All right. So success fee, this is your invoice success fee 50,000 is the
23 success fee. The rest is VAT and you're going to pay the VAT on it?
24 A. Yes.
10:50:15 25 Q. 83 And it's -- and it says "okay". So Mr. Sweeney said to you. And I keep
26 forgetting what you say he said to you which was he said he'll see how far it
27 would go or whatever.
28 A. Yes. See how far you'll get.
29 Q. 84 See how far you'll get. Yeah, so it's looks as if you're getting pretty far at
10:50:32 30 this stage?

www.pcr.ie Day 654
17
10:50:32 1 A. By virtue of that reference on it, yes.
2 Q. 85 So what happened?
3 A. I didn't get it.
4 Q. 86 You didn't get it?
10:50:41 5 A. No.
6 Q. 87 Is there a reminder letter?
7 A. No, I don't think so. There's -- if there was we would have discovered it.
8 I don't think so. I think there were some discussions subsequently as to
9 whether or not it was going to be paid or not. But it just -- it wasn't paid
10:50:59 10 as far as I'm concerned.
11 Q. 88 You regarded it as outstanding. It's a live debt?
12 A. Putting it clinically, yes, it is a live debt.
13 Q. 89 Is there some other way to put it?
14 A. No, there's not. Putting it clinically is what I said.
10:51:14 15 Q. 90 Monarch Properties owe you 60,500.
16 A. No, I sent this invoice.
17 Q. 91 Was it a joke?
18 A. We sent this invoice after a discussion that I had with one or other of
19 Mr. Sweeney or Mr. Glennane. And you now show me the invoice from the Monarch
10:51:40 20 file which it as "okay" on it.
21 Q. 92 So you hadn't seen it before, had you not?
22 A. Well, no I cannot absolutely say that we hadn't seen it before if it was in the
23 brief.
24 Q. 93 Can I stop you there for a second, I want to know when you first saw that page?
10:51:54 25 A. I can't tell you that.
26 Q. 94 When did you get your brief?
27 A. Some time ago.
28 Q. 95 Uh-huh.
29 A. Some time ago.
10:52:00 30 Q. 96 Uh-huh. And had you never seen that -- you hadn't seen it I suppose until you

www.pcr.ie Day 654
18
10:52:05 1 got the brief?
2 A. I couldn't have seen it until I got the brief.
3 Q. 97 Well, presumably in the last number of weeks you have seen it, it's not new to
4 you?
10:52:10 5 A. No, it's not new to me in the sense, it's not in the forefront of my mind.
6 Q. 98 Just tell us please, how you followed up a debt of 60,500. Sorry. I think I
7 asked you?
8 A. You did.
9 Q. 99 Is that still -- oh Monarch owes you that and you said not really.
10:52:29 10 A. Well that invoice was not paid. A number of conversations took place with
11 Mr. Sweeney and/or Mr. Glennane about the payment of it. It was indicated at
12 some stage that I wasn't going to get paid. Or I wasn't going to get the
13 money.
14 Q. 100 Why not?
10:52:51 15 A. I don't know. But you'll have to ask Monarch that.
16 Q. 101 They must have given you a reason and you must have protested and said I can't
17 afford to be without 60,000?
18 A. I'm going to have to say to you again, Mr. Murphy, you're going to have to ask
19 Monarch why they didn't pay. I know, or at least from material that I think
10:53:13 20 is in the brief, that it is -- that certainly indicates that Monarch may have
21 claimed payment of this from somebody else or half of this from somebody else,
22 I don't know. But, I mean, certainly I didn't get it.
23 Q. 102 No, no, that's fine. What's the follow-up to it, sorry, Mr. Dunlop. I asked
24 you a second ago --
10:53:33 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 103 -- do Monarch owe you 60,500?
27 A. Well, I don't regard that they do any more.
28 Q. 104 Why not?
29 A. Well there is not much likelihood of my getting 60,500 from Monarch when I sent
10:53:47 30 an invoice in on the 14th of December 1993. And we are he now at whatever it

www.pcr.ie Day 654
19
10:53:52 1 is of June 2006.
2 Q. 105 But it's bad debt, isn't it? It's money they owe you but they won't pay you
3 and you can't get?
4 A. I don't regard it as a bad debt. It was something that we discussed. We
10:54:02 5 sent it out on foot of a conversation with the gentleman that I, one or other
6 of the gentlemen that I alluded to. I never followed it up other than in the
7 circumstances that I've outlined to you, maybe a couple of telephone
8 conversations.
9 Q. 106 Nothing in writing?
10:54:16 10 A. Not that I --
11 Q. 107 No reminder?
12 A. I don't -- I certainly have no documentation extant to me to show that I sent
13 them a reminder.
14 Q. 108 No.
10:54:27 15 A. When this module is opened this is the first --
16 Q. 109 When did you write it off? Tell me the date, the month or the year when you
17 and Monarch agreed that they didn't owe it to you any longer?
18 A. Well I don't think I ever made a conscious decision saying I'm writing this
19 off. I just wasn't paid and that's it.
10:54:47 20 Q. 110 Did you get it any other way?
21 A. No, I did not.
22 Q. 111 Did you get it in cash?
23 A. No.
24 Q. 112 Did you get it from somebody else, not Mr. Sweeney. Did Mr. Monahan pay you?
10:55:00 25 A. No, I never got any money from Mr. Monahan.
26 Q. 113 You never did?
27 A. No.
28 Q. 114 No.
29 A. And just for ease of your line of questioning. I never got any cash from
10:55:06 30 Monarch either.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
20
10:55:16 1 Q. 115 Now, could I have, please, 4832.
2 This is an invoice. This is a document on Monarch Properties Services Limited
3 notepaper. It's a fee note I think. It says "fee note" in the middle of it.
4 It says invoice No. 2186.
10:55:48 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 116 It says date 10th of December 1993. Project Cherrywood/Loughlinstown, County
7 Dublin in account Guardian Assurance Plc. This is GRE I think, isn't it? And
8 it says Frank Dunlop success fee. So obviously what they've done is they've
9 instead of sending on your invoice, would that be right? They have sent --
10:56:14 10 they have incorporated in their own document Frank Dunlop success fee --
11 A. What is?
12 Q. 117 "ES letter of the 2nd of September '93 and paragraph 1 of MB's letter of 28th
13 September 1993. Fee 50,000. 50 per cent GRE 25,000, VAT 5,250; total
14 30,250. This is not an invoice for VAT purposes. A VAT invoice will issue
10:56:41 15 on receipt of payment and it's stamped by GRE authorised for payment 20th of
16 December 1993. Can you explain that?
17 A. No, that's a matter for Monarch.
18 Q. 118 Pardon?
19 A. That's an internal Monarch document. I mean, I've only seen this in the brief.
10:56:57 20 I know nothing about this.
21 Q. 119 All right. You know that there is an arrangement between Monarch and GRE?
22 A. Yes, we discussed that yesterday.
23 Q. 120 That in relation to certain disbursements, I think or expenses that they would
24 get back 50 per cent?
10:57:09 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 121 Your fees was one of those things?
27 A. So I understand.
28 Q. 122 And so if there was a success fee, there may be an arrangement -- it may cover,
29 that agreement between GRE and Monarch may cover the success fee?
10:57:18 30 A. That may well be the case.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
21
10:57:20 1 Q. 123 Yes. All right. That is obviously what is going on?
2 A. Well, I mean it is intriguing, but that is obviously what is going on.
3 Q. 124 Well, what's intriguing about it?
4 A. Well, I mean I'm fascinated to know the next element of it.
10:57:31 5 Q. 125 Well, what's fascinating about it?
6 A. Did they get 25 per cent out of it? Sorry did they get 50 per cent out of it?
7 Q. 126 But before that. I mean, wouldn't you expect that your fees would be passed
8 on to the tune of 50 per cent to GRE?
9 A. If that is the arrangement with GRE, yes.
10:57:43 10 Q. 127 Oh, you didn't -- you weren't aware of that?
11 A. I was never told --
12 Q. 128 That's fine?
13 A. -- by Monarch that they had an arrangement with GRE that any fee note that I
14 would send in would be paid half by them. I never got any money from GRE.
10:57:54 15 Q. 129 All right. All right. But, Mr. Dunlop, how is it that -- do you know what
16 this is about? Do you see? If you just compare the information there, invoice
17 No. 2186 with your invoice. Your invoice is 1251.
18 A. Yes. I'm sorry, I shouldn't say yes, well it's gone off the screen there now.
19 Let me see can I get it in my own brief. But I take --
10:58:23 20
21 JUDGE FAHERTY: You can put it up again. 832.
22 A. Would you put it up beside it, put the two documents side by side.
23
24 MR. MURPHY: I think that's 4839 and 4832.
10:58:39 25
26 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes, 4839 is the next one.
27 A. Yeah okay.
28
29 Q. 130 MR. MURPHY: Your one is on the right-hand side.
10:58:49 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
22
10:58:50 1 Q. 131 It's dated 14th of December 1993.
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. 132 The Monarch one to GRE is dated -- I don't know whether that's the date of the
4 invoice or whether it's the date of the fee note.
10:59:02 5 A. Well that's exactly the point that struck me forcibly when I saw this stamp.
6 Q. 133 Yeah. Well, Mr. Dunlop, we'll take it one by one.
7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. 134 If that information invoice number and date is referring to your document,
9 which it should be, because it's your information further down.
10:59:22 10 A. No -- sorry, Mr. Murphy. For ease of what you're trying to do and I know what
11 you're trying to do. This, as I interpret it, from Monarch, is an invoice
12 from Monarch to GRE.
14 A. And the Monarch number is 2186.
10:59:37 15 Q. 136 Excellent. All right. I'll live with that.
16 A. I suspect that --
17 Q. 137 No, I was going to suggest that as an alternative.
18 A. It may be.
19 Q. 138 Just for one second we'll take that. So that this Monarch, it says fee note
10:59:48 20 and -- where does fee note come from.
21
22 CHAIRMAN: This is Monarch's.
23 A. This is Monarch's. Mr. Murphy, this is Monarch's invoice.
24 Q. 139 MR. MURPHY: Why would they say fee note. Anyway, it doesn't matter. It's
11:00:02 25 their invoice, Mr. Dunlop, for a second, it's their invoice No. 2186. That's
26 fine. I don't understand why they don't just simply send on your one but
27 that's another matter. And the date of this is 10th of December 1993. Which
28 is four days before your one.
29 A. Correct.
11:00:15 30 Q. 140 Now, how do you explain that?

www.pcr.ie Day 654
23
11:00:17 1 A. I mean, I don't have to offer any explanation for this at all. This is an
2 internal Monarch document to another entity known as GRE and there are various
3 dates on it. Obviously --
4 Q. 141 You --
11:00:31 5 A. Let me just fast track this for you as possible. I obviously on foot of the
6 evidence that I have given to you. I had a conversation in relation to a
7 success fee. I draw up an invoice and I send the invoice. It's from the
8 company. It's dated and there is an invoice number on it.
9 Q. 142 Yes.
11:00:47 10 A. Okay. What Monarch did either in the interim or subsequently, I cannot
11 account for.
12 Q. 143 But Monarch would wait until they get your invoice to see what's it's for,
14 A. Presumably.
11:00:58 15 Q. 144 But they have dated their invoice for 50,000 and well VAT because they've
16 included the VAT for GRE for their half. So they've sent, prepared anyway
17 their invoice before they get your's?
18 A. Well there's a number of thing that strike you forcibly when you look at that.
19 There are three separate dates on it. One is the 10th of the 12th '93.
11:01:22 20 Which is four days before the date of my invoice. The second one is
21 authorised for payment the 20th of December, 1993. And on top there is
22 another stamp of the 15th of January, 1994.
23 Q. 145 And where is 57 Harcourt Street -- oh that's Monarch.
24 A. Yes.
11:01:38 25 Q. 146 Okay. Right.
26 A. So I -- while I --
28 A. -- I would wish to help you. I cannot help you in the context of an internal
29 document.
11:01:48 30 Q. 148 But if it's authorised for payment by GRE on the 20th of December --

www.pcr.ie Day 654
24
11:01:52 1 A. Uh-huh.
2 Q. 149 -- the 15th of January is irrelevant for the moment.
3 A. That's irrelevant, yes, yes. I'm just pointing out to you that there are
4 three separate dates on that document.
11:02:02 5 Q. 150 How do they write your invoice, this invoice about your fee to get their half
6 back from GRE without getting your invoice first?
7 A. You are going to have to ask Mr. Sweeney or whoever -- I don't see any
8 authorisation signature on any of this.
9 Q. 151 All right.
11:02:16 10 A. Other than ES, which presumably means Eddie Sweeney, that's a matter for
11 Monarch.
12 Q. 152 Page 3403, please. A letter, Mr. Dunlop, from GRE to Mr. Sweeney. The letter
13 is dated 7th of July, 1993. Paragraph four.
14 Excuse me. Invoice No. 2064. This is GRE saying to Monarch --
11:02:47 15 A. Yes, yes.
16 Q. 153 "Although at our meeting in May I agreed the appointment of Frank Dunlop on the
17 basis of 4, 000 per month with no success fee. I therefore find it difficult
18 to invoice for 25,000 which would imply over six months work when Mr. Dunlop
19 was only appointed in May."
11:03:03 20 A. I find that paragraph quite gratifying.
21 Q. 154 In what way?
22 A. First of all, you suggested to me that Mr. Sweeney -- you put up a note know
23 the monitor saying that Mr. Sweeney knew nothing about my appointment or had no
24 negotiations with me. Here is a note from GRE Properties to Mr. Sweeney
11:03:23 25 saying -- discussing fees in relation to me.
26 Q. 155 I totally accept that, Mr. Dunlop.
27 A. Thank you.
28 Q. 156 On to the next thing that you find gratifying about it?
29 A. The next thing I find gratifying about it is I don't know anything about 4,000
11:03:40 30 per month. The next thing I find gratifying about it is --

www.pcr.ie Day 654
25
11:03:41 1 Q. 157 Yes.
2 A. I have already said in evidence that there was no discussion about a success
3 fee. That seems to be confirmed there. And the 4th or 5th thing, whatever
4 it is; that is 25,000 which is what I've always said was agreed between
11:04:00 5 Mr. Sweeney and myself.
6 Q. 158 All right. The 25,000 may well go back to the 25 that you were paid in March,
7 which was 15 and 10, isn't that right?
8 A. That's what I am referring to, yes.
11:04:10 10 JUDGE FAHERTY: Mr. Dunlop, just before we leave that point.
11 A. Sorry, Judge.
12
13 JUDGE FAHERTY: I understood yesterday I may be wrong, that there was no
14 invoice for the first two tranches.
11:04:20 15 A. Yes.
16
17 JUDGE FAHERTY: So this is a letter in July 7. So you've said yesterday
18 there was no invoice for the 25.
19 A. No.
11:04:28 20
21 JUDGE FAHERTY: So I'm now at a loss to understand how you can say this
22 invoice could refer to the first tranche of money, two tranches that you got.
23 A. No. With respect, Judge, I didn't say this invoice. I said the 25,000. I
24 don't know anything --
11:04:49 25
26 JUDGE FAHERTY: I just wanted to, in fairness --
27 A. I see the point you're making and it's quite correct. I find it gratifying
28 that it's the 25,000 that's referred to which is what I have always said was
29 the agreed fee.
11:04:52 30

www.pcr.ie Day 654
26
11:04:52 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: Well we'll have to wait and see whether somebody else raised
2 an invoice in relation to the first tranche but certainly you didn't raise it
3 anyway.
4 A. No, I did not.
11:05:02 5
6 MR. REDMOND: Chairman, I think again just to clarify the issue in relations to
7 the invoices.
8 If that letter is dated September, by that time Mr. Dunlop has raised an
9 invoice for 10 and for 15 making a total of 25.
11:05:14 10
11 JUDGE FAHERTY: I appreciate that, Mr. Redmond. We were talking about the
12 first 25,000.
13
14 CHAIRMAN: Which we'll have to hear from Monarch.
11:05:22 15
16 Q. 159 MR. MURPHY: It does say Although at a meeting in May, GRE and this gentleman
17 agreed the appointment, your appointment. That ties in with you saying that
18 you first came on the scene in March certainly from GRE's point of view.
19 A. Thank you.
11:05:37 20 Q. 160 But you know nothing -- your arrangement for fees had nothing to do with 4,000
21 a month. Were you aware of this arrangement and between GRE and Monarch?
22 A. I've already said to you I don't know anything about any arrangement. I don't
23 even know who signed this letter is there another page? I don't know who
24 signed this letter or at least --
11:05:53 25 Q. 161 Page 4304. "Yours sincerely M Baker managing director GRE Properties Limited,
26 cc G Beng."
27 A. Never heard of either of them.
28 Q. 162 Good. 4412, please.
29 A further letter from GRE to Mr. Sweeney. 28th of September 1993. "Dear
11:06:19 30 Eddie, Cherrywood Cabinteely. With reference to your letter of 2nd of

www.pcr.ie Day 654
27
11:06:23 1 September and you are meeting on 27th of September I would confirm approval to
2 the following additional costs. All costs are in Irish pounds and will be
3 payable 50/50 between GRE and Monarch.
11:06:34 5 1. F Dunlop: A retainer of 4,000 per month from April to December 1993
6 inclusive plus a success fee of 50,000 pounds."
7 A. Uh-huh.
8 Q. 163 Now, the first part of that you know nothing about, the 4,000 per month.
9 A. Yes.
11:06:45 10 Q. 164 But this letter is evidence that GRE agreed with Mr. Sweeney to pay you a
11 success fee of 50,000 pounds?
12 A. Well I had no discussion with anybody from the outset about a success fee until
13 towards the end of the project, which we've already discussed ten minutes ago,
14 a conversation with Mr. Sweeney and/or Mr. Glennane some time after the
11:07:12 15 success, after the vote. I don't know. I cannot account for --
16 Q. 165 Yes.
17 A. -- how --
18 Q. 166 Uh-huh.
19 A. -- any of these internal documents between Monarch and GRE were drawn up. I
11:07:24 20 mean, I wasn't party to them. Certainly there was never any question about
21 4,000 per month. And the success fee was in the circumstances that I outlined
22 to you earlier on this morning in the conversation with either Mr. Sweeney or
23 Mr. Glennane.
24 Q. 167 Mr. Dunlop, the words -- it seems to me to read "billed and paid". Any idea
11:07:51 25 whose handwriting?
26 A. Billed and paid. No. Well it's in sort of capital letters isn't it,
27 Mr. Murphy, it might be difficult to decipher?
28 Q. 168 That doesn't really matter whether it's difficult or not. Did you recognise
29 it?
11:08:04 30 A. No.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
28
11:08:05 1 Q. 169 No. Okay. And I can't be certain about this. But it looks as if it seems
2 to indicate that those figures were paid by GRE to Monarch?
3 A. Oh, to Monarch.
4 Q. 170 Yes, yes, to Monarch.
11:08:19 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 171 And if it was -- so we have what seem to be the words "billed and paid" there
7 written by somebody.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 172 And then on the invoice that went from Monarch to GRE, if you recall, it said
11:08:54 10 "authorised for payment" on the 20th of December by GRE, do you remember that?
11 A. That I do, yes, that was on the top -- the bottom of the page, yes.
12 Q. 173 So I don't know whether that means that this 50 was billed and paid by Monarch
13 or paid by GRE to Monarch back in September and again in December or whether
14 they are one and the same. And you don't know that?
11:09:16 15 A. I don't know that.
16 Q. 174 All right. But it appears anyway, Mr. Dunlop, that you billed Monarch for
17 50,000 plus VAT?
18 A. No question of that.
19 Q. 175 And somewhere along the line. And we know the invoice marked authorised for
11:09:39 20 payment and okay and so on. And somewhere along the line GRE may well have
21 paid Monarch once or twice -- presumably half of 50,000 once or twice. That
22 seems, on the paperwork, to be the case until Monarch tell us, isn't that
23 right?
24 A. It's pretty annoying to discover that.
11:10:06 25 Q. 176 Right. It's annoying?
26 A. Well it's annoying. I mean, if Monarch was sending an internal invoice to GRE
27 on foot of an agreed success fee with me or a success fee that I was told to
28 send in and see how far you'd get. And they got it paid to them or part paid,
29 leaves me looking a little bit silly that I didn't get my, what I had invoiced
11:10:25 30 for, which I didn't. I don't know what was going on. I can't account for it

www.pcr.ie Day 654
29
11:10:31 1 but I don't know what was going on.
2 Q. 177 Of course, if that was the case that would have been what was happening at a
3 time when they were saying that -- I mean, you were writing it off or what was
4 you were doing, your discussions with Monarch?
11:10:41 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 178 They were saying they weren't going to pay you or whatever. Maybe they'd been
7 paid half?
8 A. Now you've got to the core of it now as to the annoyance. If that is the
9 actual reality, it is annoying. It's been indicated to me that send it in and
11:10:59 10 see how far you get and then it's not paid. And now we discover that from
11 internal documentation that it may well be the case that 50 per cent of it was
12 paid to Monarch.
13 Q. 179 Right. Anyway, that's all news to you, isn't that right?
14 A. Well it's news to me in the context of the brief. But that is of latter days,
11:11:25 15 you know, I have no knowledge of what the internal relationship between Monarch
16 and GRE were, particularly in relation to my fees.
17 Q. 180 Now, there's a possible explanation on the figures maybe, Mr. Dunlop. I don't
18 know but I'm just suggesting this to you and see. Because we know that your
19 arrangement with Monarch was 25,000 and then your subsequent visits for
11:11:54 20 increases?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. 181 And we know at the end of the day, at the end of December you got 80, 000.
23 There was 5,000 in 1995.
24 A. Which was a long overdue invoice which had been issued in 1993 and wasn't paid
11:12:05 25 until 1995.
26 Q. 182 At the end of December you had received 80,000 from Monarch?
27 A. Correct, correct.
28 Q. 183 And we know from what we've just seen here, there was an invoice -- this
29 invoice for the success fee to GRE and we've seen this that whatever that's all
11:12:20 30 about. But if you -- if we did the sums in relation to Monarch's apparent

www.pcr.ie Day 654
30
11:12:28 1 arrangement with GRE, namely, 4,000 a month?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 184 And if, as according to -- if I could have -- I have it. The letter on
4 screen. A retainer of 4,000 per month from April to December is nine months.
11:12:43 5 Nine fours are 36. And if you add a success fee of 50,000 you get 86.
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. 185 Now, we know you got 86 in 1993. And this is a letter in September 1993, by
8 which time you haven't got that money, of course. But by which time GRE -- at
9 which time GRE are writing to Monarch saying confirming these additional costs
11:13:14 10 a retainer of 4,000 for those months plus a success fee?
11 A. I -- with respect, Mr. Murphy, I think we're square pegs around holes here. I
12 can see what you're trying to tie up loose ends but that may well be some sort
13 of internal financial computation on the part of Monarch.
14 Q. 186 Yeah. Uh-huh.
11:13:42 15 A. Let me assure you again, the 4,000 per month never arose.
16 Q. 187 I know.
17 A. Okay. The 25,000, the payment as we discussed yesterday, within four days of
18 the meeting with Eddie Sweeney, revisits for various amounts. Now, how
19 Monarch treated that internally, with respect, I have to suggest to you is
11:14:03 20 matter for Monarch.
21 Q. 188 Yeah. Okay. Thanks. All right. Yes. All I'm just trying to point out
22 there --
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. 189 -- is that on the one hand --
11:14:18 25 A. Sure.
26 Q. 190 -- you got 80,000 in 1993.
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 191 You hadn't got it all by September but you got it.
29 A. Yes.
11:14:26 30 Q. 192 If you add the Monarch GRE arrangement of 4,000 per month for nine months and

www.pcr.ie Day 654
31
11:14:31 1 add 50, it's the same amount. Is it possible that you had an arrangement with
2 Monarch, you billed them accordingly and then they had a totally different
3 arrangement with GRE and that billing was on the basis of a different
4 arrangement?
11:14:47 5 A. No, no. That would not accord with the arrangement that I had with
6 Mr. Sweeney.
7 Q. 193 Can you even hazard an explanation for this?
8 A. Again, could I just say to you that observing the good legal protocols, I
9 should not even hazard a guess, because that would be speculation on my part.
11:15:06 10 I have no explanation for that whatsoever. I have to suggest to you that you
11 must ask people from Monarch what the meaning of this is.
12
13 MR. REDMOND: Mr. Chairman, again on behalf -- Mr. Murphy has posited a theory
14 that four nines being 36 plus 50,000 brings you to 86 and that may have been an
11:15:27 15 internal arrangement. The documentation as appears on page 4112 make it
16 patently clear that GRE were only to pay 50 per cent of the success fee which
17 is 25,000 which brings it to 61,000. So if Mr. Murphy wants to posit a
18 theory, it should at least be limited to 61 and not 86.
19
11:15:46 20 CHAIRMAN: Where do you say it says yeah, they were to pay.
21
22 MR. REDMOND: Page 4412.
23
24 CHAIRMAN: Yes. But the suggestion is that though that there was a 50,000
11:15:55 25 success fee, half of which GRE would pay.
26
27 MR. REDMOND: That's what I mean, Chairman. But Mr. Murphy is suggesting that
28 if Monarch were collecting 50 plus 36. That would have covered the entirety
29 of Mr. Dunlop's fee but they weren't collecting 50 plus 36.
11:16:11 30

www.pcr.ie Day 654
32
11:16:12 1 CHAIRMAN: No, that's right.
3 MR. REDMOND: At best they were collecting 25 plus 36.
7 Q. 194 MR. MURPHY: Mr. Dunlop, 4815, please.
8 A. Uh-huh.
9 Q. 195 Now, this is another letter that we have to take up with Monarch. But if you
11:16:37 10 look at that. You will see it's a GRE letter?
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. 196 It's to Monarch and the stamp is the 5th of January. Received presumably on
13 5th of January 1994. And it says "Dear Sirs we have pleasure enclosing cheque
14 for 52,030 pounds in payment of invoice numbers as follows."
11:17:01 15
16 2186: Being one of the invoice numbers which is the -- which is the invoice we
17 were looking at dated 10th of December 1993, from Monarch to GRE. And we can
18 show that to you in a moment again if you want.
19
11:17:16 20 "We have pleasure enclosing a cheque for 52,030 pounds on payment of a number
21 of invoices" including 2186 which is their one on your behalf in relation to
22 50,000. "In respect of attached copy invoices. Early presentation of the
23 cheque for payment will be appreciated."
24
11:17:34 25 And underneath that then -- underneath that is a cheque, 20th of December 1993.
26 GRE's cheque to Monarch, pay Monarch the sum of 52,030 pounds. So I think all
27 of this means that by cheque dated 20th of December 1993, GRE paid 52,030
28 pounds to Monarch. Which included their half of the invoice dated -- sorry.
29 The invoice 2186 sent by Monarch to GRE in December '93 in respect of your
11:18:18 30 success fee. That is, that seems to be clear; is that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 654
33
11:18:22 1 A. Well that seems to be the broad structure of it, as to the actual details and
2 how this was computed or organised I don't know. I just notice that there is
3 also a stamp on the bottom of 4815 which obviously is a lodgement stamp. On
4 the 21st of December 1993. So this cheque was lodged with obvious --
11:18:44 5 presumably into the Monarch Properties Services bank account.
6 Q. 197 But sorry. All I'm just saying. I know, this seems to back up that the
7 December invoice --
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 198 You invoiced Monarch. Monarch then invoiced GRE in December, in respect of
11:19:01 10 your invoice. And then we say we found it was authorised for payment.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 199 So this seems to back up the position that GRE paid that success fee, took
13 their half of the success fee to Monarch.
14 A. To Monarch, yes.
11:19:16 15 Q. 200 Doesn't it?
16 A. Oh, it does, yes.
17 Q. 201 And you didn't -- all right. Uh-huh. Mr. Dunlop, can you bring that any
18 further?
19 A. I don't think so, Mr. Murphy. I'd like to, in the circumstances that I've
11:19:57 20 outlined to you but I don't think I can. I'm -- I'd be fascinated with the
21 explanation.
22 Q. 202 And does it -- what conclusion do you come to from it?
23 A. Well, again, sorry to sort of indicate some sort of ...
24 Q. 203 From your point of view, what do you think it means?
11:20:19 25 A. Sorry to indicate some sort of kneafied knowledge of the law but observing the
26 protocol to be speculation on my part. But I mean, what it means on the face
27 of it, unless there is another cogent explanation, is that Monarch indicated to
28 GRE that a success fee was agreed by Monarch. They sent an invoice to GRE,
29 including the success fee. And that the success fee was paid on the basis of
11:20:47 30 a 50/50 between GRE and Monarch. And that Monarch is -- was in receipt of

www.pcr.ie Day 654
34
11:20:53 1 that money, as per the cheque of the 20th of December, 1993. On the face of
2 it, I'm no forensic lawyer, but that -- on the face of it, that looked to be
3 what the explanation is. And as I said to you, I look forward to an
4 explanation to the contrary.
11:21:12 5 Q. 204 And finally, that you have not been paid your success fee of 50,000 in the
6 circumstances that Monarch have received half of it from GRE?
7 A. It's pretty annoying.
8 Q. 205 Now, just to finish with invoices Mr. Dunlop. Could I have -- you've seen the
9 one about the success fee 14th of December.
11:21:30 10
11 Could I go to 4133, please for a second. There are three other invoices.
12 Now, this is one we've seen before. And Mr. Redmond brought to our attention
13 yesterday.
14
11:21:41 15 In your invoice dated 10th of April 1993 to agreed fee re republic affairs
16 strategy and its implementations 10,000 pounds. Again, it says okay with
17 those initials. And it says paid on the 1st of June.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 206 And I'm going to skip on to the other two.
11:22:01 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 207 Because I want to see if you can explain these four Frank Dunlop & Associates
22 invoices to me in a global way. That's 4133.
23
24 Could we please have 4772. Which is your invoice of 6th of December No. 955
11:22:26 25 and it sets out. And it comes to 31 well, to agreed professional fees re
26 republic affairs strategy and implementation of same. It's the same -- that
27 seems to be the same phraseology?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 208 25,000 plus VAT and then to miscellaneous costs etc. a figure and then the
11:22:42 30 total is 31,371.94.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
35
11:22:46 1 A. Uh-huh.
2 Q. 209 And then we go to page 5697, please.
3 Maybe you can explain how this invoice has the same number invoice no. 955, the
4 same number as the previous one and it's for the same stuff -- well in fact
11:23:08 5 actually, yes -- sorry. The change in it is the 25,000 goes down to 17,500.
6 A. Uh-huh.
7 Q. 210 And the total is 22,296.94 pounds and then the fourth one I'm interested in is
8 the success fee.
9 A. Yeah.
11:23:25 10 Q. 211 Now, could you just -- I'm completely at sea in relation to these invoices.
11 The first one is actually marked paid but doesn't seem to relate to any of the
12 payments in that schedule from Coyle & Coyle that we talked about for a while.
13 A. Does it not?
14 Q. 212 That's the first one. The second one is for 31,000. Is an invoice No. 955.
11:23:50 15 And it's the same invoice number as the next one and seems to be the same
16 content except there's a reduction in the fee. And then you've the success
17 fee. And the total of those, three of those are December 1993. One is April
18 and the four of them together come to 126,000.
19
11:24:10 20 So if I take the four of those invoices. You have invoiced three invoices --
21 three of them are in December. You have invoiced Monarch for 126,000 Euro --
22 pounds. So, Mr. Dunlop, these are your invoices so perhaps you can tell me
23 what they relate to.
24
11:24:26 25 Three of them in December '93 are at a time when you have already received
26 80,000 pounds from Monarch.
27
28 MR. REDMOND: Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Dunlop takes up that question. I think
29 it only fair insofar as Mr. Murphy is dealing with these invoices that he also
11:24:44 30 specifically refers to a credit note. This credit note was generated on the

www.pcr.ie Day 654
36
11:24:49 1 31st of October 1995 in the sum of 2296.94. If you go to the invoice of
2 22,296.94 that nets that invoice down to 20,000. And subsequent thereto there
3 were payments of 15 and 5. So in order to make sense of the invoices, it is
4 clear that the 22,296.94 was paid net a credit note. And a credit note has to
11:25:18 5 be involved with the analysis of the invoices. Because it is clear that a sum
6 of 20,000 was paid. And a credit note was given for 22,96.94 and that at
7 least has to be taken into consideration along with that particular invoice.
9 Q. 213 MR. MURPHY: I think Mr. Redmond is absolutely correct on that.
11:25:38 10 Looking at page 5697. Yes, we have it.
11
12 That is invoice number 955 for 22,296.94. That was paid in two tranches,
13 15,000 in December '93. And the other 5,000 in August 1995 we were talking
14 about. Mr. Redmond is absolutely correct about that.
11:26:00 15
16 That explains -- so, in other words, that invoice was paid and settled, as it
17 were. A lesser figure was paid. And a further sum of 5,000 was paid in
18 August '95. Leaving a small balance I think, which I think was never paid and
19 may have been written off, I don't know. That accounts for that invoice.
11:26:23 20
21 MR. REDMOND: Again, I just have to point out to Mr. Murphy. There was a
22 specific credit note generated for that sum.
23 A. For the small sum.
24
11:26:32 25 MR. MURPHY: How much was the sum?
26
27 MR. REDMOND: 22,096.64 is the balance left over and a credit note was
28 generated for that.
29
11:26:40 30 MR. MURPHY: That's fine. That's fine. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
37
11:26:43 1 Q. 214 So, Mr. Dunlop. We have -- that explains that invoice. Invoices raised on
2 the 6th of December. It doesn't explain why the previous invoice exists,
3 which is the same number and is for a higher sum. Could you just deal with
4 that for a second?
11:27:15 5
6 Could you look at 4772 please, I wonder could we put that on the screen for a
7 second. You invoiced -- 6th of December, you invoiced Mr. Sweeney invoice No.
8 955 for what's set out there and the amount is 31,000.
9 A. Yes.
11:27:30 10 Q. 215 And the same date you give him another invoice with a different -- with the
11 same number for the same business with the sum -- for a figure of 22,296.94?
12 A. Uh-huh.
13 Q. 216 Can you explain that?
14 A. No, I can't explain to you why the same invoice number is on the two invoices
11:27:57 15 for two separate amounts, other than that there may have been some discussion
16 between Mr. Sweeney and myself. I don't know, is the answer.
17 Could you put up? Would it be possible, Mr. Murphy, could you put up the other
18 invoice --
19 Q. 217 Yes.
11:28:15 20 A. -- of the same number. Just for clarification.
21 Q. 218 5697.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: Side by side?
24 A. Yes, sorry. Thank you, Chairman. Why, Mr. Murphy -- yes, sorry. Is this
11:28:39 25 document 5697, is that a copy or where, what's the genesis of that document?
26 That's our document?
27 Q. 219 I think we got it from you.
28 A. That's our document, right, okay.
29
11:28:50 30 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes, it is.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
38
11:28:54 1 Q. 220 MR. MURPHY: Yes, it was provided by you, Mr. Dunlop.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 221 Oh, yes. The other one is provided by Monarch.
4 A. You see, that's the point I want to make. The one on the left now I may be --
11:29:08 5 please accept my assurances on this that I'm just speaking, which I know I
6 shouldn't do, speaking -- thinking out loud as it were.
7 Q. 222 I think it would be a very good idea if you were to talk out loud.
8 A. To think out loud? No, I think barristers shouldn't speak out loud, Mr.
9 Murphy.
11:29:25 10 Q. 223 I think it would get us closer.
11
12 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dunlop, the one on the left is the one that Monarch got.
13 A. Correct.
14
11:29:32 15 CHAIRMAN: The one on the right is an internal --
16 A. That's exactly the point that I wanted to make.
17
18 CHAIRMAN: That seems to explain that.
19 A. Are we at one?
11:29:40 20
21 CHAIRMAN: No but -- now, you can explain why that, the two were generated.
22 A. Yeah well the point I want to make is was the one on the right sent?
23
24 Q. 224 MR. MURPHY: Maybe you can tell us.
11:29:56 25 A. I don't think so.
26 Q. 225 Well why are they generated, the two of them? On the same day. On the same
27 day?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 226 Two invoices the same number, different amounts. One okayed by Mr. Sweeney.
11:30:09 30 A. Well that's the one that they received.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
39
11:30:13 1 Q. 227 Why do you have a second one for 10,000 less?
2 A. As of this moment I can't explain that to.
3 Q. 228 Could you find out over lunch?
4 A. Yes, yes. Well I'll try, yes.
11:30:25 5 Q. 229 All right. You see, what I'm wondering is, Mr. Dunlop, did it come about in
6 some way. What I'm saying is if you add these four figures they come to
7 126,000 roughly. You -- the four invoices. You were paid 80,000 in '93 and
8 5,000 in '95.
9 A. Yes. In '95.
11:30:53 10 Q. 230 And I'm wondering is there some way -- does this mean that you in fact billed
11 Monarch for 126,000? Did you bill them with these four invoices?
12 A. No.
13 Q. 231 Well presumably you billed -- which one did you not bill?
14 A. Well you have the one receipted by Monarch, which is stamped as receipted and
11:31:15 15 okayed for payment.
16 Q. 232 Yeah. And the other one. So you think you didn't bill them?
17 A. That's what you, five seconds ago, you said could you find out over lunch and
18 that's what I undertook to do.
19 Q. 233 Yes, all right. But do you accept -- all right. So they got that one for
11:31:29 20 31,000?
21 A. Obviously.
22 Q. 234 And they got the one for the success fee which was for 60,000?
23 A. Obviously.
24 Q. 235 And they got the one, which was the first one, which is marked okayed and
11:31:38 25 marked paid for 12,100?
26 A. Yes, because they have -- it's their documentation.
27 Q. 236 Thank you. And then we'll come back to that one when you've made an inquiry.
28 A. Yes. Certainly.
11:31:56 30

www.pcr.ie Day 654
40
11:31:56 1 CHAIRMAN: Do you want a break, Mr. Dunlop? All right. Well we'll break for
2 ten minutes.
11:32:18 5 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED FOR A SHORT BREAK
8 A. Mr. Chairman, I do apologise.
11 A. I got into a conversation out there. Sorry.
12 Q. 238 MR. MURPHY: Mr. Dunlop, in relation to these invoices. Do you remember
13 yesterday and the day before, whenever it was, that we were looking at the
14 transactions that ended up with you being paid 80,000 in 1993?
11:51:39 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 239 And I think the position was, in fact, if I just read it very quickly deal with
17 this and hopefully finally.
18 In respect of the first invoice 15,000 -- sorry. First payment 15,000. And
19 the second one 10,000. That's the initial 25,000.
11:51:56 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 240 All right. There are no invoices from you, isn't that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 241 We then come on to -- we then come on to an invoice in May which is for 15,000,
24 which is subsequently paid by two installments of 7,500, isn't that right?
11:52:15 25 A. Yes, yes.
27
28 MR. REDMOND: Mr. Chairman, if we are taking this matter chronologically, it
29 appears, yet again the invoice in April for 12,100 has been omitted.
11:52:26 30

www.pcr.ie Day 654
41
11:52:26 1 MR. MURPHY: And for the reason that I was coming to it at the end. Because
2 I can't relate that to anything. But Mr. Redmond, would like me to deal with
3 it so I will.
11:52:35 5 There is the invoice dated 10th of April 1993 for 10,000 and VAT of 2,100.
6 Total of 12,100. But I think that doesn't relate to the 15 and 10. But I
7 may be wrong.
9 So just we have the payment of 15,000. We have the payment of 10,000.
11:52:55 10 Totalling 25,000. We have this payment that Mr. Redmond is referring me to,
11 the invoice for 12,100, which is in April. We have an invoice in May, which
12 I've just referred to, which is paid by two installments of 7,500. We have a
13 payment of 10,000. We have a payment of 10,000 in May. That's the cheque
14 with the signature that isn't your's.
11:53:25 15 A. Correct. Well the endorsement.
16 Q. 243 The endorsement. We have a cheque -- we have a payment of 7,500 in July.
17 And again in September. And they'll go back to the invoice in May for 15,000.
19 Q. 244 All right. And then there's an invoice in November for 15,000. 2nd of
11:53:51 20 November 1993 for 15,000.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 245 And then we have the invoice in December, 955, for a total of -- well it's for
23 17,500 and others which come up to 22,000. And then we have a 5,000 paid in
24 August 1995. I'm going to ignore that for the moment.
11:54:13 25 A. Which is an overhang.
26 Q. 246 Which is what?
27 A. Which is an overhang.
28 Q. 247 It was invoiced two years earlier.
29 A. It's an overhang.
11:54:20 30 Q. 248 All right. And we know -- I opened to you that document from Monarch that

www.pcr.ie Day 654
42
11:54:28 1 said that Eddie would have to get invoices from you because they paid out
2 40,000 odd without invoices, isn't that right?
3 A. Yes, you did yesterday, yeah.
4 Q. 249 Is it in summary the position that Monarch paid you without invoices on
11:54:43 5 occasions?
6 A. Certainly in the case of one. The 25,000.
7 Q. 250 Well that's two payments isn't it?
8 A. Sorry, there were two payments.
9 Q. 251 Yes.
11:54:58 10 A. But the agreement was for 25,000.
11 Q. 252 Yes?
12 A. Certainly there are no invoices extant other than the advisory remittance
13 notices from Monarch which I discovered to the Tribunal. So --
14 Q. 253 The first 15 and 10 no invoices?
11:55:13 15 A. Yeah. Then all of these other invoices --
16 Q. 254 Yes.
17 A. -- that were issued were issued by Frank Dunlop & Associates.
18 Q. 255 Yes.
19 A. By the company.
11:55:27 20 Q. 256 Yes.
21 A. So there were invoices.
22 Q. 257 Yes. Yes.
23 A. Concluding with the highly disputed and dis-- 50,000 pounds success fee, which
24 was an invoice.
11:55:34 25 Q. 258 Yes. But there was no invoice for the payment where the cheque, your name was
26 forged by way of endorsement, isn't that right? There was no invoice for that?
27 A. Yes, there was an invoice. There was an invoice for 10,000 pounds.
28 Q. 259 Is that the one that Mr. Redmond was referring to?
29 A. Yes, it is.
11:55:53 30 Q. 260 You see, that was a cheque for 10,000 pounds but the invoice was for 12,100

www.pcr.ie Day 654
43
11:56:05 1 including VAT?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. 261 So what does that mean? How do they relate?
4 A. You must ask Monarch that.
11:56:11 5 Q. 262 Well why don't ask I ask you because you invoiced 10th of April 1993, 10,000
6 for the work. 2,100 for the VAT total 12,100 and it's marked paid so
7 presumably you were paid 12,100. The cheque we are talking about, the
8 controversial cheque is for 10,000 which don't relate?
9 A. Well I wasn't paid and the cheque for the 10,000 --
11:56:32 10 Q. 263 Uh-huh.
11 A. -- as we've discussed backwards and forwards, over a number of days, was
12 endorsed in my name by another person.
13 Q. 264 Yes.
14 A. And indeed not. Was not received by me.
11:56:45 15 Q. 265 Anyway.
16
17 MR. REDMOND: Chairman, again, before Mr. Murphy continues for the purposes of
18 clarification.
19
11:56:51 20 The invoice for 12,100. Which was issued in April '93. Is stamped "paid"
21 1st of June 1993 by Monarch. And that is also the date that the 10,000 pounds
22 was debited from the account of Monarch. And that's how they relate.
23
24 Q. 266 MR. MURPHY: Right. Is it the position, Mr. Dunlop, that on occasions you
11:57:15 25 were paid, as appears from the Monarch document, where there was a note that
26 Eddie should get invoices because 42,000 plus had been paid to you without
27 invoices. So is it the position that for a time you were being paid without
28 invoices from Monarch and that at some point Monarch insisted on invoices
29 because they needed them for GRE?
11:57:40 30 A. No, I don't think so, Mr. Murphy. In fact, I shouldn't say I don't think so.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
44
11:57:43 1 That is not the case. I have -- there was no discussion ever between anybody
2 from Monarch and myself.
3 Q. 267 Uh-huh.
4 A. About -- you sort of please send me an invoice or give me the invoice.
11:57:53 5 Q. 268 Exactly.
6 A. Now, put it another way which, let's look at the converse. There was no
7 situation in which I received money unsolicited without an invoice and Monarch
8 ringing me up and saying, you know, we've given you the payments so send us the
9 invoice.
11:58:11 10 Q. 269 The invoices that we saw, the three in December 1993, could they have been
11 issued, raised by you at the instigation of Monarch? Could Monarch have said,
12 Mr. Dunlop, we'd like invoices now so ...?
13 A. I don't think so, no.
14 Q. 270 You don't think so or they weren't?
11:58:31 15 A. No, they weren't. I mean, you sent -- you send the invoice. And normal
16 practice would be --
17 Q. 271 I'm not interested in normal practice?
18 A. Sorry. Good. Right. You send the invoice. You wait for payment. You
19 don't get payment. You ring up and say where's the payment. As I've said to
11:59:00 20 you earlier, there was no discussion ever between any representative of Monarch
21 and myself saying send us the invoice.
22 Q. 272 Right. So --
23 A. Because we have already sent you the money.
24 Q. 273 So that note that I read you the out to you yesterday that we saw on the
11:59:14 25 screen, that you'd been paid 40,000 and the note that Eddie must get invoices
26 from Frank, that's not correct, sorry they never came to you on foot of that
27 and said --
28 A. No, no, they never came to me. There was no such discussion ever took place.
29 I cannot account for, again, as we other documentation that you have shown me
11:59:30 30 this morning in relation to Monarch. I cannot account for the internal --

www.pcr.ie Day 654
45
11:59:34 1 Q. 274 All right.
2 A. -- communications between Monarch and GRE. Or the internal communications or
3 memos between representatives, between various officers of Monarch. I would
4 like to know.
11:59:48 5 Q. 275 Well except that, I'm not asking you to account for their documentation.
6 There aren't invoices for the first 25,000 which was paid in two cheques.
8 Q. 276 Is it possible that the success fee that was billed to GRE on foot of your
9 December invoice, and that was paid, which GRE paid half of it to Monarch?
12:00:23 10 A. That what?
11 Q. 277 Is it possible that?
12 A. What?
13 Q. 278 That was Monarch getting their half from GRE in respect of the 25 that they had
14 paid you back in March 1993 without invoices?
12:00:35 15 A. I don't want to suggest to you that you should open the documents again,
16 Mr. Murphy, but I don't know is the simple answer. I would like to know as
17 much as you would like to know.
18 Q. 279 Well I'll just help you in this way, Mr. Dunlop. Because we know that you got
19 paid the two the 15 and the 10?
12:00:52 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 280 Without raising an invoice?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 281 And we know then that Monarch passed on to GRE a fee note for your success fee
24 at 50. We know they were paid. We've seen all of that.
12:01:08 25 A. Yeah.
26 Q. 282 You've no --
27 A. No.
28 Q. 283 -- jurisdiction over that.
29 A. No.
12:01:11 30 Q. 284 There is a fee note for 50,000 and VAT in December '93.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
46
12:01:19 1 A. From me?
2 Q. 285 From you.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 286 Did you raise that in response to somebody in Monarch saying we want a fee note
12:01:28 5 so that we can get back from GRE?
6 A. Absolutely not. So that we can get back? Absolutely not.
7 Q. 287 We'll delete the so that we can get back from GRE?
8 A. Absolutely not. It's as is or was, as I outlined to you.
9 Q. 288 Yeah.
12:01:43 10 A. No arrangement for a success fee.
11 Q. 289 Yeah.
12 A. I --
13 Q. 290 Because, Mr. Dunlop, if I can summarise for you, it would be perfectly
14 consistent, you didn't agree on 8th of April -- 8th of March '93 with
12:01:56 15 Mr. Sweeney, you didn't agree a success fee?
16 A. No.
17 Q. 291 There was no success fee?
18 A. No.
19 Q. 292 You told the Tribunal that there was no success fee?
12:02:03 20 A. No. I did, sorry, I beg your pardon, yes.
21 Q. 293 And suddenly in December '93 a success fee arises.
22 A. Yeah.
23 Q. 294 And conveniently, or not, it's the figure -- it's double the figure which you
24 got from them in March '93. So that the money that Monarch paid to you in
12:02:27 25 March '93, 25,000, would come back from GRE?
26 A. Yeah, well I don't know about you, Mr. Murphy, but certainly there is
27 absolutely no doubt about it that I'm not -- not only am I not a mathematician,
28 I'm not a forensic accountant. But I mean I think, with respect, most of this
29 or if not all of this, it can be elucidated by the person responsible in this
12:02:52 30 instance

www.pcr.ie Day 654
47
12:02:52 1 Q. 295 Yeah.
2 A. Which we have now established, inconsistent with my evidence, that he was the
3 man with whom I dealt. And he is the man that everybody seems to be writing
4 to. He is the man that I am issuing invoices to. He is the man that GRE is
12:03:08 5 writing to in relation to a 50/50 arrangement in relation to fees not
6 withstanding the fact that he says he doesn't know why I was -- or who
7 appointed me or what arrangements --
8 Q. 296 I think we know all of that, Mr. Dunlop.
9 A. Fine.
12:03:21 10 Q. 297 But all I'm saying to you is and I'm just -- what I'm focussing on is your
11 input in December '93, I'm not interested in Monarch and GRE.
12 A. Uh-huh.
13 Q. 298 Monarch got an invoice for 50,000 plus VAT from you in December.
14 A. No, but with respect, Mr. Murphy --
12:03:33 15 Q. 299 In respect of something which you have told us you did not agree back in March?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. 300 So it comes out of the blue, a success fee?
18 A. As per discussion with a representative of Monarch.
19 Q. 301 Yes but in that sense it comes out of the blue, you suddenly in December '93,
12:03:47 20 you have a chat with somebody in Monarch about a success fee.
21 A. Yeah.
22 Q. 302 And it so happens that back in March you got 25,000 without an invoice from
23 Monarch.
24 A. Yeah. Well, I think you are trying to tie up desperate loose ends. I really
12:04:06 25 hesitate to say that to you, Mr. Murphy. And I respect what you are trying to
26 do but yes, the circumstances as I have outlined. We have seen the
27 documentation. We have seen the clearance and the okay.
28 Q. 303 Could we just for one second look at 4390 again, please.
29 We looked at this yesterday, Mr. Dunlop. This is the document that says, the
12:04:26 30 Monarch document. 27th of September 1993.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
48
12:04:31 1
2 Monarch are referring to a copy of Dunlop's invoice. I don't know what
3 invoice this is. Well actually sorry no, I beg your pardon. It's the one
4 that Mr. Redmond is talking about I think. We only have one invoice for
12:04:47 5 12,100 even though we have made payments of 42,500, Eddie must get invoices.
7 I mean, I totally accept you didn't make this entry.
8 A. Sure.
9 Q. 304 It may be a fabrication. On the face of it it appears that -- on the face of
12:05:06 10 it appears that Monarch want Eddie to get invoices from you because they paid
11 out 42 without invoices.
12 A. Fabrication?
13 Q. 305 What?
14 A. Fabrication?
12:05:11 15 Q. 306 Yes.
16 A. By whom?
17 Q. 307 It may be a fabrication or it may have been invented by somebody in Monarch.
18 A. Oh, I see. I beg your pardon, yes.
19 Q. 308 What I'm saying is you're not responsible for that entry.
12:05:21 20 A. No, no.
21 Q. 309 But the entry is suggesting that Monarch have been paying you --
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 310 -- considerable sums up to -- payments of 42,000 prior to the 27th of September
24 1993 without invoices and therefore except for one invoice, and Eddie must get
12:05:37 25 invoices. Now, that seems -- we'll find out more from Mr. Sweeney and all of
26 the Monarch people.
27
28 But just from your point of view, because you are in the box at the moment, Mr.
29 Dunlop. It does appears that Monarch have a problem, they're not getting
12:05:50 30 invoices and suddenly they are showered with them in December 1993.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
49
12:05:54 1 A. But that would seem to fly in the face ot the-if you look at the time line of
2 the documentation of invoices that were issued within that period prior to the
3 date of this memo.
4 Q. 311 Well there's none anyway for the first two which make up the 25,000.
12:06:07 5 A. We're agreed on that.
6 Q. 312 Now, we know the two 7,500 are covered by an invoice?
7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. 313 You have an invoice. Yes.
9 A. And, yeah, go on.
12:06:14 10 Q. 314 Yes.
11 A. We know that there's another.
12 Q. 315 Monarch seem to have a problem with invoices. Okay.
13
14 CHAIRMAN: Sorry. It might be simpler, because we seem -- I don't think
12:06:28 15 we're going to solve this mystery and there is a mystery about these invoices.
16
17 It might be simpler if Mr. Dunlop was recalled after Mr. Sweeney and the other
18 witnesses from Monarch because obviously we really will have to hear what they
19 say.
12:06:45 20
21 MR. MURPHY: All right. Sorry, Chairman.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: I don't think we're really going to progress on this point.
24
12:06:50 25 Q. 316 MR. MURPHY: On that point. The final question, Mr. Dunlop. Did -- in any
26 shape or form did Mr. Sweeney request you to raise an invoice or invoices in
27 December '93?
28 A. No.
29 Q. 317 For work that had already been done and paid?
12:07:03 30 A. No.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
50
12:07:04 1 Q. 318 Okay, thank you. Now, Mr. Dunlop, can we go back to the meeting. 8th of
2 March 1993 in -- excuse me -- in Monarch's offices with Mr. Sweeney. And I
3 want to ask you, first of all, you were telling us -- you told us yesterday a
4 little bit about Mr. Monahan. Now, Mr. Monahan wasn't at that meeting. But
12:07:28 5 I want to know precisely what Mr. Sweeney said to you about what Mr. Monahan
6 was up to. And I don't mean that in a sinister way. I just mean what was he
7 doing that was causing alarm for Monarch?
8 A. Well --
9 Q. 319 That Mr. Sweeney told you.
12:07:45 10 A. Yes. That -- how complicated can it get?
11 Q. 320 Sorry -- Mr. Dunlop, before you start what's complicated about this?
12 A. The relationship. I can't account for all of the internal relationships
13 between people in --
14 Q. 321 I --
12:08:11 15 A. What I'm saying to you is that Mr. Sweeney indicated to me that Phil Monahan
16 was unhappy, dissatisfied, aggressive in the context of what could be achieved
17 and what he did not see --
18 Q. 322 Yes.
19 A. -- was being achieved or he felt that not enough was being done to achieve what
12:08:33 20 he thought should be achieved.
21 Q. 323 So what was he doing about it himself? What had he been doing historical?
22 A. What had Mr. Sweeney been doing about it?
23 Q. 324 No, no. What did Mr. Sweeney tell you that Mr. Monahan had been doing?
24 A. He didn't know what Phil was at.
12:08:48 25 Q. 325 What does that mean? He didn't know what he was at. In other words, what was
26 he at? You knew, what was he at?
27 A. The only way I can deal with this is to say --
28 Q. 326 Yeah.
29 A. -- that from the tone of the conversation and the, what Mr. Sweeney said, that
12:09:03 30 it was obvious and from an -- I did say this to you previously as well from an

www.pcr.ie Day 654
51
12:09:10 1 anecdotal point of view and from conversations outside of ever being appointed
2 by Monarch. That Mr. Monahan had considerable political contacts at a high
3 level.
4 Q. 327 Yes.
12:09:24 5
6 CHAIRMAN: Wait now. Mr. Dunlop, we've heard this before. Do you know --
7 were you told by Mr. Sweeney or anyone of the sort of matters that Mr. Monahan
8 was dealing with which Mr. Sweeney saw as causing problems? Were you given any
9 direct information as to what Mr. Monahan was doing that was upsetting
12:09:52 10 Mr. Sweeney?
11 A. Yes. He feared that whatever it was that he suspected Mr. Monahan was doing
12 would cause a the whole thing to collapse and it would end up --
13
14 CHAIRMAN: No but -- yes, you've said that. But did he tell you what Mr.
12:10:08 15 Monahan was doing?
16 A. No, he didn't say I know that Phil is ....
17
18 CHAIRMAN: Well did you understand him to be saying, to be giving you
19 information, indirectly, about what Mr. Monahan was doing? Did you know what
12:10:20 20 Mr. Monahan was doing as a result of the conversation with Mr. Sweeney?
21 A. No.
22
24
12:10:25 25 Q. 328 MR. MURPHY: You had no idea?
26 A. It would be wrong to say that I had no idea but I do not know in specific
27 detail.
28 Q. 329 Well give us an idea of what he was doing.
29 A. My idea.
12:10:36 30 Q. 330 You used the phrase yesterday a broad brush because we can be quick about it.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
52
12:10:42 1 A. Quick! We won't be quick.
2 Q. 331 What's the broad brush?
3 A. Broad brush was that Phil Monahan was conducting a separate parallel lobbying
4 exercise with politicians unnamed status, stature or otherwise, unspecified, in
12:11:00 5 relation to what could or could not be done or what he wanted in relation to
6 Cherrywood.
7 Q. 332 Broad brush. Yes. Now, nobody told you. Sorry, you didn't gather or have
8 any idea of who those politicians were?
9 A. No.
12:11:15 10 Q. 333 By name?
11 A. No.
12 Q. 334 They were outside the council, they weren't just councillors?
13 A. Well --
14 Q. 335 Politicians?
12:11:22 15 A. -- since I didn't know -- I don't know whether they were councillors or senior
16 politicians but just --
17 Q. 336 Sorry, Mr. Dunlop. To take your own words you've said a few times by senior
18 politicians. What did you understand by that?
19 A. My understanding about senior politicians is that yes, it was well known that
12:11:41 20 Mr. Philip Monahan had very good contacts with senior politicians, Government
21 ministers, let's be specific.
22 Q. 337 Yes. Government ministers.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 338 Ministers who were current - Ministers at that time?
12:11:51 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 339 You're talking about 1993?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 340 Okay. And wouldn't you -- you'd have to know all of this to do your job
29 properly wouldn't you. You'd have to know. As you said to us yesterday you
12:12:02 30 you'd have to know what councillors had been spoken to. Did you not make an

www.pcr.ie Day 654
53
12:12:06 1 inquiry -- as somebody who has come from the Fianna Fail party and Government
2 in the '70s. Did you not know?
3 A. Did you not know that I worked for another Government as well. So why are you
4 picking out Fianna Fail.
12:12:19 5 Q. 341 Because I mentioned the '70s.
6 A. Right, okay well just for clarification we worked for other Governments as
7 well.
8 Q. 342 And did you -- I mean -- Mr. Dunlop, the position you were in. You were very
9 concerned about Monarch. Monarch getting their act together and then you go
12:12:32 10 and talk to the councillors etc.. You had to know look who is talking to
11 whom? You must have pursued that, who were the senior ministers. Do you
12 know the senior ministers he was talking about?
13 A. No, I don't.
14 Q. 343 You've no idea?
12:12:47 15 A. That's a different question, Mr. Murphy. You keep doing this.
16 Q. 344 You have an idea?
17 A. You keep doing this. You ask a specific question and then you open it up into
18 a broad open ended question and you cut me off when I start to answer. Of
19 course I have an idea. It's no substantiation whatsoever into what my idea is
12:13:04 20 or the basis for it.
21 Q. 345 But it would have been a widely held idea by people as to the identity of
22 senior ministers?
23 A. Lots of business people had very, very close contacts with senior political
24 figures.
12:13:15 25 Q. 346 There's nothing wrong with that is there?
26 A. I hope not.
27 Q. 347 No. But yet you don't know who those ministers were?
28 A. No, I'm not prepared to ...
29 Q. 348 Not prepared to what?
12:13:25 30 A. I'm not prepared to speculate.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
54
12:13:28 1 Q. 349 Oh, yeah. All right. So anyway, one of the things Mr. Monahan was doing --
2 sorry. One of the things you knew about Mr. Monday has was he had good
3 contacts with senior -- with ministers?
4 A. Yes. Mr. Murphy, before you go any further.
12:13:43 5 Q. 350 Yeah.
6 A. Just keep on this broad brush quickly. And I know the Chairman is going to
7 intervene very shortly and say Mr. Dunlop we know all of this. He may well
8 do. If he does I'll stop.
12:13:55 10 But Mr. Monahan was a great man to sing his own cause. In other words, he was
11 going to rebuild Dublin, he was going to rebuild the world. He had direct
12 line contact with Taoiseachs, ministers, civil servants, planners, the lot.
13 He knew everybody and everything. And that is the context in which fear, as
14 evidenced by Mr. Sweeney's comments to me and evidenced by comments to me by
12:14:33 15 Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly, as to what Phil was up to.
16 Q. 351 I can't understand why the company would be afraid of the boss of the company
17 having contacts with Taoiseachs and ministers?
18 A. You see, I think the success of the company was probably notwithstanding Phil's
19 operations. The company was being run as an entity while Phil was doing all
12:14:48 20 of these things with other people. You know, that is the way the thing seemed
21 to me to being run at the time.
22 Q. 352 But I'm lost, Mr. Dunlop. What was it?
23 A. You're lost. Well I was lost!
24 Q. 353 This is a huge company --
12:15:02 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 354 -- being run by its Board and Mr. Sweeney and others. And it seems as if it
27 was the Monarch people and Mr. Monahan is out on the wing on his own, is that
28 right?
29 A. Well ...
12:15:15 30 Q. 355 It seems to be Mr. Monahan as one representative of the company. And the

www.pcr.ie Day 654
55
12:15:19 1 other employees, like Mr. Sweeney. Is that right?
2 A. Well I think. As I said to you yesterday, I think there was a proposal if we
3 could go back to Cherrywood.
4 Q. 356 Don't please for a second.
12:15:31 5 A. There was a proposal.
6 Q. 357 Don't mind that for one second.
7 A. This will elucidate the point that you are making. There was a proposal and
8 there was a specific strategy obviously adopted to try and achieve this
9 proposal in conjunction with another party. Officers of the company were
12:15:46 10 appointed to conduct this or to see to it that this could happen.
11 Q. 358 Uh-huh.
12 A. This did not happen. It fell.
13 Q. 359 Uh-huh.
14 A. Much to the annoyance, obviously, of Mr. Monahan.
12:15:56 15 Q. 360 Uh-huh.
16 A. Much to the annoyance of the officers who were given the responsible for the
17 strategy.
18 Q. 361 Uh-huh.
19 A. There then eventuated a scenario where Mr. Monahan had to be controlled in case
12:16:12 20 anything that he did would upset the apple cart further.
21 Q. 362 Now, I cannot understand in the context of Cherrywood or in the broader context
22 which we were talking about a moment ago, how Mr.-- what it is that Mr. Monahan
23 was doing that was going to mess up the plans and hopes for Cherrywood. What
24 Mr. Monahan, how his contacts with ministers and Taoiseachs could upset the
12:16:42 25 Cherrywood plan. ?
26 A. Well I don't know that. I don't know whether anybody from Monarch.
27 Q. 363 Of course you do?
28 A. No I don't.
29 Q. 364 Well, Mr. Dunlop, you go in on the 8th of March, this huge case. You're going
12:16:53 30 to make a fortune out of it, there's problems. The big problem is Mr. Monahan

www.pcr.ie Day 654
56
12:16:59 1 is loose and can't be controlled. The one clue that you give to the whole
2 thing is that he has all of these contacts with the senior ministers and the
3 Taoiseach of the day, I presume that includes the Taoiseach of the day, whoever
4 that was?
12:17:13 5 A. I did that deliberately, Mr. Murphy, because, I mean, I don't know whether
6 Mr. Monahan -- I prefaced all of this by saying that Mr. Monahan was a great
7 man to sing his own cause.
8 Q. 365 Yes. But, Mr. Dunlop, please explain to the Tribunal how Mr. Monahan having
9 great contacts with ministers can be, cause danger to the attempts to get the
12:17:37 10 density increased that they were looking for? I don't understand.
11 A. The only explanation that I can give you for that. First of all, I disabuse
12 you of the notion that I do know. I do not. The only answer that I can give
13 to that question is that any contacts that Phil might have with senior
14 politicians might result in those senior politicians either talking to
12:17:59 15 councillors of their own party, or whatever, to try and tell, to influence them
16 as to what they might or might not do.
17 Q. 366 In favour of an increased density, which is what Mr. Monahan wanted?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. 367 How does that not help the cause?
12:18:14 20 A. The -- you asked me. I have no answer.
21
22 JUDGE KEYS: Mr. Dunlop, I wonder could I ask you.
23 A. Yes, Judge.
24
12:18:22 25 JUDGE KEYS: Could it possibly be that Mr. Monahan's interventions with the
26 politicians were such that that could come to the notice of the public. And
27 that could create a political scandal resulting in his project being undermined
28 entirely?
29 A. That is a possibility. Certainly a possibility, Judge. And to that I would
12:18:41 30 add also, that there is a possibility, and I, I'm using the word because you

www.pcr.ie Day 654
57
12:18:47 1 used it "a possibility" that if there was a contact with a senior politician
2 and any senior politician did attempt to make contact with somebody to
3 influence what might happen at a council meeting, that that could be counter
4 productive.
12:19:02 5
6 JUDGE KEYS: I was just going to follow on and ask you that. Was it the
7 atmosphere of the time that councillors resented senior politicians intervening
8 in the Development Plan and attempting to get them to vote a certain way?
9 A. Well I think and I -- I'm subject to correction on this, Judge, but I think by
12:19:24 10 this stage we had had a public intervention by a senior Government Minister who
11 had described the activities of -- at Dublin County Council as debased coinage.
12
13 JUDGE KEYS: Correct.
14 A. This was regarded with hilarity by the councillors. That's a polite way of
12:19:42 15 describing what was the general impression of the gentleman who actually made
16 that comment. It's none of his business. He keeps his nose out of this
17 business we're not going to be listening to him telling us what we're going to
18 do.
19
12:19:57 20 JUDGE KEYS: Thank you very much.
21
22 Q. 368 MR. MURPHY: Now, Mr. Dunlop, you told us yesterday that one of the -- the
23 first thing that had to be dealt with was Mr. Monahan. And that you weren't
24 going to do that. Mr. Lawlor was going to do that, isn't that right?
12:20:29 25 A. Just again for absolute clarity, Mr. Murphy. I did not say that it was agreed
26 between Mr. Sweeney and myself that that would be done.
28 A. What -- it became quite apparent at subsequent meetings at which Mr. Lawlor
29 attended that this is what Mr. Lawlor was doing. Mr. Lawlor was doing an
12:20:48 30 intermediary role.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
58
12:20:52 1 Q. 370 That that wasn't actually outlined or agreed between you at that meeting on the
2 8th of March?
3 A. No, no. The meeting between on the 8th of March if I could incapsulate it was
4 there was a strong element of frustration on Eddie Sweeney's part as to what
12:21:07 5 had happened and how they were going to get out of the situation that they
6 found themselves in. One of the components of that scrambled situation was
7 what Phil was or was not doing.
8 Q. 371 All right. Yeah. Did you know anything about Mr. Jack Whelan, Mr. Dunlop?
9 A. Jack Whelan was an employee of Ambrose Kelly, is that right? The name is
12:21:49 10 familiar. It doesn't strike a great deal of -- it has some resonance but it
11 doesn't mean very much to me. Jack Whelan. An employee of Ambrose Kelly's?
12 Q. 372 Apparently he was a consultant with the company.
13 A. Right.
14 Q. 373 Retained to carry out various tasks on behalf of the company.
12:22:10 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 374 In dealing with issues that arose including the Cabinteely lands, according to
17 Mr. Monahan's statement.
18 A. Mr. Monahan's statement?
19 Q. 375 Yes. Did you -- just tell us what you know about him. You are kind of not
12:22:23 20 very clear as to whether you did know him or not know him?
21 A. No, no, you asked me. You throw out a name and you asked me for my response.
22 I gave you my response. No, it doesn't -- it -- I know of --
23 Q. 376 I take it that you don't really have anything relevant to add about Jack
24 Whelan?
12:22:42 25 A. No. The only Jack Whelan that comes to mind to me is somebody who --
26 Q. 377 Yeah.
27 A. -- who I recollect working with Ambrose Kelly. And if it's the same Jack
28 Whelan, fine.
29 Q. 378 All right. So you know a Jack Whelan who worked in Ambrose Kelly's office, is
12:22:58 30 that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 654
59
12:22:59 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 379 All right. Had he anything to do with Monarch?
3 A. I can't recall. I can't recall.
4 Q. 380 You are very, very hesitant Mr. Dunlop. Why is that?
12:23:10 5 A. Because I can't recall.
6 Q. 381 Tell us what you know about Mr. Jack Whelan and Cherrywood and Monarch and
7 Mr. Monahan. Tell us everything you know about it now before we put something
8 to you that -- before --
9 A. You are going to put something to me. Well, I mean, I'm telling you. And I
12:23:34 10 would prefer you would put it to me before I tell you. But notwithstanding
11 that, the name Jack Whelan means something to me.
12 Q. 382 Now, tell us everything --
13 A. Sorry. The name Jack Whelan means something to me, as far as I recollect,
14 Mr. Whelan was an employee of Ambrose Kelly's. In what capacity I don't know.
12:24:04 15 And apart --
16 Q. 383 Mr. Dunlop, may I just say?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 384 I can't understand for a moment how this is such a struggle. You either know
19 virtually nothing about Mr. Whelan, in which case could you tell us in two
12:24:16 20 seconds. Or you know something or a lot about him. In which case, would you
21 tell us in a minute?
22 A. No.
23 Q. 385 In relation --
24 A. No. It's quite different to that Mr. Murphy. You asked me a question and
12:24:26 25 I --
26 Q. 386 What was the question?
27 A. Endeavouring -- what I know about Jack Whelan.
28 Q. 387 How can that be difficult?
29 A. First of all I identified Jack Whelan as somebody that I think worked with
12:24:44 30 Ambrose Kelly's, I'm subject to correction. I don't know. You've obviously

www.pcr.ie Day 654
60
12:24:44 1 indicated to me Jack Whelan, according to Mr. Monahan, worked with Monarch
2 Properties in relation to Cherrywood. That didn't register with me.
3 Q. 388 I didn't ask you. Mr. Dunlop, it's as clear as daylight that you know
4 something about Mr. Whelan. I have no idea what it is. But do I have to sit
12:24:59 5 here for another hour until you tell me?
6 A. Mr. Murphy, --
9 A. No.
12:25:04 10
11 CHAIRMAN: Other than the fact that you think he worked with Ambrose Kelly.
12 A. Yes.
13
14 CHAIRMAN: Did you have any dealings with him?
12:25:10 15 A. It doesn't register with me, Chairman.
16
17 CHAIRMAN: In relation to Cherrywood ?
18 A. Subject to somebody saying yes, I met him or spoke to him or whatever. It
19 doesn't register. It's not on my horizon.
12:25:22 20
21
22 Q. 389 MR. MURPHY: Sorry, Chairman. Mr. Dunlop. Dealings with him, as the
23 Chairman asked you, doesn't register with you?
12:25:30 25 Q. 390 You then went on and have the nerve to say until somebody puts something to
26 you. In other words, we're back to evidence and documents?
27 A. Sorry.
28 Q. 391 You are a person. You are in the witness box. You are on oath. You are
29 giving evidence. You know something about Mr. Whelan.
12:25:44 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
61
12:25:44 1 Q. 392 Would you please tell those --
2 A. I'm very impressed, Mr. Murphy. You were the one who said "before I put
3 something to you". You seem to forget every time that you make these throw
4 away remarks. That's the reason I used the phrase to the Chairman because you
12:26:00 5 said "before I put something to you". Put something to me. As I sit here --
6 Q. 393 No, Mr. Dunlop?
7 A. Fine.
8 Q. 394 For the reason that I want to know what Mr. Dunlop remembers about this man.
9 It may be significant, or it may not. If Mr. Dunlop has no recollection he
12:26:14 10 should tell the Tribunal.
11 A. I have no recollection other than what I've already told you about my
12 identifying the name and the possibility that he worked with Ambrose Kelly's.
13 Q. 395 I'm perfectly happy with that, Mr. Dunlop.
14 A. You didn't indicate that two seconds ago.
12:26:28 15
16 CHAIRMAN: All right. He says he doesn't have any recollection. He has a
17 vague recollection that he worked with a particular firm.
18
19
12:26:34 20 Q. 396 MR. MURPHY: All right. Now, Mr. Dunlop, on the evening of the 8th of March,
21 as you left Mr. Sweeney's cluttered office in Harcourt Street Station and you
22 knew that Monarch had to get their act together in relation to what they should
23 look for in November '93. That was one thing I think; isn't that right?
24 A. Yes.
12:27:15 25 Q. 397 And the second thing was that once they get their act together, that would be
26 communicated to you as to what they wanted. And then you'd go about your
27 business of lobbying the Councillors; isn't that right?
28 A. There would be a unified approach.
29 Q. 398 Did you hear the second bit?
12:27:32 30 A. Yes, go to Councillors, yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
62
12:27:34 1 Q. 399 Okay. And the second bit is what applied to you?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 400 Now, you -- so the next thing on your agenda is to meet Mr. Lynn and
4 Mr. Reilly. And we know you met them the following day?
12:27:47 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 401 We know you met Mr. Lawlor subsequent to that meeting. And I think you said
7 yesterday it could have been that night or the following day or whatever?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 402 Did you meet Mr. Lawlor before meeting Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly?
12:27:59 10 A. It is quite possible but I cannot say absolutely definitively that I didn't.
11 It is quite possible.
12 Q. 403 All right. You met Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly.
14 Q. 404 It doesn't matter. The following day?
12:28:11 15 A. Yes, I did.
16 Q. 405 Just the three of you?
17 A. Yeah.
18 Q. 406 And you know what the task is, presumably, you had a chat with them about the
19 difficulties with Mr. Monahan and you probably had a chat with them then about
12:28:27 20 how you were going to swing the vote in November; is that right?
21 A. Yes, we had a chat about how we proceed from here.
22 Q. 407 Right. Just tell us, broad brush, what that all amounted to?
23 A. Right. Um.
24 Q. 408 Do you think this is funny, Mr. Dunlop?
12:28:44 25 A. No, no, I'm just very, very interested in the approach that one minute you want
26 a specific answer to a specific question and then you throw up these broad
27 brush questions and as soon as I begin to answer them you jump on me.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dunlop, there's no need to engage with Mr. Murphy to that
12:29:01 30 degree.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
63
12:29:02 1
2 Just answer the questions.
3 A. I'll follow your advice, Chairman.
7 A. Yes, we had discussion with -- I had a discussion with Richard Lynn and Phil
8 Reilly. I indicated to you yesterday that I detected a certain amount of
9 resentment on Mr. Lynn's part that I had -- that I was being brought on board.
12:29:26 10 In fairness to him, as I knew already from my presence in Dublin County
11 Council, he indicated the level of activity that he and Philip Reilly were
12 conducting, or had conducted with Dublin County Councillors. And we spoke
13 about the necessity for being clear, absolutely clear as to what was needed to
14 be done, by way of what Monarch wanted. The possibility of that being
12:30:00 15 achieved. And how it was going to be achieved and who would deal with whom.
16 Q. 409 Yes.
17 A. And it -- I think -- as I said in my statement, Mr. Lynn indicated that he had
18 contact with a number of cross party representatives, including Mr Gilmore. I
19 can't remember whether Gilmore was Democratic Left or Sinn Fein, The Workers
12:30:22 20 Party at that time. He was one of those parties. He wasn't the Labour Party
21 I think at the time, I think.
22 Q. 410 Uh-huh?
23 A. And that I would -- and that. Sorry. That Philip Reilly had contact with
24 certain members of Fine Gael because of contact that he had in Fine Gael. And
12:30:42 25 that Mr. Lynn had direct contact with Don Lydon. And that I would contact as
26 many of the Fianna Fail people as I thought was necessary. First of all, to
27 indicate that I was on board and to gather any support that was required when
28 we had a unified approach.
29 Q. 411 Okay. Is that -- that's excellent. That's the broad brush.
12:31:18 30 A. I've just -- as I hesitated once or twice there, Mr. Murphy, to you, whether I

www.pcr.ie Day 654
64
12:31:24 1 had deleted some things. I know -- we spent some time going down.
2 Q. 412 Yep.
3 A. Through names as to what the attitude of various people would be.
4 Q. 413 Okay. Right. And I'll come back to that now in a second. Just one thing
12:31:38 5 while it occurs to me, Mr. Dunlop. It was important. You said that in --
6 and we spoke about the necessity for being clear, absolutely clear as to what
7 continued to be
8 A. Sorry.
9 Q. 414 You just said.
12:31:53 10 A. I beg your pardon, yes.
11 Q. 415 And we spoke about the necessity for being clear. Absolutely clear as to what
12 was needed to be done by way of what Monarch wanted.?
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. 416 Now, what did that entail?
12:32:06 15 A. That entailed looking at what had happened. What the proposal had been. The
16 difficulties that had arisen in relation to the May 1992 collapse. The
17 withdrawal of another motion. The passing of the motion in relation to the
18 Sean Barrett motion in relation to one per acre. Discussion about what else
19 Monarch could offer to assuage any of the political fears that any of
12:32:45 20 councillors might have because of the impact that this was going to have know
21 on their vote, particularly in the local area, district centre or town centre,
22 I don't doubt that it was town centre, district centre. And what else was
23 there?
24 Q. 417 Try adding reigning in Mr. Monahan.
12:33:14 25 A. Sorry. Well not in -- not in those terms but expressions -- there was no
26 question of Mr. Lynn or Mr. Reilly or myself reigning in Mr. Monahan.
27 Certainly, I wasn't having any meetings with Mr. Monahan or could have any
28 influence on him.
29 Q. 418 No, no, but it was terribly important as to how Monarch's united front, you
12:33:39 30 discussed this with Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
65
12:33:39 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 419 What conclusion did you come to as to how Mr. Monahan was going to be dealt
3 with?
4 A. I didn't come to a conclusion as to how Mr. Monahan would be dealt with. To
12:33:49 5 add to the expression of unease that had been expressed to me by Mr. Sweeney
6 this was replicated by comments from Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly. There was no
7 way that Mr. Lynn, Mr. Reilly and I or any of us individually, could reign in
8 Mr. Monahan.
9 Q. 420 Sorry. I understand perfectly.
12:34:04 10 A. Yeah.
11 Q. 421 And Mr. Dunlop, how did you understand the three of you in chat there, very
12 important. Your first two meeting with these two gentlemen formally. What
13 did you understand that would be done? I mean, before you go and talk to
14 Mr. Fox or whoever it is --
12:34:19 15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. 422 -- about the whole thing --
17 A. Yep.
18 Q. 423 -- you need to know this united front.
19 A. Yes, well --
12:34:24 20 Q. 424 It's of huge urgency to you on the 9th of March 1993 with these gentleman to
21 know how are we going to get that united front and when are we going to have
22 it. What did the three of you say, did you agree finally about that?
23 A. Well, there was a certain amount of mechanics involved in the context of the
24 second display, what was entailed, whether or not further submissions needed to
12:34:52 25 be made. Whether or not --
26 Q. 425 No, no, Mr. Dunlop, I don't think that has anything to do with the united
27 front. You have to decide what is the united front is.
28 A. What does Mr. Monarch want.
29 Q. 426 What did Mr. Reilly, Mr. Lynn and Mr. Dunlop (SIC) say about that on that day,
12:35:03 30 on that evening on that day? Were you three in agreement that it should be the

www.pcr.ie Day 654
66
12:35:07 1 more modest proposal of four houses per acre?
2 A. Well, I think -- no, sorry, Mr. Murphy. I would say that on the basis of what
3 was now on the books, as it were, in Dublin County Council as a result of what
4 had happened in May 1992 and remember what is now on the books, as you pointed
12:35:28 5 out to me yesterday. Had Mr. Barrett not done what he did --
6 Q. 427 Yes.
7 A. -- it would have --
8 Q. 428 Yeah.
9 A. It would have reverted to four houses per acre. Now --
12:35:41 10 Q. 429 Are you going to say that if in November '93, the motion to confirm Mr.
11 Barrett's motion failed?
12 A. If that --
13 Q. 430 Monarch would now have what it wanted from Mr. Sweeney's point of view and
14 Mr. Reilly and Mr. Lynn?
12:35:54 15 A. Or the alternative that on the basis of Mr. Barrett's motion --
16 Q. 431 Yes.
17 A. -- as to one per acre, whether or not that could be built on by another motion
18 or by putting in a motion saying look it, it is recommended or it has been
19 voted on positively that it be one house per acre.
12:36:14 20 Q. 432 Yes.
21 A. Here is another motion saying it should be higher density.
22 Q. 433 Yeah.
23 A. Revert to X, Y and Z.
24 Q. 434 Can I take it from that from March '93. From earlier but from your point of
12:36:25 25 view, Mr. Dunlop, that with a view to November '93, what is crucial is -- I
26 mean, your spring board is Mr. Barrett's motion because that said one per acre
27 --
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 435 -- 35 vote in the favour 33 voted against.
12:36:39 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
67
3 Q. 437 Isn't that right? That's the spring board, isn't it?
4 A. Yes, it is, yes.
12:36:45 5 Q. 438 You don't want less than that. You don't want a repeat of that?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. 439 You want an improvement of that?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. 440 You know in no way can you get what Mr. Monahan is looking for?
12:36:56 10 A. Whatever that is.
11 Q. 441 Right. Whatever that is?
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. 442 What I asked you was.
14 A. Yeah.
12:37:01 15 Q. 443 Can you just say in a a general way were the three of you gentleman sort of
16 agreed on the four per acre. That if you could get back to -- sorry. If you
17 could get to the position where you'd have been in had Barrett not brought in
18 his motion or if you could get -- yes. If you could get to that position.
19 Look, I'm not saying Monarch are going to be ecstatic but they would be happy?
12:37:25 20 A. Yes, I would say in general terms, yes.
21 Q. 444 Was that the goal from March '93?
22 A. The goal -- first of all. There were two goals. One was to make absolutely
23 certain that nothing further went wrong. That there was no other cock ups.
24 Q. 445 Uh-huh.
12:37:40 25 A. Secondly, that if the possibility existed to increase the density, to whatever.
26 Q. 446 Uh-huh.
27 A. In the totality or in specific areas of the lands.
28 Q. 447 Uh-huh.
29 A. Added in with other, what I might loosely refer to as inducements.
12:37:58 30 Q. 448 Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
68
12:37:58 1 A. Like educational facilities, district centres, whatever.
2 Q. 449 Yes.
3 A. Yes. That once that occurred, and the general thrust as with other
4 developments, and I think I've attested to this previously. That, you know,
12:38:17 5 don't look a gift horse in the mouth. That if you're only getting half of
6 what you were looking for, at least take the half so that you can then build on
7 it.
8 Q. 450 That's fine. I think we're agreed on all of this, Mr. Dunlop. And
9 essentially, I know that there are trimming, inducements and so on to get the
12:38:36 10 thing through but essentially what we're talking about is a density of four
11 houses per acre is what our aim is.
12 A. Yes, restore the higher density.
13 Q. 451 For November. Yeah. All right. Crucial to that, before -- to get the united
14 front was to find out, somebody to talk to Mr. Monahan, and have a chat with
12:38:52 15 him, tell him the realities and to get him to go along, he had to agree I
16 presume, had he?
17 A. Well that would have been -- one would expect that he would have had to, yes.
18 Q. 452 Now, I just want to know, were the three of you there. The first -- Mr. Lynn
19 and Mr. Reilly have been over the course for a year?
12:39:07 20 A. Uh-huh.
21 Q. 453 They know all about it. They've done the lobbying etc.. You are the new
22 face. And you are going to do to your bit to add to, as you said yesterday,
23 to add to their work. But before you can get out of the blocks you have to
24 know what the front is to go to Mr. Fox and others about?
12:39:23 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 454 Now, just it must have been a huge concern to you who is going to do what with
27 Mr. Monahan, when are we going to find out. What did you understand was going
28 to happen?
29 A. Well what I understood was going to happen is that Philip Reilly, Richard Lynn
12:39:41 30 and myself would certainly cooperate with one another, liaise with one another

www.pcr.ie Day 654
69
12:39:46 1 to the best of our abilities to ensure that Mr. Monahan was going to be
2 controlled.
3 Q. 455 No, no, you're talking nonsense, Mr. Dunlop. What I'm asking you is, what,
4 how was he going to be controlled. The three of you were --
12:40:00 5 A. No, no.
6 Q. 456 -- were in complete unanimity about controlling Mr. Monahan. None of the
7 three of you could do it.
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. 457 How was it going to be done?
12:40:08 10 A. That's correct. That's the point I was just going to make and you interrupted
11 me.
12 Q. 458 Well, is the answer that you had any part --
13 A. None of us had any power to control Phil Monahan. We wouldn't know from one
14 day to the next where Phil Monahan was, or what he was doing or who he was
12:40:21 15 talking to.
16 Q. 459 Can we take it, Mr. Dunlop, that your exercise is put on hold then. You can
17 do nothing about Mr. Monahan. Somebody is going to have to come back to you,
18 Mr. Sweeney maybe, and say now we've got Mr. Monahan, we've hauled him in and
19 everything is fine, off you go.
12:40:39 20 A. Yes, yes, in general terms, yes.
21 Q. 460 Were there -- there had been previously obviously two campaigns going on, isn't
22 that what you were talking about? Mr. Monahan out on his own doing his bit?
23 A. Yes, yes, sorry.
24 Q. 461 All right. But you agree with what I'm saying. Sorry and I don't want you to
12:40:58 25 agree just to keep me happy.
26 A. I wouldn't do that, Mr. Murphy.
27 Q. 462 Mr. Dunlop, it is that -- the three of you were powerless vis-a-vis
28 Mr. Monahan.
29 A. That is absolutely correct.
12:41:08 30 Q. 463 So you have to wait until Mr. Sweeney comes back and tells you what the

www.pcr.ie Day 654
70
12:41:12 1 position is about Mr. Monahan?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 464 Okay. Thank you. Now, I just want to know, Mr. Dunlop, what Mr. Lynn and/or
4 Mr. Reilly said to you in relation to knowledge that you would have to pay
12:41:40 5 councillors?
6 A. Nothing.
7 Q. 465 Nothing. Did you have any understanding -- we know your position vis-a-vis
8 Mr. Sweeney. Did you have any understanding of what their understanding
9 was -- of whether or not they had any knowledge of the need to pay councillors?
12:41:53 10 A. Well I -- again, yes. I did have um, a suspicion. Certainly from a comment
11 that had been made to me, not at this meeting but previously, on the margins of
12 a council meeting by Mr. Lynn to the effect that you'd think these idiots would
13 get their act together it's costing so much.
14 Q. 466 Now, what did that mean? I know they are the words.
12:42:15 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 467 Mr. Lynn may have another. What did they convey to you?
17 A. Oh, they conveyed to me quite specifically that Monarch, in some fashion, or
18 other, recognised and was paying monies to politicians for their support.
19 Q. 468 Politicians or councillors?
12:42:38 20 A. Well yeah.
21 Q. 469 You mean councillors?
22 A. Councillors, yeah.
23 Q. 470 Did Mr. Lynn or Mr. Reilly ever tell you, directly or incorrect directly, that
24 expressly or implicitly, that they had paid money to councillors?
12:42:56 25 A. No.
26 Q. 471 So you didn't know that they had done this?
27 A. No, no, no knowledge.
28 Q. 472 But you had a -- sorry?
29 A. No, no, they did not say directly I have paid. Other than again if I may move
12:43:11 30 forward a bit.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
71
12:43:11 1 Q. 473 Yes.
2 A. Maybe you are coming to this, I don't know, Mr. Murphy.
3 Q. 474 No.
4 A. Another comment that was made to me by Mr. Lynn was, you know, these are
12:43:19 5 costing so much.
6 Q. 475 Yes. What are costing so much?
7 A. Councillors.
8 Q. 476 Who said that to you?
9 A. Mr. Lynn.
12:43:25 10 Q. 477 On a subsequent occasion?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 478 The councillors are costing so much?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 479 All right. And did that, all of that convey to you that Mr. Lynn knew that
12:43:35 15 councillors had to be paid and that Monarch were paying councillors?
16 A. Well, let me put it this way to you. Yes, it did. Because Mr. Lynn, as I
17 have -- I haven't met Mr. Lynn since 19 -- certainly a long, long time since I
18 met Mr. Lynn.
19
12:43:52 20 Mr. Lynn is an intelligent man and to quote the phrase that we've used earlier.
21 He was not living on a parallel universe he was living in the real world. So,
22 I mean, you know, anything that he said in those terms, I understood to mean
23 that Monarch, in some fashion, capacity, or otherwise, recognised the need for
24 and were paying councillors.
12:44:24 25 Q. 480 And so -- you took that understanding from Mr. Reilly and Mr. Lynn?
26 A. Mr. Lynn is the only person's name I've mentioned so far.
27 Q. 481 I beg your pardon. From Mr. Lynn?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 482 You didn't get that understanding from Mr. Reilly?
12:44:39 30 A. No, I did not.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
72
12:44:40 1 Q. 483 How is he different?
2 A. I don't -- he never made a comment like that to me.
3 Q. 484 All right.
4 A. What I have --
12:44:47 5 Q. 485 Would Mr. Lynn have made the comment in Mr. Reilly's presence?
6 A. No, no, sorry?
7 Q. 486 All right. You took that understanding from Mr. Lynn?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 487 You also got similar a sort of understanding from Mr. Sweeney?
12:44:58 10 A. Correct.
11 Q. 488 Mr. Monarch -- Mr. Monahan, sorry.
12 A. No, no, no. Again, to say to you. I have no comment from Mr. Monarch --
13 Mr. oh, dear -- you shouldn't do this Mr. Murphy, we are all falling into the
14 same trap. From Mr. Monahan because I was only at one meeting that
12:45:23 15 Mr. Monahan attended and as I said to you, he stuck his face around the corner
16 of a room there was a meeting going on. But he made no -- never made a
17 comment to that effect.
18 Q. 489 You were only at one meeting that Mr.-- Mr. Monahan stuck his head in?
19 A. Mr. Monahan, as I recollect, Mr. Monahan was at a meeting in Monarch House or
12:45:44 20 Monarch Properties, or whatever it is. And that on another occasion called in
21 briefly or said something to the effect, you know, just carry on or whatever.
22 Q. 490 Mr. Dunlop, your statement says "This disparity and objectives became obvious
23 to me as time progressed and after a number of meetings in Monarch's offices in
24 Harcourt Street with Mr. Monahan, Mr. Noel Murray, Liam Lawlor and I --
12:46:07 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 491 Though not always in this format were present."
27 A. Correct.
28 Q. 492 It suggests a lot of -- you know, Mr. Monahan was at a number of meetings?
29 A. Yeah, well, I think the qualifying phrase is though not necessarily in this
12:46:23 30 format.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
73
12:46:23 1 Q. 493 That was your private interview not your statement.
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. 494 Sorry what did you say?
4 A. Though not necessarily in this format is the operative phrase.
12:46:30 5 Q. 495 Okay. So you knew -- you didn't get -- Mr. Monahan never said anything that
6 gave you the understanding that councillors were being paid by Monarch?
7 A. No.
8 Q. 496 Did you ever have any suspicion that Mr. Monahan was out paying councillors
9 himself?
12:46:50 10 A. A suspicion is the phrase now that you've used?
11 Q. 497 Yes.
12 A. I could not deny that the suspicion did not enter my mind.
13 Q. 498 Well did you have a high suspicion that Mr. Monahan was doing that?
14 A. Low suspicion, suspicion, high suspicion. You use -- I would be dishonest if
12:47:12 15 I did not say to you in answer to your question that did I not have a suspicion
16 that Mr. Monahan was doing something of that nature. I have no basis other
17 than the nature of your question for answering in that way.
18 Q. 499 Did you ever get a payment yourself from Mr. Monahan?
19 A. No.
12:47:37 20 Q. 500 Now, I take it, Mr. Dunlop, while there is a problem at that meeting at the 9th
21 of March in that at that stage you don't know what Mr. Monahan is going to do
22 and what's going to happen about him etc.. But I'd say that not -- I'd
23 imagine that notwithstanding that you had a chat with -- well in fact you
24 touched on it, with these two gentlemen about whom they had already spoken to?
12:48:20 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 501 And as a matter of interest, did you at that meeting or later ever get a record
27 of the minutes of the meeting in May '92 or anything that would tell you who
28 voted for and who voted against Mr. Barrett's motion?
29 A. My immediate response to that -- well on reflection, no. I don't -- at that
12:48:46 30 meeting you say?

www.pcr.ie Day 654
74
12:48:47 1 Q. 502 Yes.
2 A. Subsequently I may well myself have looked up --
3 Q. 503 Yes.
4 A. -- the record of the people who did or did not vote.
12:48:55 5 Q. 504 Yeah.
6 A. But just for ease of reference -- ease of proceeding.
7 Q. 505 Yes.
8 A. It might not necessarily be absolutely required that you check the way
9 everybody voted. I mean, Phil Reilly and Richard Lynn would be completely au
12:49:13 10 fait as to the way everybody voted.
11 Q. 506 Well that's fine.
12 A. All right.
13 Q. 507 Can I take it that it would be -- I mean, the most important thing you could do
14 would inform yourself, now when you're getting ready to go out and do your job?
12:49:39 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 508 Would be to inform yourself of everything about May '92 meeting but in
17 particular about how they lined up for Mr. Barrett's motion?
18 A. Yes, I would accept that, yes.
19 Q. 509 So. And can I take it. It doesn't matter to me whether you've gone into the
12:49:45 20 minutes or whether you spoke to Mr. Richard Lynn or Mr. Reilly about it.
21 A. Yeah.
22 Q. 510 But can I take it that at some stage that you had a discussion with Mr. Lynn
23 and Mr. Reilly about who voted which way?
24 A. Oh, yes.
12:49:58 25 Q. 511 And that you would have known the entire of the vote on that day. You would
26 have apprised yourself of all of the councillors who voted for and all who
27 voted against?
28 A. Yes, I would. The answer is yes.
29 Q. 512 Because the key to it is you've got to swing the against -- the people who are
12:50:16 30 against, isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 654
75
12:50:17 1 A. Well not quite, Mr. Murphy. What we had to do, and it's a point that you
2 haven't come to, I know, but you may well be coming to it. What we have to
3 do, not only may we have to swing people who are against. We have to
4 consolidate anybody who is in favour --
12:50:32 5 Q. 513 Yes.
6 A. -- of development in Cherrywood. Make sure that they are on side.
7 Q. 514 Yes.
8 A. And assuage any difficulties that there might be. And like, for example, I do
9 recall that there was some concern about the attitude of, we'll say, Betty
12:50:51 10 Coffey. Because Betty Coffey was advising caution --
11 Q. 515 Yes.
12 A. -- about how to proceed. The reason that that was occurring, and she wasn't
13 the only one. The reason that that was occurring was that these were in the
14 particular locality and they were getting it in the teeth from a highly
12:51:07 15 organised campaign against.
16 Q. 516 Well obviously, Mr. Dunlop, you were going to have to retain the people who
17 voted against Mr. Barrett's motion and turn the heads of a sufficient number of
18 those who voted for it?
19 A. Yes.
12:51:27 20 Q. 517 Isn't that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 518 I mean, that's what your task is now for the next eight months?
23 A. Our task is simple. Success on the basis of what we want. And what we
24 recognise we can get. That's the simple task. What is it that we want.
12:51:43 25 Can it be achieved. What do we do to achieve it.
26 Q. 519 Yes. Now, and -- at that meeting did you carve up the councillors among you
27 and of the 70 plus, agree that Mr. Reilly had already spoken to or was happy
28 about whatever, whoever or whatever and Mr. Lynn the same and that now you can
29 reduce the 70 plus to a lesser number that you can deal with?
12:52:14 30 A. Yes. Well, I think that -- I don't know whether I said it here yesterday or

www.pcr.ie Day 654
76
12:52:19 1 I've said it at some stage. Probably most likely in my statement. That
2 obviously because this was a tighter type of operation at this stage and a lot
3 of work had already been done by Philip Reilly and Richard Lynn. There was no
4 point in everybody tripping over one another as to who they were going to
12:52:41 5 contact. We knew --
6 Q. 520 I think my question covers that possibility Mr. Dunlop.
7 A. Right. Okay.
8 Q. 521 What I want to know is did you agree at that meeting that Mr. -- in other
9 words, from your point of view, could you delete a number of names and say Mr.
12:52:53 10 Lynn and Mr. Reilly are dealing with them?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. 522 All right. And you meant -- yes, all right. And did you go away then with a
13 list of people that would be your's? Did you go away with your list?
14 A. Well not a physical list, no, no, we didn't write down names or didn't produce
12:53:14 15 a list and say listen what was agreed. What was agreed was that I would
16 concentrate on the Fianna Fail councillors by and large I was going to
17 concentrate on the Fianna Fail councillors. Richard Lynn was going to
18 continue with his contact with Don Lydon. And I would concentrate on Fianna
19 Fail and that it would become known in certain circles that I was now involved.
12:53:37 20 Q. 523 And how would that help things?
21 A. Well, let me come at it backwards, if I may. I recall we'll say, for example,
22 Therese Ridge was a Fine Gael councillor expressing satisfaction that I was now
23 involved.
24 Q. 524 Right.
12:53:55 25 A. So it would help things in the context. And I'm loathe to put it in this
26 fashion but because it sounds very modest but, I mean, I put it in this way
27 because people were happy that they could communicate with me and say look it,
28 what's going on, what are we going to do or what should we do.
29 Q. 525 Uh-huh. So your -- so now you're lobbying job has actually been reduced.
12:54:21 30 It's been reduced down to the Fianna Fail side of the fence?

www.pcr.ie Day 654
77
12:54:34 1 A. Yeah.
2 Q. 526 Though maybe Therese Ridge was an exception to that was she?
3 A. Well Therese Ridge was a Phil Reilly contact. I think I explained that to you
4 yesterday.
12:54:35 5 Q. 527 Yes.
6 A. But Therese Ridge at that time was a friend of mine. I was close to her at
7 that time.
8 Q. 528 Yes.
9 A. For a variety of reasons in relation to -- I don't mean in relation to other
12:54:46 10 developments but I mean in relation to a lot of matters.
11 Q. 529 You were a friend of her's in relation to a number of other developments?
12 A. She was involved in the context of lobbying. I was involved with her in the
13 context of lobbying, particularly in the context of Quarryvale because it was
14 in her backyard.
12:55:03 15 Q. 530 All right. But anyway, sorry -- did you agree the three of you that you'd
16 lobby the Fianna Fail councillors and Therese Ridge?
17 A. No, no. I agreed that I would concentrate on the Fianna Fail councillors.
18 It would become known, as it was inevitable.
19 Q. 531 Yes.
12:55:16 20 A. And as I have I have just given evidence that it did. That I was involved.
21 And that it was necessary that I would speak to other people. But that would
22 be agreed as we proceeded.
23 Q. 532 Okay. How many Fianna Fail councillors were there at that time, roughly. I
24 don't want to count them?
12:55:32 25 A. Well this was after the 1991 election so they were decimated in the '91
26 election, so there was 20 odd.
27 Q. 533 25.
28 A. In or around figure. Sorry, let's look at it. 70 what odd members of the
29 councillors.
12:55:45 30 Q. 534 76.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
78
12:55:46 1 A. 76, yeah.
2 Q. 535 I'm happy. 25 that's all right. Roughly say.
3 A. Yeah.
4 Q. 536 25. So your brief now is to lobby 25 councillors, isn't that right?
12:55:56 5 A. Yeah.
6 Q. 537 And but you did say that maybe it would become necessary to talk to others but
7 you'd work that out between the three of you as you went along?
8 A. Yes and I did say that it was agreed between us that Richard Lynn would
9 continue to have his contact with Don Lydon.
12:56:13 10 Q. 538 Why is that?
11 A. Because he had very close contact with Mr. Don Lydon.
12 Q. 539 Did you know Mr. Lydon?
13 A. Oh, yes.
14 Q. 540 Does that mean that you wouldn't talk to him at all?
12:56:22 15 A. Oh, absolutely not.
16 Q. 541 He was very heavily committed to all of this?
17 A. Oh, he was, yes.
18 Q. 542 He wasn't moving off side, was he?
19 A. Oh, no. I think he was feeling a little bit aggrieved, understandably so, in
12:56:36 20 the context of the amount of contumaligning that was being heaped on his head
21 for what had occurred in May 1992.
22 Q. 543 What was heaped on his head?
23 A. Sorry. You know, people were very unhappy with him.
24 Q. 544 Oh, yes, yes, yes. Who, Monarch?
12:56:50 25 A. Yes, and members of Fianna Fail itself.
26 Q. 545 I see.
27 A. And other councillors.
28 Q. 546 Right.
29 A. He was a sort of a, a bit of a, unfairly, in my view, but nonetheless --
12:57:03 30 Q. 547 Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
79
12:57:03 1 A. -- a cock up was made. And when a cock up is made everybody looks for a
2 scapegoat and Don was the scapegoat in the instance because he didn't think on
3 his feet on the day.
4 Q. 548 How does that explain that you wouldn't talk to him as well?
12:57:18 5 A. Well --
6 Q. 549 Do you remember you used the phrase yesterday to add support to Mr. Lynn and
7 Mr. Reilly?
8 A. It doesn't necessarily mean that I wouldn't speak to Don but because of the
9 relationship between Richard and Don, of long-standing, that that would
12:57:32 10 continue.
11 Q. 550 Now, of the Fianna Fail councillors, the 25 or so, presumably, again at this
12 first meeting with Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly, you discussed which of them Mr.
13 Lynn and Mr. Reilly had already spoken to. They would have lobbied them all?
14 A. Oh, they would have lobbied. They would have lobbied them all, yes.
12:57:49 15 Q. 551 Yes.
16 A. They would have lobbied everybody.
17 Q. 552 Yes. Were you able to rule out a number of them -- did Mr. Lynn and
18 Mr. Reilly say there's no need to talk to the following half a dozen or ten or
19 something like that because they're sick to death of us and they're with us or
12:58:07 20 against us or whatever?
21 A. Well it's not as simple as that, if I may suggest to you, Mr. Murphy.
22 Q. 553 No.
23 A. Because of what had happened there was a lot of disaffection among all parties
24 but I'm sticking now with Fianna Fail, within the Fianna Fail organisation.
12:58:23 25 As I said to you two minutes ago, somewhat unfairly, but nonetheless, that was
26 the way the cooky crumbled. Don was being blamed for it. And people were
27 saying, look it, for God's sake what are we going to do here.
28 Q. 554 I understand you, Mr. Dunlop, then to be saying that you had to talk to all of
29 the Fianna Fail councillors, it was your brief to talk to all the Fianna Fail
12:58:47 30 councillors and bring them home?

www.pcr.ie Day 654
80
12:58:47 1 A. And talk to them, as many as possible, in view of what was -- what was going to
2 be um, put forward or agreed.
3 Q. 555 Yes. And can you just tell me. I know about the internal difficulties in
4 Monarch. And I know how this affected the councillors that they ended up
12:59:03 5 confused. What does Monarch want. And that I can see that obviously people
6 who were in favour of Monarch would be upset with the failure of Mr. Lydon's
7 motion.
9 Why would there be so much dissatisfaction within Fianna Fail, among the Fianna
12:59:23 10 Fail councillors? I mean, these are councillors who are independently voting
11 on whether or not lands should be rezoned or not. And sorry -- generally
12 speaking in this particular case I'm saying that it doesn't matter but it
13 increased the density. I mean, so that's what they are voting on. These are
14 elected representatives and at the moment I'm talking about the 25 or so Fianna
12:59:50 15 Fail ones. And the vote went against what Monarch were looking for in May
16 '92. So it did. Okay, fine. Why would that end up with kind of
17 in-fighting among the Fianna Fail councillors about the whole thing?
18 A. Well, my immediate reaction -- and I do apologise in advance, Chairman. And I
19 don't mean to be engaging with Mr. Murphy. But God bless your naiviety.
13:00:21 20 Fianna Fail councillors obviously were committed to doing what was required in
21 May 1992. And it didn't happen.
22 Q. 556 What was it sorry to interrupt you -- what was it they were committed to do?
23 A. The motion that was defeated.
24 Q. 557 Mr. Lydon's motion?
13:00:36 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 558 In other words, the Fianna Fail councillors of the 33 --
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 559 -- who lost that motion?
29 A. Yes.
13:00:42 30 Q. 560 Were committed to it?

www.pcr.ie Day 654
81
13:00:43 1 A. Well subject to correction and to a list of who --
2 Q. 561 No, no?
3 A. We're not going to go into that detail. But I mean they were mightily annoyed
4 that this had happened. And as I've said to you five minutes ago, they looked
13:00:59 5 for a scapegoat and they blamed Don Lydon.
6 Q. 562 Why would they be mightily annoyed?
7 A. Well because of the heavy lobbying that had gone on between Monarch and them
8 and commitments that they had entered into and obviously assurances that had
9 been given that this would be successful.
13:01:18 10 Q. 563 Now, what are the assurances and what are the commitments. What are the
11 commitments that they had entered into?
12 A. Well, the commitments that they had entered in would be to support it and the
13 assurances that they would do everything possibly within their power to make
14 sure that it was passed.
13:01:37 15 Q. 564 And what would that be?
16 A. Voting for it.
17
18 CHAIRMAN: Right, Mr. Murphy, it's gone one o'clock. We'll rise until two
19 o'clock. At two o'clock Ms. Harney is giving evidence and so Mr. Dunlop can
13:01:49 20 resume at -- if you're here at ten past two. Not before ten past two.
21 Hopefully we will resume soon after that.
22
23 Those parties who might -- if we come to that stage in the afternoon, who might
24 want to cross-examine Mr. Dunlop might, it would be helpful if they could agree
13:02:06 25 amongst themselves the order in which they will cross-examine him. All right?
26
27 MS. DILLON: I think we've already agreed an order I understand. I think Mr.
28 Shipsey is probably going to go first, I understand. Subject to correction.
29
13:02:26 30 MR. DULACHAIN: Chairman, just before you rise, there was a matter we raised on

www.pcr.ie Day 654
82
13:02:29 1 day 625, 23rd of March. And it related to whether there were any records of
2 our account of what was said in the private meetings when the private meetings
3 went off record and it was indicated A, whether anything was available and B,
4 whether that that would then be made available.
13:02:53 5
6 CHAIRMAN: All right. Well we can deal with that after lunch.
8 MS. DILLON: I think in fact the proper thing to do would be for Mr. Dulachain
9 to write us a letter and we'll respond by way of correspondence. We are at a
13:03:01 10 certain stage -- It's not necessarily information that would be opened in
11 public at this stage as this is a matter of which certain decisions have to be
12 made by the members.
13
14 But if the query that Mr. O'Dulachain has, can be sent in a letter in so far as
13:03:15 15 we are in a position to provide information to Mr. O'Dulachain in relation to
16 that matter it will of course be provided.
17
18 CHAIRMAN: Well just for the moment if yourself and Mr. O'Dulachain can see if
19 we can come to some agreement as to how the matter is dealt with. If that's
13:03:30 20 not possible you can raise it in the afternoon. All right?
21
22 MS. DILLON: Yes.
23
13:04:25 25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 654
83
13:04:25 1 THE TRIBUNAL RESUMED AS FOLLOWS AT 2:00 P.M.:
3 MR. QUINN: Good afternoon, Sir.
14:02:35 5 Ms. Mary Harney, please.
7 MS. MARY HARNEY HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS QUESTIONED BY
14:03:04 10 CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon, Ms. Harney.
12 Q. 565 Quinn good afternoon, Ms. Harney.
13 Ms. Harney, you have been written to on two occasions by the Tribunal in
14 relation to these lands at Cherrywood and the Monarch Property Group.
14:03:16 15 And I think your first response is dated 15th of February 2006. And is to be
16 found at pages 1008 and 1010 of the brief.
17
18 And your subsequent and most recent response of the 18th of April 2006 is at
19 8713 and 8715 of the brief. If I just take that second response first.
14:03:38 20
21 And if we could have 8713, please.
22 You referred to the Tribunal correspondence and the earlier letter. And you
23 said that "As you have outlined the nature of your contacts with Philip Monahan
24 and Philip Reilly and his wife Martha, and that you had met Mr. Richard Lynn at
14:03:54 25 a fund-raising event."
26
27 Can I just ask you in relation to your knowledge of and meetings with
28 Mr. Philip Monahan, did you know Mr. Monahan?
29 A. I first met Mr. Monahan around the time The Square opened in Tallaght, that was
14:04:08 30 to the best of my knowledge, the first time I ever met him. I probably met

www.pcr.ie Day 654
84
14:04:13 1 him no more than three times in all I think.
2 Q. 566 You also I think, knew Mr. Reilly, is that right?
3 A. Yes, I had a lot of dealings with Mr. Reilly. Because he was the, I think
4 public affairs person for The Square in Tallaght. He attended a lot of
14:04:26 5 functions in the area. And I was seated at the same table as him on many
6 occasions. He won the Tallaght person of the year on at least one occasion if
7 not twice but he attended a lot of functions.
9 I also held a weekly constituency clinic for about two years in an office in
14:04:42 10 The Square and he was often around on a Saturday and I often spoke to him and
11 met him. He was somebody I knew quite well.
12 Q. 567 Was that a facility provided by the Tallaght Shopping Centre or the Monarch
13 Group?
14 A. Yes. It was provided on a day-to-day basis it was used by the Catholic
14:04:59 15 Marriage Advisory Council to the best of my recollection. It was also used by
16 other community groups and a number pf politicians and I used it because it was
17 convenient from a transport point of view for people to come and see me there.
18 Q. 568 And I think you also knew Mr. Richard Lynn, is that correct?
19 A. I met Mr. Lynn at fundraising events. Certainly, I think I sent you
14:05:15 20 documentation about three fundraising lunches I organised and I know he
21 attended one of them and he may have attended other fund-raising events that
22 other people organised that I was in attendance at, yes.
23 Q. 569 And I think you say that these are the only people associated with Mr. Monahan
24 or the Monarch Group that you could recall having met?
26 Q. 570 You had been asked I think for details of any contributions received from the
27 Monarch Group and if I could rather than taking you through your statement.
28
29 If I take you through a series of documents which you will have been furnished
14:05:46 30 with and which are in the brief. I think the first contribution, although we

www.pcr.ie Day 654
85
14:05:49 1 don't have records of it, may have been received in 1990, isn't that right?
2 A. Yes, I think I -- from a company called JC, which I understand now or I
3 understood I wrote to you in April was a Monarch company. They sent a
4 donation of 1,000 pounds to the Progressive Democrats national election.
14:06:08 5 Q. 571 Yes, that would have been in the early 1990s?
6 A. Yes, I think I gave you the date there, yes.
7 Q. 572 If I could have 8714, please.
9 I think the Tallaght Town Centre opened on 23rd of October 1990 and you've told
14:06:20 10 us you didn't know Mr. Philip Monahan prior to that date. Would you have
11 known Mr. Lynn or Mr. Reilly prior to that date.
12 When I say -- I don't know when I first met Mr. Monahan but it was in
13 connection with The Square. The official opening may have been the end of
14 that year. But the Square was in an almost finished state for a while before
14:06:40 15 it actually officially opened. And I think it was actually used for events.
16 I would say I met Mr. Reilly around the same time when he came to work would at
17 The Square, yes.
18 Q. 573 So do you think you might have requested or solicited that contribution of
19 1,000 in early 1990?
14:06:55 20 A. I don't believe I would have but I can't be certain. The national collection
21 was generally organised by the treasurers in each constituency. And I think
22 70 per cent of it or so went to the party nationally and 30 percent was held in
23 the constituency. Until I became leader of the party it would not have been
24 practice to write to anybody looking for money for myself.
14:07:16 25
26 I would have written to people in connection with fundraising events. But in
27 terms of donations for myself, and I think there's one letter there where I
28 wrote on behalf of a boxing club and I began by saying I don't like writing
29 these letter which would be true. When I became leader, it was customary for
14:07:30 30 leaders, although I don't do it now, it would have been customary to write

www.pcr.ie Day 654
86
14:07:35 1 letters seeking financial support.
2 Q. 574 You weren't leader, were you, in June 1991?
3 A. No, I wasn't.
4 Q. 575 If I could have 2239. This is a letter written to Sheila Terry from Monarch
14:07:49 5 Properties Services Limited. Again, it's a letter you might have seen in the
6 brief.
7 A. Yes, I did.
8 Q. 576 It's from Mr. Lynn. And it says "We have been contacted by Minister Mary
9 Harney on your behalf and have pleasure in enclosing a contribution towards
14:08:03 10 your Local Elections expenses."
11
12 And if we have 1581 we see the contribution there of 300 pounds. Again, this
13 is an internal Monarch document discovered to the Tribunal.
14 A. Yes.
14:08:13 15 Q. 577 There are in fact, I think other contributions to PD candidates. Helen Keogh
16 gets 300 pounds. Catherine Quinn is 300. Colm Tyndall I think at 300. And
17 then Progressive Democrats function 300. You will see those on the screen?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 578 And you will have seen them. Can I just ask you about the circumstances under
14:08:34 20 which you came to ask for funds on behalf of Ms. Terry?
21 A. I think what happened was Mr. O'Reilly approached me and said he wanted to
22 support the Local Election campaign of some of the candidates and asked me for
23 recommendations. And the people I recommended were the people I had head
24 hunted into the party just a few months earlier. Sheila Terry was one,
14:08:51 25 Catherine Quinn was another and a third was Colm Tyndall. They had no track
26 record in the party and I felt it would have been more difficult for them. So
27 they were the ones I recommended. I want wasn't involved in recommending Helen
28 Keogh but I was involved in the recommendation of Colm Tyndall, Catherine Quinn
29 and to the best of my knowledge Breda Cass. But her donation was to the party
14:09:10 30 as I remember or to a function she was having or something rather than to her.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
87
14:09:13 1 Q. 579 These -- just to put this in context. This was the 1991 Local Elections.
2 You had been a councillor up to 1991 yourself?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 580 But you weren't going forward on that election. These were candidates in the
14:09:25 5 election.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 581 They were going to become councillors if they were successful --
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 582 -- at election time?
14:09:30 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 583 The Tribunal has heard evidence from a councillor who was successful in the
12 elections but who declined an offer of money towards his campaign by Mr. Lynn
13 or the Monarch interest. I'm just wondering with the benefit of hindsight do
14 you think that there might have been a conflict in seeking or soliciting
14:09:51 15 support from some interest such as Monarch which would have an interest in the
16 Development Plan?
17 A. Well soliciting. I didn't solicit he came -- to the best of my recollection,
18 Mr. Reilly came to me and said he wanted to support the Local Election campaign
19 and asked me for ideas. I think a lot depends on the motivation when you take
14:10:08 20 money. I have received financial support from companies that I subsequently
21 opposed things that they wanted done. That is a fact.
22
23 Um, so the fact that somebody gives you political donation in an open fashion,
24 should not be assumed, in my view, that that means that you're going to do
14:10:28 25 whatever that company or individual would wish you to do. So I think a lot
26 depends. Some people may feel conflict I think perhaps the circumstances have
27 changed a lot in the light of this Tribunal and other Tribunals in terms of the
28 perception of situations of that kind. But certainly --
29 Q. 584 Did you --
14:10:44 30 A. I was never motivated by money somebody gave me to do something for somebody.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
88
14:10:49 1 Q. 585 Did you know that Monarch Properties had been such generous sporters to all
2 political parties in the June '91 and November '92 General Election?
3 A. No, I think the sums of money half a million or something. Not at all, no.
4 It was a considerable amount of money.
14:11:03 5 Q. 586 Now, that was 1991 and then I think we have a document. Could I have 3763.
7 This is an invoice which is passing between Monarch and GRE. And it relates
8 to expenses incurred and which should be shared with GRE. But I'm just
9 concerned in relation to the first paragraph under the heading The Square "2
14:11:26 10 BW" which I presume black-and-white photograph reopening of captain venture by
11 Mary Harney TD Minister for State and Department of the Environment to include
12 proofs prints and captions."
13
14 Did you you perform any in your capacity as Minister any functions in Tallaght
14:11:42 15 or otherwise for Monarch?
16 A. Clearly, I performed that function for people in need, yes, I would have. The
17 photographs weren't given to me, as you can imagine.
18 Q. 587 Yes. I can appreciate that and I think then you wrote again. If we could
19 have 3544 to Mr. Reilly this time, in January 1992. And I think you got a
14:12:02 20 contribution or your party got a contribution of 200 pounds towards a business
21 lunch that was addressed by the leader of your party at the time, isn't that
22 right?
24 Q. 588 And then I think in November 1992, at 3910 you yourself I think received 1,000
14:12:20 25 pounds from Mr.-- from Monarch but I think Mr. Reilly may have been the contact
26 for that and you'll have seen that in the brief?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 589 Can you recall --
29 A. I sent you the compliments slip I think I had in my records. I think it's
14:12:33 30 Phil Reilly's signature that's on it.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
89
14:12:35 1 Q. 590 And that's at 1012. Can I just ask you, do you recall whether that money was
2 sought on your behalf or by you from Monarch or whether it was given by
3 Monarch?
4 A. No, it wasn't sought because I'm fairly certain I never wrote looking for money
14:12:47 5 for myself nor for the constituency. I did write for fundraising events
6 frequently but not for actual donations.
7 Q. 591 Yes. But you would have known Mr. Reilly at in stage?
8 A. Yes, I would have known him quite well. Yes, I did.
9 Q. 592 And you acknowledge that as we see at 1011 on 20th of November 1992. And then
14:13:03 10 I think in -- if we move to 1993. If I could have sorry -- just before I
11 leave 1992. I think there were other contributions by Monarch. At 1582 I
12 think there was a contribution of 200 pounds in January of 1992. As a
13 fundraiser to the Progressive Democrats. And I think Mr. Lohan got a General
14 Election contribution of 400 pounds on the 20th of October, as we see there.
14:13:31 15 Isn't that right?
16 A. Well clearly you have the records, yes. I wouldn't haven't aware of
17 Mr. Lohan's donation, yes. But the fund raising, yes.
18 Q. 593 And I think at 3975 there was a hamper later that year which was given by the
19 Monarch interest. I think if we go to 1993. At 1583 there was Helen Keogh I
14:13:49 20 think had a fund-raising event and may in fact have received a contribution of
21 100 pounds. And I think there was a further letter from you to Mr. Reilly.
22 In May 1993 if we have 4200. Where it would appear from the records that 200
23 pounds towards the cost of two tickets for again a luncheon was provided.
14:14:12 25 Q. 594 Now --
26 A. Normally every year I have a fund-raising lunch and it would be .... well known
27 to people.
28 Q. 595 Sorry, I've interrupted you.
29 A. Sorry.
14:14:21 30 Q. 596 I didn't mean to. Sorry. I think you wrote also to Mr. Monahan at that time

www.pcr.ie Day 654
90
14:14:25 1 later in May at 4217. And we see the contributions. Then in 1994 at 1584, I
2 think the Progressive Democrats again through Helen Keogh, had an interest free
3 loan of 2,000 pounds given on the 1st of February 1994. And I think there
4 were tickets on the 5th of May to the tune of 200 pounds given. And I think
14:14:46 5 in December 1994 as we see at 5517 there was a hamper I think, maybe given to
6 you in relation to -- by the Monarch interest. At 1585 for 1985 I think there
7 was 200 pounds given on the 26th of January 1995 to the Progressive Democrats
8 fund-raiser.
14:15:03 10 And on the 18th of May of that year a further 100 pounds. And then in 1996 I
11 think at 1586, there were just a series of payments. I'll just do them very
12 quickly. You will see them there on the 29th of March '96 to councillor
13 Sheila Terry, Local Election expenses of 500 pounds.
14 On the 25th of April Progressive Democrats fundraiser 500 pounds. On the 2nd
14:15:25 15 May, Progressive Democrats, tickets 50 pounds. On the 27th of June, Helen
16 Keogh lunch 200 pounds. On the 23rd of August Councillor Larry Lohan, tickets
17 250 pounds.
18
19 And I think Helen Keogh wrote to Mr. Lynn in relation to a further event. You
14:15:39 20 see there at 5815 on the 22nd of April '96. And I think you wrote to
21 Mr. Reilly yourself on the 29th of October 1996. That's at 6115. That's a
22 letter I think that you may have referred to earlier in your capacity as leader
23 of the party.
24 A. Yes.
14:15:55 25 Q. 597 And you will have seen that. There's a further hamper I think.
26 A. Can I just say in relation to the hampers. I see from your documentation to a
27 large number of hampers were given. They were food hampers and I actually
28 used to give them away because at Christmas in the past, not so any more, one
29 would get a lot of hampers at Christmas time. And certainly food hampers
14:16:18 30 generally, I would give away. I just want to clarify that.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
91
14:16:29 1 Q. 598 Just for completeness obviously you will appreciate that --
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 599 At 1587 for 1997 on the 28th of February Helen Keogh fundraiser 500. On 14th
4 of March Councillor Helen Keogh, PD tickets 100 pounds. And then on the 3rd
14:16:33 5 of June 1997, progressive Democrats Dublin southwest General Election
6 contribution 3,000 pounds. I think there had been a General Election called
7 in May 1997 which took place in early June '97.
8 A. Yes. And that donation was given for my election campaign and that of Colm
9 Tyndall but because the sum was large I gave it into the party centrally, which
14:16:57 10 I think I've acknowledged. So it didn't go into the constituency in fact.
11 Q. 600 Yes. And in fact at 6436, just for completeness, I think the cheque was made
12 payable to Progressive Democrats Dublin south -- it wasn't a cheque made
13 payable to you, isn't that right?
14 A. No, that's right.
14:17:11 15 Q. 601 And we'll see it going through there. And then I think in more recent times.
16 Either Mr. Lynn on behalf of another company or through another company I think
17 made contributions to the party. If we have 1375. I think there is at No. 7
18 you will see there "Contribution to Dun Laoghaire adult education board
19 requested by councillor Larry Lohan of 800 pounds." And then at No. 8 you
14:17:36 20 will see Progressive Democrats, grand draw 400 pounds contributed on the 25th
21 of February 1999.
22
23 And then at No. 13 there's a national fundraising draw tickets for Progressive
24 Democrats, 500 pounds on the 15th March 1999. And at 14 a golf classic in aid
14:17:52 25 of Colm Tyndall held on 25th of March 1999, 500 pounds. And then at 1377
26 there was a business lunch for the Progressive Democrats organised through
27 Senator Helen Keogh of 600 pounds contributed in October 1999, isn't that
28 right?
14:18:09 30 Q. 602 Would it be fair to say that the Monarch interest was a source of political

www.pcr.ie Day 654
92
14:18:16 1 contributions to individual members of the party and to the party over the
2 period in question, isn't that right?
4 Q. 603 Did anybody within the party ever canvass or lobby you for support either for
14:18:28 5 yourself or through, for any of your councillors for any of theirs projects?
6 A. No, not to the best of my knowledge. As I told this Tribunal on a previous
7 occasion, once I left the council if somebody lobbied me for a developer I
8 would automatically refer them to the councils. I just didn't get involved.
9 Q. 604 Yes.
14:18:43 10 A. And the only planning I would have got involved in was either individual once
11 off housing for constituents, which I'd still be involved with. Or attempts
12 made to rezone green belts which I was very involved with but other than that.
13 So if somebody did, if for example Mr. Reilly, who I saw frequently, mentioned
14 Cherrywood to me I would have told him to talk to the councillors, in this case
14:19:03 15 it would have been Helen Keogh and Larry Lohan who were in that area. I
16 certainly don't have any recollection of that.
17 Q. 605 Of that. Okay. And you may not be familiar with the Cherrywood proposals.
18 Because you had left the council I think in June '91. But you are familiar
19 with the rezoning process and the publication of the draft maps and that.
14:19:21 20 A. Sure.
21 Q. 606 If I could have 7216. On 27th of May 1992. The Cherrywood areas with up for
22 review by the council. And there was a motion by Councillors Barrett and
23 Dockrell that the lands in question would be zoned at one house to the acre.
24 In other words, the Manager's proposals were four houses to the acre. And the
14:19:40 25 manageress proposals had been unsuccessful and Councillor Barrett seconded by
26 Dockrell had suggested one house to the acre on the lands. And we see there
27 if you look at the councillors who voted in favour of those proposals. They
28 are on screen now. Would I be right in thinking that Councillors Cass, Keane,
29 Lohan, Morrissey, perhaps Quinn, Tyndall and Terry would have been Progressive
14:20:06 30 Democrat councillors at that time or ...?

www.pcr.ie Day 654
93
14:20:08 1 A. I'm not sure about Larry Lohan because he left the party around that time.
2 But certainly the others, yes.
3 Q. 607 Now, if we go then to the 11th of November 1993. At 7259, you will see there
4 a motion by Councillors Smyth seconded by Councillor Buckley. That the change
14:20:26 5 which has just now been voted in favour of been confirmed effectively at low
6 density housing at two houses to the hectare or one house to the acre. So in
7 other words you've had the draft plan containing a change No. 3 in accordance
8 with that successful motion. And then that plan is put on public display and
9 it comes back for further debate. And the first motion up is a motion by
14:20:52 10 Councillors Smyth and Buckley. That that change be confirmed. And that
11 motion at 7261. The actual text of the motion is at 7259. But if we look at
12 7261 you see at the very bottom of the page "The motion proposed by Councillor
13 Smyth, seconded by Councillor Buckley was put and on a division the vote
14 resulted as follows." And if we look at 7262.
14:21:17 15
16 Councillors Cass, Keane, Keogh, Lohan, Morrissey, Quinn, Terry and Tyndall all
17 vote against it. Which appears to be a total reversal of the position that
18 they would have adopted the previous year. In other words, they had supported
19 a proposal the previous year that the lands be zoned at one house to the acre.
14:21:37 20 A motion a year subsequently comes before the council confirming that prior
21 position and the vote against it. Do you know anything about that or?
22 A. No, I don't.
23 Q. 608 Was there any discussion within the party?
24 A. Definitely not. In fact, even since the Tribunal began I haven't discussed it
14:21:54 25 with them, to be honest with you. And I know you've had most of them here
26 before you.
27 Q. 609 Okay. Thank you very much.
28 A. Thank you. Thank you.
29

www.pcr.ie Day 654
94
14:22:02 1 A. Thank you very much.
14:22:05 5
6 CHAIRMAN: Now, Mr. Dunlop.
8 CONTINUATION OF QUESTIONING OF MR. FRANK DUNLOP BY MR. MURPHY
9 AS FOLLOWS:
14:22:39 10
11 Q. 610 MR. MURPHY: Sorry, Chairman.
12 Sorry, Mr. Dunlop, I would like to just resume with an answer you gave just
13 before lunch.
14
14:23:22 15 The answer is on screen -- sorry. I'll just read out the answer. "Why would
16 they be something annoyed? That's the councillors. And the answer is well
17 because of the heavy lobbying that had gone on between Monarch and them and
18 commitments that they had entered into and obviously assurances that had been
19 given that this would be successful."
14:23:44 20
21 "Now, what are the assurances and what are the commitments? What commitments
22 that they had entered into?" And your answer is "The commitment to support it.
23 And the assurances that they would do everything within their power for it.
24 What would that be? Voting for it."
14:24:01 25
26 So what I was asking you about is why these people, these Fianna Fail
27 councillors would have been very distressed with the result of the May '92
28 motion. Mr. Barrett's motion. And you've -- I've asked you what commitments
29 they gave. What you meant by that. And the commitments you were referring
14:24:17 30 to would have been commitments to support it.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
95
14:24:19 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 611 To support the motion. Which the Manager's proposals proposed by Mr. Lydon
3 earlier that day, they would have supported it in that way, isn't that right?
4 A. Correct.
14:24:30 5 Q. 612 That would have been your commitment. Now, could you tell me what the
6 assurances and obviously assurances that had been given that this would be
7 successful.
9 What assurances would have been given to Monarch that the proposal to increase
14:24:46 10 the density as they wished would be successful.
11
12 CHAIRMAN: These are assurances that Mr. Dunlop would know of his own?
13
14 MR. MURPHY: Yes.
14:24:54 15
16 CHAIRMAN: Of his own rather than what he might have heard on the grapevine.
17
18 MR. MURPHY: Well both beginning with -- chairman, I'm just coming back to --
19 like, he says that one of the reasons they're very distressed is because they
14:25:06 20 would have given assurances that the motion would be successful.
21
22 CHAIRMAN: Well is that something that -- just explain, Mr. Dunlop, how you
23 came to be aware of that. Is that something you knew of your own knowledge or
24 was told to you?
14:25:18 25 A. No, that was something that was told to me. Obviously, the -- thank you,
26 Mr. Redmond.
27
28 That was something that was told to me by Mr. Lynn and/or Mr. Reilly. I would
29 not have been aware of any assurances that would have been given prior to the
14:25:42 30 point -- to my arrival on the scene but given the method of lobbying of

www.pcr.ie Day 654
96
14:25:51 1 councillors, people would -- anybody worth his salt lobbying a councillor would
2 do the sums, would do the figures. Would add up the heads and say who was
3 going to vote and who was not.
14:26:10 5
6 MR. HUMPHREYS: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Humphreys on behalf of Senator Lydon.
7 Just one point for clarification.
8 What was referred to yesterday as the Manager's motion, if you like. The
9 motion that was defeated, 35 - 33. Was referred to as the Manager's motion
14:26:26 10 which is what it was because it was the Manager's Report for the whole valley.
11 But just before lunch it was referred to as Mr. Lydon's motion. There could
12 be just some just clarification.
13 A. Do you know, I think that is correct.
14
14:26:44 15 MR. MURPHY: That's my fault.
16 A. I think that's correct.
17
18 MR. HUMPHREYS: Sorry to interrupt. It just needed clarifying. May it
19 please the Tribunal.
14:26:45 20
21 CHAIRMAN: That's all right.
22
23 MR. MURPHY: It's the manager's --
24 A. Yes.
14:26:47 25 Q. 613 Proposals and motion proposed by Mr. Lydon I think is ...
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 614 Mr. Dunlop, the only reason I'm asking you this is because you gave a sworn
28 answer that these councillors, you've painted the picture of these people being
29 very, they are looking for a scapegoat. They blame Don Lydon. They might
14:27:04 30 well -- I can't quite read what it is. They were might well -- might really

www.pcr.ie Day 654
97
14:27:08 1 annoyed that this has happened. I'm not sure what the words are that you
2 used. But anyway, you were clearly very annoyed. I ask you why would they
3 be so annoyed. And you say that the heavy lobbying that had gone on between
4 Monarch and them. Perhaps just look at that. That comes first.
14:27:25 5
6 What are you referring to there ?
7 A. The heavy lobbying?
8 Q. 615 Yes.
9 A. I think I have alluded to and directly given evidence in this, to this effect
14:27:33 10 over the course of the last two days. One is that Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly
11 conducted a very professional campaign with the councillors right across the
12 political divide in relation to what Monarch wanted.
13 Q. 616 Now, pause. I accept that.
14 A. Okay.
14:27:54 15 Q. 617 But I don't think that because the Monarch people put a lot of work into
16 something and a lot of lobbying, which would make it understandable that when
17 the motion failed they'd be very upset. I don't think the councillors would
18 be upset. Simply because Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly had spent a lot of time
19 talking to the councillors. I don't see why the councillors would be
14:28:12 20 extremely upset with the defeat of the motion. Unless there's something else.
21 A. No. I don't think there is. There is something else. But as I said to you
22 just before lunch. When I was admiring your nativity in this matter, is that
23 councillors in this area -- when a motion is put forward at the council and
24 commitments are entered into or assurances given as to support, councillors
14:28:41 25 want to move on. They want to deal with that issue and move on to other
26 issues or move on to other motions or to move on to other commitments or
27 assurance that is they have given to other people. They would be upset
28 because Monarch was upset and because Monarch's upset was transmitted to them
29 through Richard or Philip.
14:29:01 30 Q. 618 When you say they were upset, which you say they were very upset and because of

www.pcr.ie Day 654
98
14:29:04 1 the heavy lobbying. Is it obvious -- what you're really saying there is that
2 they had been paid a lot of money?
3 A. No, I did not say that. And I don't think that's an inference that I can
4 make.
14:29:16 5 Q. 619 All right.
6 A. Certainly you can make it because it's your privilege to make it.
7 Q. 620 All right.
8 A. But I can't make it because I can't sustain that.
9 Q. 621 But you're not hinting at that. You are talking about genuine heavy lobbying?
14:29:30 10 A. No, no, sorry Mr. Murphy, let me be absolutely clear here now. In dealing
11 with County Councillors you will get a cross-section of society. You will get
12 people who when they say yes mean yes. You will get people when they say yes
13 mean yes or no, you will get people when they say yes mean no and you will get
14 people who when they say yes mean maybe. And lobbying these councillors was a
14:29:53 15 difficult exercise. So Richard Lynn and Phil Reilly had done a very good job
16 in calculating what support would be available. And the people who were
17 really committed to it and who had assured Richard Lynn and Philip Reilly in an
18 unqualified way in an uncategoric way that they would support him were bloody
19 annoyed that the thing happened the way they did, legitimately.
14:30:18 20 Q. 622 Who were?
21 A. Any councillors who gave --
22 Q. 623 The councillors, yes.
23 A. Councillors who gave support. Let's stand into, if I may do so for a second,
24 the shoes of either Richard Lynn or Philip Reilly. I would be bloody annoyed.
14:30:33 25 And I would express my annoyance to all sections including people who had given
26 assurances that they would support it. Notwithstanding that they may have
27 voted for it.
28 Q. 624 Now, Mr. Dunlop, I know you're talking about assurances. The commitment to
29 support it and assurances that they would do everything within their power
14:30:58 30 to -- sorry for it. But a question earlier you said "And obviously assurances

www.pcr.ie Day 654
99
14:31:03 1 that had been given that this would be successful." So you've said to the
2 three Judges that councillors had -- councillors had given assurances that
3 this -- that this -- that what Monarch was looking for would be successful?
4 A. Yes.
14:31:20 5 Q. 625 What do you -- I don't -- what does that mean?
6 A. The councillors that Richard Lynn and Philip Reilly had lobbied in the context
7 of any motions by Monarch -- on behalf of Monarch or the Manager's Report that
8 Monarch was supporting, taking Mr. Humphreys' point, that was put down in the
9 name of or for voting on behalf -- by Don Lydon and others. That they would
14:31:48 10 say yes.
11 Q. 626 No, no, that's not what that's saying. I mean, a councillor can give an
12 assurance to Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly that he will vote for it and support it
13 and he can carry that out. But he gives an assurance that this will be
14 successful is a different matter?
14:32:04 15 A. Sorry.
16 Q. 627 How does an individual councillor. You know what I mean?
17 A. Sorry I beg your pardon.
18 Q. 628 How does an individual councillor give an assurance to Mr. Lynn that the
19 Manager's motion will be successful?
14:32:15 20 A. In the vote? That would take place on it.
21 Q. 629 Yes.
22 A. Because these councillors talked to one another. Some councillors would
23 operate as surrogate lobbiests within their own party --
24 Q. 630 Yes.
14:32:28 25 A. -- on behalf of Richard Lynn.
26 Q. 631 Yes.
27 A. Or Phil Reilly and would talk to other councillors of their acquaintance and
28 say look I'm voting for this.
29 Q. 632 Uh-huh.
14:32:38 30 A. This is a matter that would have been discussed. Notwithstanding any evidence

www.pcr.ie Day 654
100
14:32:41 1 that you've heard to date. This would be a matter that would be discussed in
2 party rooms prior to a vote. As to its status and what support it was going
3 to get. And the people who would be 100 percent in favour of it would make it
4 clear that they were 100 percent in favour of it and there would be councillors
14:33:02 5 who would say well, you know, without reducing matters at absurd -- well if
6 Henry is in favour of that well I'll be in favour of that because I know
7 Henry's judgement in this is good.
8 Q. 633 Yes.
9 A. And Henry may well be the local councillor.
14:33:20 10 Q. 634 All right. So obviously, it makes an awful lot of sense. There are chats
11 and discussions that go on among the councillors informally?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. 635 And on the day there's a meeting, isn't that right? There's a party meeting
14 Fianna Fail would have a party meeting?
14:33:34 15 A. Well just to be absolutely certain about that.
16 Q. 636 Yes.
17 A. It depends on the particular meeting. There may not be a meeting on the
18 particular day because there were a succession of meetings. But there would
19 have been a meeting at some stage.
14:33:45 20 Q. 637 All right.
21 A. Which would discuss various motions which were coming up.
22 Q. 638 Yes. And does that mean then that there's a sort of eventually by the time
23 the day of the motion comes up there's a party, a Fianna Fail consensus as to
24 how they vote on a particular motion?
14:34:00 25 A. There's a Fianna Fail whip.
26 Q. 639 A whip?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 640 All right. Now, wait now. I'm just jumping a little bit now, but in
29 relation to November '93. Does that mean that on the day then that the Fianna
14:34:13 30 Fail councillors will all vote the same way?

www.pcr.ie Day 654
101
14:34:16 1 A. Oh, unless you have a Maverick in the camp or you may have more than one
2 Maverick in the camp.
3 Q. 641 All right. And who imposes the whip?
4 A. The whip. The person who is the whip of the group.
14:34:33 5 Q. 642 There is a whip. Who is the whip?
6 A. Well it depends on who the whip was at the particular time.
7 Q. 643 Who was the whip in May '92.
8 A. Was it GV Wright?
9 Q. 644 I don't know. Who was it anyway when you were there -- well you were there in
14:34:46 10 May '92. Who was it when you were there in November '93?
11 A. Um, I'm virtually certain it was GV Wright. I'm not 100 percent about that
12 now because there was a succession of people.
13 Q. 645 Mr. Wright you think was the whip.
14
14:35:01 15 CHAIRMAN: Sorry, Mr. Murphy. I'm just concerned. Where are you getting
16 this knowledge?
17 A. Which knowledge?
18
19 CHAIRMAN: I mean, you were never a member of the Fianna Fail party as a
14:35:10 20 councillor.
21 A. I was never a member of the Fianna Fail party per se, Chairman.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: So I'm just wondering. We've had evidence directly from
24 councillors as to what went on or what didn't go on at these meetings or
14:35:23 25 whatever there was a whip or the extent of the whip. But your knowledge is,
26 presumably, just hearsay.
27 A. Well the -- sorry. These meetings took place in the upper room in Conways, if
28 you'll forgive the description. There was a party room as such.
29
14:35:51 30 CHAIRMAN: We know that.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
102
14:35:51 1 A. I was often in Conway's pub while these meetings were going on. And after
2 they concluded I would be told. I'm not specifically speaking about this one
3 now. But I would be told what had been decided. What attitude had been
4 adopted. And we're for it or whatever.
14:35:59 5
6 CHAIRMAN: All right. So you didn't have direct knowledge of what went on in
7 the --
8 A. No, I didn't attend these meetings. Never attended any such meeting.
14:36:09 10 Q. 646 MR. MURPHY: All right. So we're kind of anticipating November '93 back in
11 March when you are at these meetings with Mr. Lynn and Reilly. And you know
12 that's what's going to happen is on the day. The Fianna Fail councillors will
13 go into the room upstairs in Conways and somebody and they'll agree things and
14 somebody will come out and tell you what's happened?
14:36:27 15 A. Yeah. But with respect, Mr. Murphy. You haven't followed through on what I
16 said. It may not necessarily be that that meeting took place on that day.
17 That meeting could have taken place two days earlier.
18 Q. 647 That doesn't really matter does it?
19 A. No it doesn't but it is of importance in this sense; that it would have been
14:36:44 20 known therefore maybe a day, two days, a week beforehand what the attitude of
21 the Fianna Fail party was going to be.
22 Q. 648 All right. But what I really want to know is, Mr. Dunlop, if that's the
23 situation -- your target now are these 25 or so Fianna Fail councillors for the
24 next eight months?
14:37:06 25 A. Yeah.
26 Q. 649 And you know that more than likelihood on the previous practice they'll meet
27 some day or days before the council meeting and they'll agree a strategy which
28 will be which way they're going to vote on the various motions, isn't that
29 right?
14:37:21 30 A. Correct. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
103
14:37:22 1 Q. 650 And you'll be told all of that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 651 All right. Now, I presume a very influential person is the person you are
4 referring to as the whip?
14:37:28 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 652 And I understand that Mr. GV Wright has been in evidence here. I know he has.
7 But he has said that I think he referred to himself as being the leader of the
8 council.
9 A. Yes.
14:37:37 10 Q. 653 Right. And I take it that the leader would be very influential?
11 A. Yes. Sorry. Just I really don't mean to delay this any longer than is
12 necessary. But the leader of the group might be something of a figure head.
13 Q. 654 Okay.
14 A. The whip is the person, what the -- that's why the word is the whip. He takes
14:37:57 15 out the whip and he whips them in. Its like bringing hounds to the hunt.
16 Q. 655 I thought when I was putting to you about GV Wright being the leader that he
17 was the whip?
18 A. Whoever is actually the whip who goes out to Conways, who goes out to the hotel
19 next door and says listen lads get in there's a vote on.
14:38:15 20 Q. 656 Mr. Dunlop, the whip is the important person?
21 A. The whip is the important man. Yes.
22 Q. 657 Not the leader?
23 A. Not really.
24 Q. 658 The whip. Would you have known between March and November who the whip would
14:38:24 25 have been at the November meetings?
26 A. Oh, yes I would at the time, yes.
27 Q. 659 Who was the whip?
28 A. As I said to you earlier on, GV Wright's name comes to mind immediately.
29 Q. 660 Oh sorry it's still GV Wright?
14:38:36 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
104
14:38:36 1 Q. 661 Oh, right.
2 A. I don't mean to suggest again that there was any further complications. But
3 the whip -- when you are a whip at one particular time doesn't mean that you
4 stay whip all of the time. For example, Pat Dunne was the whip for years and
14:38:52 5 years.
6 Q. 662 I'm only talking about '93?
7 A. Exactly. But it changes. GV was a key person.
8 Q. 663 Uh-huh. GV was a key person. Now, Mr. Dunlop, at this meeting with Mr. Lynn
9 and Reilly. You've told me now when that's over you know, you've got the
14:39:15 10 Fianna Fail 25 or so councillors to concentrate on. And it seems that the
11 whip was GV Wright?
12 A. Subject to correction.
13 Q. 664 Subject to correction. That's all correct, isn't it?
14 A. Yeah.
14:39:28 15 Q. 665 Now, so they were going to be -- that was your brief then was it for the next
16 while then? You were the person going to discuss it with these people?
17 A. I was going to approach them and talk to them about it.
18 Q. 666 All right. And now the day after your meeting with Mr. Sweeney, for the first
19 time, you've a clear picture as to how many councillors are involved and how
14:39:53 20 many Fianna Fail people and what your brief is and getting to the heart of it
21 then. You know roughly how much money you're going to have to spend to turn
22 this around for, on behalf of Monarch, isn't that right?
23 A. Sorry, at which stage are you? Sorry.
24 Q. 667 This meeting with Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly.
14:40:14 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 668 You now you've to concentrate on the 25 Fianna Fail councillors?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 669 So you now have fairly good idea. You must have a fairly good idea as to how
29 much you're going to have to spend?
14:40:26 30 A. No, not necessarily.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
105
14:40:28 1 Q. 670 Why?
2 A. Because the system was in one sense relatively simple, you approach somebody,
3 councillor. You talk to him about support or otherwise.
4 Q. 671 Yes.
14:40:36 5 A. And you wait.
6 Q. 672 Yes.
7 A. Or you don't wait. You're asked or money is mentioned or some sort of --
8 Q. 673 Yes.
9 A. -- inducement --
14:40:47 10 Q. 674 All right.
11 A. Is referred to. And then a discussion takes place or an agreement is made.
12 And that is when you know.
13 Q. 675 All right. And you had a team of 15 or so I think you said in the teams I
14 think you said yesterday of councillors to whom over the years of the
14:41:03 15 Development Plan you had paid money?
16 A. Yes, 10 to 15. Yes.
17 Q. 676 And I think you said you did paid them in a lot of the --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 677 I don't think you said in all of the developments but a lot of them?
14:41:12 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 678 I think you said on other occasions that it was 1,000 or 2,000 pounds each?
22 A. Correct.
24 A. Yes.
14:41:18 25 Q. 680 So you paid either 1,000 or 2,000 to them?
26 A. Yes. And there were instances earlier than 1993 where other bigger larger
27 figures were paid.
29 A. Five and three and ...
14:41:30 30 Q. 682 All right.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
106
14:41:30 1 A. And we've gone through that in another module.
2 Q. 683 And you know from your experience. You could go down the list of those 25
3 councillors and say those people have never asked me before so I can cross them
4 out. These are the people who always ask me. So you can make a simple
14:41:46 5 calculation in five minutes as to how many councillors are going to ask you for
6 money. You are going to pay them, because you have to. And you know what,
7 whether it's going to be 1,000 or 2,000. So I suggest to you that evening you
8 were able to make the sums as to how much you're going to have to pay out?
9 A. No.
14:42:02 10 Q. 684 Why not?
11 A. Again, going back to what I said to you earlier on. Is that you make the
12 approach. You talk to the individual councillor and you wait.
13 Q. 685 You are repeating yourself, Mr. Dunlop?
14 A. I know I am because that's the answer to the question.
14:42:16 15 Q. 686 There's no reason.
16 A. You've asked the same question again twice.
17 Q. 687 Please tell the intelligent people in this room how on that occasion you, the
18 experienced lobbiest, the person who has paid out a fortune, who has got a
19 fortune, huge experience of the Development Plan of all of these meetings and
14:42:34 20 how much has to be paid out, of vital importance has to be to anybody getting a
21 fee to something how much they are going to have to spend. It's now the
22 second day. You have all of the information you need. You know what you're
23 up against. You must know how much you're likely to spend on councillors.
24
14:42:51 25 For example you have to pay 25 councillors the Fianna Fail fellas and say it's
26 2,000 each you're going to have to spend 50 grand but you know that's never
27 happened. So please tell me, Mr. Dunlop, looking after your own business and
28 your own family and everything, back then in March 1993, what conclusion you
29 came to about how much this was going to cost you?
14:43:12 30 A. I've already answered the question. And let me give you the answer again.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
107
14:43:16 1 No, in the mechanics of the operation you approached the councillors, you talk
2 to them. You seek their support. And if a discussion is initiated by them
3 in relation to support and by support I mean financial support. Then
4 discussion takes place, negotiation takes place.
14:43:35 5 Q. 688 Had you ever gone to Mr. Tony Fox, on your evidence, in any other module, in
6 any other development, that he didn't ask you for money?
7 A. No.
8 Q. 689 Of the 25 how many did that apply to?
9 A. Oh, gosh. Um, um, I would say -- something similar to the answer I gave you
14:43:57 10 yesterday. 10 to 15.
11 Q. 690 In other words, the core of the Fianna Fail councillors who were on your team?
12 A. Uh-huh.
13 Q. 691 Let's take them at 15 -- let's take 12 for a second. It's in the middle is it
14 between 10 and 15?
14:44:10 15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. 692 We'll take 12 of the councillors have always asked you to pay?
17 A. Yes, in a large -- not all -- not always in the same development.
18 Q. 693 Okay.
19 A. Particularly relating where the development was. And the level of lobbying
14:44:23 20 that you would do with them and what you required them to do.
21 Q. 694 I'm not going to ask you just at this moment. If I put up a list on the board
22 of 25 councillors?
23 A. Uh-huh.
24 Q. 695 And we came down to 10 to 15 that are your team?
14:44:35 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 696 And if we said. Take just and you're saying that, you know, usually in the
27 developments they ask for money?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 697 And how many of them would be 1,000 how many of them would be 2,000?
14:44:49 30 A. Well, as I said to you earlier there, the vast majority of them are in the

www.pcr.ie Day 654
108
14:44:54 1 region of 1,000 it to 2,000.
2 Q. 698 All right.
3 A. There were instances where five was paid and instances where three was paid.
4 Q. 699 For going to just for convenience leave that out for a second. I'm going to
14:45:04 5 leave that out and take it at 1,500 as an average between the 1,000 and 2 down.
6 A. Right.
7 Q. 700 1,500 Mr. Dunlop. Now, Mr. Dunlop, this is me knowing nothing about this and
8 not having any interest in your financial affairs. Working out with you in a
9 very few minutes how much you're bribing of these councillors is going to cost
14:45:23 10 in March '93. And it's going to be an average of 1,500, because it's either
11 1,000 or 2,000. So it's 1,500. And we're going to take 15 councillors.
12 Because that's the outer. That's the highest. That's the most -- that's the
13 highest number of your team. All right? So that's 15 councillors. 15,000
14 and a half. I make that 22,500. You would normally expect 15 of these 25
14:45:53 15 councillors to ask you for money. You would normally give it to them. You
16 would be giving them 1,000 or 2000 so that this development is going to cost
17 you in or around 22,500. Is that right?
18 A. No.
19 Q. 701 No.
14:46:11 20 A. I would not have made that calculation. I'm going back again to what I said
21 to you in relation to approaching them.
22 Q. 702 Please don't repeat for the sixth time the nonsense that you gave me as an
23 answer ago a moment ago?
24 A. Mr. Murphy --
14:46:24 25
26 CHAIRMAN: Sorry.
27 A. Don't.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: Wait now. Could we just stop there. Could Mr. Dunlop tell us in
14:46:30 30 relation to Monarch how he went about, assuming he did, how you went about

www.pcr.ie Day 654
109
14:46:38 1 assessing the numbers of councillors that you might have to pay or would have
2 to pay and what sort of money might be involved.
3 A. Right.
14:46:47 5 CHAIRMAN: And then if we could go from there to the point where you actually
6 decide --
7 A. Yes.
9 CHAIRMAN -- who you are going to pay and then tell us how you went about that
14:46:57 10 and who said what to whom.
11 A. Yes. Right. That's relatively simple, Chairman.
12 I knew that I was going to be asked for money by some people, whether it was
13 going to be 10, 15, 1 or 2. I did not know. So therefore I could not make a
14 calculation. As I said to Mr. Murphy, it depended on the actual interface
14:47:18 15 with councillors, individual councillors.
16
17 CHAIRMAN: Just explain then what happened.
18 A. Yes.
19
14:47:22 20 CHAIRMAN: How that came about then that interface?
21 A. With a councillor. Well we're moving forward fairly rapidly as to the number
22 of councillors that I spoke to, which would have been the vast majority of the
23 Fianna Fail councillors on the council at the time and talked to them. Let
24 them know that I was involved. Now involved with Monarch. And that whatever
14:47:48 25 needed to be done they would support it or continue to support it on the basis
26 that they had supported it heretofore. In the event I was asked for money by
27 two people. That, in summary, is what occurred.
28
29 Mr. Murphy's point about sitting down and calculating after my meeting with
14:48:10 30 Mr. Richard Lynn and Mr. Reilly leaves out one key ingredient. And that is,

www.pcr.ie Day 654
110
14:48:15 1 evidence that I have already given to Mr. Murphy and to the Tribunal. That,
2 yes, I had a suspicion that some of these people were paid already.
4 CHAIRMAN: But you say only two asked for money?
14:48:25 5 A. Correct.
7 CHAIRMAN: Does that mean the other whatever number it is --
8 A. Didn't.
14:48:30 10 CHAIRMAN -- didn't ask for money?
11 A. Correct. Only two asked and the others didn't.
12
13 CHAIRMAN: All right. All right. Go on.
14 A. Is that okay?
14:48:38 15
16 CHAIRMAN: So what happened then?
17 A. Well then I agreed with the two. I had a discussion with the two. The two
18 being Tony Fox and Colm McGrath. I had a discussion with them. Mr. Fox made
19 a comment in relation to Monarch to the effect that they were pretty mean.
14:49:02 20 Which I understood to mean that there had been some discussion or negotiation
21 or an attempt by him to get money from Monarch prior to my involvement and that
22 he may have got some. But I had no evidence to that effect. And in
23 Mr. McGrath's case, Mr. McGrath entered into negotiation and we ended up at
24 two. Mr. McGrath was looking for more than what I was prepared to give him.
14:49:29 25
26 CHAIRMAN: All right. Sorry, Mr. Murphy.
27
28 Q. 703 MR. MURPHY: Now, Mr. Dunlop, you say you paid these two councillors. That's
29 what happened when you went to them and I understand that.
14:49:53 30 A. Yes, sorry, yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
111
14:49:53 1 Q. 704 And I understand the situation can change when you go to them. You are going
2 to lobby the 25 Fianna Fail councillors. Maybe more than your 15 will ask for
3 your money, maybe less. All I'm talking about is the calculation in the
4 businessman's mind as to what the expenses will be out of his fee?
14:50:06 5 A. Uh-huh.
6 Q. 705 And he's on day two.
7 A. Uh-huh.
8 Q. 706 He knows the picture. Now, could I have, please, page 7263. Mr. Dunlop --
9 A. Yep.
14:50:35 10 Q. 707 Page 7263.
11 A. What's this.
12 Q. 708 I think if I'm right. I hope I'm right now. The following motion
13 proposed -- this is November '93 the big meeting.
14 A. This is the motion presented by Councillor Marren to increase the density?
14:50:53 15 Sorry.
16
18 A. Yes, it is it is, yes. This is the motion, it was the final motion that opened
19 the door for the higher density, is this correct?
14:51:03 20 Q. 709 MR. MURPHY: It's the motion that reversed the Barrett motion. Is that
21 right? That's what I'm looking for anyway.
22 A. I'll give it to you.
23
24 JUDGE FAHERTY: Mr. Murphy, this is the 11th of November. This the Donal
14:51:12 25 Marren/Betty Coffey motion.
26
27 MR. MURPHY: Thank you.
28 A. Yes. Judge Faherty is right. It is the motion to delete change three.
29
14:51:20 30 MR. MURPHY: All right. That's enough.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
112
14:51:21 1 A. And restore the high density that the Manager was requesting.
2 Q. 710 Thank you Mr. Dunlop. This motion is passed 44 to 27.
3 A. Correct, yes.
4 Q. 711 In November '93 and as a result of that, we are now back in a situation. It's
14:51:36 5 successful Monarch and it's 44 -- it's four houses per acre?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 712 Right. So now this is -- this is the high point. I mean, when this is
8 passed we're very happy. Isn't that right?
14:51:50 10 Q. 713 Now, just as quickly as you can, Mr. Dunlop. I want you to look at those, the
11 names of those who voted for. The 44 is for, isn't it? The 44 who voted for.
12 And I want you to call out only the names of the Fianna Fail councillors, the
13 15 or so on your team.
14 A. Yes. Okay.
14:52:14 15 Q. 714 Now, just go through it. Start with S Ardagh, go on to C Boland. Go through
16 each line as quickly as you can.
17 A. Well, Ardagh is Fianna Fail; the answer is no.
18 Cathal Boland is --
19
14:52:22 20 CHAIRMAN: I'm just concerned. We're concerned about the term "team". I
21 mean, when you say" team" you're talking about Mr. Dunlop's team.
22
23 MR. MURPHY: Yes.
24
14:52:33 25 CHAIRMAN: Just what do you mean to suggest, Mr. Dunlop, by that term?
26
27 MR. MURPHY: This is the core team. This is his team. Core team of the
28 Fianna Fail 25 or so Fianna Fail County Councillors to whom regularly in
29 developments, Mr. Dunlop has paid money.
14:52:51 30

www.pcr.ie Day 654
113
14:52:51 1 CHAIRMAN: All right. That's fine.
2 A. Right. Clear?
3 Q. 715 MR. MURPHY: Yes.
4 A. Okay. Ardagh Fianna Fail. No.
14:53:00 5 Cathal Boland Fine Gael. No.
6 Q. 716 Don't bother reading. Just go along until you find one of your team?
7 A. Sorry I thought you meant go through each of them individually. You said
8 that. Sorry.
9 Q. 717 Pick a team?
14:53:14 10 A. T Cosgrave. Tony Fox. Cyril Gallagher.
11 Q. 718 What line is Fox on?
12 A. Three.
13 Q. 719 Three. Thank you. Oh, yes. Thank you.
14 A. Cyril Gallagher. Sean Gilbride. Tom Hand. Fianna Fail.
14:53:33 15 Q. 720 Sorry. I haven't marked any of those. Fox is the only one I've taken. Are
16 you calling those names out as people of your team?
17 A. Do you want all of the team or just the Fianna Fail team.
18 Q. 721 Fianna Fail team?
19 A. Okay. Let's start again.
14:53:48 20 Q. 722 Oh wait now Mr. Dunlop for one second. A early when we were talking about the
21 meeting of the 9th of March between Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly. I understood
22 there was a Fianna Fail team?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 723 Are there others?
14:53:58 25 A. As per --
26 Q. 724 Don't mind --
27 A. No, no, the Chairman asked you a question.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: I just want us all to understand what is meant by the term "team".
14:54:07 30 There's a Fianna Fail party.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
114
14:54:09 1 A. Yes.
3 CHAIRMAN: Now, when you say "team".
4 A. Sorry, Chairman. Mr. Murphy is the man who mentioned team. My understanding
14:54:18 5 of what Mr. Murphy mentioned by team is the people right across the political
6 divide to whom I ever gave money in support of their vote or whom --
8 CHAIRMAN: Who you would normally approach.
9 A. Correct.
14:54:29 10
11 CHAIRMAN: And you might end up giving them money or not giving them money.
12 A. Correct. That includes people outside of Fianna Fail. That's why I began
13 the way I did. So, Mr. Murphy, do you want me to stick to the --
14 Q. 725 MR. MURPHY: No, I don't, Mr. Dunlop, because for one second I'm going to
14:54:47 15 divide it up.
16 A. Good.
17 Q. 726 Because when I was asking you earlier. What I put to you was out of the 70 or
18 so councillors as a result of the disaster in 1991 it came to 25 or so Fianna
19 Fail councillors. Of which you had a Fianna Fail councillor team of in or
14:54:59 20 around 15. Now, that's what I understood. And I believe you understood me.
21 Do you understand it now?
22 A. No, I don't understand it now. I do understand it now. But and I'm not
23 trying to be obstreperous or anything like that. When you mentioned payments
24 to councillors you asked me the other day. I said 10 to 15 people,
14:55:23 25 councillors to whom I paid money. They were right across the board. If you
26 want me to specifically deal with Fianna Fail ones, which I will do now. And
27 then if you want me to deal with others.
28 Q. 727 No, I don't, Mr. Dunlop, because I can make it simpler.
29 A. Okay.
14:55:37 30 Q. 728 Because at the meeting with Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly. You leave that meeting.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
115
14:55:41 1 Your brief is to persuade the Fianna Fail councillors.
2 A. All right.
3 Q. 729 Everybody else is left to somebody else?
4 A. Forget everyone else except Fianna Fail.
14:55:50 5 Q. 730 Brilliant.
6 A. And deal only with those people in Fianna Fail that I ever gave money to and I
7 expected that I might need to pay money to.
8 Q. 731 Just one second. Does that mean the team that I am referring to which is
9 councillors --
14:56:02 10
11 CHAIRMAN: There is one thing. We don't want people named who have no idea
12 that they are going to be named or haven't been named.
13
14 MR. MURPHY: No. I understand that these are on the witness list. I hope.
14:56:13 15
16 CHAIRMAN: Well we don't know.
17
18 MR. MURPHY: All right.
19
14:56:18 20 CHAIRMAN: Isn't it simpler to approach it on the basis of who he had in mind
21 in relation to Monarch?
22
23 MR. MURPHY: That is what I'm talking about, Chairman. Yeah.
24
26
27 MR. MURPHY: Chairman, sorry. If I put the question to you to see if it's
28 all right.
29
14:56:35 30 Excuse me. I want to ask Mr. Dunlop. I'm talking about his team. I'm not

www.pcr.ie Day 654
116
14:56:41 1 talking about the party. I'm talking about the Fianna Fail councillors who,
2 to whom he has paid money regularly.
4 And I understood that was 15 or so councillors.
7 MR. MURPHY: In other words, 15 or so Fianna Fail councillors to whom he
8 regularly paid money.
14:57:04 10 CHAIRMAN: No, I don't think so.
11
12 JUDGE FAHERTY: I think in fairness, Mr. Murphy. In response, all of your
13 questioning was arising from the 9th of March, as I understand it, the meeting.
14 And the discussions held with Mr. Reilly and Mr. Lynn. And Mr. Dunlop has
14:57:19 15 said here and in fairness to yourself that his brief, if you like, was to go
16 out and deal with Fianna Fail County Councillors. But in the course of those
17 answers he gave an answer to you. And my own note said that he had paid over
18 the course of the Development Plan 10 to 15 County Councillors.
19
14:57:37 20 MR. MURPHY: Yes.
21
22 JUDGE FAHERTY: Though he didn't specifically designate those as being all
23 Fianna Fail County Councillors. And I think that's where some confusion might
24 have arisen as a result.
14:57:46 25
26 MR. MURPHY: That's my mistake.
27
28 JUDGE FAHERTY: Is that -- I think in fairness, some confusion may have arisen
29 as a result.
14:57:52 30 A. That's correct, absolutely correct.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
117
14:57:53 1
2 CHAIRMAN: Well a solution might be if Mr. Dunlop looks at the list and
3 identifies those who he says he approached seeking support in relation to
4 Monarch. And, I mean, there's no ... I mean, there's no shame involved for
14:58:13 5 any of the councillors you can name in those circumstances.
7 Q. 732 MR. MURPHY: Yes. Mr. Dunlop, could you answer the Chairman then?
8 A. Yes. Could I make a suggestion to you. The Chairman, again, for ease of
9 speed is. My answer, if I was responsible for the totality of the Fianna Fail
14:58:33 10 team, to use Mr. Murphy's phrase, or the Fianna Fail Party, the Fianna Fail
11 members of the council, that would mean from the outset, from the meeting with
12 Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly, that I would go to virtually all of those and as I
13 said this morning, there was an agreement between Mr. Lynn and myself and
14 Mr. Reilly that he would keep up the link with Don Lydon because he had that
14:58:59 15 relationship. Don Lydon is Fianna Fail. That does not necessarily mean that
16 I would not have had a chat with Don Lydon about Cherrywood. Because it would
17 be stupid to suggest otherwise.
18
19 MR. HUMPHREYS: Mr. Chairman, if I may -- Gerard Humphreys on behalf of
14:59:24 20 Senator Lydon.
21
22 With respect, I would request that the question that is asked be more specific.
23 Because to group people into a team in a situation like this where it would be
24 some days or weeks before we get an opportunity to clarify it. Will only
14:59:29 25 cause further damage, particularly to members of the Oireachtas.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: Okay. We're going to drop the term "team".
28
29 MR. HUMPHREYS: Please.
14:59:37 30

www.pcr.ie Day 654
118
14:59:37 1 CHAIRMAN: Can you -- you say that you were engaged really because of your
2 Fianna Fail connection or to deal with the Fianna Fail councillors?
3 A. No. Sorry. I see the point you're making, yes.
14:59:46 5 CHAIRMAN: Can you -- of all of the Fianna Fail councillors that were there.
6 Can you identified the ones that you did not approach in any shape or form
7 seeking support? No mention of money now.
8 A. Okay.
14:59:57 10 CHAIRMAN: Can you identify the ones, if there are any, of the Fianna Fail
11 councillors who you did not approach seeking support from Monarch?
12 A. Okay. I think Chairman, it's because of the World Cup that we've got involved
13 in this, Mr. Murphy, the word "team". Sean Ardagh, I don't think so. I did
14 not approach him. No. Betty Coffey. Yes.
15:00:22 15 Q. 733 Who are you talking to?
16
17 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ardagh you said no. No. Yes.
18
19 Q. 734 MR. MURPHY: You dropped your voice?
15:00:28 20 A. Oh sorry, I dropped my voice. I beg your pardon. Right, let's start again.
21 Sean Ardagh who is Fianna Fail. No. In other words, when I say no I mean I
22 did not approach him or lobby him in relation to the Monarch property.
23
24 Um, Seamus Brock. No.
15:00:43 25 Q. 735 What about Boland and Brady?
26 A. They are Fine Gael.
27 Q. 736 Oh yes. Sorry.
28 A. Oh, Mr. Murphy, please.
29
15:00:50 30 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dunlop, there's no need for that. Mr. Dunlop, if you go

www.pcr.ie Day 654
119
15:00:54 1 through the list identifying those in Fianna Fail who you did not contact in
2 relation to or lobby.
3 A. Well Chairman, with respect that is what I am trying to do.
15:01:03 5 CHAIRMAN: That's history now. Start again. Mr. Ardagh.
6 A. Sean Ardagh, no. Seamus Brock, no. Hannon, no. Sorry that's the wrong
7 Hanrahan. What's his first name?
9 CHAIRMAN: Who are you talking about?
15:01:33 10 A. Hanrahan, no.
11
12 MR. MURPHY: Hanrahan?
13 A. Is this?
14 Q. 737 MR. MURPHY: What about Mr. Fox and?
15:01:42 15
16 CHAIRMAN: No. These are ones he didn't contact.
17 A. Mr. Chairman, can I please. This is like driving me crazy.
18
19 MR. MURPHY: Sorry, Chairman.
15:01:51 20
21 CHAIRMAN: You said Mr. Hanrahan. Go on.
22 A. Let's. Starting from the beginning.
23
24 CHAIRMAN: No, no, no we won't start from the beginning.
15:01:59 25 A. Are you asking me Chairman to name those people who I did not approach in
26 Fianna Fail.
27
28 CHAIRMAN: All right. And start with Mr. Hanrahan
29 A. That was my understanding.
15:02:08 30

www.pcr.ie Day 654
120
15:02:08 1 CHAIRMAN: Now, who is the next?
2 A. Mr. Murphy, don't interrupt me now.
4 CHAIRMAN: Wait now, Mr. Dunlop.
15:02:15 5 A. Ardagh, no. Brock, no. Hannon, no. Hanrahan, no. That's it.
7 CHAIRMAN: And are you saying of all of the others there, you did --
8 A. I made some -- I made some contact. I made some approaches to them.
11 A. On the basis of my involvement.
12
13 CHAIRMAN: And the non-fianna Fail members. You named those that you did
14 lobby?
15:03:09 15 A. That I did lobby.
16
17 CHAIRMAN: The non-fianna Fail members that you did lobby.
18 A. Right. Okay.
19 Anne Devitt. Mary Elliott. Tom Hand. Olivia Mitchell. John O'Halloran.
15:04:08 20 Therese Ridge. I think that's it.
21
22 CHAIRMAN: All right. Could you go to the next page then. 7264. These
23 are the against --
24 A. Yes.
15:04:19 25
26 CHAIRMAN -- are there any there that you did make contact with from any party?
27 A. From any party?
28
29 CHAIRMAN: Yes.
15:04:26 30 A. Right. Okay. Um. Sean Barrett. Larry Butler. No, not Eamonn Gilmore.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
121
15:04:43 1 Stanley Lydon. Who is that sorry? No. Pat Rabbitte, definitely not.
3 CHAIRMAN: Sorry?
4 A. Um, Shatter. No. That's it.
15:05:08 5
6 CHAIRMAN: All right. And of that group, two you say asked for money?
7 A. Yes.
9 CHAIRMAN: That's -- and they are who?
15:05:20 10 A. Fox and McGrath.
11
13
14 Q. 738 MR. MURPHY: Does going through that list help you as to what might have been
15:05:43 15 in your mind as to how much it would have cost you back on the 9th of March,
16 Mr. Dunlop?
17 A. Not particularly.
18 Q. 739 No. Mr. Dunlop, did somebody come back to you at some stage about Mr.
19 Monahan?
15:06:21 20 A. About Mr. Monahan? Um, in relation to? I presume you mean in relation to the
21 role he was playing that nobody could identify or control.
22 Q. 740 Correct.
23 A. Correct. No. But as is evident from my statement and from the level of
24 diary references in relation to meetings with Monarch. As I have said
15:06:49 25 Mr. Monahan attended at least one. But nobody else came back to me in
26 relation to what -- other than -- other than ongoing comments which continued
27 on for quite a period.
29 A. As to, you know, we hope Phil doesn't --
15:07:07 30 Q. 742 Rock the boat?

www.pcr.ie Day 654
122
15:07:09 1 A. Well it was a little more graphic than that.
2 Q. 743 Right. Okay. So. So I think then probably what's happening is that there
3 isn't a quick resolution of that problem. So that's travelling towards
4 November '93 at the same time as you're doing your job?
15:07:25 5 A. Yes, I don't think there was ever a resolution of that problem if I hasten to
6 add, Mr. Murphy.
7 Q. 744 Okay. I take it at some stage it was resolved to the stage that the united
8 front was finalised and you were able to present to the councillors that
9 Monarch would be satisfied by four houses to the acre?
15:07:42 10 A. Yes. I think, I think that the role of Liam Lawlor and his relationship with
11 Philip Monahan had some calming effect on Mr. Monahan.
12 Q. 745 Yes. Did you ever discuss this with Mr. Lawlor?
13 A. Oh, yes, I did. Mr. Lawlor was at a number of, quite a number of meetings at
14 which other members of Monarch were present.
15:08:04 15 Q. 746 All right. So at some point. I take it getting close to the date in
16 November '93. Monarch had a united front, an agreement in relation to the
17 four houses per acre. Is that right?
18 A. Yes, I would say. Yes, I would say so, yes.
19 Q. 747 Well, for example, presumably, these councillors who were very concerned were
15:08:23 20 asking you when you were lobbying them well what does Monarch want?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 748 Were you saying that you'd be happy with four houses per acre?
23 A. We'd be happy with what the original had been had this hiatus not occurred.
24 Sorry, I would never have used the word hiatus. That this trauma never had
15:08:44 25 happened.
26 Q. 749 That's four houses to the acre?
27 A. Whatever increased density could be achieved.
28 Q. 750 Okay.
29 A. Plus other --
15:08:52 30 Q. 751 Yeah.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
123
15:08:53 1 A. -- what, I described before lunch as inducements, like a district centre.
2 Q. 752 I'm not sure if I'm correct in this but I'm going to take you, Mr. Dunlop, as
3 agreeing that some time before the date of the meeting in November '93 the
4 Monarch got its act together. You and Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly were able to
15:09:12 5 say to them, councillors, who would be interested in the difficulty, that
6 Monarch knows what it wants and look, we're really trying to get four per acre
7 you know and we'll be happy with that.
8 A. Something along those lines, yes.
9 Q. 753 Now, so eventually that gets resolved anyway to some extent, isn't that right?
15:09:33 10 A. Yes.
12 A. No, I won't make any comment here.
13 Q. 755 Now, at the same time, your lobbying is going on. The crucial thing is to
14 swing the people who voted. Sorry, it's to hold on to as you rightly point on
15:09:49 15 to me. It's to hold on to the 27. I'm on the wrong motion. It's to hold
16 on to the people who voted against Mr. Barrett's motion in May 1992 and
17 convince the people who voted for Mr. Barrett's motion to come on your side.
18 That's the job.
19 A. Well the job is to use what's on the record, which is one per acre, as to open
15:10:15 20 the door to get the increased density. So whoever voted whichever way --
21 Q. 756 Yes.
22 A. -- whoever is doubtful, for whatever reasons, local, political or otherwise.
23 Look it, we can assure you that you're going to get a district centre or we are
24 going to assure you that you'll get a science park or we'll assure you that
15:10:34 25 you'll get X Y or Z, whatever is required to make them less unhappy.
26 Q. 757 Yeah. Mr. Dunlop, in November '93 the motion to confirm Mr. Barrett's motion
27 failed.
28 A. Yes, that is correct -- wait now.
29 Q. 758 How do you keep having to look at this every time, Mr. Dunlop?
15:10:55 30

www.pcr.ie Day 654
124
15:10:55 1 CHAIRMAN: Well he has to --
2 A. Mr. Murphy, with the greatest of respect you have fall fallen into the trap a
3 couple of times. So try not to get me into the trap as well with you. I'm
4 not --
15:11:09 5 CHAIRMAN: Witnesses are entitled to look at.
6 A. Chairman, I do apologise. It's very difficult to carry on in these
7 circumstances. Now, sorry, Mr. Murphy. You did say what in relation to Sean
8 Barrett's motion. Sean Barrett's motion --
9 Q. 759 I wasn't talking about that at all?
15:11:26 10 A. All right.
11 Q. 760 I was asking that in relation to a motion in November '93 reversed Mr.
12 Barrett's motion.
13 A. Yes. To de -- yes, that's correct. A motion in the name of Marren and
14 Coffey?
15:11:36 15 Q. 761 I don't want any information on it. Isn't that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 762 And then in fact at that point we go back to the 1991 draft plan and it would
18 mean four houses per acre?
19 A. Yes.
15:11:47 20 Q. 763 If there was no further motions?
21 A. If there was no further motion.
22 Q. 764 And in fact, what happens is another motion comes in which reduces what would
23 otherwise have happened four houses per acre to the Monarch lands?
24 A. Yes.
15:12:00 25 Q. 765 And it makes Monarch lands four houses per acre and the rest one house per
26 acre?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 766 So that final motion is an exclusively pro-Monarch victory?
29 A. Yes, it is.
15:12:16 30 Q. 767 Now, all I want -- that's fine. Now, all I want to do, Mr. Dunlop, just for a

www.pcr.ie Day 654
125
15:12:21 1 second is. You had to -- that was your goal. And between March and November
2 you wanted to achieve that. In particular you wanted to achieve the reversal
3 of Mr. Barrett's motion, isn't that right?
4 A. Yes.
15:12:34 5 Q. 768 And to do that you have to talk to -- your brief was to talk to the Fianna Fail
6 councillors.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 769 And your important person was Mr. Wright because he was the leader.
9 A. Yeah.
15:12:43 10 Q. 770 Or the whip.
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. 771 Now, after your meeting with Mr. Lynn and Reilly did you then go and meet
13 Mr. Wright? Or what did you do, Mr. Dunlop? You take the Tribunal back to
14 the steps you took vis-a-vis the councillors to get the success you achieved in
15:12:58 15 November '93?
16 A. Yes. Well in summary form. I would have either made direct contact, rang
17 them up --
18 Q. 772 Please don't say "would have."
19 A. Sorry. Did ring them up, arrange to meet them. Met them in the council
15:13:14 20 with --
21 Q. 773 Mr. Dunlop, who was the first councillor. The first Fianna Fail councillor
22 that you rang after the 9th of March to discuss Cherrywood with?
23 A. Can't tell you that.
24 Q. 774 No idea?
15:13:24 25 A. Can't tell you that.
27 A. I would like to but you can't.
28 Q. 776 Was there a group of them. Would there have been maybe it's difficult to say
29 whether it was Mr. Fox or Mr. Wright. Would there have been -- can you give
15:13:34 30 me your top?

www.pcr.ie Day 654
126
15:13:35 1 A. Sorry.
2 Q. 777 Top three?
3 A. Well if you're ... top three.
4 Q. 778 Well whatever the appropriate number is?
15:13:41 5 A. Yes. Well. Certainly. Tony Fox, Colm McGrath, Sean Gilbride, Cyril
6 Gallagher. People of that nature.
7 Q. 779 All right.
8 A. Who had -- with whom I had regular contact.
9 Q. 780 All right. And would you say you approached those in March '93 or would you
15:13:59 10 have waited until the summer, maybe you were busy with some other project or
11 what?
12 A. No, I can't say that I approached them in March '93 but can I say to you that
13 very shortly after my appointment by Monarch.
14 Q. 781 Yes.
15:14:11 15 A. And after my meeting with --
16 Q. 782 Yeah.
17 A. -- Richard Lynn and Phil it became known.
18 Q. 783 Yeah.
19 A. That I had become involved. And as I have already said to you earlier in the
15:14:21 20 afternoon. At least one person expressed satisfaction.
21 Q. 784 Yes. That's great. Does that mean that you didn't approach them. They
22 came to you is that what it was when you say it became known immediately.
23 Maybe they queued up to you looking for the money?
24 A. No, no, no. You have an extraordinary ability to look at things from another
15:14:39 25 perspective. But no, what happened was I was appointed. I met Richard and
26 Phil. Richard and Phil agreed a broad strategy as to who should do what.
27 Q. 785 We know that.
28 A. Right.
29 Q. 786 Answer the question, Mr. Dunlop.
15:14:53 30 A. Right. It was -- it was virtually immediately known.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
127
15:14:59 1 Q. 787 We've had that.
2 A. That I was on board.
3 Q. 788 We've had that?
4 A. Right.
15:15:03 5 Q. 789 Mr. Dunlop, when did you approximately approach your top few. You've named
6 off a list of a few of them?
7 A. I would say within a week or ten days.
8 Q. 790 All right. Mr. Dunlop, will you please tell me for a moment, at what point
9 you decided 25,000 wasn't enough and you wanted to go back to Mr. Sweeney to
15:15:21 10 get an extra whatever it was, 15?
11 A. Um, that I cannot tell you specifically.
12 Q. 791 Well now you've got to, Mr. Dunlop, because what's happening now is you've
13 agreed 25,000 --
14 A. Yeah.
15:15:34 15 Q. 792 -- in March. You now know everything about it. You know now all you have to
16 do is to talk to at most the 25 Fianna Fail councillors?
17 A. Uh-huh.
18 Q. 793 And this is the job you've done in a number of other developments. So you
19 know -- it's not an enormous job. These are people. You have -- we're not
15:16:00 20 allowed to use the word "team", but within the 25 there's a core to whom you've
21 paid money on previous occasions?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 794 So it doesn't seem to me that it's now a very big job. So if you go back to
24 Mr. Sweeney in, whenever it was, a month or two?
15:16:17 25 A. Yeah.
26 Q. 795 To give this extra money. It was either because it was going to cost you more
27 money or the job was a much bigger job than you anticipated.
28 A. Well, it's certainly not the latter. In the sense that -- I shouldn't say the
29 latter. Not in sense that it was going to cost me more money. As I said to
15:16:34 30 you yesterday, that it was more complicated than we thought at initial stages

www.pcr.ie Day 654
128
15:16:40 1 because of the -- the um, um, um, what's the word.
2 Q. 796 Well, with Mr. Monahan.
3 A. Yes, and the disaffection that there was amongst certain parties in the
4 council.
15:16:54 5 Q. 797 I understand that. You are not going to be doing anything with Mr. Monahan.
6 You may have to do a little bit more convincing of people, of councillors that
7 Mr. Monahan is on side. So it might mean a few more meetings or a bit more
8 persuasion or whatever. But I cannot for the life of me, see how that means
9 suddenly in May, April or May you need another 15,000. And then come towards
15:17:16 10 the end of the year you need more. At the end of the day you need 25,000 has
11 to go up to 80,000. Would you please explain to the three judges what it was
12 in this brief over these eight months that meant that 25,000 should go to
13 85,000?
14 A. Yes well I think I answered that yesterday in relation to another question.
15:17:35 15 Was two things. One the difficulties that have arisen in relation to support
16 among various councillors. And at what had happened from the May 1992. And
17 that if this was successful this was going to be of major benefit to Monarch.
18 And that I should have part of the success.
19 Q. 798 Tell us as much as you know, Mr. Dunlop, about your meeting with Mr. Fox for
15:18:03 20 the purpose of obtaining his support for the motion?
21 A. Yes. Well I met Mr. Fox regularly. I cannot say specifically that I met him
22 in a specific location in relation to this particular development. I
23 approached him.
24 Q. 799 You don't know where?
15:18:25 25 A. The likelihood is it was in the council because I had arrangements with Mr. Fox
26 to meet him in a variety of locations.
27 Q. 800 When you say in the council. When would the date of that -- would that be
28 around the time of the meeting in November '93 or would it be in May 93 I don't
29 know?
15:18:42 30 A. No, no, no. What I said to you earlier on is that I would have begun to

www.pcr.ie Day 654
129
15:18:48 1 approach councillors within a week or ten days.
2 Q. 801 All right.
3 A. So the likelihood is. I'm not putting it any stronger than that. That I
4 would have been in touch with Tony Fox and the other people that I have named.
15:18:59 5 Q. 802 Yes.
6 A. Very early on.
7 Q. 803 Now, Mr. Dunlop, you must have, I suggest to you, a clear recollection of
8 Mr. Fox because he was very much on your books, isn't that right?
9 A. Oh, yes, he was, yes.
15:19:10 10 Q. 804 And you knew him very well from a business point of view, from these meetings,
11 the council and the developments and so on, isn't that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 805 And you paid him on a number of occasions?
14 A. Yes.
15:19:21 15 Q. 806 And you knew at this stage when you went to meet him for the first time that he
16 was one of the people holding out for the higher density I think, isn't that
17 right?
18 A. Yes. His attitude -- his attitude was, as I think I said yesterday, not
19 aggressive but, I mean, he would be for going for the whole hog, whatever the
15:19:43 20 whole hog has to be.
21 Q. 807 Like Mr. Monahan?
22 A. Yes, and Mr. McGrath.
23 Q. 808 Yes.
24 A. Both of them.
15:19:48 25 Q. 809 Now, you must have a clear recollection of having a chat with him?
26 A. Yeah.
27 Q. 810 When these difficulties would be exchanged and you'd be trying to reassure him
28 over the months and so on over Mr. Monahan's position. And you must remember
29 well, you know, you knew this person. You knew how easily he would likely to
15:20:08 30 come on side in different developments and so on?

www.pcr.ie Day 654
130
15:20:11 1 A. Yeah.
2 Q. 811 And so how can you not remember where it was, the meeting about Cherrywood to
3 persuade Mr. Fox to agree to the more modest density?
4 A. Well, hardly a week passed that I would not have discussed matters with Tony
15:20:30 5 Fox.
6 Q. 812 All right.
7 A. And, you know, you have summer months. As I said to you already, that within a
8 week or ten days I would have begun the process. Contemporaneously and in
9 parallel it was known or became known via others that I was involved.
15:20:43 10 Q. 813 All right.
11 A. So I would have been in touch with Tony Fox.
12 Q. 814 Yeah.
13 A. At a relatively early stage after.
15:20:51 15 A. The --
16 Q. 816 You met him anyway on some occasion?
17 A. Yeah, can we.
18 Q. 817 We don't know where and we don't?
19 A. Can we take a break.
15:20:59 20 Q. 818 Sorry. Could we break, Chairman?
21 A. Just two minutes.
22
24
15:21:18 25 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED FOR A SHORT BREAK AND
26 RESUMED AS FOLLOWS:
27
28 MS. DILLON: I wonder, Sir, before Mr. Murphy resumes with Mr. Dunlop.
29
15:29:12 30 Just for housekeeping purposes. Could I indicate something that I've just

www.pcr.ie Day 654
131
15:29:17 1 been told very shortly. Mr. Dunlop is not available to the Tribunal
2 Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of next week.
4 It's likely that Mr. Murphy will go through I'd say until the close of business
15:29:27 5 this evening. And it would also appear likely from my colleague sitting
6 behind me that there's at least a day if not two days in the cross-examination
7 of Mr. Dunlop.
9 If Mr. Murphy were to conclude this evening, Tuesday would be available for
15:29:39 10 cross-examination. But I understand that one of my colleagues who, based on
11 the predictions we have been making, has taken up other commitments for next
12 week and wishes to cross-examine Mr. Dunlop.
13
14 So there will have to be some adjustments made to the schedule in relation to
15:29:55 15 that. Because it doesn't look like that it's now going to be possible to
16 conclude Mr. Dunlop's evidence in a piece, as it were.
17
18 CHAIRMAN: Well is it suggested that Mr. Dunlop would spend Tuesday here being
19 cross-examined?
15:30:08 20
21 MS. DILLON: By whoever is available to cross-examine him.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: And then, yes, he would return on some date to be agreed in the
24 future.
15:30:17 25
26 MS. DILLON: I'm not suggesting anything. I'm really just telling you this
27 so that my colleagues behind me who don't know it would have an opportunity to
28 consider it because they may wish to say something to the Tribunal about it
29 maybe at the close of business this evening.
15:30:28 30

www.pcr.ie Day 654
132
15:30:28 1 CHAIRMAN: All right. Well we will try and facilitate everyone, including Mr.
2 Dunlop.
4 MS. DILLON: Yes. May it please you, Sir.
15:30:35 5
6 CHAIRMAN: So we'll deal with it at four o'clock.
15:30:47 10 Q. 819 MR. MURPHY: Mr. Dunlop, Mr. Fox. No. Okay. You don't know where you met
11 him and you don't know the date. Just but tell us about -- I mean, but do you
12 remember having a chat with him about this matter and about the difficulties on
13 both sides?
14 A. Yes, I do.
15:31:09 15 Q. 820 And at what stage, how long was that chat?
16 A. 15 minutes.
17 Q. 821 And at what stage did he say something about money?
18 A. Fairly soon after the conversation began and he identified me as the person
19 operating for Monarch.
15:31:25 20 Q. 822 And it was no surprise to you that he was going to be looking for money?
21 A. No.
22 Q. 823 What did he look for?
23 A. Um, he said I'll have to be -- you'll have to give me something for this and I
24 said fine what did he want and he said what are you offering and I offered him
15:31:41 25 2,000 and he said grand.
26 Q. 824 Was that before or after Mr. McGrath?
27 A. That was before Mr. McGrath.
28 Q. 825 And would you remember if you went, approached any other councillor first for
29 their support before you agreed to pay Mr. Fox 2,000?
15:31:55 30 A. It is likely that I did again in the circumstances of meetings in Dublin County

www.pcr.ie Day 654
133
15:32:00 1 Council. It is likely that I did have discussions with others before Mr. Fox.
2 Q. 826 Was Mr. Fox one of the main people to go and to get on side?
3 A. Well Mr. Fox, yes. And can I just again for the purposes of clarification.
4 When Mr. Reilly and Mr. Lynn, sorry, we're all getting tired. When Mr. Lynn
15:32:30 5 and Mr. Reilly and myself discussed who would look after what allocation of
6 councillors, reference was made to the support that would come from --
7 Q. 827 Yeah.
8 A. -- reference was made to the support, the strong support that would be coming
9 from various councillors.
15:32:51 10 Q. 828 Yes. Was Mr. Fox an important person to get behind this?
11 A. Well Mr. Fox -- Mr. Fox had been lobbied.
12 Q. 829 Yes.
13 A. By Mr.--
14 Q. 830 Yes?
15:33:07 15 A. By Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly.
16 Q. 831 And you'd have a high suspicion that he was paid by them?
17 A. Well I would have had some suspicion from the remark that he passed to me that
18 I've already --
19 Q. 832 That Mr. Lynn passed?
15:33:20 20 A. No, no, no that Mr. Fox passed. That I alluded to when I was answering the
21 Chairman.
22 Q. 833 Yes.
23 A. In relation to, you know, that they were pretty mean.
24 Q. 834 Yes. All right. Mr. Fox had voted against Mr. Barrett's motion.
15:33:32 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 835 Why would it be necessary to pay him money then, I mean he voted against
27 Mr. Barrett's motion and you you are now wondering, you are now hoping that
28 he'll stay on side and discussing it with him and presumably tactics. And why
29 did you not --
15:33:48 30 A. Because that's not what Monarch wanted -- was one house to the acre.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
134
15:33:53 1 Q. 836 Mr. Fox voted against that?
2 A. Yes. If you -- Mr. Fox voted against Sean Barrett's motion.
3 Q. 837 Yes.
4 A. Yes. Along with, where is --
15:34:04 5 Q. 838 Doesn't matter along with anything.
6 A. Along with a lot of others.
7 Q. 839 Just stay with this now for a send precisely?
8 A. Uh-huh.
9 Q. 840 Mr. Fox is a king pin as far as you're concerned?
15:34:13 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 841 He has voted against Mr. Barrett's motion?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 842 You have a high suspicion he was paid and probably handsomely by Monarch?
14 A. That is not something I can say.
15:34:24 15 Q. 843 You have a high suspicion that he was paid by Monarch?
16 A. I have a suspicion, yes.
17 Q. 844 Now, he asked you for money?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 845 I mean, why do you even approach him? He's on side.
15:34:36 20 A. He is, from experience, dealing with Tony Fox, he is relatively important in
21 the context of, and I've already given evidence in another module in which he
22 has said that, you know, not that he controls other people but that he would
23 speak to other people within the --
24 Q. 846 All right. Who was he going to speak to that would help?
15:34:56 25 A. He never made that clear.
26 Q. 847 All right. And did you pay him 2,000?
27 A. Yes, I did.
28 Q. 848 When?
29 A. After the vote in November.
15:35:05 30 Q. 849 After the vote in November.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
135
15:35:06 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 850 Not before?
3 A. No.
4 Q. 851 I thought they always insisted on it before?
15:35:10 5 A. They didn't always insist on it.
6 Q. 852 Did Mr. Fox not always get paid before?
7 A. Yes, sometimes he did. Sometimes I agreed, sometimes I disagreed.
8 Q. 853 So you paid him afterwards?
9 A. Yes.
15:35:22 10 Q. 854 When, where?
11 A. As I said in my statement I paid one of the locations, I cannot specifically
12 tell you which one. But when I entered into an agreement with Tony Fox to pay
13 him he was paid.
14 Q. 855 That's fine. And so after the vote he's done the business. You are going to
15:35:37 15 honour your side of it. 2,000. You don't know where. One of the
16 locations. And did you turn up by appointment to meet him or did you --
17 A. I would have arranged to meet him, yes.
18 Q. 856 Just to pay him this figure.
19 A. Yes.
15:35:47 20 Q. 857 Nothing else. Would there be a few of them together?
21 A. A few what, a few councillors?
22 Q. 858 No. A few payments?
23 A. No, not in this instance.
24 Q. 859 No. How do you know?
15:35:55 25 A. That is how it occurred.
26 Q. 860 How do you know, Mr. Dunlop? You don't know where, you don't know when. How
27 do you know in this instance you just paid him a one off?
28 A. Well an arrangement between us in relation to meeting to make the payment.
15:36:09 30 A. So you make the payment.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
136
15:36:10 1 Q. 862 Uh-huh. And tell us how you paid him?
2 A. Cash.
3 Q. 863 An envelope or a newspaper?
4 A. No, not -- not a newspaper. The likelihood is an envelope but I cannot be
15:36:27 5 absolutely say to you that it was in an envelope. I've given him money before
6 not in a newspaper and not in an envelope.
7 Q. 864 Right.
8 A. So I cannot absolutely say to you that it was in an envelope.
9 Q. 865 So it was probably an envelope?
15:36:41 10 A. I would -- I would -- for good --
11 Q. 866 Yeah.
12 A. -- for good presentational reasons I would say it was a good envelope.
13 Q. 867 And tell me this. How would you -- where in -- it wasn't in his home was it?
14 A. No, no, no. I was only in his home. I've outlined the number of times I was
15:36:58 15 in his home in the past.
16 Q. 868 Or his work?
17 A. Or his work. No. I did call to his workplace --
19 A. -- on a number of occasions.
15:37:04 20 Q. 870 No, no, no. You know I'm talking about this occasion?
21 A. Okay.
22 Q. 871 All right. It was Conways was it or the council building?
23 A. It could have been any one of the locations that I regularly met him.
24 Q. 872 Okay. And you turn up with 2,000 pounds in cash in an envelope?
15:37:17 25 A. Yeah.
26 Q. 873 What kind of an envelope?
27 A. Don't ask me.
28 Q. 874 Well you must have had a supply of them, Mr. Dunlop.
29 A. Well when people make this -- say this remark to me, of course we had a supply
15:37:30 30 of envelopes in an office.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
137
15:37:33 1 Q. 875 Well it wouldn't be much use having a little white one, sure it wouldn't?
2 A. You mean one with a window or just an ordinary white one?
3 Q. 876 Would it, Mr. Dunlop?
4 A. I don't understand what you mean by --
15:37:53 5
6 CHAIRMAN: If it was an envelope, Mr. Dunlop --
7 A. Yes.
9 CHAIRMAN: Can you give us a description of the envelope?
15:37:54 10 A. Well.
11
12 CHAIRMAN: If you can. If you can't, you can't.
13 A. No I --
14 Q. 877 MR. MURPHY: You can't?
15:38:00 15 A. I'm flabbergasted by the line of questioning. What is an envelope.
16 Q. 878 You're flabbergasted by the line of questioning?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 879 You're alleging that you bribed a councillor 2,000 pounds in cash and you are
19 flabbergasted that you'd be asked what sort of an envelope it was?
21 Q. 880 Mr. Dunlop, I take it more than likely it was the same type of envelope as you
22 used for all of your other payments to Mr. Fox and other councillors?
23 A. On occasion used envelopes, on occasion did not, on occasion used another
24 method. One of them you've referred to wrapped in a newspaper.
15:38:35 25 Q. 881 You did a newspaper once?
26 A. And another councillors have given evidence that I left money on his desk in a
27 newspaper which I dispute.
28 Q. 882 All right. That's twice newspaper, maybe one twice yes or no. And the
29 envelope and what did you say something about another method.
15:38:53 30

www.pcr.ie Day 654
138
15:38:53 1 CHAIRMAN: No, no, that was --
2 A. No, no.
3 Q. 883 MR. MURPHY: Well there's something else. There's the envelope and there's
4 the newspaper. Was there any way that you delivered it?
15:39:04 5 A. I -- um, to Mr. Fox?
6 Q. 884 To anybody.
7 A. Um, um, I delivered it in various locations in various formats within.
8 Q. 885 Formats.
9 A. With, in envelopes, not in envelopes. Wrapped in newspaper etc.
15:39:24 10 Q. 886 That's what it was. Not in envelopes?
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. 887 If it's not in an envelope and it's not in a newspaper what is it in?
13 A. Bundle of cash. There you are. (gesturing).
14 Q. 888 You would take out 1,000 in cash or 2,000 and give it to the person?
15:39:39 15 A. You would not believe, Mr. Murphy, the speed with which that would disappear.
16 Your eye would not be able to account for it.
17 Q. 889 Just tell me one place where you did that -- where you did it in cash, was it
18 in a pub, was it in a bus, was it in a -- where did you?
19 A. Well I gave various? I certainly gave nobody money in a bus. So let's leave
15:40:02 20 that one out. That remark. I gave councillors money straight forwardly in
21 cash. I gave them in the Dail Bar wrapped in a newspaper.
22 Q. 890 Mr. Dunlop, did you hear the question? Where did you pay money to a councillor
23 in cash?
24 A. In lots of places.
15:40:21 25 Q. 891 Cash without an envelope, without a newspaper?
26 A. Yes, in lots of places.
27 Q. 892 Okay. In public sight?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 893 Or would you be behind a tree in a carpark?
15:40:29 30 A. Not behind a tree in a carpark, no.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
139
15:40:32 1 Q. 894 All right. You'd have this 1,000 or 2,000 in your pocket and you would take
2 it out and hand it over?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 895 All right. Back to Mr. Fox. Was this in an envelope, cash, or was it without
15:40:41 5 an envelope and it wasn't a newspaper?
6 A. It wasn't a newspaper.
7 Q. 896 All right.
8 A. I've already discussed the issue in relation to an envelope. It was in cash.
9 Q. 897 Now, no envelope is that what you're saying?
15:40:52 10 A. What I said to you is in reply to the Chairman. I cannot be absolutely
11 certain whether it was in an envelope or not.
12 Q. 898 No, if it was an envelope, you made many of these payments with an envelope?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 899 From your office?
15:41:02 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 900 Now, just visualise for a second the room in your office from which you took
17 these envelopes. Because I imagine if you are paying 1,000 or 2,000 it's a
18 particular sized envelope and you'd need a bit of a stack of them there in a
19 corner or in a shelf that you could take for your payments?
15:41:19 20 A. The stack of envelopes that were available in my office are not there
21 specifically for putting money into. They are there for normal stationary use
22 by a professional office.
23 Q. 901 Now.
24 A. They are all size of envelopes. Large, small, medium size and otherwise.
15:41:34 25 Q. 902 The 2,000 pounds that you got from Mr. Fox, where did it come out?
26 A. It came out of cash that I had available to me.
27 Q. 903 Available to you. And where did you keep that cash?
28 A. If I hadn't cash available to me I withdrew cash.
29 Q. 904 No, no, you just told me cash available to you. Which is it, Mr. Dunlop?
15:41:51 30 A. Cash available to me is in a briefcase at home.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
140
15:41:54 1 Q. 905 Right. You have a briefcase at your home in where, Dunboyne?
2 A. Rathbeg, in Dunboyne.
3 Q. 906 I'm sorry in 1993 I'm talking about?
4 A. Yes.
15:42:04 5 Q. 907 And a briefcase is full of cash?
6 A. Well it's not necessarily always full of cash but there's some cash available.
7 And if that is depleted I may well go and --
8 Q. 908 I'm not asking you that. What was the maximum you ever had in that briefcase
9 roughly?
15:42:22 10 A. Well in the early stages of the Development Plan going back to 1991, I
11 certainly would have in excess of 50,000 pounds.
12 Q. 909 What size briefcase was it?
13 A. I had it here. I showed it in evidence.
14 Q. 910 I'm sorry. I beg your pardon. 50,000. All right.
15:42:35 15 A. It's a briefcase that you carry documents in. You have some --
16 Q. 911 You kept it the at home. And you'd go to that and get your money, your 2,000?
17 A. Yeah.
18 Q. 912 All right. And did you have those in five pound denominations or ten or fifty
19 or what?
15:42:49 20 A. Mixture.
21 Q. 913 Sorry, Chairman.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: We've had this evidence from Mr. Dunlop.
24 Q. 914 MR. MURPHY: All right.
15:42:56 25 And so you paid him 2,000. And now, Mr. Dunlop, when did you pay -- tell us
26 about meeting Mr. McGrath for the first time.
27 A. Well for the first time in relation to Monarch.
28 Q. 915 In relation it to this payment?
29 A. In relation to this payment, well when I first approached Colm McGrath in
15:43:15 30 relation to Monarch and I told him I was on board. He seemed to be quite

www.pcr.ie Day 654
141
15:43:22 1 happy with that. I had a suspicion that he knew already. He didn't say that
2 he knew already. I knew from Richard Lynn that he had been lobbied. That
3 there was a relationship there, in the sense of lobbying. Anything else I
4 cannot attest to. I said that we were going to try and get the matter
15:43:47 5 resolved. He was quite aggressive. Not with me, I hasten to add. He was
6 quite aggressive about what could be done or what should be done. Made some
7 remarks about why we were in the situation we happened to be in. I said I
8 needed his support. He said fine, it'll cost you. We began a negotiation.
9 And I ended up giving him two. Agreeing to give him two, I should say.
15:44:18 10 Q. 916 All right. Now, and why were you doing that when he voted against Mr.
11 Barrett's motion as well?
12 A. Yes. Because he was a key figure. He was going to be, along with Fox.
13 Q. 917 Yeah, yeah?
14 A. He was going to be.
15:44:32 15 Q. 918 Yeah?
16 A. A key -- at this stage Mr. McGrath -- I don't mean to suggest that -- but
17 presented himself as being a person who was, um, capable of doing quite a lot
18 during the course of the Development Plan and was very, very -- a person who
19 admired Liam Lawlor very much and said well if Liam can do it I can do it. So
15:45:06 20 he was presenting himself to developers as somebody that could achieve things
21 for them.
22 Q. 919 And what did Mr. Lawlor have to do with that? He admired Mr. Lawlor?
23 A. He admired Mr. Lawlor. He admired Mr. Lawlor's ability.
24 Q. 920 And how did he know Mr. Lawlor was involved in this?
15:45:23 25 A. No, no, no sorry you misinterpreted me. He admired Mr. Lawlor politically and
26 advising builders developers and otherwise.
27 Q. 921 How did he know Mr. Lawlor was involved in Cherrywood?
28 A. I'm not suggesting he knew that Mr. Lawlor was involved in Cherrywood.
29 Q. 922 But you said he admired -- that was one of the reasons why he admired --
15:45:37 30 A. He admired Mr. Lawlor's ability to advise developers and builders while

www.pcr.ie Day 654
142
15:45:43 1 Mr. Lawlor was a member of Dublin County Council.
2 Q. 923 What's that got to do with it, Mr. Dunlop?
3 A. Well you seem to be very interested in why Mr. McGrath admired Mr. Lawlor.
4 And when I answer you then you say what's it got to do with it.
15:45:59 5 Q. 924 Mr. Dunlop, Mr. McGrath voted against Mr. Barrett's motion and you felt he was
6 influential and that's why you gave him 2,000?
7 A. Yes, because that's what Monarch wanted --
9 JUDGE FAHERTY: Just on that point before, Mr. Murphy leaves it.
15:46:12 10
11 I understand not only did Mr. McGrath vote against Mr. Barrett's motion on the
12 27th but he had voted in favour of the motion proposed by Senator Lydon and I
13 think he proposed it himself the Manager's Report?
14 A. He was a co-supporter with Mr. Lydon.
15:46:28 15
17 A. If my memory serves me right.
18
19 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes, he was. You don't have to look at it. He co-proposed
15:46:36 20 the motion I think on the 27th to adopt the Manager's Report?
21 A. Yes.
22
23 JUDGE FAHERTY: Which wasn't entirely on all fours with Monarch's proposal.
24 But incorporated a lot of it in terms of four houses to the acre etc; Isn't
15:46:49 25 that right?
26 A. Yes. Excuse me, Judge. Vastly more important than any of that was the fact
27 that this was the Manager's Report.
28
15:46:58 30 A. The what the motion in May 1992 related to what the Manager was agreeing to do.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
143
15:47:03 1
3 A. Contrary to what normally occurred, as I think I said to Mr. Murphy yesterday.
4 Normally -- certainly some of the Fianna Fail Councillors would instinctively
15:47:18 5 vote against what the Manager's Report suggested. Because they would, for
6 whatever reason, would not agree. Say much more can be achieved. But what
7 the Manager was proposing on this particular occasion, as you quite rightly
8 say, went a long way towards meeting what Monarch wanted, or at least a section
9 of Monarch wanted.
15:47:38 10
12
13
14 Q. 925 MR. MURPHY: But I imagine, Mr. Dunlop, and Judge Faherty wants to know?
15:47:44 15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. 926 Why, if Mr. McGrath?
17 A. Yeah.
18 Q. 927 Had co-signed or co-proposed this motion?
19 A. Uh-huh.
15:47:53 20 Q. 928 Yes?
21 A. With Mr. Lydon?
22 Q. 929 Yes. And voted against Mr. Barrett's motion?
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. 930 Why would you have to be paying him 2,000?
15:48:00 25 A. Well we now have to move forward. And we need Colm McGrath internally in
26 Fianna Fail to take a stand. I mean, I have approached him.
27 Q. 931 He would have been doing that already.
28 A. Well he may well have done.
29 Q. 932 Mr.--
15:48:15 30 A. He was one of the people who was put aside -- not put off side but was

www.pcr.ie Day 654
144
15:48:22 1 disaffected by what had occurred in May 1992. Because he was one of the
2 people who proposed the motion.
3 Q. 933 Yes. Mr. Barrett -- Mr. Dunlop, Mr. Wright you said was very important. Did
4 you go to him?
15:48:34 5 A. Yes, I spoke to GV, yes.
6 Q. 934 And?
7 A. Yes, GV, um, went into a long outline, not that I needed it made to me, about
8 why, what occurred had occurred. Why it had occurred.
9 Q. 935 All right.
15:48:52 10 A. And that certainly from Fianna Fail's point of view, if he had anything to do
11 with it, they would support Monarch.
12 Q. 936 Yes?
13 A. And wanted to continue to support Monarch.
14 Q. 937 Yes?
15:49:01 15 A. But that there was confusion.
16 Q. 938 Yes. All right.
17 A. And that he was in particular.
18 Q. 939 Yeah.
19 A. Concerned about individual Fianna Fail Councillors maybe running individual
15:49:13 20 campaigns that he didn't know anything about.
21 Q. 940 Mr. Dunlop, was there a whip eventually in November 1993 for this?
22 A. That I cannot absolutely say to you.
23 Q. 941 How do you not know that, Mr. Dunlop?
24 A. I cannot absolutely say to you. But it was the absolute norm that when a vote
15:49:32 25 took place and it involved Fianna Fail people, a discussion took place prior to
26 the meeting as to what the attitude and stance would be.
27 Q. 942 And as you told us earlier, somebody comes out and tells you what happened?
28 A. Yes, that happened on this occasion.
29 Q. 943 On this occasion, which you were vitally interested, as you've told us, you
15:49:49 30 spent the whole day down there because it's so important to you. Who came out

www.pcr.ie Day 654
145
15:49:56 1 to you and did he or she tell you that there was a whip?
2 A. Well I don't recollect anybody in particular came out to me on that particular
3 occasion. What I said to Judge Mahon, when he asked me as Chairman. This is
4 what happened on occasion.
15:50:05 5 Q. 944 Yeah. Mr.-- all right. Mr. Dunlop, what about yeah. Mr. Dunlop, you've
6 now told us about you went to Mr. Wright. He had voted against Mr. Barrett's
7 motion. You paid money to Mr. Fox and Mr. McGrath, who were against Mr.
8 Barrett's motion.
15:50:22 10 CHAIRMAN: We haven't heard them.
11 A. Exactly, we have not heard that.
12
13 CHAIRMAN: Paying Mr. McGrath. About the circumstances.
14
15:50:31 15 MR. MURPHY: All right. Sorry, Chairman.
16
17 CHAIRMAN: You said you negotiated with Mr. McGrath. And you agreed 2,000
18 pounds?
19 A. Yes. After there was a negotiation I agreed 2,000 pounds.
15:50:43 20
21 CHAIRMAN: All right. Did you pay him?
22 A. Yes, I did. In cash.
23
24 CHAIRMAN: When?
15:50:47 25 A. After the vote.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: Was that in November?
28 A. After it took place, in November, yes.
29
15:50:52 30 CHAIRMAN: And what do you remember about actually paying him?

www.pcr.ie Day 654
146
15:50:55 1 A. Well I know I paid him because I committed to pay him. I cannot absolutely
2 say to you where the location was. I've listed in my statement the locations
3 in which I have met Mr. McGrath, including his own office in Clondalkin, in the
4 Royal Dublin Hotel, the environs of the Council. And in that I would include
15:51:20 5 the Gresham Hotel. And I also met him in the Green Isle Hotel.
8 Q. 945 MR. MURPHY: And, Mr. Dunlop, in relation to the two payments, Mr. Fox and
9 Mr. McGrath 2,000 each. All you remember is that you paid them and that was
15:51:33 10 the figure. And in respect of both, in this very important allegation against
11 both of them, while you've such a tremendous memory about hundreds of things,
12 you can't remember where or the date or whether there was an envelope or what?
13 A. I've already said to you, after the vote in one of the locations that I
14 normally met them being cash.
15:52:04 15 Q. 946 Did you contact Betty Coffey?
16 A. Yes, I spoke to Betty Coffey.
17 Q. 947 And what was her attitude?
18 A. Well Betty was. I think I gave you some indication of this already. Betty
19 was in -- because she's Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown Council. Betty was a nervous
15:52:21 20 type of person in relation to controversy. And she was advising caution in
21 the sense that she did not want something to happen in the sense that would
22 cause difficulties for her.
23 Q. 948 Did she ask you for money?
24 A. No.
15:52:37 25 Q. 949 All right. Did she ever ask you for money?
26 A. No. She asked me for support for a -- various political functions that she
27 ran.
28 Q. 950 Did you ever give her money?
29 A. I gave her money for support, yes.
15:52:50 30 Q. 951 How much?

www.pcr.ie Day 654
147
15:52:51 1 A. I cannot tell you off hand. But they were various amounts, I think ranging
2 from the low hundreds to 1,000.
3 Q. 952 Did you pay her 2,000 for the 1991 Local Elections?
4 A. Yes, it's quite possible, yes.
15:53:02 5 Q. 953 All right.
6 A. In fact, no -- yes.
7 Q. 954 Yes. That's -- you told the Tribunal?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 955 That, isn't that right, in public evidence?
15:53:12 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 956 She's on a list that you made out?
12 A. She's on a list that I made out, yes.
13 Q. 957 All right. And also on the 1992 list?
14 A. Yes.
15:53:20 15 Q. 958 For payments in 1992?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 959 So was she on your books?
18 A. In the context of paying her money for votes?
19 Q. 960 Yes.
15:53:28 20 A. No. In the context of a bribe?
21 Q. 961 Yes.
22 A. No. In the context of seeking support for political purposes at election time
23 or fundraising events, yes.
24 Q. 962 Yes. All right. This list was the Rathfarnham. The withdrawals that came
15:53:52 25 out of the Rathfarnham account, Mr. Dunlop, isn't that right?
26 A. Which list?
27 Q. 963 You gave the Tribunal -- it's page 433. We'll just have a look at it.
28 A. That's the 1991 Local Elections.
29 Q. 964 Yeah. Isn't that the -- isn't that the withdrawals from the Rathfarnham
15:54:14 30 account, which is the war chest, which is for paying Councillors?

www.pcr.ie Day 654
148
15:54:18 1 A. Yes, part of.
2 Q. 965 All right. So that's got nothing to do with -- I mean, that's -- isn't that
3 money for paying Councillors in return for their vote?
4 A. No. It's 1991 Local Elections contributions it's headed.
15:54:32 5
6 CHAIRMAN: No, that's a separate. That's not ....
8 MR. MURPHY: Pardon?
15:54:41 10 CHAIRMAN: I don't think that's correct.
11
12
13 Q. 966 MR. MURPHY: Could I ask for page 432, please, for a second.
14
15:55:10 15 Question 96.
16
17 "Q: And could I, therefore, ask you to make out a separate list itemising in
18 respect of each disbursements starting with the 6,001 on the 18th of April 1991
19 to identify the parties or persons or entities to whom those payments were
15:55:26 20 made.
21 A: I would just like to seek your guidance, Mr. Hanratty. I will give you
22 where the disbursements were made and the monies applied to it and give you the
23 amounts in each case. Obviously, these monies were withdrawn from that
24 account in cash for that purpose.
15:55:35 25 Q: Have you established that they were all withdrawn in cash?
26 A: I haven't established that they were all withdrawn in cash. I am
27 endeavouring to assist. I'm presuming, maybe wrongly, that they were all
28 withdrawn in cash but that is a presumption that I am making.
29 Q: Is it your present belief they were all withdrawn in cash?
15:55:49 30 A: It's my present belief.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
149
15:55:52 1 Q: Are you in a position to identify the parties or entities to whom those
2 payments were made?
3 A: Yes, I am.
4 Q: Perhaps could you make that list now. Please.
15:55:58 5 Paper handed to Mr. Dunlop.
6 Mr. Dunlop proceeds to make list.
7 List handed to solicitor to the Tribunal.
8 List then handed to Mr. Hanratty."
15:56:08 10 Mr. Hanratty says,
11 "Mr. Dunlop, you have written a list of names numbered 1 to 16, opposite each
12 name you've written a number. Does the number opposite the name represent
13 thousands of pounds?
14 A: Yes."
15:56:20 15
16 Q. 967 And I run out of script there.
17
18 Isn't that the Rathfarnham account and isn't that withdrawals for cash to pay
19 Councillors in return for their vote, Mr. Dunlop?
15:56:28 20 A. No. I pointed out to you already, that is a list that was drawn up in the
21 box. I don't know what date it was. Did you say what date it was? May 2000
22 headed political contributions, Local Election contributions to politicians.
24 A. Well why?
15:56:48 25 Q. 969 But you did pay her the 2,000 pounds in 1991?
26 A. Local Elections contribution, yeah.
27 Q. 970 And then later another -- money -- 1,000 pounds in 1992?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 971 Yes?
15:57:00 30 A. Sorry, yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
150
15:57:01 1 Q. 972 Yes. All right. Now, Mr. Dunlop, what about had been -- Mr. Lydon and
2 Mr. Hand, the gentlemen to whom, in your interviews, you so graphically say
3 that you paid monies?
4 A. Yes, that is a point. I'm glad you brought that point up, Mr. Murphy.
15:57:36 5 Because contrary to any perception that the Members of the Tribunal might have,
6 as a result of what you said.
8 I want to bring your attention to the fact that you said that in my statement
9 of 2003 I mentioned Messrs. Fox and McGrath and did not make any reference to
15:57:59 10 Messrs. Hand and Lydon.
11
12 In fact, that statement was made on the 9th of October, 2000. Not 2003.
13 Q. 973 That was perfectly clear, Mr. Dunlop, as we went through it. Your private
14 interview --
15:58:13 15 A. It wasn't.
16 Q. 974 Mr. Dunlop, Mr. Hand and Lydon are referred to clearly in private interview.
17 what did you say "I certainly paid Mr. Lydon in Cherrywood" something like
18 that?
19 A. Yes.
15:58:21 20 Q. 975 How come, with all of this important thing coming up, vote coming up, you go
21 and you pay Mr. Fox and Mr. McGrath 2,000 each who have been paid -- you have a
22 high suspicion have been paid by Monarch. They are already on side. They
23 voted in favour. And yet you don't go to Mr. Lydon, Fianna Fail, and you don't
24 go to Mr. Hand?
15:58:42 25 A. I did not say I didn't go to them.
26 Q. 976 Sorry. What I mean is you didn't pay them?
27 A. Correct. I mean, as per the Chairman's request, I went down through the list
28 of the people that I did approach. Yes. And as per the meeting on the 9th
29 of March 1993 with Phil Reilly and Richard Lynn, it was agreed that Richard
15:59:03 30 Lynn would continue to make contact with Don Lydon. That does not mean that I

www.pcr.ie Day 654
151
15:59:10 1 did not speak to Don Lydon about the matter.
2 Q. 977 Mr. Dunlop, if I have -- wait now. Is this right? Sorry. Mr. Dunlop, I
3 want to just name the people who voted for Mr. Barrett's motion.
4 A. Yeah.
15:59:39 5 Q. 978 And voted against and voted -- and voted against the confirmation of it.
6 A. The confirmation of it? In other words, they didn't vote for it.
7 Q. 979 They voted against the motion?
8 A. Right.
9 Q. 980 Brought by Smith Buckley to -- in relation to for change three?
16:00:00 10 A. On what day?
11 Q. 981 On the 11th of November, 1993, Mr. Dunlop.
12 A. Oh, yes okay.
13 Q. 982 B Cass voted for Barrett.
14 Voted against Smith Buckley.
16:00:12 15 Keane C voted for Barrett.
17 Keogh H voted for Barrett.
18 Against Smith Buckley.
19 Lohan L voted for Barrett against Smith Buckley.
16:00:26 20 Mitchell O voted for Barrett against Smith Buckley.
21 Morrissey T voted for Barrett.
22 Against Smith Buckley.
23 Quinn C voted for Barrett.
16:00:47 25 Terry S voted for. And for Barrett. And voted against Smith Buckley.
26 And Tyndall C voted for Barrett and voted against Smith Buckley.
27 Now, --
28 A. You haven't mentioned a Fianna Fail representative yet.
29 Q. 983 Could I please have 7216 and 7262 on the screen together. That's just to
16:01:13 30 confirm the way that vote went.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
152
16:01:15 1
2 Now, the vote in May '92 for Barrett was -- was voted -- 36 voted for Mr.
3 Barrett's motion. 24 against. 36 voted for one house per acre. 24 voted
4 against. In November '93 ...
16:01:55 5 A. And virtually all of the Fianna Fail representatives on the Council at that
6 stage in that vote with the exception of one or two Mavericks. Sorry, that's
7 the wrong words. I don't mean to be dismissive. Voted against. With the
8 exception, as I look at it immediately with the exception possibly of Paddy
9 Madigan. Sorry. And Larry Butler.
16:02:21 10 Q. 984 And then in November '93.
11
12 This is page 7262, please.
13
14 In November '93 the motion to confirm Mr. Barrett's motion was defeated by 44
16:02:36 15 votes to 26.
16 A. Yes. Can I have the other one on the same? Sorry.
17 Q. 985 Yes.
18 A. Yep.
19 Q. 986 And the people who changed their votes are the people I read out to you there.
16:02:51 20 That I read out in a list to you a few moments ago?
21 A. Right.
22 Q. 987 They are the key to your success in November '93; isn't that right?
23 A. Give them to me again. Read them out to me again. Sorry, I don't mean to
24 be.
16:03:03 25 Q. 988 B Cass?
26 A. Right.
27 Q. 989 C Keane?
28 A. Right.
29 Q. 990 H Keogh?
16:03:07 30 A. Yeah.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
153
16:03:07 1 Q. 991 L Lohan?
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. 992 O Mitchell?
4 A. Yeah.
16:03:11 5 Q. 993 T Morrissey?
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. 994 C Quinn?
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. 995 S Terry?
16:03:13 10 A. Yeah.
11 Q. 996 And C Tyndall?
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. 997 Aren't they the people who swung the vote?
14 A. Yeah, on the vote basis, yes. They changed their minds and voted for.
16:03:24 15 Q. 998 Doesn't that mean, or am I missing something. That it's because of them the
16 vote was changed and Mr. Barrett's motion was voted down and now we're back to
17 four houses per acre?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. 999 Did you talk to any of those?
16:03:48 20 A. I think I listed Olivia Mitchell when I was going down through the list when
21 the Chairman asked me to go down through the list.
22 Q. 1000 Have you any idea how their change of mind was brought about?
23 A. Well, let me just get this as accurate as I possibly can. In the vote we're
24 talking about here in November of 1993 is the Sean Barrett motion. Is it?
16:03:59 25 Right. Okay.
26 Q. 1001 Sorry, Mr. Dunlop, what did you say?
27 A. The motion that we're talking about in November 1993 is the Sean Barrett
28 motion.
29 Q. 1002 Yes.
16:04:06 30 A. Sean Barrett.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
154
16:04:07 1 Q. 1003 May '92 is Sean Barrett?
2 A. Yes. But I'm asking you --
3 Q. 1004 November '93, the vote to confirm Barrett.
4 A. To confirm Barrett. Exactly. Mr. Barrett. Fine Gael. So it would
16:04:19 5 certainly be understandable that the type of.
6 Q. 1005 Yes. It's a Smith Buckley motion to confirm the change?
7 A. To confirm the change, yes. Exactly. Smith Buckley put forward a motion to
8 preempt everybody by confirming the change that had been made by -- as a result
9 of.
16:04:36 10 Q. 1006 Yeah?
11 A. The Barrett motion.
12 Q. 1007 Yeah.
13 A. Coming back off public display. We now have a series, if my recollection is
14 correct, of something of a dozen. Certainly ten motions in a variety of
16:04:48 15 formats from a variety of people in relation to the Cherrywood development.
16 Q. 1008 Uh-huh?
17 A. A lot of motions.
18 Q. 1009 Uh-huh?
19 A. Some to confirm. Some to increase. Some to deal with the -- the town
16:05:03 20 centre. Some to limit size. A variety of motions. So this motion that
21 you're talking about, these are the people who voted to confirm the Barrett
22 motion.
23 Q. 1010 Yes.
24 A. To confirm what Barrett had done in May 1992.
16:05:18 25 Q. 1011 And if they'd won that was the end of Monarch; isn't that right?
26 A. Well if they had won one house per acre would have been confirmed.
27 Q. 1012 Yes. They lost?
28 A. They lost, yes.
29 Q. 1013 And the people who swung it were the people whose names I read out to you?
16:05:32 30 A. Because they did not appear on the list of May 1992.

www.pcr.ie Day 654
155
16:05:35 1 Q. 1014 All right. Okay. All right.
2 A. Can we?
3 Q. 1015 Mr.--
4 A. I have to go?
16:05:46 5
6 CHAIRMAN: A break. We're going to stop now anyway because I have an
7 appointment.
9 MR. MURPHY: Sorry, Chairman, I have to questions.
16:05:53 10
11 CHAIRMAN: All right. Two questions.
12
13
14 Q. 1016 MR. MURPHY: 568, please. I'm sorry. 567. I hope this is right.
16:06:45 15
16 574, please.
17
18 A. Sorry.
19 Q. 1017 Mr. Dunlop, your private interviews. Question 5.
16:06:58 20 A. Question 5, yeah.
21 Q. 1018 "Q: Did they, the people that you were dealing with in Monarch know that you
22 had done that?
23 A: It was -- it was never. The fee was agreed".
24 This is the 25,000.
16:07:10 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 1019 "And this was agreed sometime in advance. We had some difficulty in getting
27 the fee out of Monarch". We've been through all of that?
28 A. We've been through that, yes.
29 Q. 1020 "So anything that I did was in advance of actually getting the money in
16:07:20 30 which -- in which was a thing that happened".

www.pcr.ie Day 654
156
16:07:24 1
2 And that's wrong. You weren't doing things in advance of getting paid; isn't
3 that right?
4 A. No, I wasn't doing things in advance, no.
16:07:31 5 Q. 1021 "Not regularly but it did happen on occasion. I was dipping into my own funds
6 and my own war chest in anticipation of getting monies that had been promised"?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 1022 I want to suggest to you that what you said there suggests to me that you're
9 dipping into your war chest in the Cherrywood case in anticipation of getting
16:07:52 10 monies from Monarch, you are dipping into your war chest to make disbursements?
11 A. To make disbursements to whom? To Mr. Fox and to Mr. McGrath?
12 Q. 1023 Councillors.
13 A. Well they are Councillors.
14 Q. 1024 I suggest to you that what you have said there to Mr. Hanratty and to
16:08:13 15 Mr. Gallagher does not for a moment mean, suggest that you could only have been
16 dipping into -- you were dipping into your -- you were dipping into your "own
17 funds and my own war chest in anticipation of getting monies". I suggest to
18 you means much more than dipping into your briefcase for 4,000 to pay two
19 Councillors?
16:08:33 20 A. No.
21 Q. 1025 And if I could have 5 -- that's the first question.
22
23 And 547.
24
16:08:44 25 I think, Mr. Dunlop, if I'm correct. I think you said that you didn't know
26 anything from Mr. Lynn directly about Monarch paying monies; isn't that right?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 1026 547. Question 109.
29
16:09:04 30 "You mentioned yesterday that, at least I took you to mention, I perhaps I took

www.pcr.ie Day 654
157
16:09:07 1 you up wrong. There were other people distributing money to Councillors apart
2 from yourself. Am I right about that? It May have been in the context first
3 of all of Richard Lynn.
4 A: I have no doubt but I mean I just can't prove it. It was widely
16:09:19 5 suspected, as it may gave been widely suspected about me by others. But it
6 was solely suspected in the context of Cherrywood there was money being
7 disbursed.
8 Q: Who is an alleged facilitator.
9 A: Richard Lynn".
16:09:27 10
11 A. Yeah.
13 A. He's the facilitator between Monarch and the Councillors.
14 Q. 1028 "Facilitator" means paying money; doesn't it?
16:09:37 15 A. Well I have no -- and I don't think -- I don't think I'm saying there. I have
16 no evidence, ever, or that Mr. Lynn gave money to -- to Councillors.
17 Q. 1029 I'm only just going back over what you said to the Tribunal. I mean, it's a
18 question of if you believed what you said at the time.
19 A. Well I'm not going to go into a disposition with you, Mr. Murphy, about these
16:10:01 20 private interviews. That's for another day and for another forum. And
21 probably we'll get a result of it quite soon.
22
23 But what I have been asked here and what I have said. That there was wide --
24 that there was wide suspicion. It was widely suspected. And it could have
16:10:19 25 been about me by others. It was widely suspected in the context of Cherrywood
26 that there was money being disbursed.
27 Q. 1030 Page 548, please.
28
29 The last sentence on that page.
16:10:35 30

www.pcr.ie Day 654
158
16:10:35 1 "But in my mind I have no doubt that Richard Lynn was facilitating certainly
2 Lydon, certainly no doubt about this".
4 A. Well let me go back and say. It goes up a bit further. Withdrawals of
16:10:47 5 motions. Sorry. Excuse me.
6 (Mr. Dunlop reading document to himself)
7 Well, I mean, unless I'm wrong. I'm not suggesting that Richard Lynn was
8 facilitating Don Lydon. He had a relationship with Don Lydon, in which Don
9 Lydon was the main proposer of what Monarch wanted.
16:11:15 10 Q. 1031 Now, just -- you're not suggesting that Mr. Lynn facilitated Mr. Lydon?
11 A. With money, is that what you're asking me to? Is that what the core of this
12 question is? Is that what you're asking me?
13 Q. 1032 Is that your answer? You're not suggesting that Mr. Lynn facilitated Mr. Lydon
14 with money?
16:11:32 15 A. I have no evidence that Mr. Lydon -- sorry. That Mr. Lynn ever gave money to
16 Mr. Lydon.
17 Q. 1033 So what did you mean when you said you'd no doubt that Richard Lynn was
18 facilitating "certainly Lydon, certainly no doubt about this"?
19 A. Mr. Lynn and Mr. Lydon had a close relationship, as is obvious if you look at
16:11:47 20 the record of Dublin County Council and what Senator Lydon did, or tried to do.
21 To infer further from that, as I have said on a variety of occasions during the
22 course of the last three days, has it been three days? Yes. During the
23 course of the last three days. That there was a close relationship between
24 Mr. Lynn and Mr. Lydon. And after the meeting with Mr. Lydon -- with Mr. Lynn
16:12:13 25 it was agreed that it he would continue to have that close relationship. What
26 went on between them, I don't know.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: All right. Tuesday at half ten. Perhaps ...
16:12:26 30 A. Am I?

www.pcr.ie Day 654
159
16:12:27 1
2 MS. DILLON: Well ...
4 CHAIRMAN: Perhaps parties who wish to cross-examine Mr. Dunlop on Tuesday
16:12:37 5 could talk to the Tribunal legal team.
7 MS. DILLON: Okay.
9 CHAIRMAN: And arrange. Make some arrangements. And those who can't manage
16:12:45 10 it on Tuesday will be facilitated on another day.
11
13
14 MR. SANFEY: Chairman, I wonder if I could just raise an issue? Mark Sanfey,
16:12:55 15 for the Monarch contingent, if I could put it that way.
16
17 There are a number of people lining up to cross-examine Mr. Dunlop. And there
18 may be a concern, which perhaps could be explored now very briefly. About the
19 wisdom of having that cross-examination broken up.
16:13:13 20
21 I understand that Mr. Dunlop is not available on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday
22 of next week.
23
24 Now, that means that certainly -- I think Mr. Shipsey may not be available on
16:13:23 25 Tuesday. It may be that other parties are available to cross-examine on
26 Tuesday. But it wouldn't appear that Mr. Dunlop will finish on Tuesday.
27
28 I know various of my clients it's proposed to examine on Wednesday, Thursday or
29 Friday. I have a slight concern about that.
16:13:42 30

www.pcr.ie Day 654
160
16:13:42 1 CHAIRMAN: Well the difficulty that we have, and we have had it on other
2 occasions as well. Is because of the large number of legal teams involved,
3 it's not always possible to run a witness from start to finish without a break.
16:13:57 5 So, at the same time, equally important or very important is the fact that the
6 Tribunal can't, if you like, not sit on Tuesday. We have no other witnesses
7 isn't that right, Ms. Dillon, for Tuesday?
9 MS. DILLON: At the moment that's the position.
16:14:24 10
11 CHAIRMAN: I mean, we certainly wouldn't ask, we wouldn't ask people to start
12 cross-examination on Tuesday who can't finish on Tuesday.
13
14 MS. DILLON: Would it meet the case, and I don't know. I've had a brief word
16:14:29 15 with my colleagues. I don't want to hold them to anything. It seems to me
16 the most the cross-examination would be, from what I've heard, would be maybe a
17 day, a day and a half. If the Tribunal were to sit early on Tuesday. I
18 don't know about Mr. Shipsey's available. I can't remember whether he said he
19 is or isn't available on Tuesday.
16:14:46 20
21 Would one very long day conclude Mr. Dunlop's cross-examination I wonder on
22 Tuesday?
23
24 CHAIRMAN: Are you available, Mr. Shipsey, on Tuesday?
16:14:56 25
26 MR. SHIPSEY: Sorry, Chairman, I'm not available on Tuesday of next week.
27
28 I had not understood that we weren't sitting tomorrow. That was my error, I'm
29 afraid. But I'm not available on Tuesday.
16:15:06 30

www.pcr.ie Day 654
161
16:15:06 1 CHAIRMAN: Well, I think what we'll have to do is to try and fit in as many
2 people. I know it's not ideal. And people will have an opportunity to,
3 people who aren't here on Tuesday will have an opportunity to see the
4 transcript, and they will be afforded every opportunity to go back over.
16:15:32 5
6 I think that's the best thing to do. Otherwise we're going to run into
7 difficulty the following week and the following week after that.
9 So I think we'll sit on Tuesday and we'll do as much as possible. We won't
16:15:43 10 ask parties to start on Tuesday who can't finish on Tuesday.
11
12 All right?
13
14 MS. DILLON: All right.
16:15:50 15
16 CHAIRMAN: Okay.
17
18
16:20:22 20 TUESDAY, 20TH OF JUNE, 2006.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 654
1
2 21ST JUNE, 2006, AT 10:30 A.M.:
10:35:46 5 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Ms. Dillon.
9 Just on a housekeeping matter. You will recollect yesterday that the issue
10:35:54 10 about Mr. Sweeney's legal team informed the Tribunal when they would be
11 available to cross-examine Mr. Dunlop and you had directed that they were to
12 contact the Tribunal by close of business yesterday and indicate a date.
13
14 Well, they contacted the Tribunal to indicate that they couldn't, they had no
10:36:12 15 date available. Now, I understand from speaking to Mr. Redmond that he is
16 available Thursday week, which is the 29th. And I wonder it might short
17 circuit matters or concentrate people's minds if you were to fix the 29th for
18 the resumption of the cross-examination of Mr. Dunlop and that might lead to
19 any subsequent application that might be considered necessary by Mr. Sweeney or
10:36:34 20 his advisors but at the moment it's just hanging
21
22 CHAIRMAN: Okay. We'll fix the 29th then.
23
24 MS. DILLON: That's Thursday week. For the resumption of the
10:36:44 25 cross-examination of Mr. Dunlop
26
27 CHAIRMAN: That's the 29th of June?
28
29 MS. DILLON: We will inform Mr. Tony Fox's legal team also that that date has
10:36:53 30 been fixed.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
2
10:36:54 1
2 May it please the Tribunal.
10:36:56 5
6 MS. DILLON: Ms. Ann Gosling, please.
8 MS. ANN GOSLING, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS QUESTIONED AS FOLLOWS BY MS. DIL
10:37:21 10
11
12 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Ms. Gosling.
13 A. Good morning.
14
10:37:35 15 MS. DILLON: Good morning, Ms. Gosling.
16
17 I believe that you were the secretary for a long period of time to the late
18 Mr. Philip Monahan who ultimately became Chairman of the Monarch Group; is that
19 correct?
21 Q. 1 You commenced your employment in 1969 as a secretary to Mr. Monahan. You
22 continued with him in that position until after 2000; isn't that correct?
24 Q. 2 Now, throughout that period the business initially commenced and had its
10:38:01 25 offices in Dundalk, County Louth but it subsequently moved to Dublin; is that
26 right?
27 A. Yes, it moved to Dublin.
28 Q. 3 Now, when it moved to Dublin it initially moved into offices it had in Harcourt
29 Street; isn't that correct?
10:38:16 30 A. Well before the offices in Harcourt Street there had been offices in Earlsfort

www.pcr.ie Day 656
3
10:38:22 1 Terrace. There had been a presence in Dublin.
2 Q. 4 Yes?
3 A. When they moved completely to Dublin it was to Harcourt Street.
4 Q. 5 Yes. At the time -- when the offices moved initially to Dublin an office
10:38:35 5 continued to be maintained in Dundalk and you in fact stayed in Dundalk; isn't
6 that correct?
7 A. The head office remained in Dundalk. When they set up an office in Earlsfort
8 Terrace it was a Dublin office but head office remained in Dundalk until
9 whenever Harcourt Street opened.
10:38:53 10 Q. 6 Yes. And I think that Mr. Monahan, that's Mr. Philip Monahan, bought a house
11 which became known as Somerton in or around 1988. It was a large house and
12 substantial grounds and he moved himself at that stage to live in Somerton;
10:39:11 15 Q. 7 And at that time he converted a suite of rooms in Somerton to be his own
16 offices; isn't that right?
17 A. That's true, yes.
18 Q. 8 When that move took place, I understand, Ms. Gosling, that you also moved to
19 Dublin at that time; is that right?
10:39:26 20 A. I did, yes.
21 Q. 9 But you continued as personal secretary to Mr. Philip Monahan throughout that
22 period?
23 A. I did.
24 Q. 10 But you were based at that stage in Somerton; is that right?
10:39:36 25 A. I was.
26 Q. 11 Now, at that time and from 1988 onwards would it be fair to say that there were
27 a number of offices dealing with the Monarch Group business. There would have
28 been an office in Dundalk; is that right?
29 A. There was an office in Dundalk which was gradually closed down.
10:39:55 30 Q. 12 It was winding down?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
4
10:39:56 1 A. It was winding down.
2 Q. 13 There was an office in the Tallaght Town Centre, a site office?
3 A. Yes, there was.
4 Q. 14 And that office was mainly dealing with the development of the town centre;
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 15 And then there was an office in Harcourt Street, the old railway building; is
8 that right?
9 A. Yes.
10:40:17 10 Q. 16 Mr. Philip Monahan's office in the house in Somerton?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 17 Now, from 1988 onwards ultimately the main two offices became the house, the
13 premises in Harcourt Street and Mr. Philip Monahan's private offices in
14 Somerton?
10:40:34 15 A. Yes, that's true.
16 Q. 18 There was a winding down of the Dundalk business. And there became obviously
17 a winding down of the Tallaght office once the Tallaght Town Centre opened?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 19 So that there were two separate offices being -- from say 1988 to 1990 onwards
10:40:51 20 being run by the Monarch business. Would that be fair to say?
21 A. Yeah, I'm not sure of the exact dates.
22 Q. 20 Yes?
23 A. But in or around that time, yes.
24 Q. 21 Well, if I ask you to date it in this way, Ms. Gosling, if you can. From the
10:41:03 25 time of the Cherrywood development, of the purchase of the Cherrywood lands in
26 1989/1990, was the substantial business of the Monarch property being conducted
27 between the offices in Earlsfort Terrace and Mr. Philip Monahan's offices in
28 Somerton?
29 A. In Harcourt Street and Somerton.
10:41:22 30 Q. 22 In Harcourt Street and Somerton?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
5
10:41:24 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 23 In Somerton, can I ask you to outline to the Tribunal what the setup was in
3 Somerton. What offices were there, who worked there and what business was
4 conducted there?
10:41:34 5 A. Okay. Well, in those early days there was Philip Monahan and myself and
6 another executive, John Sherwood. Um, and it was it was -- it's rather
7 difficult to describe. It's a long time ago but Phil hadn't been well, which
8 was partly the reason for his move at that time to Somerton. He had come out
9 of hospital and he was sort of semi retiring, in a sense, while the main thrust
10:42:21 10 of the office, of the business, had moved to Harcourt Street. It was being
11 operated from there. So ... it's hard to put myself back in those days and
12 just describe.
13 Q. 24 Well, you were based in Somerton; isn't that right?
14 A. I was.
10:42:40 15 Q. 25 And obviously you had a full-time job in Somerton?
16 A. I had, yes.
17 Q. 26 Now, what were you doing?
18 A. I was continuing basically what I had been doing in Dundalk in answering
19 letters, typing whatever needed to be typed and generally doing what I'd always
10:43:09 20 done, making sure that people did what they were meant to do. My role was a
21 support role.
22 Q. 27 When you say that it was your job to make sure that people did what they were
23 supposed to do. Does that pre suppose that first a meeting would take place
24 at which it would be decided what people were to do and it was your job to
10:43:31 25 follow-up to ensure that those things were done?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 28 Thank you. Is that what was going on?
28 A. Yes, that's what was going on.
29 Q. 29 So, it would have followed that you would have attended meetings at which
10:43:39 30 decisions were made. It was your job to make sure those decisions were

www.pcr.ie Day 656
6
10:43:44 1 implemented or carried forward; is that right. Not necessarily. I wouldn't
2 have attended. I'd have been-- the minutes would have been dictated
3 afterwards in the majority of cases, 90% of the time I'd say.
4 Q. 30 Would it have been fair to have described your role throughout this period and
10:44:01 5 earlier that you were probably Mr. Philip Monahan's right hand person?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 31 And I think you've outlined in your statement and I believe, indeed, that there
8 is no dispute on this, you had possession of Mr. Monahan's, one of
9 Mr. Monahan's personal cheque books for example?
10:44:17 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 32 And you would have written cheques on that account and there would have been a
12 monthly reconciliation?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 33 So you would have been a person, you know, in a very trusted position insofar
10:44:28 15 as Mr. Monahan was concerned. Would that be fair it say?
17 Q. 34 And while Mr. Monahan may have had ill health would it be fair to say that
18 throughout the period from 1988, 1990 and the Cabinteely development, that he
19 had a continuing interest and took an active part in seeking the development of
10:44:46 20 the Cherrywood lands?
21 A. Oh, yes.
22 Q. 35 And after the development of the Town Centre in Tallaght, which was a huge
23 success, would it also be fair to say that the purchase of the lands at
24 Cherrywood and their subsequent development was the next biggest project on
10:45:01 25 hand by the Monarch Group in the early 1990s?
26 A. Yes, it is.
27 Q. 36 And it follows from that, that the development of that project would have
28 consumed a lot of time of the professional staff of the Monarch Group?
29 A. Yes.
10:45:13 30 Q. 37 Now, if I could ask you. If I give you a number of names of persons if you

www.pcr.ie Day 656
7
10:45:18 1 could outline, as best you understand it, the various roles that were carried
2 out by these people within the Monarch Group structure.
4 Would you outline, first of all, what the function or role carried out by the
10:45:32 5 late Mr. Philip Monahan was?
6 A. Well, he was the -- he was the entrepreneur, he was the man with the visions,
7 he was the Chairman of the company and the Managing Director of the company and
8 the team leader.
9 Q. 38 Was he a person who would have been involved in making serious decisions?
10:45:57 10 A. Very much so.
11 Q. 39 So, for example, the decision to buy the Cherrywood lands. Was that a
12 decision which would have had to have been approved by Mr. Monahan?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 40 Can I ask you about Mr. Dominic Glennane and his function within the group?
10:46:10 15 A. Okay. He was the financial director and in charge of all the financial
16 aspects of the company.
17 Q. 41 Was he a shareholder?
18 A. He was a shareholder, yes.
19 Q. 42 And did you work closely with Mr. Glennane?
10:46:29 20 A. I did, yes.
21 Q. 43 And in terms, if you could outline briefly to the Tribunal, Ms. Gosling, from
22 your own knowledge, what happened when expenses were incurred on behalf of,
23 say, Monarch Properties or Monarch Properties Services Limited? What was the
24 process whereby these outgoings or expenses were accounted for?
10:46:51 25 A. Everything had to be vouched, you know, there had to be receipts and there
26 would be -- they would be attached to an expenses claim form, signed by the
27 person who incurred them and passed to that person's direct boss, whoever that
28 was, who would sign them and then they would go to Mr. Glennane for payment.
29 Q. 44 So, would it be fair to say that any expense that was incurred in connection
10:47:28 30 with any project would have to be supported with a voucher or a document?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
8
10:47:33 1 A. Oh, yes, absolutely.
2 Q. 45 And that prior to payment issuing, there would have to be an invoice, a
3 document, a receipt of some sort?
4 A. Yes.
10:47:41 5 Q. 46 And while you were there, was that the practice?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 47 Right. Mr.-- if you could outline - had - and did Mr. Glennane have a
8 professional qualification do you know?
9 A. Yes. Don't ask me to tell you what it is but yes.
10:47:55 10 Q. 48 And was that an accountancy qualification?
11 A. Sorry, an accountancy qualification, yes.
12 Q. 49 And if you could outline to the Tribunal the functional role of Mr. Eddie
13 Sweeney?
14 A. Well, Mr. Sweeney was the technical director and he was responsible for all the
10:48:14 15 technical aspects, the way -- he had quite a team under him of both architects
16 and engineers, quantity surveyors. He was the -- he controlled the technical
17 aspects. He planned what needed to be done and ensured that it was done. It
18 was very much a close knit team.
19 Q. 50 And Mr. Philip Reilly. What was his function within the group?
10:48:49 20 A. Phil looked after the shopping centres and the management of the shopping
21 centres. By that stage there were, you know, shopping centres in different
22 parts in Dundalk, in Athlone, Navan, Nutgrove, some other small ones around.
23 And so Phil's role was to manage the Managers of the shopping centres.
24 Q. 51 So he would have been responsible for the day-to-day separation of the shopping
10:49:19 25 centres?
26 A. I think yeah.
27 Q. 52 Overall responsibility?
28 A. Overall, yes.
29 Q. 53 And would he also have been in charge in that role in Tallaght Town Centre?
10:49:31 30 A. Um, yes. I think he was more involved in -- at that stage Tallaght was only

www.pcr.ie Day 656
9
10:49:37 1 being developed so he played a more active role there, I think, in the
2 marketing as well as the management. In setting up the systems, uh-huh.
3 Q. 54 And had he an active role in the development of the Tallaght Town Centre?
4 A. To the best of my recollection, yes.
10:49:52 5 Q. 55 And was the company that developed Tallaght from the Monarch point of view a
6 company called L&C Properties Limited?
7 A. Yes, I think so, yes.
8 Q. 56 And was the L&C Properties partner in the development of Tallaght a combination
9 of English companies generally known as Guardian Royal or GRE?
10:50:13 10 A. Yes, I think so.
11 Q. 57 And was that the same English company that became involved in the subsequent
12 development of the Cherrywood lands at Cabinteely?
13 A. Yes, I think so.
14 Q. 58 And was that the same English company that became involved in the subsequent
10:50:21 15 development of the Cherrywood Lands at Cabinteely?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 59 So that there was a history of dealing, as it were, between Monarch on the one
18 part and Guardian Royal on the other that predated the purchase of the
10:50:31 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 60 Right. And obviously there would have been agreements in place in Tallaght in
22 relation to expenses and invoicing and charging out of costs; isn't that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 61 Between the two companies?
10:50:43 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 62 And who was the person that would have been in charge or had overall
27 responsibility for that function in the development of the Tallaght Town
28 Centre?
29 A. Probably Mr. Glennane, but I'm not sure.
10:51:00 30 Q. 63 And there would have been agreements between L&C Properties Limited and

www.pcr.ie Day 656
10
10:51:05 1 Tallaght and the GRE group in relation to Tallaght; isn't that right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 64 And did Monarch Properties Services Limited provide project management services
4 to the Tallaght Town Centre?
10:51:19 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 65 And was the position effectively the way the operation in Tallaght was run,
7 subject to anything any other witness may say, that there was an agreement
8 between GRE and Monarch about the development, the joint development of
9 Tallaght. Is that right?
10:51:34 10 A. I believe so, yes.
11 Q. 66 That the project manager that was appointed managed the project for Monarch on
12 the one hand and GRE on the other was a company called Monarch Properties
13 Services Limited?
14 A. I'm not sure on that one but probably, yes.
10:51:50 15 Q. 67 And was MPSL, or Monarch Properties Services Limited, the company within the
16 Monarch Group whose function it was to provide project management to projects
17 coming up?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 68 So that --
10:52:05 20 A. Yes, yes, it would have been.
21 Q. 69 So that what Monarch Properties Services Limited would do, is that it would
22 enter into an agreement to do a project on behalf of Monarch and GRE in this
23 case in Tallaght, and it would charge to both of those companies expenses it
24 had incurred and fees in respect of the job that it had done; is that right?
10:52:27 25 A. I think so, yes.
26 Q. 70 And do you know whether that was the type of relationship that continued into
27 the development of the Cabinteely lands?
28 A. I presume so but I didn't -- I didn't have the sort of -- I wasn't so active in
29 the company at that stage. You're asking me to remember things that -- you
10:52:53 30 bring me to things that I've forgotten all about.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
11
10:52:56 1 Q. 71 Uh-huh?
2 A. But I presume yes.
3 Q. 72 You would have known obviously from your general knowledge within the group
4 that the services that were being carried out in connection with the
10:53:06 5 Tallaght -- the development of the Tallaght Town Centre were being carried out
6 by Monarch Properties Services Limited and invoiced to GRE?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 73 And that a similar type relationship developed or grew up or was agreed in
9 connection with the development of the Cherrywood Lands?
10:53:22 10 A. I would expect so, yes.
11 Q. 74 So that Monarch Properties Services Limited was expending monies and paying
12 expenses, including fees to professional persons, for which it subsequently
13 sought to recover those fees from GRE; isn't that right?
10:53:41 15 Q. 75 And in a general way, that was your understanding of the relationship?
16 A. I think so, yeah.
17 Q. 76 Can you -- help the Tribunal as to what input, if any, Mr. Philip Reilly would
18 have had in relation to the creation of invoices or the seeking of recoupment
19 of funds in connection with the development of Tallaght Town Centre?
10:54:03 20 A. I don't honestly remember. It would have been similar I think to what I
21 described, you know, that everything had to be invoiced and passed for payment
22 and authorised for payment and then cheques would be issued.
23 Q. 77 And did you know at that time a Mr. Richard Lynn?
24 A. Um, yeah, he was an employee.
10:54:33 25 Q. 78 He was an employee of what company, can you remember?
26 A. Um, o off the top of my head I can't. Probably Monarch Property Services.
27 That was the company who employed, you know, my employment was with Monarch
28 Property Services Limited.
29 Q. 79 And what was Mr.-- your understanding of Mr. Lynn's function?
10:54:59 30 A. He was involved with the Cherrywood project. I don't know what his title was

www.pcr.ie Day 656
12
10:55:05 1 but he was -- he came on board to help with the Cherrywood project.
2 Q. 80 And who hired Mr. Lynn?
3 A. I presume Mr. Monahan.
4 Q. 81 Did you know a Mr. Jack Whelan?
10:55:24 5 A. Vaguely.
6 Q. 82 And what was Mr. Whelan's function or role?
7 A. Oh, he was an agent or an auctioneer, I'm not sure which.
8 Q. 83 And who did Mr. Whelan deal with in the Monarch Group?
9 A. I think he possibly would have dealt with the directors but probably
10:55:42 10 principally with Mr. Monahan.
11 Q. 84 That's Mr. Phillip Monahan?
12 A. Sorry, if I say Mr. Monahan, there was only one Mr. Monahan and that was
13 Mr. Phil.
14 Q. 85 So you said Mr. Jack Whelan would have dealt in the main with the late
10:55:58 15 Mr. Philip Monahan?
16 A. Yeah, I think so.
17 Q. 86 And would Mr. Richard Lynn have dealt mainly with the late Mr. Philip Monahan?
18 A. I think he would have dealt with all three, with Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Monahan, and
19 Mr. Glennane.
10:56:15 20 Q. 87 Can I show you on the screen beside you what Mr. Eddie Sweeney apparently will
21 tell the Tribunal about the various relationships between these people.
22
23 2138, please.
24
10:56:32 25 And Mr. Sweeney in his statement to the Tribunal outlines, and we're talking
26 about the same period now, this is commencing in 1988/1989, 1990 onwards
27 thereafter. He says that in Somerton Mr. Monahan had his own office in
28 Somerton and he outlines the people who were there. Mr. Philip Monahan, John
29 Sherwood, Ms. Ann Gosling, Mr. Colm Monahan and Mr. Paul Monahan who I'll come
10:56:54 30 back to in a moment and then he says that Somerton would have been regarded by

www.pcr.ie Day 656
13
10:56:55 1 many as Mr. Philip Monahan's main office and would have been visited by some of
2 his close associates including Jack Whelan, Cathal McCarthy, Richard Lynn and
3 Gerry Enright who spent much of their time in the offices of Somerton. While
4 these people have would be regarded as advisors to the Monarch Group they would
10:57:13 5 not in his opinion have gone through the normal strict interview process of
6 Monarch. Rather their appointments, remuneration and job specifications would
7 have been made by Philip Monahan personally.
9 He then says that he would have been summoned out to meetings with other
10:57:27 10 members of the team to Somerton with Philip Monahan and he says that during
11 those years the management of Monarch was spread out and it would be fair to
12 say that communications within the company, I think is what he means, were not
13 great making relations between the various functions of staff at Monarch rather
14 difficult.
10:57:46 15
16 Leaving aside the last two paragraphs which I don't want you to comment on Ms.
17 Gosling, can I direct your attention to what he says there about Mr. Jack
18 Whelan, Cathal McCarthy, Richard Lynn and Ger Enright, in which he says they
19 were appointed outside the normal interview process within the Monarch Group
10:58:00 20 and were appointed directly by Mr. Monahan. And do you agree with that?
21 A. No, I'd have to disagree with that.
22 Q. 88 Right. So do you say then they were not appointed directly by Mr. Monahan?
23 A. Well they were not employed by the company, to the best of my knowledge.
24 Q. 89 Well is that --
10:58:17 25 A. By Richard Lynn. He was an employee. And the other people were ... Jack
26 Whelan was an agent.
27 Q. 90 By an agent you mean he was an independent contractor?
28 A. I think he was an auctioneer or an, you know, he was somebody who would come
29 with projects that he thought might be of interest to the Monarch Group.
10:58:44 30 Q. 91 And would Mr. Whelan have invoiced, as an agent would, the Monarch Group?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
14
10:58:49 1 A. I would think so. I didn't -- I wouldn't be involved in the actual financial
2 end of things.
3 Q. 92 Uh-huh?
4 A. But I would assume yes.
10:59:00 5 Q. 93 But in looking at those two people now. Mr. Jack Whelan and Mr. Richard Lynn,
6 would you say that their terms of employment or engagement within the Monarch
7 Group were different from each other in that Mr. Lynn was an employee and
8 Mr. Whelan was not?
9 A. Yes, I would. Richard Lynn was an employee and Jack Whelan to the best of my
10:59:21 10 knowledge was never an employee.
11 Q. 94 Would you agree with Mr. Sweeney in which he says that Mr. Jack Whelan would
12 have gone out to Somerton to visit Mr. Monahan and that he would have dealt
13 directly with Mr. Monahan?
14 A. Yes, yeah.
10:59:33 15 Q. 95 Now, what exactly was Mr. Whelan doing for Mr. Monahan, can you assist?
16 A. No, I don't think so. Except insofar as he -- I think he tried to sell Phil
17 various properties, get him interested in various developments. More than
18 that, I don't really recall. I didn't know the man very well. I met him a
19 few times okay.
11:00:03 20 Q. 96 Yes?
21 A. I don't know what his role was.
22 Q. 97 But you met him with Mr. Monahan. Is that right?
23 A. Yes. You know, he would come to Somerton and I'd make the tea and if there
24 was minutes to be typed afterwards I'd do minutes or whatever. The absolute
11:00:19 25 detail, I'm sorry, I don't really recall.
26 Q. 98 Well, would you have discussed what had Mr. Whelan was doing for the Monarch
27 Group with Mr. Monahan?
28 A. At the -- it's difficult for me to remember things because I didn't have to
29 remember things, you know, I would write them down and put them on the file.
11:00:46 30 Q. 99 What file is that?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
15
11:00:47 1 A. Any file. I mean, my -- for me to go back and remember things is very
2 difficult because I have nothing to refer to. I wouldn't carry things in my
3 mind. They would be put down on paper and ...
4 Q. 100 Well, what file would you have put Mr. Whelan on, for example?
11:01:04 5 A. Whatever he happened to bring at the time. I mean, if he brought a little
6 parcel of land in Dundalk or ...
7 Q. 101 And did he bring parcels?
8 A. I'm sorry, but I'm not -- I'm trying to be very helpful but I don't honestly
9 remember.
11:01:18 10 Q. 102 Well, if I showed you some documents then in connection with Mr. Whelan and
11 they might assist you?
12 A. Okay. I work -- I always worked with paper.
13 Q. 103 Fine.
14 A. I didn't have to remember.
11:01:28 15 Q. 104 If we could have page 8574, please.
16
17 This is an invoice, apparently, which is recorded as being received in April
18 1992 by Monarch Properties and it's dated the 16th of April 1991. Whether
19 that is a mistake or not, I can't assist you.
11:01:49 20
21 Do you see the document?
22 A. I see the document, yeah.
23 Q. 105 And it's a fee to services in relation to residential consultancy in Cherrywood
24 in the sum of 150,000 pounds together with 30,000 pounds VAT. Do you see
11:02:01 25 that?
26 A. I do.
27 Q. 106 Now, can I draw your attention first of all to the circulation stamp on the
28 document?
29 A. Yes.
11:02:07 30 Q. 107 And can you see the initials PM and DG?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
16
11:02:11 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 108 PM I assume is Mr. Monahan and DG is Dominic Glennane?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 109 Who made those entries?
11:02:18 5 A. It looks like my writing but I can't say I recall it.
6 Q. 110 Now, in your statement you have told the Tribunal, I think, that it was your
7 job to have circulated the mail to everybody.
9 8530, please.
11:02:33 10
11 We'll just explain that system. 8530 please.
12
13 Now, if you just look there. this is your statement to the Tribunal. The
14 second last paragraph and you outline in outlining your duties you say "I would
11:02:51 15 have overseen the circulation of all mail that was delivered to the Monarch
16 Group at the Dundalk office during this period. A system was in place whereby
17 I would have opened most if not all of the correspondence and date stamped each
18 letter or piece of mail. I would have reviewed the contents there of and used
19 a circulation stamp signifying who the mail should be circulated to, for
11:03:09 20 example PM would have meant that the incoming correspondence should have been
21 reviewed by Mr. Monahan. DG would have meant the correspondence to be
22 reviewed by Dominic Glennane and ES would have meant that the correspondence
23 should have been reviewed by Mr. Sweeney. Quite often an item of mail would
24 have to be reviewed by all three directors and also Senior managers of the
11:03:26 25 company.
26
27 That's your statement isn't it
29 Q. 111 Now, if we go back to 8574. This is the document dealing with Whelan land.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
17
11:03:36 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 112 And it's -- the circulation stamp is the circulation stamp you were talking
3 about in your statement; isn't that right?
4 A. It is, yes.
11:03:44 5 Q. 113 It is likely that if this was delivered to Somerton that the initials were PM
6 and DQ -- DG were placed on it by you; isn't that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 114 It would follow that you have seen this document?
9 A. If would. I can't say that I recall it. It certainly looks as if I should
11:04:03 10 have. That's not unusual for me not to remember, sorry.
11 Q. 115 Yes. It would also mean that Mr. Whelan was putting in a fee of 150,000
12 pounds?
13 A. Uh-huh.
14 Q. 116 To Monarch Properties in connection with residential consultancy at Cherrywood?
11:04:18 15 A. Okay.
16 Q. 117 Now, can you assist the Tribunal at all as to what Mr. Whelan might or might
17 not have done prior to April of 1992 that would have entitled him to 150,000
18 pounds in connection with the residential consultancy at Cherrywood?
19 A. No, I'm sorry. I don't recall at all, I don't, sorry.
11:04:38 20 Q. 118 Is it likely that the person with whom Mr. Whelan would have dealt was the late
21 Mr. Monahan?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 119 Would he have dealt with anybody else in the group?
24 A. Probably not.
11:04:52 25 Q. 120 Would it be fair to say then that there was a separate and special relationship
26 between the late Mr. Jack Whelan and the late Mr. Philip Monahan?
28 Q. 121 You were there, isn't that right, Ms. Gosling, on the ground, as it were?
29 A. Yeah.
11:05:20 30 Q. 122 And you were there at the time this invoice was created and submitted; isn't

www.pcr.ie Day 656
18
3 Q. 123 It's a very substantial invoice?
4 A. It's a very substantial invoice.
11:05:29 5 Q. 124 You have already told the Tribunal that Mr. Whelan was never an employee of the
6 Monarch Group; isn't that right?
7 A. To the best of my knowledge, yes.
8 Q. 125 So, if this invoice is accurate it suggests that Mr. Whelan felt that he had
9 done 150,000 pounds worth of work for the Monarch Group in connection with
11:05:41 10 Cherrywood up to at least April 1992; isn't that right?
11 A. That's what it certainly suggests, yes.
12 Q. 126 Now, Mr. Whelan dealt, you have told the Tribunal, with the late Mr. Philip
13 Monahan?
14 A. Yes.
11:05:52 15 Q. 127 Now, what could Mr. Whelan have done in connection with Cherrywood for
16 Mr. Monahan that would have entitled him to 150,000 pounds by April 1992?
17 A. I don't know.
18 Q. 128 Do you know who else in the -- who if anybody in the Monarch Group could assist
19 the Tribunal as to what exactly Mr. Whelan was doing?
11:06:12 20 A. Well, I would -- I would think probably Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Glennane.
21 Q. 129 If I could show you a document at 3999. Which is a Cherrywood document.
22
23 And I want to draw your attention the last six or seven entries on that. And
24 this is an internal document. It's headed Cherrywood Village. So it's in
11:06:47 25 connection with the Cabinteely development
26 A. Okay.
27 Q. 130 And you will see there entered Whelan Land Specialists 150,000 pounds?
28 A. Okay.
29 Q. 131 According to the NL, which is the nominal larger. And beneath that Killiney
11:06:58 30 Golf Club, 1,650?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
19
11:07:00 1 A. Yeah.
2 Q. 132 The Tribunal has heard evidence that there were attempts made to swap land with
3 a golf club in the area between Cherrywood and a local golf club. Do you know
4 whether Mr. Whelan had anything to do with any proposed land swap with Killiney
11:07:16 5 Golf Club or any other golf club?
6 A. I don't. Off the top of my head I've no idea.
7 Q. 133 Do you know what project Mr. Whelan was involved in in connection with
8 Cherrywood at all? Do you have any idea?
9 A. No. At this moment in time no. I don't recall him as being someone who had,
11:07:38 10 you know, a fee of that calibre. But I just don't know, sorry.
11 Q. 134 Can I show you another document. At 5040, please.
12
13 This is also in connection with -- it's an internally generated Monarch
14 Properties document. It's a 1994 or 1995 document and it's itemising balances
11:08:05 15 with GRE. In other words, a summary of the amounts due.
16 A. Okay.
17 Q. 135 This would be amounts due by GRE to Monarch?
18 A. Okay.
19 Q. 136 And I want to draw to your attention the third last item?
11:08:16 20 A. Okay.
21 Q. 137 And there is an entry. Another entry in relation to Mr. Whelan which is Jack
22 Whelan introducing Dwyer Nolan 121,000 pounds?
23 A. Okay.
24 Q. 138 So the first invoice that Mr. Whelan has put in is 150,000 pounds. And now
11:08:33 25 there is a separate amount of either 100,000 plus VAT or 121,000 pounds. Do
26 you see that?
27 A. I see that, okay.
28 Q. 139 That would suggest, if that's accurate, Ms. Gosling, that between 1992 and
29 1994/1995 Mr. Whelan did around 250,000 pounds worth of work for Monarch
11:08:56 30 Properties, according to himself in connection with Cherrywood?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
20
11:08:58 1 A. It would certainly suggest that, yes.
2 Q. 140 Yes. Isn't that right?
3 A. It certainly suggests that, yes.
4 Q. 141 Do you have any idea at all as to what Mr. Whelan was doing?
11:09:07 5 A. No. Sorry, I don't.
6 Q. 142 You agree, I think, that Mr. Whelan would have met Mr. Philip Monahan and had
7 meetings in Somerton with Mr. Philip Monahan. Is that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 143 Did you ever know him to attend a meeting with anybody else in the Monarch
11:09:26 10 Group?
11 A. I think he would have, yes. But --
12 Q. 144 I'm not asking you now what he would have. I'm asking you other than
13 Mr. Monahan do you know of Mr. Whelan having meetings with anybody else?
14 A. No.
11:09:49 15 Q. 145 Can I show you another document. At 5180.
16
17 This is a document created in June of 1994. And these are estimates that are
18 being provided to GRE of forthcoming costs, do you understand?
19 A. I do, yeah.
11:10:06 20 Q. 146 And listed under the heading "zoning costs" and under the heading "staff
21 success bonus" there is R Lynn 100,000 pounds and in brackets beside that
22 similar to JW whom I suggest to you is Mr. Jack Whelan?
23 A. Uh-huh.
24 Q. 147 So, in June of 1994, in addition to the other two payments, this document is
11:10:28 25 recording or seeking going forward into the future from GRE agreement to the
26 payment of 100,000 pounds success fee to Jack Whelan in connection with zoning.
27 Do you see that?
28 A. Uh-huh.
29 Q. 148 Now, can you assist the Tribunal at all as to what input the late Mr. Jack
11:10:43 30 Whelan might have had into the zoning of Cherrywood?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
21
11:10:47 1 A. No, I'm sorry. I can't. It wouldn't be -- I would -- it probably seems very
2 strange to say that I don't remember but I don't. I wasn't, um, I wasn't of
3 the level of being involved. I was in the level of typing up whatever needed
4 to be typed up and -- so I don't know. I certainly -- I've never heard of him
11:11:23 5 getting success bonuses and such. It's news to me.
6 Q. 149 I just want to draw to your attention what's outlined in the document as giving
7 rise to the success bonus to the staff?
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. 150 It says over the next six months it will be necessary for the above staff and
11:11:36 10 the above staff are in fact Mr. Lynn, Mr. Reilly, Mr. Lafferty and others to be
11 available on a seven day basis to meet with local politicians, community
12 representatives, sporting groups and others who will have a vested interest in
13 the outcome of the move towards the variation of the Development Plan. Staff
14 will have to be suitably briefed and be available to arrange and attend
11:11:56 15 functions, meetings and briefings and be sufficiently alert to counter adverse
16 representations which will be made to the local politicians. The above is in
17 addition to attending meetings with the local authority officials?
18 A. Uh-huh.
19 Q. 151 And a success fee there. The total amount of success bonus being sought in
11:12:12 20 respect of the Monarch staff there comes to 180,000 pounds excluding Mr.
21 Whelan?
22 A. Okay.
23 Q. 152 And Mr. Whelan is, this document suggests that prior to June of 1994 there was
24 a separate arrangement in connection with Mr. Whelan for the payment of 100,000
11:12:30 25 pounds success fee. Do you understand the point?
26 A. I understand the point, yes.
27 Q. 153 Do you agree that's what the document says?
28 A. That's certainly what the document is suggesting, yes.
29 Q. 154 And have you any knowledge of any other arrangement or agreement to pay a
11:12:43 30 success fee of 100,000 pounds to Jack Whelan?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
22
11:12:46 1 A. No.
2 Q. 155 Do you have any knowledge of an involvement in Prague, that the late
3 Mr. Monahan had an interest for some time in connection with a possible
4 development in Prague. Were you aware of that?
11:13:02 5 A. There was certainly something about Prague, yes.
6 Q. 156 Who was the person who introduced the Prague project to Mr. Monahan?
7 A. That might have been Jack Whelan. I don't know. It's possible. But maybe
8 I'm just thinking that because what you ... I don't know.
9 Q. 157 Do you know whether Mr. Whelan was involved in the Prague project or not?
11:13:30 10 A. You are certainly giving me questions that I wasn't expecting. I mean, I
11 don't really remember what Prague was but I think possibly, yes, that Jack
12 Whelan was involved with Prague.
13 Q. 158 Did you ever meet the late Mr. Liam Lawlor?
14 A. Once or twice.
11:13:54 15 Q. 159 Where did you meet Mr. Lawlor?
16 A. Um, probably at Somerton, yeah.
17 Q. 160 And in whose company was Mr. Lawlor?
18 A. With Mr. Monahan.
19 Q. 161 Did Mr. Monahan introduce Mr. Lawlor to you?
11:14:09 20 A. Yes, yes.
21 Q. 162 And approximately what period of time would this have been.?
22 A. That would have been after the move to Somerton, which was sort of the end of
23 the 80's, beginning of the 90's.
24 Q. 163 Were you aware of any payments made by either Mr. Monahan or the Monarch Group
11:14:32 25 or any of those companies to the late Mr. Liam Lawlor?
26 A. Not off the top of my head, no.
27 Q. 164 Were you aware of any assurances or any undertakings given by the late
28 Mr. Monahan on behalf of Mr. Lawlor or any of Mr. Lawlor's companies?
29 A. I'm not quite sure what you mean.
11:15:01 30 Q. 165 For example, an undertaking to Woodchester Hamilton Leasing that if Mr. Lawlor

www.pcr.ie Day 656
23
11:15:07 1 defaulted on the repayments of his motorcar that they would be paid by Monarch
2 Properties Limited?
3 A. Yeah, there was a vague recollection, yes, yeah.
4 Q. 166 And what exactly do you remember about that, Ms. Gosling?
11:15:24 5 A. I presume it's, it would have been a case where the man couldn't raise a loan
6 for a car in his -- from his own circumstances and so Phil would give a
7 guarantee that if, if Phil believed in someone, that they would, you know,
8 honour a commitment like that but because of their personal circumstances they
9 weren't, they wouldn't qualify under the banking laws, he'd guarantee. It
11:16:05 10 wouldn't be unusual.
11 Q. 167 Can you think of anybody for whom Mr. Monahan provided this service other than
12 the late Mr. Liam Lawlor?
13 A. Off the top of my head, no. But it wouldn't be unusual. He was ...
14 Q. 168 Well, if it isn't unusual it means that he did it for more than one person.
11:16:26 15 Do you understand, Ms. Gosling?
16 A. Yeah. He would have done it for me.
17 Q. 169 Leaving you aside. You would have worked for him; isn't that right?
18 A. Yeah, he would have done it for people he knew well.
19 Q. 170 Would it follow then that by doing this for the late Mr. Liam Lawlor that at
11:16:40 20 the time that the document or at the time that the undertaking was given the
21 late Mr. Monahan must have known the late Mr. Liam Lawlor fairly well?
22 A. Oh, he wouldn't have done it otherwise, yes.
23 Q. 171 7594.
24
11:16:52 25 This is a document dated June of 1988.
26
27 It's a letter of undertaking to Woodchester Hamilton leasing on behalf of
28 Advance Protein Limited and Advance Protein Limited was a company beneficially
29 owned by the Late Mr. Liam Lawlor. And it gives an undertaking to Hamilton
11:17:14 30 Leasing in the event that Advance Protein Limited defaulted on the loan that

www.pcr.ie Day 656
24
11:17:20 1 Monarch Properties Limited when called upon will re pay the loan?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 172 Do you understand?
4 A. Yes.
11:17:33 5 Q. 173 So, effectively, what is happening there is that this is Mr. Phil Monahan
6 signature; isn't that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 174 Mr. Monahan true the medium of Monarch Properties Limited is guaranteeing the
9 repayment of the loan by Mr. Lawlor. Do you understand?
11:17:36 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 175 And is it your situation -- your evidence that he would not have done so unless
12 he had known the Late Mr. Liam Lawlor well at that stage?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 176 Uh-huh?
11:17:52 15 A. He obviously trusted the man. So, yes.
16 Q. 177 By June of '88?
17 A. Yeah.
18 Q. 178 I would suggest then that the relationship between Mr. Monahan and Mr. Lawlor
19 must have predated June of 1988?
11:18:07 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 179 What exactly was the relationship between Mr. Lawlor and Mr. Monahan. Can you
22 assist the Tribunal?
23 A. I don't think I can except insofar as there would have been a mutual respect, I
24 suppose, between them. I don't know how the relationship came about or how
11:18:37 25 long it was in existence.
26 Q. 180 Did you know that Mr. Lawlor was a member of Dublin County Council?
27 A. I think I knew him as a TD. So to answer the question, the answer is I don't
28 think I -- I wouldn't have -- I wouldn't have distinguished him as a
29 councillor. I would have thought of him as a TD.
11:19:09 30 Q. 181 You would have known he was an elected representative?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
25
11:19:12 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 182 And certainly the documentation would suggest that Mr. Monahan and Mr. Lawlor
3 knew each other prior to June of 1988?
4 A. Yes, yes.
11:19:21 5 Q. 183 Did Mr. Monahan ever discuss with you Mr. Lawlor?
6 A. No.
7 Q. 184 Never?
8 A. Not that I'm aware of, no. He wasn't in the habit of discussing people with
9 me.
11:19:34 10 Q. 185 Did Mr. Lawlor come out to Somerton to visit Mr. Monahan?
11 A. I don't -- I think that when I met him it was at Somerton.
12 Q. 186 And how many times would you have met him?
13 A. I think only once or twice. But I think there -- I think there was a
14 friendship there and they were neighbours or, you know, Mr. Lawlor also lived
11:20:11 15 in a house called Somerton. His was in Lucan. It caused a bit of confusion
16 at times insofar as, you know, occasionally a letter would come addressed to
17 Liam Lawlor, Somerton House, Lucan. It would arrive in Somerton, Castleknock.
18 So ...
19 Q. 187 Were you aware of the fact that Mr. Lawlor when he was in communication with
11:20:39 20 the Tribunal prepared a list in which he indicated the people who had made
21 political donations and included in that list was Monarch Properties?
22 A. Was I aware?
23 Q. 188 Uh-huh.?
24 A. No. No. But it wouldn't surprise me.
11:20:53 25 Q. 189 And that Mr. Lawlor indicated to the Tribunal he believed that the amount that
26 he had received was an amount in the order of 40,000 pounds?
27 A. I wasn't involved in the actual payment out of company monies so, if that's
28 what the company says was paid that's what was paid.
29 Q. 190 That's not what I said. I said that Mr. Lawlor told the Tribunal that he had
11:21:17 30 received of the order of 40,000 pounds from Monarch Properties but that Monarch

www.pcr.ie Day 656
26
11:21:21 1 Properties indicated that their records did not show payments of that amount.?
2 A. No, I wasn't aware of that, sorry. I wasn't.
3 Q. 191 Did you ever hear of a company called Comex Trading Corporation?
4 A. Not off the top of my head, no, it doesn't ring a bell.
11:21:51 5 Q. 192 The -- I think the late Mr. Liam Lawlor told the Tribunal that he used the name
6 Comex in order to create invoices on foot of which he would seek payment?
7 A. Okay. It doesn't ring a bell with me, no. Not at all.
8 Q. 193 It doesn't ring a bell with you?
9 A. Not at all.
11:22:12 10 Q. 194 Can I show you a document at 1255, please.
11
12 Do you recognise the handwriting on that document?
13 A. Um, no. Somebody in the accounts office, but no.
14 Q. 195 And I want to draw to your attention, five from the bottom, two entries of the
11:22:32 15 16th of October 1990?
16 A. Okay.
17 Q. 196 Do you see those two?
18 A. Yeah, I don't know. It's, um, it's not name I recall at all.
19 Q. 197 And you will see there that on the 16th of October 1990 two cheques are written
11:22:50 20 to Comex Trading Corporation?
21 A. Uh-huh.
22 Q. 198 One is for 28,000 and the second is for 28,300 pounds?
23 A. Okay.
24 Q. 199 And the company who makes the payment is L&C Properties Limited?
11:23:06 25 A. Okay.
26 Q. 200 That was the company that developed Tallaght; isn't that right?
27 A. Yeah. I think so.
11:23:13 30 Q. 202 And I think the bank statements are at 3013 and 3014. They needn't be taken

www.pcr.ie Day 656
27
11:23:20 1 up at the moment. The debits are there?
2 A. Okay.
3 Q. 203 And I think if I show you 1256.
11:23:34 5 And this is an extract from the current account of Economic Reports Limited, a
6 company owned and operated by the late Mr. Liam Lawlor. And I want to draw to
7 your attention a lodgement on the 26th of October 1990 in the sum of 28,300.
8 Second from the bottom. Do you see that
9 A. Yeah.
11:23:46 10 Q. 204 And that appears to be the proceeds of one of the cheques drawn by L&C
11 Properties in favour of Comex Trading Corporation?
12 A. Okay.
13 Q. 205 That would suggest that in October of 1990 that two cheques one of 28,000 and
14 one of 28,300 were written by L & C Properties Limited in favour of the late
11:24:06 15 Mr. Liam Lawlor's company or in favour of the late Mr. Liam Lawlor through a
16 medium of Comex Trading corporation. Do you understand?
17 A. I do, yes.
18 Q. 206 Right that. Would mean that a sum, at that stage 56,300 pounds was paid to
19 Mr. Lawlor, I think, in October of 1990 is the reality?
11:24:25 20 A. Okay.
21 Q. 207 Did the late Mr. Monahan ever discuss with you making any payment to Mr. Lawlor
22 in 1990?
23 A. No.
24 Q. 208 Were you aware of the fact that such a payment was apparently made to
11:24:36 25 Mr. Lawlor or his company in October 1990?
26 A. No.
27 Q. 209 If such a payment had been authorised by Mr. Monahan. Is it something you
28 would have expected he would have discussed with you?
29 A. No.
11:24:47 30 Q. 210 Are you saying that Mr. Monahan did not in general discuss payments made with

www.pcr.ie Day 656
28
11:24:54 1 you?
2 A. That's what I'm saying. He wasn't in the habit of discussing payments or
3 things with me.
4 Q. 211 Did he ever discuss any political payments with you?
11:25:03 5 A. No.
6 Q. 212 Never?
7 A. No.
8 Q. 213 And I want to show you then at 1267.
11:25:11 10 An entry in the general ledger in relation to L&C Limited. And if we could
11 look at the first four lines of that.
12 A. Okay.
13 Q. 214 And what I want to draw to your attention there -- if we could just increase
14 the first four lines, please. Of the entries commencing 'interior design'.
11:25:33 15 You will see the second and third entry are the payments of 28,300 and 28,000.
16 Do you see that?
17 A. Yeah.
18 Q. 215 Will you just read out to the Tribunal the attribution that are given to them.
19 How are they described?
11:25:49 20 A. Strategy plan.
21 Q. 216 Yeah?
22 A. Strategy plan.
23 Q. 217 Who is the person that would have made the decision to donate those two
24 payments as strategy plan?
11:26:00 25 A. Sorry, I don't know.
26 Q. 218 Who was the accountant in L&C Properties at the time, in 1990?
27 A. I don't know who the accountant would have been. The financial director was
28 Mr. Glennane but who the actual accountant was at that stage, I don't know.
29 Q. 219 So are you saying that Mr. Glennane is the person who would be able to tell the
11:26:22 30 Tribunal why the two payments to Comex Trading Corporation are described as

www.pcr.ie Day 656
29
11:26:24 1 strategy plan in the books of L & C Property?
2 A. I would think so. Either he or Mr. Sweeney.
3 Q. 220 Would Mr. Philip Reilly, for example, who was also involved in L & C and in
4 Tallaght be able to assist the Tribunal as to how that designation came about?
11:26:47 5 A. Possibly. I don't know.
6 Q. 221 Were you ever aware of any requests being made by the Late Mr. Liam Lawlor to
7 Mr. Monahan for money, for finance or for support?
8 A. No.
9 Q. 222 And you were never involved in or connected with making any payment; is that
11:27:09 10 right? Any political payment?
11 A. No, I wasn't involved, no.
12 Q. 223 Are you being fair to yourself there, Ms. Gosling?
13 A. I don't know. Maybe not.
14 Q. 224 Were you involved in the 25,000 pounds payment to Mr. Charles Haughey?
11:27:28 15 A. No.
16 Q. 225 I think that, if I can show you 3100.
17
18 This is a cheque for 25,000 pounds made out to Charles Haughey, Party Leader's
19 Fund
11:27:45 20 A. Okay.
21 Q. 226 Signed by Mr. Monahan. Is that right?
22 A. Uh-huh, that's right.
23 Q. 227 Whose writing is the main part of the cheque in?
11:27:52 25 Q. 228 Is it your writing?
26 A. No.
27 Q. 229 Did you know anything about that payment?
28 A. No, I didn't.
29 Q. 230 If I could show you 8716, please.
11:28:01 30

www.pcr.ie Day 656
30
11:28:01 1 And if I can draw to your attention the fifth entry on that. And do you see
2 there, Ms. Gosling, Paul Kavanagh re CJH and it looks like snack or a word such
3 as that and then beneath that 25,000 pounds
4 A. Okay.
11:28:22 5 Q. 231 And that entry is on a diary dated the 15th of January 1991?
6 A. Okay.
7 Q. 232 Is that your handwriting?
8 A. The Paul Kavanagh on Harcourt Street looks like mine, yes.
9 Q. 233 Mr. Monahan when he gave evidence to the Moriarty Tribunal said that that was
11:28:39 10 your handwriting and that he would have provided that information to you. Do
11 you agree with that?
12 A. No, the Paul Kavanagh is my writing. The re CJH snack, that's Phil's own
13 writing.
14 Q. 234 Right. If I show you exactly what Mr. Monahan told the Moriarty Tribunal.
11:28:59 15 At 7823.
16
17 At question 40. He confirms that it's in his secretary's handwriting. And
18 he's asked at 41. "Is that whose writing it is your secretary's?
19 A: Yes
11:29:15 20 Q: And who would have given her that information
21 A: Me but I have no recollection of having a snack or what the snack consisted
22 of.
23 Question 43: But it's fairly detailed to this extent. Although it's a
24 limited note it appears to be re CJH which we must assume to be Charles J.
11:29:29 25 Haughey you would agree.
26 A: Yes.
27 Q 44: And 25,000. So there's a fair amount of detail in that note in the
28 diary would you agree
29 A: Yeah.
11:29:39 30 Q: And you say you would have imparted that information to the secretary to

www.pcr.ie Day 656
31
11:29:43 1 enable her to fill up the diary?
2 A: I don't think she'd write it without me without me imparting it to her.
3 And the part I don't have any recollection of having a snack with Paul
4 Kavanagh"
11:29:54 5
6 So do you agree with what Mr. Monahan told the Moriarty Tribunal, that the
7 entry in the diary would have been made by you as a result of information
8 given to you by him?
9 A. Yes and no. Yes, in that you showed me my handwriting. The 'Paul
11:30:06 10 Kavanagh's' in my handwriting. But the others was Phil's own writing.
11 Q. 235 And at 8716. Which is the document in question. Can I ask you, are the
12 words 25,000 pounds in your handwriting and the words Harcourt Street in your
13 handwriting?
14 A. Harcourt Street is my writing. 25,000 is not. That's Mr. Monahan's writing.
11:30:31 15 Q. 236 And I think it is also mentioned in a diary at 8717. Which is of February the
16 6th. Which is apparently the day that the cheque was handed over. And some
17 third from the bottom on the first page if it could be increased, please.
18 Third from the bottom. There is an entry Paul Kavanagh 25,000 pounds. By
19 PM, cheques 8 - 9, Somerton. Is any of that in your handwriting?
11:31:05 20 A. Paul Kavanagh is my writing. And 8 - 9 Somerton is my writing. I don't know
21 what that meant 8 - 9.
22 Q. 237 It certainly would appear to be in connection with a cheque for 25,000 pounds
24 A. Yeah.
11:31:19 25 Q. 238 Can I ask you then about the cheque itself. 3100.
26
27 This is written on the personal account of the late Mr. Monahan isn't that
28 right?
29 A. Yes.
11:31:28 30 Q. 239 And is that the account that you would have reconciled on a monthly basis?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
32
11:31:35 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 240 Because I think in your statement you told the Tribunal that you would have had
3 responsibility for the personal bank account of Mr. Monahan?
4 A. Well I reconciled it.
11:31:45 5 Q. 241 So you would have reconciled this cheque, obviously?
6 A. Yeah. Well when I say I reconciled it, I did it in retrospect, when the bank
7 statements came in.
8 Q. 242 Yes?
9 A. So I didn't necessarily know -- there were two cheque books. Mrs. Monahan had
11:32:11 10 one and I had one in the office. But I didn't have access to Mrs. Monahan's
11 cheque book to put names against what they, you know, what the cheques were.
12 So I -- bank reconciliation would show a lot of blank spaces.
13 Q. 243 Uh-huh?
14 A. Because I would just put the amounts in.
11:32:36 15 Q. 244 But certainly Mr. Monahan would have trusted you. There's no question about
16 that. But to the extent that you had possession of a second domestic cheque
17 book; is that right?
19 Q. 245 And you also carried out the reconciliation for Mr. Monahan?
11:32:49 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 246 And so you would have been in a very trusted position with Mr. Monahan.
22 Wouldn't that be fair to say?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 247 Yes. Notwithstanding that. You know nothing about this payment of 25,000
11:33:00 25 pounds to Mr. Haughey. Is that right?
26 A. No, I don't.
27 Q. 248 And other than the entries that you acknowledge in the diary are in your
28 handwriting. You don't know anything about it?
29 A. No.
11:33:10 30 Q. 249 Do you know whether Mr. Monahan was accustomed to keeping amounts of cash at

www.pcr.ie Day 656
33
11:33:15 1 Somerton or elsewhere?
2 A. No.
3 Q. 250 No, you don't know or he didn't?
4 A. He didn't.
11:33:20 5 Q. 251 How do you know that?
6 A. Well I don't believe -- I don't know that he did. I don't think so.
7 Q. 252 Uh-huh. Are you sure about that?
8 A. I can't be sure but I don't believe he did.
9 Q. 253 Approximately how many companies was Mr. Monahan involved in?
11:33:42 10 A. Quite a large number. I know at one stage it was like the Heinz 57 variety,
11 it's, so ...
12 Q. 254 And did all of those companies have bank accounts?
13 A. No.
14 Q. 255 And how did Mr. Monahan fund his own activities out of his personal bank
11:34:13 15 account?
16 A. I don't honestly know.
17 Q. 256 I mean, Mr. Monahan was in a position to write a cheque for 25,000 pounds in
18 February of 1991 to Mr. Charles Haughey; isn't that right?
19 A. Yeah.
11:34:24 20 Q. 257 Yes. Now, do you know what were the source of the funds that came into the
21 bank account that enabled Mr. Monahan to write that cheque?
22 A. They would probably have come from --
23 Q. 258 No, no?
24 A. From Monarch.
11:34:37 25 Q. 259 No, no. Do you know where the source of the funds?
26 A. No.
27 Q. 260 Do you know whether or not therefore Mr. Monahan had access to cash or large
28 amounts of cash?
29 A. I don't believe he had.
11:35:02 30 Q. 261 You don't know where the money came from that financed the account of which you

www.pcr.ie Day 656
34
11:35:07 1 had a cheque book; isn't that right?
2 A. It came from one of the Monarch accounts.
3 Q. 262 Uh-huh. Which one?
4 A. Probably MPSL.
11:35:20 5 Q. 263 No, no, which one?
6 A. Sorry, I can't say for definite. I don't know.
7 Q. 264 Can I just take you back to something.
9 8717, please. On the diary.
11:35:31 10
11 On this subject, I just want to draw to your attention to an entry that I think
12 is partly made, subject to correction, by yourself by Mr. Monahan. Half way
13 down the page the 6th of February
14 A. Okay.
11:35:45 15 Q. 265 Do you see there PM? I think it's S Murphy, subject to correction, 100,000
16 pounds cash.?
17 A. Uh-huh.
18 Q. 266 Now, can you assist the Tribunal at all as to why Mr. Monahan would be making
19 an entry about 100,000 pounds cash on the 6th of February 1991, the same date
11:36:08 20 that he's paying 25,000 pounds to Mr. Haughey?
21 A. Absolutely no idea at this moment in time, no.
22 Q. 267 Well do you know anything about that entry for 100,000 pounds cash on the 6th
23 of February 1991?
24 A. I have to truthfully say no. I don't remember.
11:36:31 25 Q. 268 And if Mr. Monahan had acquired or had in his possession 100,000 pounds cash in
26 February of 1991, you didn't know about it; isn't that right?
27 A. Yeah.
28 Q. 269 And you don't know where it came from, if he had it; isn't that right?
29 A. That's right.
11:36:48 30 Q. 270 And you can't assist as to whether Mr. Monahan is paying Mr. Murphy 100,000

www.pcr.ie Day 656
35
11:36:53 1 pounds cash or Mr. Murphy is paying Mr. Monahan 100,000 pounds cash; isn't that
2 right?
3 A. Yeah.
4 Q. 271 Do you know who Mr. Murphy is?
11:37:01 5 A. Is I have no idea who Mr. Murphy is.
6 Q. 272 No idea?
7 A. No.
8 Q. 273 All right. But it would certainly appear to suggest, the entry being in
9 Mr. Monahan's own handwriting, that on the same date as he writes the cheque
11:37:14 10 for 25,000 pounds to Mr. Haughey out of his domestic bank account, he is also
11 involved in some transaction that involves 100,000 pounds cash; isn't that
12 right?
13 A. It suggests that all right.
14 Q. 274 Uh-huh. Do you know whether Mr. Monahan had ever had any dealings in cash or
11:37:36 15 negotiated with people in cash or dealt with cash at all in the course of his
16 business?
17 A. I don't think he did.
18 Q. 275 Yes. Can I show you a document at 8105, which is dated May of 1986. By
19 which time you would have been in the employment of Mr. Monahan; isn't that
11:37:56 20 right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 276 And this is a discussion about what's going to happen to money that's raised as
23 a result of the Tesco transaction. Do you remember the Tesco transaction,
24 Ms. Gosling?
11:38:07 25 A. Vaguely, vaguely. I'd forgotten all about that.
26 Q. 277 Uh-huh. This is a meeting that takes place between -- would you have typed up
27 the minutes of this meeting?
28 A. I don't believe so.
29 Q. 278 Uh-huh?
11:38:23 30 A. It was probably typed by Sean Mooney but I've -- well or in Sean Mooney's

www.pcr.ie Day 656
36
11:38:29 1 office. I don't know. I don't remember this, so I would think it was
2 probably by Sean Mooney.
3 Q. 279 All right. Anyway. Paragraph one records that Monarch is in funds because
4 of the completion of the Tesco transaction and PM, that's Mr. Philip Monahan,
11:38:46 5 wants now to make disbursements to Dominic Glennane, Eddie Sweeney and to
6 himself?
7 A. Okay.
8 Q. 280 Right. And then he goes down -- number -- and he says he outlines the money
9 that he wants people to get. At paragraph two the following is recorded.
11:39:00 10
11 From his own viewpoint, Mr. Monahan wants to ensure that there is sufficient
12 cash available to him and to his wife in the event of his death and that this
13 cash is free and not tide up with Monarch. PM would like to withdraw between
14 1 million and one and a half million from Monarch tax free. This money would
11:39:17 15 not be required all at once but it would be available on loan account to
16 Mr. Monahan as and when he required T
17
18 Were you aware of that proposal?
19 A. Well, I would have seen these minutes at some stage but.
11:39:35 20 Q. 281 Well, were you aware of Mr. Monahan's desire in 1986 to have either one million
21 or one million and a half available to himself in cash?
22 A. I must have been but, yeah, I suppose I have to answer yes. I don't remember.
23 You know, I don't actually remember but, yes, the answer would have to be yes.
24 Q. 282 And was there a system in Monarch or an agreement or an understanding in
11:40:04 25 Monarch that when things came good on developments people would be paid
26 bonuses?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 283 And that those bonuses would be paid either in cash or what's described I think
29 in the documentation as a tax efficient manner?
11:40:17 30 A. A tax efficient manner, yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
37
11:40:19 1 Q. 284 Is that right?
2 A. Uh-huh.
3 Q. 285 And were you yourself a recipient of such a bonus?
4 A. Um, yes.
11:40:25 5 Q. 286 And were other members of Monarch recipients of such bonuses?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 287 Including payments in cash?
8 A. Not in cash.
9 Q. 288 Well, Mr. Sweeney swore an affidavit in the High Court in proceedings when he
11:40:39 10 instituted proceedings against Monarch Properties. You will remember those
11 proceedings between Monarch Properties?
12 A. Okay.
13 Q. 289 And at page 8056 of this affidavit, Mr. Sweeney's sworn document.
14
11:40:53 15 He records at paragraph 10. He is talking about an ex gratia payment. "I
16 requested that any such agreement would be implemented on a professional basis
17 and accordingly, it would be agreed that Mr Sean Mooney of the company's
18 auditors and accountants, Stokes Kennedy Crowley, would be asked to make the
19 necessary arrangements. Various meetings were held between Mr. Monahan and
11:41:11 20 myself at which we discussed the mechanism for the implementation of this
21 arrangement and it was agreed that ex gratia payment of 100,000 pounds would be
22 notionally paid to me".
23
24 That's 8057. "For which I would receive a cash sum of 50,000 pounds in a tax
11:41:26 25 efficient manner with the balance of 50,000 pounds being paid to Mr. Monahan as
26 consideration for the acquisition of a tranche of his existing shareholding
27 equivalent to 15% of the issued shared capital of the Monarch Group. Do you
28 see that?
29 A. Uh-huh.
11:41:41 30 Q. 290 What Mr. Monahan is apparently swearing there is that he had an agreement to

www.pcr.ie Day 656
38
11:41:47 1 receive 50,000 pounds in a tax efficient manner. Now, when Mr. Sweeney comes
2 to give evidence we can deal with the efficiency of the manner in which he was
3 paid that sum.
4 A. Uh-huh.
11:41:57 5 Q. 291 What I'm drawing to your attention here is an apparent agreement according to
6 Mr. Sweeney for the 50,000 pounds in cash. I'm asking you whether the system
7 of bonus system that operated in Monarch whether those payments were in cash?
8 A. Well they were in a -- they would be in a cheque that maybe said cash rather
9 than the person's name.
11:42:17 10 Q. 292 Well, who would the cheque be made out to?
11 A. I would think the person concerned.
12 Q. 293 Did you ever receive a bonus?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 294 And who was your cheque made out to?
11:42:29 15 A. Ann Gosling.
16 Q. 295 Did you ever receive a cheque by any other mechanism?
18 Q. 296 Do you have any involvement in a company called Circinus?
19 A. Yes.
11:42:45 20 Q. 297 Was that a company in which you had a beneficial interest?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 298 How much of that company did you own?
23 A. Um, I think it was 50 percent.
24 Q. 299 Did that company receive a disbursement by way of a bonus following on a share
11:43:05 25 deal involving export sales relief?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 300 And was your share of that a share of 5%?
28 A. Probably, yeah.
29 Q. 301 And how were you paid that?
11:43:19 30 A. I got cheques on two subsequent years I think.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
39
11:43:28 1 Q. 302 Uh-huh?
2 A. Of a small amount. And I didn't actually get the remainder until I left my
3 employment. It was a tax scheme.
4 Q. 303 Uh-huh?
11:43:42 5 A. Tax scheme to -- but myself and the other person involved, we didn't
6 actually -- we just got a small proportion in ...
7 Q. 304 Were the beneficiaries of that particular scheme Mr. Monahan, Mr. Glennane,
8 Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Tom Monahan and yourself?
9 A. Yes.
11:44:01 10 Q. 305 And did you all receive payments made as a result of the profits generated by
11 that scheme?
12 A. Eventually.
13 Q. 306 And were the shares in that scheme held in a company called Circinus Limited?
14 A. My share and Mr. Tom Monahan's share was.
11:44:18 15 Q. 307 Yes. And were the cheques made payable to Circinus Limited?
16 A. That was one company that had a bank account so the cheques were from Circinus.
17 Q. 308 So that the payment or the profit was paid initially to a company called
18 Circinus Limited and Circinus paid you?
19 A. Yes.
11:44:38 20 Q. 309 And you were a director and I think indeed secretary, together with Mr. Philip
21 Monahan, of Circinus Limited; isn't that right?
22 A. I think it was Mr. Tom Monahan.
23 Q. 310 I show you a document which is not in the brief but which will be added to the
24 brief. Which is an extract from the company's registrar in relation to
11:44:55 25 Circinus which records Mr. Phil Monahan and not Tom Monahan as being the
26 director?
27 A. That might be after Tom died (document handed to witness). Thank you. Okay.
28 When -- the original directors were Tom Monahan.
29 Q. 311 And then --
11:45:31 30 A. And then Tom died.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
40
11:45:32 1 Q. 312 And Mr. Philip Monahan became a director?
2 A. I think so, yeah.
3 Q. 313 But was Circinus, if I understand it correctly, a vehicle that was designed to
4 take your share of a profit in a scheme. Is that right?
11:45:43 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 314 And was the entire of the profit, designed to pay out an aggregate sum of 1.8
7 million; is that right?
8 A. In total to all of the directors.
11:45:55 10 A. Um, I don't remember the sum sums but probably, yes.
11 Q. 316 And that Mr. Glennane was to receive 20%, which was 450,000 pounds. And
12 Mr. Sweeney was to get 270,000 pounds for his share and Mr. Monahan, I think,
13 was in fact to get 1.08 million for his shares?
14 A. Possibly, yeah. I don't remember the figures. I'd forgotten the scheme
11:46:17 15 until now but yes.
16 Q. 317 The shares of the profit that were taken by the employees on foot of this
17 agreement were taken in various companies; isn't that right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 318 So that Mr. Glennane had his company, which I understand was called Aspentree
11:46:32 20 Limited and Mr. Sweeney had his company called Isotope limited and Mr. Monahan
21 had his company; isn't that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 319 What was Mr. Monahan's company?
24 A. You'll have to remind me because I don't -- I'm sorry, I don't remember.
11:46:45 25 Q. 320 Did Mr. Monahan take his share through Circinus Limited?
26 A. No.
27 Q. 321 But the division that was being paid out at that particular time was a sum of
28 1.08 million to Mr. Phil Monahan; isn't that right?
29 A. I don't know. I don't know what the figures were.
11:47:01 30 Q. 322 Well according to the affidavit sworn by Mr. Sweeney in the proceedings at

www.pcr.ie Day 656
41
11:47:05 1 8058.
3 At paragraph 17. He says in January '92 as a result of the outstanding
4 financial success of The Square Shopping Centre the group agreed to pay an
11:47:23 5 aggregate dividend in a tax efficient manner, devised by Stokes Kennedy
6 Crowley, to myself and Messrs. Monahan and Glennane. The monies were paid
7 through Anglo Irish Bank corporation to various especially formed nominee
8 companies. In this regard I received a dividend of 270,000 pounds via Isotope
9 Limited and he describes that as 15 percent of 1.8 million. Mr. Glennane
11:47:44 10 received 450,000 ie 20 percent via Aspentree with a balance of 1.08 million, 65
11 percent, being paid to Mr. Monahan via Monarch Properties Holdings Limited and
12 Circinus, that is Sirinus but it should be Circinus Limited. Now --
13 A. I don't think his -- I'm not too sure that he is totally accurate there in how
14 it was done.
11:48:07 15 Q. 323 So you say that what was paid to Circinus would have been your share of the
16 bonus or the profit; is that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 324 And there is a dispute on the affidavits between Mr. Monahan and Mr. Sweeney.
19 I don't think the amounts are disputed. What's disputed is the purpose of the
11:48:25 20 payments. Whether it was by way of an investment or matters such as that
21 sort?
22 A. Okay.
23 Q. 325 But do you agree that out of these monies you received a sum equivalent of 5%
24 and you took it through a company called Circinus Limited?
11:48:48 25 A. No. No, I think Circinus was earlier than that. And it was from, from the
26 one you mentioned earlier I think the Tesco one.
27 Q. 326 It was as a result of the Tesco?
28 A. Yeah.
29 Q. 327 Did you receive a second payment?
11:49:02 30 A. No.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
42
11:49:03 1 Q. 328 In '92, no?
2 A. No. I only received one. So ...
3 Q. 329 It was following the Tesco payout?
4 A. Yeah.
11:49:10 5 Q. 330 But certainly if Mr. Sweeney is correct in what he sets out in paragraph 17.
6 In 1992 Mr. Monahan was receiving 1.08 million which was being taken through a
7 corporate structure. Did you know anything about that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 331 Well, would you outline to the Tribunal?
11:49:34 10 A. But I don't know exactly what I knew. There was a -- I know that there's a
11 scheme set up and handled tax efficiently.
12 Q. 332 Uh-huh?
13 A. But that's really as much as I can at this moment remember anyway.
14 Q. 333 Certainly it would appear that there was a disbursement because that doesn't
11:49:57 15 appear to be disputed?
16 A. There was definitely a disbursement, yes.
17 Q. 334 And if the figures are correct then the amount disbursed in 1992 to Mr. Monahan
18 through a corporate structure was a sum of 1.08 million?
19 A. Okay. I'm sorry. I have no idea on the amounts.
11:50:26 20 Q. 335 No idea?
21 A. No.
22 Q. 336 But you have a recollection of the transaction?
23 A. There was a transaction of that nature, yes.
24 Q. 337 Do you have any idea what Mr. Monahan would have done with his share?
11:50:27 25 A. No.
26 Q. 338 Do you know where he'd have put that money?
27 A. No, off the top of my head, now, no, I don't know.
28 Q. 339 Did Mr. Monahan have any offshore trusts?
29 A. Not to my knowledge.
11:50:42 30 Q. 340 Did Mr.-- did you ever hear of a trust called the Aynsley Trust?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
43
11:50:51 1 A. The name rings a bell.
2 Q. 341 Do you know what it was?
3 A. I think it was something to do with Ansbacher.
4 Q. 342 Uh-huh. Do you know whether Mr. Monahan had any involvement in the Aynsley
11:51:06 5 Trust?
6 A. I don't know.
7 Q. 343 Do you know whether Mr. Monahan ever made direct payments himself to people or
8 to individuals?
9 A. In what sense?
11:51:25 10 Q. 344 Did he make payments directly to people, individuals, oversee or supervise
11 payments himself?
12 A. No. He'd his own cheque book but anything that was done was done from the
13 company.
14 Q. 345 Uh-huh. You see, in July of 1992 Mr. Philip Monahan wrote to Mr. Martin Baker
11:51:48 15 in connection with Tallaght and the Cherrywood Development and at page 3781 of
16 that letter he says the following and he's talking about Tallaght.
17
18 He says "paragraph five: Additional Marketing Costs. To ensure the success
19 of the joint venture key additional marketing costs were incurred. These
11:52:06 20 costs which were supervised directly by Mr. Monahan were critical to ensuring
21 the tax status and appropriate tenant profile of the Tallaght Town Centre".
22
23 Now, stop there for the moment. And Mr. Monahan who was the author of the
24 letter appears to be suggesting two things. He appears to be suggesting that
11:52:25 25 costs were paid directly by him A, in connection with the tax status of
26 Tallaght and B, the appropriate tenant profile. Would you agree with that?
27 A. I wouldn't think that was what was actually intended. You could take that
28 interpretation from that okay but I don't think that was the ... I think the
29 idea supervised directly by Mr. Monahan simply to ensure that they got done.
11:53:02 30 Q. 346 Well if we look now at what's being said the money is being paid for?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
44
11:53:08 1 A. Okay.
2 Q. 347 Do you agree that according to this letter that the payments that were
3 supervised directly by Mr. Monahan were those in connection with the tax status
4 of the Tallaght Town Centre and the tenant profile of the Tallaght Town Centre?
11:53:22 5 A. Well I think Mr. Monahan, as the boss, had the overall responsibility. So
6 it's -- just reading this in isolation and not being aware of what else was
7 being said in the letter you could take that interpretation but I think it's
8 probably, you'd need to see the whole big picture.
9 Q. 348 Yeah?
11:53:48 10 A. And that he as the -- as, you know, as the Chief Executive was --
11 Q. 349 Well, this might be an appropriate time to take a break and while of course
12 Ms. Gosling has this letter and has had it for some time can refresh herself
13 and read the letter.
14
11:54:06 15 CHAIRMAN: We'll take a ten minute break.
16
17
18
21
22
23
24
12:12:56 25 MS. DILLON: Good afternoon, Ms. Gosling.
26
27 Could I have page 3781, please.
28
29 3781. Sorry. It's on screen.
12:13:08 30

www.pcr.ie Day 656
45
12:13:08 1 And looking at paragraph 5 of that letter. Which dealt with costs in relation
2 to Tallaght. And what I had been asking you before the break, Ms. Gosling,
3 was the first paragraph in which what was set out there is that certain costs
4 were supervised directly by Mr. Monahan and were critical to ensuring the tax
12:13:26 5 status and appropriate tenant profile of the Tallaght Town Centre. Is that
6 right?
7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. 350 And I was suggesting to you that what was being said there was that Mr. Monahan
9 had made direct payments in connection with tax status and appropriate tenant
12:13:41 10 profile. Isn't that right? Now, do you agree with that? That that's what
11 the letter says?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 351 Right. The letter goes on. "The Square was included as a designated area in
14 the 1989 Finance Act. This dramatically increased its value and led to a
12:14:00 15 large level of private and institutional investors expressing interest in the
16 project. Institutional sales of 24 million were made before the centre had
17 even opened. He then says significant professional fees were incurred in this
18 area particularly in relation to obtaining the tax status of Tallaght".
19
12:14:16 20 Now, could you assist the Tribunal at all as to what professional fees were
21 incurred in relation to obtaining the tax status in Tallaght
22 A. No, I'm sorry.
23 Q. 352 Do you know anything about any programme or strategy about getting tax
24 designation for Tallaght?
12:14:29 25 A. No, I don't.
26 Q. 353 Was this ever discussed by you by Mr. Monahan?
27 A. No.
28 Q. 354 All right. On the following page, 3782. Continuing the same paragraph.
29 "The Square had sever anchor tenants, Crazy Prices, Dunnes Stores, Pricewise,
12:14:43 30 Hickey's, A wear, UCI and Roches Stores. To ensure that these company were

www.pcr.ie Day 656
46
12:14:49 1 successfully encouraged to acquire a unit in Tallaght required the personal
2 input involvement of Mr. Monahan which in certain circumstances required
3 compensation payments for changes in contractual trading arrangements. A sum
4 of 850,000 pounds should be allocated to cover the foregoing".
12:15:04 5
6 And I suggest to you that Mr. Monahan in this letter is seeking a sum of
7 850,000 pounds to cover his outgoings in connection with ensuring the tax
8 status of Tallaght and the appropriate tenant profile. Isn't that right?
9 A. It certainly suggests that, yes.
12:15:20 10 Q. 355 And that's what the letter is seeking. Isn't that right?
11 A. Possibly, yes.
12 Q. 356 So what Mr. Monahan is saying in this letter is I have spent 850,000 pounds
13 securing the tax status of Tallaght and the appropriate tenant profile for the
14 Tallaght Town Centre and I want you, GRE, to pay me that money. Isn't that
12:15:41 15 right?
16 A. Possibly.
17 Q. 357 If Mr. Monahan spent 850,000 pounds securing the tax status of Tallaght and
18 ensuring the appropriate tenant profile where did he get the money?
19 A. From the company.
12:15:55 20 Q. 358 What company?
21 A. Whichever one was involved.
22 Q. 359 So that would be L&C Properties in Tallaght; isn't that right?
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. 360 So you say that the books and records of L&C Properties would show
12:16:06 25 disbursements to the sum of 850,000 pounds made directly by Mr. Philip Monahan
26 to ensure the tax status of Tallaght and the appropriate tenant profile?
27 A. I would expect so, yes.
28 Q. 361 Insofar as the appropriate tenant profile is concerned, is what was being
29 discussed in this letter the practice, whereby, in order to encourage multiples
12:16:26 30 to come into a shopping centre you paid them what has been described in other

www.pcr.ie Day 656
47
12:16:31 1 venues as "hello money?"
2 A. I wasn't involved in that aspect of things. So I can't answer that.
3 Q. 362 Were you aware of that aspect of things?
4 A. Not really.
12:16:41 5 Q. 363 Do you know whether or not monies were ever paid in connection with encouraging
6 people to take up units in Tallaght town centre?
7 A. I don't.
8 Q. 364 You don't?
9 A. No.
12:16:50 10 Q. 365 Do you know what monies might have been paid or who they might have been paid
11 to in order to ensure the tax status of Tallaght?
12 A. No.
13 Q. 366 Do you know whether Mr. Philip Monahan himself had direct contact with senior
14 politicians?
12:17:03 15 A. No. No, I don't know.
16 Q. 367 Do you know what was the basis for this letter, for seeking this money in
17 connection -- could I have 3781 again, please. For seeking this sum of
18 850,000 pounds in connection with these two items being the tax status of
19 Tallaght and the appropriate tenant profile?
12:17:31 20 A. No, no.
21 Q. 368 Did Mr. Monahan ever discuss any of this with you?
22 A. No, no.
23 Q. 369 Who is the person in the Monarch Group who could assist in relation to this
24 letter?
12:17:41 25 A. Well presumably once again back to Mr. Glennane and Mr. Sweeney.
26 Q. 370 And what about Mr. Philip Reilly who was the man on the ground, as I understand
27 it, in Tallaght. Would he know all about this?
28 A. I don't know.
29 Q. 371 Do you know who was involved in any of the transactions that are the subject
12:17:59 30 matter of this paragraph?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
48
12:18:00 1 A. No.
2 Q. 372 Now, I want to draw to your attention to the response of GRE. GRE denied that
3 they had any liability under this heading and they never ever deal in their
4 correspondence with the whole element of tax status but in their reply they do
12:18:19 5 address the tenant profile issue.
7 3823, please.
9 And the heading is -- 3823. Yes. And the heading is "paragraph 7 Additional
12:18:31 10 Marketing Costs in respect of Sales to Owner Occupiers" and it says the source
11 is Section 5 of P Monahan's letter of 22nd July 1992. Section 5 of
12 Mr. Monahan's letter of 22nd of July 1992 is the document at 3781 to which we
13 have just been referring, Ms. Gosling
14 A. Uh-huh.
12:18:51 15 Q. 373 That was headed Additional Marketing Costs in Mr. Monahan's letter. It's now
16 being called Additional Marketing Costs in respect of Sales to Owner Occupiers.
17 There is no reference in this reply to the tax status of Tallaght.
18
19 What I want to draw to your attention is what is is said there in relation to
12:19:14 20 item C. In respect of Dunnes a net price was achieved for the joint venture
21 on the basis that 1 million Irish pounds was paid to Monarch outside the joint
22 venture agreement to reflect deals elsewhere.
23
24 Do you see that?
12:19:20 25 A. Uh-huh.
26 Q. 374 What GRE are saying there, apparently, is that in connection with Dunnes
27 Stores, it would appear, I will just say Dunnes in case it's not Dunnes Stores
28 that outside the joint venture a sum of 1 million pounds was paid to Monarch.
29 Do you understand that?
12:19:36 30 A. Uh-huh.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
49
12:19:37 1 Q. 375 And it's to reflect deals elsewhere?
2 A. Uh-huh.
3 Q. 376 Do you know what the deals elsewhere were for which the sum of 1 million pounds
4 was paid?
12:19:44 5 A. No, I don't.
6 Q. 377 Was any of this ever discussed with you by Mr. Monahan?
7 A. No.
8 Q. 378 Do you know whether Mr. Monahan had contact with any ministers?
9 A. No, I don't.
12:20:01 10 Q. 379 Do you know that Mr. Monahan may have met with Mr. Flynn, who was then Minister
11 for the Environment?
12 A. Okay.
13 Q. 380 Were you aware of that?
14 A. No.
12:20:22 15 Q. 381 Were you aware that in June of 1989 Monarch Properties Limited paid 16,000
16 pounds to Fianna Fail?
17 A. No.
18 Q. 382 Okay. At 2864. Mr. Philip Monahan sent 16,000 pounds to Fianna Fail; isn't
19 that right?
12:20:43 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 383 Were you aware of that?
22 A. I just said I wasn't. But I see that's -- my reference is on the bottom of
23 the letter. So I would have typed the letter.
24 Q. 384 Uh-huh?
12:20:54 25 A. I'm sorry; you know, I don't remember. But when I see something like that.
26 I mean, it's probably difficult for you to appreciate that I don't remember,
27 but I don't.
28 Q. 385 Would you have known in a general way about the political donations that were
29 made by the Monarch Group?
12:21:13 30 A. No.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
50
12:21:14 1 Q. 386 So other than typing the correspondence you wouldn't have been aware of the
2 fact that 16,000 pounds was paid?
3 A. No.
4 Q. 387 And these matters wouldn't have been discussed with you?
12:21:25 5 A. No.
6 Q. 388 All right. Were you aware that in May of 1989 that Mr. Monahan apparently had
7 a meeting with Mr. Padraig Flynn?
8 A. No.
9 Q. 389 At 7661.
12:21:44 10
11 It would appear that on the 24th of May 1989 Mr. Monahan met Mr. Flynn,
12 according to Mr. Padraig Flynn's ministerial diary.
13 A. Okay.
14 Q. 390 Do you see the entry there for the 24th of May, P Monaghan?
12:22:07 15 A. Well our Mr. Monahan didn't have a G in his name but .... if Mr. Flynn says
16 that's Mr. Monahan that's Mr. Monahan, obviously.
17 Q. 391 Do you have any idea why Mr. Monahan would have been meeting Mr. Flynn in May
18 of 1989?
19 A. No, I'm sorry, I don't.
12:22:29 20 Q. 392 In November of 1989 Mr. Padraig Flynn's personal diary records a meeting. At
21 7662, with Mr. Monahan. Which is also replicated in the ministerial diary.
22 You just see there it says "Phil Monahan 4:15". I think Mr. Flynn agrees it
23 is Mr. Monahan. Do you have any idea why Mr. Monahan would have been meeting
24 Mr. Flynn?
12:22:59 25 A. No.
26 Q. 393 In 1989?
27 A. No.
28 Q. 394 Do you know whether there were concerns within the Monarch Group at that time
29 about anything to do with Cherrywood that might have necessitated a visit to
12:23:12 30 Mr. Flynn?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
51
12:23:15 1 A. No.
2 Q. 395 Did Mr. Monahan ever discuss with you any of his concerns in connection any
3 problems that arose on the Cherrywood Development?
4 A. No.
12:23:29 5 Q. 396 In February of 1991, at 7664. There is an entry in Mr. Padraig Flynn's
6 ministerial diary for Philip Monahan of Monarch. Do you see that?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 397 That must be Mr. Philip Monahan; isn't that right?
9 A. Yes.
12:23:53 10 Q. 398 Do you have any idea what that's about?
11 A. No, I don't, sorry.
12 Q. 399 It's five days after the 25,000 pounds was paid to Mr. Haughey. Do you think
13 those events may have been connected?
14 A. I don't know.
12:24:06 15 Q. 400 Do you think the visit in May 1989 of the 24th of May may be in any way
16 connected to the 16,000 pounds on the 9th of June 1989?
17 A. I don't know, sorry.
18 Q. 401 Were you aware that 15,000 pounds was paid in September 1994 by Monarch by way
19 of a pick me up to Fianna Fail?
12:24:29 20 A. No.
21 Q. 402 Were you aware at the time, did you subsequently become aware of it?
22 A. Only from the recent newspapers.
23 Q. 403 Did you have any involvement yourself in it?
24 A. No.
12:24:42 25 Q. 404 Can I show you page 8514, please.
26
27 This is a memorandum from yourself, Ann Gosling, to Sean Mooney dated the 7th
28 of January 1999 following a telephone call you had from the Revenue
29 Commissioners instituting an inquiry into the payment of the pick me up by
12:25:07 30 Monarch; isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
52
12:25:07 1 A. Uh-huh.
3 A. That's -- yeah.
4 Q. 406 So you told the Tribunal two minutes ago you'd nothing whatsoever to do with
12:25:11 5 the pick me up; isn't that right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 407 Then or later; isn't that right?
8 A. Well I was answering as then. I hadn't even heard the term "pick me up."
9 Q. 408 Well the payment to Fianna Fail?
12:25:23 10 A. No. At the time of the payment I knew nothing whatsoever about it. Obviously
11 I had -- I had this call. At that stage I had to find out something about it
12 but even then I didn't hear 'pick me up' until recent newspapers.
13 Q. 409 Yeah, but you knew about the payment. You knew about the fact that the
14 revenue had telephoned you about a payment that was made by Monarch of 16,000
12:25:47 15 pounds isn't that right or 15,000 pounds?
16 A. Sorry. But I didn't make the connection, yeah, okay. I've written this
17 memo, yes. I had this conversation.
18 MR RYAN: Sorry, Chairman. May I make an interjection here. My name is
19 Jarlath Ryan, I am counsel for Ms. Gosling. I think we just should draw
12:26:05 20 attention to the date on this memo which is 1999 which is several years, I
21 think nearly eight years after the initial payment was made that Ms. Dillon is
22 alighting on. I think that should be drawn to the attention of the Tribunal.
23
24 Ms. Gosling was a secretary of the company at this point but I think when the
12:26:26 25 picking up payment, as characterised, was made she was not an officer of the
26 company. I just want to make that point.
27
28 CHAIRMAN: Yes. We're just trying to identify what, if any, knowledge she
29 has about it, whether it was acquired after the event or ...
12:26:39 30 MR RYAN: I understand it was characterised initially as a pick me up and then I

www.pcr.ie Day 656
53
12:26:44 1 don't think my client would have characterised the payment in such a way.
3 CHAIRMAN: Well she can explain that.
4 MR RYAN: Thank you, Chairman.
12:26:51 5
6 MS. DILLON: I asked you earlier this morning, Ms. Gosling, leaving aside the
7 pick me up, whether you had any involvement or knowledge in any political
8 payments by Monarch and you said no; isn't that right?
9 A. I did, yes.
12:27:03 10 Q. 410 We looked then at Mr. Monahan's diary for 1991 in connection with the 25,000
11 pounds payment to Mr. Haughey; isn't that right?
12 A. Uh-huh.
13 Q. 411 And your answer was that you had nothing to do with any political payments;
12:27:16 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 412 It would appear in 1999 following communication from the Revenue Commissioners
17 you had an involvement in connection with the payment that was made in 1994 to
18 Saatchi & Saatchi by Monarch; isn't that right?
19 A. Only in the sense that I'm being asked to account for it.
12:27:41 20 Q. 413 So you received a telephone call from the Revenue Commissioners and you
21 contacted Mr. Sean Mooney and you cc'd the correspondence to Mr. Glennane?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 414 You received a letter subsequently, at 8517, from the Revenue Commissioners.
24 In which you are described as the secretary of Monarch Properties Limited. Is
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 415 You were then the secretary of Monarch?
28 A. At that time, yes.
29 Q. 416 So you were an officer at that stage; isn't that right?
12:28:06 30 A. At that stage, but I hadn't been earlier.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
54
12:28:09 1 Q. 417 Grand. But certainly you were also an officer when you received the telephone
2 call from the Revenue Commissioners on the 7th of January 1999. Isn't that
3 also right?
4 A. Yes, because he had gone looking to see who the secretary was, yes.
12:28:22 5 Q. 418 And at page 8517. Mr. Brendan O'Brien from the Inspector of Taxes refers to
6 previous correspondence, your letter of December and the phone call in January
7 and he wants to know how the invoice or payment relating to the Saatchi &
8 Saatchi was recorded in the books of the company?
9 A. Yes.
12:28:38 10 Q. 419 And he asked you to provide the information. And he looks for a response;
12 A. That's right.
13 Q. 420 And you receive a draft letter. At 8515. From Mr. Sean Mooney of KPMG;
12:28:52 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 421 And I attach a draft letter for the Revenue?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 422 That's the 8th of February 1999?
19 A. Uh-huh.
12:28:59 20 Q. 423 And that contains a -- it's a draft letter for you to send setting out the
21 explanation for how the Saatchi & Saatchi advertising contribution was dealt
22 with in the books of Monarch?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 424 And how political contributions were dealt with; isn't that right?
12:29:14 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 425 And you sent off that letter?
27 A. I did.
28 Q. 426 So that you dealt with two items in that letter. The first thing you dealt
29 with was the Saatchi & Saatchi advice advertising and the second thing was the
12:29:26 30 political contributions; isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
55
12:29:28 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 427 Talking about November 1992. And presumably you sent that letter as an
3 officer of the company?
4 A. I did.
12:29:38 5 Q. 428 So that you were aware of the fact that there was a Revenue investigation isn't
6 that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 429 And that revenue investigation extended to other payments that had been made
9 including the payment of 16,000 pounds to Fianna Fail in June of 1989; isn't
12:29:54 10 that right?
11 A. Uh-huh.
12 Q. 430 So that when you told the Tribunal earlier this morning you had no knowledge or
13 information about political payments. That in fact was not correct; isn't
14 that right?
12:30:03 15 A. Well, at the time they were made I had no knowledge of them.
16 Q. 431 Well I think if you look back you will see the question was "at any time".?
17 A. I'm sorry if I misled you I'm sorry.
18 Q. 432 So --
19 A. It certainly wasn't intentional.
12:30:19 20 Q. 433 Insofar as the revenue investigation was involved. You were the person with
21 whom the revenue dealt and you obtained the information from the auditors and
22 you provided that information; isn't that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 434 Can I show you a document. At 8728, Ms. Gosling. You might be able to
12:30:35 25 assist.
26
27 This is a remittance slip from Monarch Properties. And it's addressed to
28 Mr. Liam McParland. And this is the document that's filled in in order to
29 generate a cheque; isn't that right?
12:30:49 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
56
12:30:49 1 Q. 435 And it's a cheque in the sum of 5,000 pounds and the description is 'expenses
2 re Tallaght zoning'?
3 A. Okay.
12:30:57 5 A. Yeah.
6 Q. 437 You will see it says Ref - AG. Do you see that handwriting on it just above
7 the word "amount 5,000 pounds?"
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. 438 Would you agree that that is likely to be a reference to yourself?
12:31:19 10 A. I don't know why but it would certainly suggest it was me.
11 Q. 439 Well, who else might it be?
12 A. Are we in 1984 or 1989, sorry?
13 Q. 440 1989. If you look at the top of the document. The 11th of the 7th 1989.?
14 A. I think at that stage we had another employee with the initials AG in Dublin.
12:31:48 15 Q. 441 Who is that?
16 A. She was a lady called Ann Griffin.
17 Q. 442 Griffin?
18 A. Griffin, Griffith, Griffin, I forget which. It caused a little confusion for
19 a while when we realised there was two AGs around.
12:32:06 20 Q. 443 And similarly then there is a document at 8834.
21
22 Which is a memo to Mr. Glennane from Mr. Lawless of May '88 and was this second
23 person with the initials AG employed in 1988
24 A. I'm sorry. I don't remember the dates. AG ...
12:32:32 25 Q. 444 This is a payment of 15,000 pounds.?
26 A. Yeah, I've --
27 Q. 445 And you --
28 A. I don't think that's me.
29 Q. 446 You don't think that's you?
12:32:42 30 A. No, I don't think so.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
57
12:32:43 1 Q. 447 Do you see the reference ANG at the bottom?
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. 448 WH.KANG, isn't that the reference you've identified previously as being yours?
4 A. No, no, that was Ann Gilmore.
12:32:55 5 Q. 449 That's not you?
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. 450 All right. So you are saying that the reference to Tallaght Town Centre
8 zoning that AG mentioned reference to T T C zoning is not you?
9 A. No. I don't think so. In fact I'm nearly certain of it. There were --
12:33:12 10 there were actually three AGs at one stage so.
11 Q. 451 Uh-huh?
12 A. This girl, we got her to put AMG because we were in the same building so the
13 other girl was in Dublin so.
14 Q. 452 And did you have any involvement with Mr. Frank Dunlop?
12:33:33 15 A. No.
16 Q. 453 Were you aware that Mr. Dunlop had been retained by the Monarch Group?
17 A. No, I wasn't.
18 Q. 454 Did Mr. Monahan ever discuss with you the appointment of Mr. Dunlop?
19 A. Never.
12:33:43 20 Q. 455 Were you aware that prior to Mr. Dunlop's involvement Mr. O'Herlihy had been
21 involved in the Cherrywood Project?
22 A. Yes, I knee Mr. O'Herlihy.
23 Q. 456 Did you know Mr. O'Herlihy independent of his involvement in Monarch or?
24 A. No, no, I just knew of him.
12:33:59 25 Q. 457 You knew of the fact that he had been retained in connection?
26 A. That he had been retained, yes.
27 Q. 458 You were unaware of the fact that Mr. Dunlop had been retained. Is that
28 correct?
12:34:08 30 Q. 459 Why would that have been?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
58
12:34:12 1 A. I never heard of him, Mr. Dunlop being involved with Monarch.
2 Q. 460 And if we can go back just the to the question of cash and I show you a letter
3 that was drafted by Noel Smyth & Partners. At 8516.
12:34:32 5 And this is in connection with a potential swap in connection with the golf
6 course lands. And I want to draw to your attention to the last two paragraphs
7 that's being put forward there. The deal with Dun Laoghaire simply is there to
8 receive 150 acres of land approximately at Cherrywood. That 150 acres is to
9 be developed into a first class golf course at the cost of the developer. 10
12:34:57 10 thousand square feet is to be built. All cost will be responsibility of the
11 developer and in addition the sum of half a million pounds cash would have to
12 be paid to the club on the actual hand over.
13
14 Were you aware of any such proposal which would have included a proposal to pay
12:35:15 15 half a million pounds in cash to the golf club?
16 A. No.
17 Q. 461 In your statement to the Tribunal, Ms. Gosling, you describe yourself as being
18 a person in a position of trust within the organisation. Is that correct?
19 A. Yes, I believe so.
12:35:32 20 Q. 462 And you are a person who is the person who worked solely and completely with
21 Mr. Philip Monahan; is that right?
22 A. Yeah.
23 Q. 463 At all stages from the time that you were employed in 1969?
24 A. Yes.
12:35:45 25 Q. 464 And you would have been privy to, certainly from the point of view, at a
26 minimum of typing correspondence or dealing with matters such as that sort of
27 Mr. Monahan's affairs; is that right?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 465 All right. So now -- and insofar as you are here to assist the Tribunal and
12:36:04 30 correct me if I'm wrong, your position appears to be the following. You are

www.pcr.ie Day 656
59
12:36:08 1 unaware of any political payments made by Mr. Monahan other than the fact that
2 you might have had latterly some involvement in sorting out revenue matters.
3 Is that correct?
12:36:19 5 Q. 466 You are unaware of the involvement of Mr. Jack Whelan in any development other
6 than the fact that he was an agent?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 467 You were totally unaware of the fact that Mr. Dunlop had been retained in
9 connection with Cherrywood?
12:36:31 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 468 You met Mr. Lawlor on two occasions but were unaware that substantial sums of
12 money had been paid to him?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 469 You were aware of a bonus system which you yourself benefited -- by the way,
12:36:45 15 how much did you get can I ask you out of the bonus?
16 A. I'm not -- I honestly don't -- I can't tell you because I don't remember. And
17 that probably sounds really weird.
18 MR RYAN: Chairman, may I assist the Tribunal as well. And just say that the
19 pay out in question was part of Ms. Gosling's retirement package from the
12:37:21 20 Monarch Group in early 2000 and as such was used. That shareholding in that
21 company, the liquidation of that shareholding by way of solventary organisation
22 of the group was used as part of the settlement or retirement lump sum which
23 Ms. Gosling was given.
24
12:37:39 25 CHAIRMAN: Well, was that the only bonus you received, this one that your
26 lawyer refers to as having been paid as part of your retirement?
27 A. Um, well I would probably have received some small amounts for Christmas,
28 through the years.
29
12:38:03 30 CHAIRMAN: What, hundreds?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
60
12:38:05 1 A. Yeah.
3 MS. DILLON: Just on that point. It might assist you, Ms. Gosling. If you
4 look at 8037. Which is the affidavit sworn by the late Mr. Philip Monahan in
12:38:15 5 the High Court proceedings. He is discussing the payment of 270,000 pounds to
6 Mr. Eddie Sweeney which was Mr. Sweeney's share of the pay out of 1.8 million.
7 And Mr. Sweeney takes his share via a company called Isotope, Mr. Glennane
8 takes his via Aspentree and then there is a share to Circinus
9 A. Okay.
12:38:39 10 Q. 470 And in discussing that, what Mr. Monahan says is "in 1991 an opportunity arose
11 to purchase a company with substantial export sales reliefs and profits.
12 Decision was taken to purchase the company and involve in the company a number
13 of individuals who had significantly contributed to the growth of the Monarch
14 Group over the years. I set out below the persons involved. Philip Monahan
12:39:00 15 is getting 40 percent. Mr. Dominic Glennane 35 percent. Mr Sweeney 15
16 percent, Mr. Tom Monahan 5 percent and Ms. An Ann Gosling 5 percent?
17 A. Okay.
18 Q. 471 And if that is correct and the growth -- gross sum being discussed here is the
19 share out as Mr Sweeney sets out in his Affidavit of 1.8 million then you are
12:39:22 20 being attributed as the person who will get five percent of 1.8 million which I
21 calculate at 90,000 pounds; is that right?
22 A. That sounds right, yes. I'd say that's right.
23 Q. 472 So are you telling the Tribunal that you'd forgotten that your share of this
24 scheme, whatever it was, was £90,000?
12:39:38 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 473 Right. And as I also understand what's being set out in these two affidavits.
27 This disbursement took place in 1991. And you took your share through a
28 company called Circinus Limited?
29 A. Yes.
12:39:59 30 Q. 474 And that share may have stayed in that company until such time as you did

www.pcr.ie Day 656
61
12:40:10 1 something else with it but it was paid in 1991; is that right?
2 A. Into the company.
3 Q. 475 Yes?
4 A. I didn't actually receive it then.
12:40:11 5 Q. 476 And at that time Mr. Monahan would have received his share which was 1.08
6 million paid into whatever corporate structure he wanted; isn't that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 477 And you have no idea what Mr. Monahan did with his 1.8 million?
9 A. No.
12:40:26 10 Q. 478 Other than the fact that it was paid to him. Is that right?
11 A. That's right. That's right.
12 Q. 479 What exactly were you doing, can I ask you, Ms. Gosling, in your employment for
13 that period of time with Mr. Monahan?
14 A. Basically typing, filing, phoning people to do whatever they were to do, just
12:40:58 15 general day-to-day, you know, taking the post, circulating it, answering
16 letters.
17 Q. 480 You were intimately acquainted with the late Mr. Monahan's business; is that
18 fair?
19 A. That's fair, yeah.
12:41:22 20 Q. 481 Okay. You have no idea what he was doing with Mr. Liam Lawlor from 1988
21 onwards; is that the case?
22 A. That's the case.
23 Q. 482 Yeah.?
24 A. Yes.
12:41:30 25 Q. 483 And you don't know what Mr. Jack Whelan was at, other than he was dealing
26 directly with the late Mr. Philip Monahan; is that correct?
28 Q. 484 You kept Mr. Monahan's diary for him, according to your statement; is that
29 right?
12:41:51 30 A. No, he kept his own diary but.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
62
12:41:55 1 Q. 485 Yes?
2 A. I would be aware what was in it. I wasn't keeping his diary for him. But
3 he'd put the entries in and I would make sure if he was going to meet someone,
4 that he had whatever he needed with him to go to the meeting.
12:42:11 5 Q. 486 According to Mr. Monahan, in the affidavit that he swore in the High Court,
6 that people who were entitled to share in the 1.8 million were those who had
7 significantly contributed to the growth of the Monarch Group over the years?
8 A. Uh-huh.
12:42:28 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 488 Now, how did you, on the basis, as you've just outlined what you've been doing,
12 the clerical job. I'm not in any way trying to denigrate what you were doing,
13 Ms. Gosling, but what you have outlined to the Tribunal here this morning as
14 your job in Monarch is that of a clerical assistant. Now, what did you do or
12:42:45 15 what assistance did you give to Mr. Monahan that entitled to you in 1991 to
16 £90,000?
17 A. Simply it was a share out of the profits. It was reflecting my long service
18 as much as anything and the fact that they could depend on me I think.
19 Q. 489 Depend on you for what?
12:43:11 20 A. For whatever. I mean, I -- I was available whenever I was needed. It
21 wasn't, you know, I didn't go home if a letter or a report had to be typed up
22 at five to six I didn't go home at six o'clock on the dot, as was the finishing
23 time. So, um, I was a part of the team. I helped out wherever was needed.
24 Q. 490 Well, was Mr. Lafferty part of the team?
12:43:45 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 491 And was Mr. Lynn part of the team?
27 A. But at that stage, no.
28 Q. 492 Was Mr. Reilly part of the team?
29 A. At that stage not really, no.
12:43:57 30 Q. 493 Who else was part of the team in 1991?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
63
12:44:03 1 A. I think that was basically the -- that was the core group that had been there
2 from the beginning. We were all there, you know, this was ...
4 JUDGE FAHERTY: Sorry, Ms. Gosling. Was Mr. Sherwood there in 1991?
12:44:23 5 A. In 1991 yes, Mr. Sherwood was there.
6 JUDGE FAHERTY: I think earlier he was described in a document. Now, it was
7 put together by Mr. Sweeney as I understand. He described Mr. Sherwood as a
8 personal assistant and you were described as a personal assistant.
9 A. Yes.
12:44:37 10
11 JUDGE FAHERTY: And I think Ms. Dillon is asking, you got this disbursement I
12 think in 1991. Yes.
13
14 JUDGE FAHERTY: And I think what Ms. Dillon is asking you is, obviously
12:44:50 15 certain people got a disbursement; is that correct
16 A. Yes.
17
18 JUDGE FAHERTY: From the 1.8 million
19 A. Yes.
12:44:57 20 MS DILLON: May I just correct something. I think a reference was made to
21 that disbursement being made in 1991. As I said, the beneficial ...
22
23 JUDGE FAHERTY: I understand that absolutely. It was put into the company,
24 yes. I accept that.
12:45:11 25 MS DILLON: Thank you.
26
27 JUDGE FAHERTY: But it doesn't appear, unless Ms. Dillon is going to go on
28 with it, that Mr. Sherwood would have got ...
29
12:45:21 30 MS. DILLON: It's not recorded as a person who shared.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
64
12:45:24 1
2 JUDGE FAHERTY: I think really what Ms. Dillon is asking you in the context of
3 the question she's putting. That you would appear to have gotten it but it
4 would have been at the same level, if you like, of terms of employment as
12:45:41 5 Mr. Sherwood. Now, that may not be the case. But Mr. Sweeney certainly I
6 think described you both as personal assistants.
7 A. Okay.
12:45:44 10 A. Well I think that was Mr. Sweeney's description.
11
13 A. Mr. Sherwood's role was to -- Mr. Sherwood was an engineer. So his role was,
14 I mean, mine was the -- I was a support role. I was the back room person.
12:46:07 15 Mr. Sherwood would have had more of an input into projects.
16
18 A. And technical aspects.
19
12:46:14 20 JUDGE FAHERTY: Sorry, Ms. Dillon.
21
22 MS. DILLON: No, not at all. Thank you.
23 Q. 494 You were a director of a number of the companies; isn't that right?
24 A. Yes.
12:46:23 25 Q. 495 Can you list the companies of which you were a director within the Monarch
26 Group?
27 A. Um, in the list that I gave you?
28 Q. 496 No, no, just tell the Tribunal the companies of which you were a director.?
29 A. Oh. Um, well there was Monarch Properties. This is towards the end? Towards
12:46:45 30 the end of the '90s? Monarch Properties. Monarch Properties Services.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
65
12:46:53 1 Circinus. Without a list it's rather difficult, sorry.
2 Q. 497 Well the list that -- you provided a schedule of companies attached to your
3 statement?
4 A. Yes.
12:47:11 5 Q. 498 And are you suggesting that you were at some stage a director of all of those
6 companies?
7 A. Not -- no, I'm not suggesting I was a director of all of them. But at
8 different stages I probably played a role in a number of them.
12:47:29 10 A. But it's the only -- I didn't have any other records.
11 Q. 500 Well where did you -- how did you make up the list?
12 A. I had made up that list at some stage at the end of my period of employment,
13 because I had to unwind, I had to make sure that I was unwound from all of the
14 companies that I was involved in. So I did a list.
12:47:51 15 Q. 501 So when you say the companies that you were involved in, does that mean that
16 you were involved in insofar as you were either an officer or you were a
17 shareholder?
18 A. No, as an officer.
19 Q. 502 As an officer?
12:48:02 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 503 So at 8534. In your schedule of companies which is entitled 'with which AG
22 was associated' and they are listed out there. Are you saying that you were at
23 some stage a director or a secretary of those companies?
24 A. I don't know if I was -- of all of them but certainly of a number of them I
12:48:27 25 would have been the company secretary.
26 Q. 504 And insofar as Circinus Limited was concerned, was that your own company?
27 A. I was 50 per cent shareholder in that with Tom Monahan.
28 Q. 505 And you were a director of all of these companies you think or a shareholder or
29 a secretary; is that right?
12:48:46 30 A. A secretary more so than a director.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
66
12:48:49 1 Q. 506 And at 8535. And at at bottom there's Monarch Property Holdings, Monarch
2 Properties Limited, Monarch Properties Services International Limited, Monarch
3 Properties Services Limited and on the next page, 8536, Monarch Retail Limited.
4 And then Pallarang. Other companies Pearl Investment, Ping Golf Equipment.
12:49:19 5 Do you see all of those companies?
6 A. Uh-huh.
7 Q. 507 You think that you were involved in those companies as an officer. So that
8 you had fiduciary duties in relation to those companies; is that right?
9 A. Yes.
12:49:33 10 Q. 508 Insofar as any of these companies made payments or any monies were paid out,
11 for example, to politicians. You know absolutely nothing about it; is that
12 right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 509 You do, however, deal with it in your statement. You say at page 8531. I
12:49:56 15 just want to take you through this. The second last paragraph of this
16 statement, Ms. Gosling and see. You say mine was not a commercial role within
17 the company. I did not undertake for instance direct negotiations with
18 businessmen, politicians or other principals. Is the Tribunal to understand
19 from that, that when you say you didn't undertake direct negotiations with
12:50:20 20 politicians. That such direct negotiations did take place but you weren't
21 involved?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 510 So who did you understand had the direct negotiations with politicians?
24 A. This, I made this statement in the light of the knowledge that's in the media
12:50:51 25 etc. I've learnt a lot from the media reports that I never knew at the time.
26 And my role was a support role. I didn't negotiate directly with anybody. I
27 was there in support.
28 Q. 511 You have already said that you accept that, from the statement you've made,
29 that you didn't undertake direct negotiations with politicians. But it
12:51:30 30 follows from your statement that somebody did; isn't that right? So who

www.pcr.ie Day 656
67
12:51:30 1 negotiated directly with politicians, who in the Monarch Group dealt directly
2 with politicians, Ms. Gosling?
3 A. I cannot answer that question for you because I don't know.
4 Q. 512 Well you know that Mr. Monahan dealt with the late Mr. Liam Lawlor; isn't that
12:51:44 5 right?
6 A. Yes. So if you call that negotiations then Mr. Monahan dealt with Mr. Liam
7 Lawlor.
8 Q. 513 But you don't know what Mr. Monahan dealt with with Mr. Lawlor isn't that right
9 because you --
12:51:55 10 A. I don't know the detail of it so --
11 Q. 514 So --
12 A. It's hard to sit here and, you know, be truthful about things that you don't
13 know about. I can say yes, people talk with politicians. But if you don't
14 know what they actually talked about I have to answer no.
12:52:14 15 Q. 515 Forget about what they talked about. Let's establish first of all who talked.
16 Isn't that the -- who do you know spoke with politicians?
17 A. Um,.
18
19 CHAIRMAN: Ms. Gosling, did -- when you worked in Somerton presumably people
12:52:43 20 came to see Mr. Monahan?
21 A. Yes.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: From time to time?
24 A. From time to time, yes.
12:52:48 25
26 CHAIRMAN: And would you have seen, physically seen these people call or leave
27 or?
28 A. Um.
29
12:52:55 30 CHAIRMAN: I mean, to get to see Mr. Monahan would they have had to pass

www.pcr.ie Day 656
68
12:52:59 1 through your office?
2 A. They wouldn't have to pass through my office.
4 CHAIRMAN: But would you know that they were --
12:53:04 5 A. I would know when someone would be expected.
7 CHAIRMAN: Yeah. Now, did you ever know of a politician, a councillor, or a
8 TD or a Minister or anyone of that nature coming to see Mr. Monahan?
9 A. No. With the exception of Mr. Liam Lawlor.
12:53:24 10
11 CHAIRMAN: Is he the only one you think?
12 A. I can't recall other politicians coming to Somerton.
13
14 CHAIRMAN: And did you know of Mr. Monarch seeing politicians outside of
12:53:40 15 Somerton either because you had access to his diary and you would have known or
16 that he might have mentioned to you or that you might have made appointments
17 for? Irrespective of whatever reason.
18 A. Okay.
19
12:53:54 20 CHAIRMAN: Would you have known?
21 A. Well at the time I would have to -- I would know because it would be in his
22 diary.
23
24 CHAIRMAN: Yeah.
12:54:01 25 A. But here, now, it's impossible to remember.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: Can you recall the names of any of these people?
28 A. No. I'm sorry. I've always had a poor memory as regards to names and faces.
29
12:54:15 30 JUDGE FAHERTY: Just can I add, just to follow on from what the Chairman was

www.pcr.ie Day 656
69
12:54:20 1 asking you. Obviously you were Mr. Monahan's personal assistant. And you
2 would have been on the receiving end of telephone calls, I take it and things
3 like that?
4 A. Yes.
12:54:29 5
6 JUDGE FAHERTY: And how did you, Mr. Monahan, I take it, wouldn't always have
7 been in Somerton ?
8 A. Sorry.
12:54:36 10 JUDGE FAHERTY: He wouldn't always have been in the office himself I take it
11 A. Um.
12
13 JUDGE FAHERTY: He'd have been out and about
14 A. Yes.
12:54:43 15
16 JUDGE FAHERTY: And if people were ringing him or calls. How did you arrange
17 his day or you'd have to report to him I presume at the end of a day; isn't
18 that correct?
19 A. Oh, yes.
12:54:54 20
21 JUDGE FAHERTY: So that if there were phone calls or people calling that would
22 have to be accounted for?
23 A. Yes.
24
12:55:01 25 JUDGE FAHERTY: And how did you do that, Ms. Gosling?
26 A. Phone.
27
28 JUDGE FAHERTY: Sorry?
29 A. Via the phone, obviously.
12:55:10 30

www.pcr.ie Day 656
70
12:55:10 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes. But if you are in the office, for example. And I take
2 it Mr. Monahan would have received telephone calls
3 A. Yes, but he also had his own mobile.
12:55:19 5 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes. If there were people looking for him, for example, did
6 you put memos on his desk or did you have, we know other witnesses who had
7 secretaries had a telephone call ledger where they would recall the time a call
8 was made and then convey the message to them.
9 A. Okay. No, I would generally make a note of it and leave a list of notes on
12:55:44 10 his desk.
11
12 JUDGE FAHERTY: And do you ever recall politicians or councillors telephoning
13 Mr. Monahan at his house in Somerton that you might have taken the call?
14 A. I'm sure there must have been. But no one stays in my mind or sticks out.
12:56:03 15
17
18 JUDGE KEYS: I wonder could I. Ms. Gosling, did Phil Monahan ever mention
19 the name of any politician to you at all during the period of time you were
12:56:15 20 employed by the company?
21 A. Well I'm sure he must have done.
22
23 JUDGE KEYS: Well, now, must have done. Can you think now. Can give us the
24 names?
12:56:35 25 A. I'm sorry. I don't have any names to give you.
26
27 JUDGE KEYS: Well is it that you won't tell us
28 A. No, I'm sorry. I really do wish to be as helpful as I can be.
29
12:56:36 30 JUDGE KEYS: Well, so far all you've said is I can't remember.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
71
12:56:40 1 A. And that's the case. I didn't know I was going to have to remember
2 everything.
4 JUDGE KEYS: You were a highly regarded employee of the company. You were
12:56:53 5 there for quite a number of years
6 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE KEYS: You were intimately involved in the business of the company.
9 There's already been evidence given that Mr. Monahan was politically well in,
12:57:06 10 in the sense that he knew a lot of politicians. And the only name you can
11 give us of a politician is Liam Lawlor? Is that your evidence to this
12 Tribunal?
13 A. Um, well I'm sure he would also have known several other politicians.
14
12:57:28 15 JUDGE KEYS: Well, let's have the names, that's what you've been asked.
16 You're under oath.
17 A. Yes, sorry.
18
19 JUDGE KEYS: And you're being asked to name the politicians that he met or
12:57:38 20 that you know or even the names he might have mentioned to you, the people he
21 knew.
22 A. Over the years?
23
24 JUDGE KEYS: Yes.
12:57:48 25 A. Okay.
26
27 JUDGE KEYS: Other than Liam Lawlor.
28 A. Sorry.
29
12:57:52 30 JUDGE KEYS: Other than Liam Lawlor.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
72
12:57:54 1 A. Okay. Most of them would have been Dundalk people.
3 JUDGE KEYS: All right. Who are they?
4 A. Um, there's Mr. Dermot Ahern.
12:58:06 5
6 JUDGE KEYS: Well that's one politician. Now we've two politicians.
7 A. Um, and I'm sure he -- he would have dealt with all the people.
9 JUDGE KEYS: All the people? What do you mean by all the people?
12:58:25 10 A. All the TDs for County Louth.
11
12 JUDGE KEYS: In County Louth. So at least if we do a search during that
13 period of time we can at least identify them. Now, he moved to Somerton,
14 isn't that right later on?
12:58:38 15 A. Yes.
16
17 JUDGE KEYS: Now, since he moved to Somerton can you tell us what politicians
18 in the Dublin area he had met?
19 A. Okay. Um, well I know Mr. Brian Lenihan was a neighbour.
12:58:52 20
21 JUDGE KEYS: All right.
22 A. He lived down the road.
23
24 JUDGE KEYS: Are you saying then that he knew Mr. Brian Lenihan
12:58:59 25 A. He was a neighbour.
26
27 JUDGE KEYS: Do you say that he knew Mr. Brian Lenihan?
28 A. Yes, I presume.
29
12:59:08 30 JUDGE KEYS: Well that's another politician. Why didn't you say that in the

www.pcr.ie Day 656
73
12:59:11 1 beginning when you were asked these questions, Ms. Gosling
2 A. I'm sorry.
4 JUDGE KEYS: You've said sorry on a number of occasions now.
12:59:19 5 A. Okay.
7 JUDGE KEYS: Every time you've been asked a question you say you have no
8 memory. I have pushed you and pushed you and now you suddenly recollect a
9 number of politicians. Well let's continue on. What other politicians?
12:59:32 10 A. I --.
11
12 JUDGE KEYS: Maybe I should be -- maybe I'm being unfair to you in this
13 respect. Can we put it -- can you perhaps over lunch could you just sit down
14 and think about it seriously and after lunch come back and tell us what other
12:59:47 15 politicians in the Dublin area. You can make a list if you wish, to assist
16 you. And give the evidence after lunch.
17 A. Could I say to you --
18
19 JUDGE KEYS: Would that be okay?
12:59:59 20 A. May I please suggest. Could you give me a list and then I'll tell you those
21 ones that ring a bell.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: Well, I think we'd prefer if the evidence came from yourself.
24 A. I mean --
13:00:11 25
26 CHAIRMAN: Over the space of an hour you might be able to think of other
27 names. And if you wish you can write them down because, I mean, you can write
28 them down. And you have access to the brief of documents as well. That may
29 prompt you to remember some names. So have a break about it anyway and we'll
13:00:36 30 sit again at two o'clock.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
74
13:00:38 1 A. Okay.
13:00:52 5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 656
75
14:05:34 5
6 MS. DILLON: Ms. Gosling, please.
8 I understand that over lunch, with the assistance of Mr. Ryan, that Ms. Gosling
9 has prepared a statement that she would like your permission to read to the
14:05:45 10 Tribunal.
11
12 CHAIRMAN: Certainly, yes.
13 A. Mr. Chairman, Ms. Dillon, Judges. Firstly, I would like to start about by
14 apologising because I misunderstood the context of some of the questions. I
14:06:01 15 thought we were simply talking about Cherrywood and I now understood you are
16 really asking me about the culture of Monarch.
17
19 A. And basically, I mean, Mr. Monahan was a businessman and he met with anyone,
14:06:17 20 politicians, businessmen, community organisations, anyone who would really help
21 the interests of his Monarch Group of companies.
22
23 So, you know, he makes donations to politicians, businessmen. He attended
24 fundraisers, eg golf outings, sports nights. He supported local community
14:06:39 25 events and as such, support for politicians was basically, it was a way of life
26 which was directed really by Mr. Monahan through, downwards.
27
28 And while I'm saying that I didn't know, couldn't answer questions because I
29 didn't really know the total context. But if you're asking me, you know, did
14:07:06 30 he meet with politicians on a regular basis, yes. And he, he was a man who

www.pcr.ie Day 656
76
14:07:13 1 had a marvelous memory for people. He only had to meet a person once and he
2 would remember them. So he mixed with politicians, local level, national
3 level. And so there is probably not a politician in the country that he
4 didn't know or had met at some stage. I've made a list of ones that sort of
14:07:48 5 come to mind and if you wish me to read them or give it to you later.
7 CHAIRMAN: Well we'll just have a look at the list.
9 (Document handed to Tribunal)
14:08:03 10
11
12
13 CHAIRMAN: I'll just give it to Ms. Dillon.
14
14:08:35 15 (Document handed to Ms. Dillon)
16
17 CHAIRMAN: Which of -- would any of those have come to Somerton?
18 A. The only person I actually remember meeting at Somerton was Liam Lawlor.
19
14:08:49 20 CHAIRMAN: And the others, do you believe he met at different functions?
21 A. He'd meet them at different functions or maybe at Harcourt Street or, when we
22 were in Dundalk, in the Dundalk office. And I did -- I mean, it's my desire
23 to be as helpful as I can. And I did also misunderstand that I was being
24 asked if, you know, if I actually knew the context in which he'd meet those
14:09:20 25 people. I wouldn't know the absolute detail.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: Insofar as you are in a position to name these people, these
28 politicians. Can you, not necessarily today, but as part of a new statement,
29 which might be put into writing, are you in a position to identify in more
14:09:40 30 detail the circumstances in which these various people were met by Mr. Monahan

www.pcr.ie Day 656
77
14:09:45 1 and in relation to any, would you be in a position to say what you understand
2 business was transacted or discussed between them?
3 A. I'm not sure if I ... how much I would know.
14:10:01 5 CHAIRMAN: Well you've given a large list of ...
7 MR. RYAN: Chairman, may I interrupt. I beg your pardon again.
9 Just to assist the Tribunal. Perhaps we can revisit this point as to whether
14:10:14 10 or not it would be useful to add another additional statement to the brief from
11 my client after perhaps I have led my client through her statement and explain
12 the context in which she took part in the business.
13
14 Maybe at that point we can revisit the issue as to whether or not it would be
14:10:29 15 useful.
16
17 CHAIRMAN: Because the Tribunal would obviously be interested to know the
18 circumstances and the reasons why meetings with these politicians ...
19
14:10:39 20 MR. RYAN: I understand.
21
22 CHAIRMAN: Were held and where they met and details of that nature. Now,
23 that may be better done in the form of a written statement.
24
14:10:50 25 MR. RYAN: Absolutely. And I defer to your written judgement.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: Unless Ms. Dillon wishes to return to that subject immediately,
28 we could deal with it in that way.
29
14:11:01 30 MS. DILLON: Yes. Sir, there are names on this list which are not part of

www.pcr.ie Day 656
78
14:11:04 1 this Module and therefore it's probably better to leave the list for the
2 moment.
4 But arising from Ms. Gosling's statement I have one or two further short
14:11:13 5 questions.
7 CHAIRMAN: Certainly. Leaving aside the context.
8 MR SANFEY: Chairman, before Ms. Dillon goes much further.
14:11:21 10 I also represent the estate of Mr. Monahan. I wonder would it be possible for
11 us to see the list. It may be that we could cast some light on it in some
12 way. Now, obviously we can't take instructions from Mr. Monahan.
13
14 MS. DILLON: Yes, I can't see any problem with that. Obviously if Mr. Sanfey
14:11:33 15 wishes to cross-examine, he can't put anything ...
16
17 CHAIRMAN: At this stage it would be on a confidential basis that you would
18 see the names. If there is another statement made of relevance to this, or to
19 Monarch in general, then obviously this witness might have to be recalled and
14:11:52 20 you would then be entitled to cross-examine her. But you could certainly see
21 the statement for the purposes of identifying those who Ms. Gosling says met
22 with Mr. Monarch.
23 MR SANFEY: Thank you, Chairman.
24
14:12:08 25 CHAIRMAN: All right. Or Mr. Monahan.
26
27 MS. DILLON: Ms. Gosling, in the light of what you have just said, do I
28 understand your position to -- your recollection of the late Mr. Monahan to be
29 that he would have done anything he could to help his company?
14:12:26 30 A. Yeah, he was a man of vision. He had -- he -- he could anticipate the

www.pcr.ie Day 656
79
14:12:39 1 finalisation of a project. He could conceive the idea and see it through to
2 completion.
3 Q. 516 Well, was Mr. Monahan a man who would have approached any person whom he
4 thought could assist his company in whatever endeavour his company was involved
14:12:57 5 in?
6 A. Yes, I, yes.
7 Q. 517 And in 1990 the Tallaght Town Project was substantially complete and the
8 biggest project on the books of Monarch was the Cherrywood Development; isn't
9 that right?
14:13:10 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 518 And there was a problem in Cherrywood which you, in connection with the sewer.
12 You will have seen that from the documentation?
13 A. Uh-huh.
14 Q. 519 And if the solution to that problem lay in the Department of the Environment
14:13:23 15 and the Minister for the Environment. From your knowledge of Mr. Monahan, is
16 that where he would have gone in order to effect a solution to his problem?
17 A. It would be one of the ways, yes.
18 Q. 520 Well what would be the other ways?
19
14:13:37 20 MR. RYAN: Judge, may I interrupt here.
21
22 In terms of the ways in which my client is seeking to assist the Tribunal. I
23 don't know if that's a fair question to ask her as to what other ways he may
24 have been involved in diverting a sewer pipe in south Dublin.
14:13:52 25
26 CHAIRMAN: Well Ms. Gosling herself said it would be one of the things. So
27 if she's thinking of another way. And we say one way would be to deal through
28 the Department of the Minister. She obviously has other ways in mind. So we
29 want to know what they are.
14:14:10 30

www.pcr.ie Day 656
80
14:14:10 1 MR. RYAN: Thank you, Judge.
3 CHAIRMAN: You said that was one of the ways?
4 A. That would be one of the ways. But the other way would be to deal with the
14:14:18 5 people on the ground.
7 CHAIRMAN: Uh-huh.
9 MS. DILLON: That would be the officials?
14:14:22 10 A. The officials.
11 Q. 521 The officials of the local authority?
12 A. Yes, to co-operate with what would be best for the area.
13 Q. 522 And to deal with the councillors who had the decision making process in
14 relation to the land in question, doesn't that follow?
14:14:36 15 A. It -- you can't take a piece in isolation.
16 Q. 523 Yes. So in 1989, it is clear from the documentation that's been supplied to
17 the Tribunal, the Monarch property had purchased land, which was zoned at one
18 house to the acre on septic tank and their first step on the process to
19 realising the potential of the land was to change the zoning of the land?
14:14:59 20 A. Um, I'm not sure if that was the first step. But it would be one of the
21 steps.
22 Q. 524 Yes?
23 A. The land was zoned residential but it -- in order to be developed the services
24 had to be provided.
14:15:12 25 Q. 525 The land was zoned residential at one house to the acre?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 526 And in order for it to be developed at a commercial level the zoning density
28 had to be changed to greater than one house to the acre?
29 A. Yes.
14:15:24 30 Q. 527 The only people who could effect the change in the zoning density were the

www.pcr.ie Day 656
81
14:15:28 1 councillors in the review of the Development Plan; isn't that right?
2 A. I don't know if they are the only people. I think that the officials have a
3 ...
4 Q. 528 The officials would have to make a material contravention which in turn would
14:15:41 5 have to come before the county councillors and a majority of 75% of the
6 councillors would have to vote in favour of it. That is the position?
7 A. Okay.
8 Q. 529 So one way or other, in order to effect a change in the zoning on the land it
9 was necessary either by way of a change in the Development Plan or by way of
14:15:59 10 material contravention to deal with councillors?
11 A. Okay.
12 Q. 530 Do I understand from what you've outlined in your statement to the Tribunal
13 that if it was necessary to deal with councillors to increase the value of his
14 land that Mr. Monahan would have done so?
14:16:11 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 531 And would he also have instructed his staff and employees in, who were handling
17 the Cherrywood Development, to do so also?
18 A. Yes, I believe so.
19 Q. 532 Do you know whether or not it was Mr. Lynn's function within Monarch to lobby
14:16:27 20 the support of councillors for the Cherrywood Development?
21 A. I believe it was, yes.
22 Q. 533 And was he assigned that task by Mr. Monahan?
23 A. I would assume so.
24 Q. 534 When requests for monetary support came in from politicians who were the people
14:16:47 25 who normally dealt with such requests?
26 A. It would depend on who they were addressed to. I mean, most of them would
27 come in addressed to somebody. So, the person to whom they were addressed
28 would be the one who would make a recommendation. You know, in the final
29 stages Mr. Monahan was the one who said yes or no.
14:17:11 30 Q. 535 And would Mr. Monahan have dealt with a political donation of the order of 200

www.pcr.ie Day 656
82
14:17:13 1 pounds, 300 pounds or 500 pounds?
2 A. Possibly yes. Depending on the context.
3 Q. 536 If -- if it was desired to make a political contribution for a Local Election
4 would Mr. Monahan personally have to clear every single political donation?
14:17:36 5 A. No.
6 Q. 537 Who in the companies would have had authority to clear political donations?
7 A. I think most of the Senior staff probably had.
8 Q. 538 And would that have included Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Glennane?
9 A. Oh, yes.
14:17:51 10 Q. 539 And would it have included Mr. Reilly?
11 A. I would think so, yes.
12 Q. 540 And Mr. Lynn?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 541 And insofar -- was it your understanding of Mr Lynn's job that it was part of
14:18:02 15 his job to have contact with and deal with councillors in connection with the
16 Cherrywood Lands specifically?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 542 How did you come about by that understanding of Mr. Lynn's job, can I ask you?
19 A. I suppose I would have been told.
14:18:24 20 Q. 543 Who would have told you?
21 A. Mr. Monahan.
22 Q. 544 And would it be fair then to describe Mr. Lynn's role or one of Mr. Lynn's
23 roles within the Monarch Group as the political lobbiest for Monarch in
24 connection with the Cherrywood Lands?
14:18:40 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 545 Do I understand you to tell the Tribunal that Monarch would have been prepared
27 to provide political support to the people with whom they were dealing on the
28 County Council?
29 A. Yes.
14:18:59 30 Q. 546 And would that have been because Monarch would have viewed it, as you describe

www.pcr.ie Day 656
83
14:19:04 1 in your statement, as a necessary evil?
3 Q. 547 Is it your understanding of the culture that existed within the Monarch Group
4 at the time of the Cherrywood Development that the Monarch Group would never
14:19:15 5 have refused an application for a political donation because it would have seen
6 it as necessary to support financially those politicians who were in turn
7 supporting or dealing with their lands?
8 A. Yeah, that's my understanding.
9 Q. 548 And from whom did you get that understanding?
14:19:34 10 A. That would -- it would -- it was the culture. It was always that way.
11 Q. 549 That Monarch would always have paid politicians because Monarch considered it
12 was necessary for its business to pay politicians; is that correct?
13 A. I wouldn't describe it as paying politicians. These people were -- they are
14 elected representatives of their area and in supporting them you were
14:20:00 15 supporting the community which had elected them. So, my personal view was
16 that we were supporting the community as against politicians.
17 Q. 550 Page 8531, Ms. Gosling. In the light of your answer that you've just given to
18 the Tribunal, will you explain why you describe payments to politicians as a
19 necessary evil in your statement at the second last paragraph. Fourth last
14:20:27 20 sentence. You state "I believe that if donations were solicited by
21 politicians I think Monarch would have regarded such payments as a necessary
22 evil or something that would have to be done".
23
24 And I suggest to you that that is entirely different to the answer that you
14:20:41 25 have just given where you have said that they would have been supporting the
26 local politicians and supporting the community.
27 A. Um, that was the culture of the time.
28 Q. 551 Look, Ms. Gosling. Will you just tell the Tribunal what it is you're trying
29 to say in your statement and if you could just do it unambiguously and without
14:21:13 30 equivocation?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
84
14:21:13 1 A. Sorry.
2 Q. 552 Either it was a necessary evil or they are supporting the democratic process
3 and that's the culture in Monarch. But you can't have it both ways.?
4 A. Okay. I think my personal view was that they were supporting the community
14:21:28 5 but the culture was that it was a necessary evil.
6 Q. 553 And by a necessary evil, do you mean that it was believed within Monarch that
7 when a politician asked for money they had to pay it?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 554 So that there was no element of freedom of choice within the Monarch Group when
14:21:48 10 it came to making a political donation because these people had power over
11 decisions that would effect Monarch, they always had to be kept on side. Is
12 that what you're trying to say?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 555 So that really what you're talking about here is a pragmatic decision that was
14:22:03 15 made within the Monarch Group to support anybody on the political process who
16 requested support in order to keep those people on side for the better good of
17 Monarch?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 556 And if what they are doing is seeking to support, to keep people on side for
14:22:17 20 the better good of Monarch. Then you're not talking about supporting the
21 democratic process in general; isn't that right? You're talking about making
22 politicians payments in order to benefit Monarch. Isn't that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 557 Thank you very much, Ms. Gosling. If you would answer any questions anybody
14:22:35 25 else might have for you.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: All right. Mr. Sanfey do you want to ask? Do you want to ask any
28 questions
29
14:22:42 30 MR. RYAN: Yes, Chairman, I want to ask a few questions.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
85
14:22:47 1
2 THE WITNESS WAS QUESTIONED BY MR. RYAN AS FOLLOWS:
4 MR. RYAN: I want to rely on the statement of Ms. Gosling, which I gather is
14:22:51 5 8529.
7 I just want to, Ms. Gosling, set out the context in which you had a role in the
8 Monarch Group over a period of nearly 30 years. And also particularly I want
9 to get a sense of what you did in the group.
14:23:08 10
11 You say in your statement that you were a messenger and a facilitator for
12 Mr. Phil Monahan; is that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 558 How did you carry out this role in the Monarch Group, Ms. Gosling?
14:23:20 15 A. By ensuring that meetings were held and decisions were taken and people were
16 assigned tasks that I would present each person with a schedule of those tasks.
17 Q. 559 Thank you. Can I just go to page five or 8531. If you wouldn't mind.
18
19 I want to go to the fifth paragraph in there if you wouldn't mind enlarging it,
14:24:01 20 please.
21
22 This is your statement, Ms. Gosling. And I just wish to read it out to you.
23
24 This is the fifth paragraph. "Mine was not a commercial role within the
14:24:10 25 company. I did not undertake for instance direct negotiations with
26 businessmen, which has been alighted to earlier on."
27
28 When you say that you hadn't a commercial role in the company. You've
29 indicated earlier on that you were a director of various companies. In what
14:24:26 30 circumstances initially did you become a director of the company? Was it on a

www.pcr.ie Day 656
86
14:24:31 1 structural basis or can you explain the way in which you initially became a
2 director of a company in Monarch?
3 A. Okay. It wasn't on a structured basis but occasionally people maybe were
4 going to be absent on holidays and maybe documentation would need to be signed.
14:24:49 5 Q. 560 So essentially you were an alternate director?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 561 So your role grew from a messenger, facilitator. You would have become an
8 alternate director purely to facilitate the basis of the company?
9 A. Yes.
14:25:04 10 Q. 562 Thank you. In terms of your -- your role which you played towards
11 Mr. Monahan, Mr. Phil Monahan. You were his personal assistant and
12 Mr. Sweeney in his statement has pointed out that you were his personal
13 assistant. The tasks which you would have been involved in on a daily basis,
14 as you said typing and ordinary secretarial work around Somerton and
14:25:30 15 particularly in later years and before that in Dundalk?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 563 Did you have an executive role in terms of when -- did you attend any board
18 meetings in an official capacity as a director?
19 A. No.
14:25:46 20 Q. 564 Thank you. In terms of meetings where strategy of the group was decided.
21 Did you ever attend any of those meetings?
22 A. No.
23 Q. 565 Did you ever attend any meetings where a commercial decision was taken?
24 A. No.
14:25:59 25 Q. 566 Was your view ever taken into an account or were you ever asked your view on a
26 development, should we do this development, should we not do this development?
27 A. No. No, I wouldn't have been, my view wouldn't have been sought.
28 Q. 567 Your view wouldn't have been sought?
29 A. No, I would be told what was being done.
14:26:18 30 Q. 568 So, essentially you would have taken your orders from the top, Ms. Gosling?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
87
14:26:22 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 569 Also, in terms of an executive function. Would you have seen yourself, whilst
3 it is self evidently the case that you had a position of trust in the business.
4 but you would not even yourself have seen yourself with an executive function
14:26:43 5 within the Monarch Group?
6 A. I didn't see myself really as an executive as I was a support.
7 Q. 570 I see. Thank you. So I just want to alight on various points in time,
8 Ms. Gosling.
14:26:56 10 At the time in which the company moved from Dundalk to Castleknock, to Somerton
11 in Castleknock. Essentially at that point, and there were various different
12 offices. Essentially there was a division in the working of Monarch at the
13 time between the offices that Phil Monahan had in Castleknock and the offices
14 that the company essentially had in Harcourt Street
14:27:20 15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. 571 In terms of that division, whilst it's the case that you said that various
17 people would have visited Mr. Monahan, it was around this time as well, late
18 '80s or early '90s that essentially the suggestion that Cherrywood would first
19 be developed; isn't that right?
14:27:41 20 A. Yes, that's right.
21 Q. 572 In your view, did the overall management, the project management of Cherrywood,
22 where did that occur, in Somerton or in Harcourt Street?
23 A. Oh, that was very much in Harcourt Street.
24 Q. 573 And can you just reiterate again where your position was, where your centre of
14:27:56 25 gravity was let's say, and the centre of gravity of the group as far as you're
26 concerned, where you were located in terms of the services that you rendered to
27 the Monarch Group?
28 A. Well I was located in Somerton, in Castleknock.
29 Q. 574 And so at that point, Ms. Gosling, since it is the case that you say that you
14:28:12 30 were located in Castleknock. How did this let's say, did you feel that you,

www.pcr.ie Day 656
88
14:28:17 1 since the project management in Cherrywood was involved in the Harcourt Street
2 office. Did you feel at the centre of the Cherrywood project?
3 A. No, I was very much in the periphery.
4 Q. 575 Were you aware let's say of the members of the project management team of the
14:28:33 5 Cherrywood project?
6 A. No, I wasn't.
7 Q. 576 I see. Can we go to again I don't know if it's up on the screen 5831. It
8 may be there already.
14:28:47 10 But also when you say I believe that if donations were solicited by politicians
11 I think Monarch would have regarded such payments as a necessary evil or
12 something that would have had to have been done. I want to continue. I
13 don't believe that Monarch would have initiated or proposed such payments to
14 politicians.
14:29:05 15
16 You agree with that still, Ms. Gosling; don't you?
17 A. I do, yes.
18 Q. 577 Monarch Group or Mr. Monahan, I believe, would not have wanted to have been
19 associated in any way with corrupt payments or bribery. You still agree with
14:29:17 20 that?
21 A. I still agree with that, yes.
22 Q. 578 Sorry, isn't that page on the screen?
23 A. It's off.
24 Q. 579 It is now. Thank you. It's 8531?
14:29:28 25 A. Yeah, my personal belief is you know, it wasn't -- I didn't see it as corrupt
26 payments -- at that time I didn't see it as corrupt payments or bribery.
28 A. It was the culture of the day.
29 Q. 581 You have explained that already to Ms. Dillon, Ms. Gosling. I just also want
14:29:45 30 to alight on the last paragraph of page 8531. The very last sentence. Where

www.pcr.ie Day 656
89
14:29:50 1 you say that you had -- "I would have had responsibility for the personal bank
2 account of Mr. Monahan. I, along with his late wife Mary, would each have had
3 a cheque book for the personal account of Phil and Mary Monaghan since I would
4 have been responsible for discharging household and other personal business".
14:30:08 5
6 This essentially would have been a domestic role you occupied for Mr. Monahan;
7 is that right?
8 A. Partly, yes.
9 Q. 582 Thank you. And it also says "I would have no function though in determining
14:30:17 10 who the payee of such cheques would be". Is that correct?
12 Q. 583 Earlier on in the proceedings a cheque was brought up on screen. I don't want
13 to bring it up again but you were essentially asked about your handwriting and
14 whether or not it was your handwriting but just generally the policy would have
14:30:35 15 been if you had access to a cheque book for Mr. Monahan. You never would have
16 determined who the payee would be on any occasion?
17 A. Oh, well I'd pay someone like the ESB or phone bills or something like that.
18 Q. 584 But purely in a domestic context?
19 A. Yes.
14:30:53 20 Q. 585 Thank you. Also can I bring up page 8716, please.
21
22 At the second paragraph on -- in the third page, the diary. Yes. Where I
23 want to just read part of your statement again. "I recall that Mr. Monahan
24 would have kept his own diaries but occasionally I and others would have made
14:31:18 25 entries in those diaries for him".
26
27 You have identified already your own handwriting on this piece of paper; isn't
28 that right
29 A. Yes.
14:31:27 30 Q. 586 So this is entirely consistent with your statement that you would have made

www.pcr.ie Day 656
90
14:31:29 1 entries in Mr. Monahan's diary?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 587 You say, you would like you to -- well, can you reiterate again that the entry
4 re CJH and 25,000 that was not your handwriting?
14:31:40 5 A. No, my handwriting is Paul Kavanagh and Harcourt Street.
6 Q. 588 Thank you. Can I bring up page 8514, please.
8 This is the letter which is written to Sean Mooney and Dominic Glennane, sorry,
9 this is a memorandum. "I had a phone call this morning from Brendan O'Brien
14:32:08 10 from the Revenue Commissioners to say that he just received our letter dated
11 21st December", can you read out the date of that memorandum, please,
12 Ms. Gosling
13 A. The 7th of January 1999?
14 Q. 589 Yes, it's the 7th of January 1999 and you were the secretary of Monarch at this
14:32:27 15 point; weren't you?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 590 Monarch Properties?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 591 When did you become the secretary of Monarch Properties occupying the office of
14:32:41 20 secretary?
21 A. Um, I think it was the end of the previous year.
22 Q. 592 I see?
23 A. It was when Mr. Glennane had resigned.
24 Q. 593 I see?
14:32:45 25 A. And.
26 Q. 594 And I have the company office printout in front of me. The day in which he
27 resigned was the 23rd of December 1997. At that point and at that point only,
28 Ms. Gosling, you became secretary of Monarch Properties; isn't that right?
29 A. That's right, the end of '97.
14:33:01 30 Q. 595 So the context in which the revenue would have been sending or communicating

www.pcr.ie Day 656
91
14:33:04 1 with you was purely in the context of being an office holder or being the
2 secretary of Monarch Properties?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 596 So can you just talk us through exactly what happened, e sequence of events?
14:33:16 5 This was in respect of, I think Ms. Dillon referred to this earlier on as a
6 'pick me up' payment?
7 A. Okay.
8 Q. 597 That there was an inquiry about an accounting procedure?
9 A. Yes.
14:33:26 10 Q. 598 Say, how the accounting procedure for a political donation to Fianna Fail
11 occurred in 1991, at least eight years earlier?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 599 And just for the sake of clarifying the record. At the point in which the
14 payment to Fianna Fail was made in 1991. You had no knowledge of that payment
14:33:43 15 did you?
16 A. I had no knowledge of that payment then, no.
17 Q. 600 And there was also I think a reference to a VAT invoice to Saatchi?
18 A. Uh-huh.
19 Q. 601 But you had no knowledge of that payment being made out?
14:33:58 20 A. I didn't.
21 Q. 602 So your involvement with this payment was purely in the context of let's say a
22 mopping up exercise from the point of view of revenue compliance, Ms. Gosling,
23 wouldn't that be correct?
24 A. Yes.
14:34:13 25 Q. 603 So, in terms of corresponding with the Revenue, did you contact your advisors
26 in terms of how to deal with this inquiry from the revenue, Ms. Gosling?
27 A. I did, yes.
28 Q. 604 Who did you contact?
29 A. I contacted Sean Mooney.
14:34:27 30 Q. 605 And?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
92
14:34:28 1 A. I also made contact with Mr. Glennane as well.
2 Q. 606 And can you just talk us through exactly what happened after that?
3 A. Um,.
4 Q. 607 Did they give you advice?
14:34:38 5 A. Yes, they -- I mean. I hadn't known what had happened. So they ...
6 Q. 608 So they guided you through?
7 A. They guided me through it and they drafted the letter which I duly signed
8 having ...
9 Q. 609 I see?
14:34:57 10 A. You know, he -- consulted with Mr. Monahan and -- so that I signed the letter
11 on the understanding that the people who had prepared the accounts and dealt
12 with the matter were the best people to explain how they had done what they
13 did.
14 Q. 610 If you just bear with me a moment, Ms. Gosling. Could you go to page 8513,
14:35:31 15 please.
16
17 This is the letter which you wrote in your capacity as secretary to Brendan
18 O'Brien Esquire, Senior Inspector of Taxes of the Revenue Commissioners, Nassau
19 Street, Dublin 2. "Dear Mr. O'Brien, we refer to your recent telephone call
14:35:55 20 as a result of our letter of the 24th of November. As we explained to you
21 during that conversation properties and stuff to Dunloe Ewart".
22
23 So that's the start of the letter. This letter was drafted for you by KPMG
24 A. Yes, it was.
14:36:08 25 Q. 611 And they were the company's auditors?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 612 And this is the context in which you've dealt with that inquiry from the
28 Revenue in your position as secretary to the company and purely on advice of
29 the auditors?
14:36:21 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
93
14:36:22 1 Q. 613 Thank you, Ms. Gosling. And you have no further knowledge of any payments to
2 Fianna Fail or to Saatchi & Saatchi. That was purely the context in which you
3 dealt with this?
4 A. Yes, it was.
14:36:41 5 Q. 614 Can I bring up page 8058, please. This is the explanation in the affidavit of
6 Mr. Eddie Sweeney as to how a lump sum payment was purported to be made to you
7 over time.
9 This was to do with a bonus system effectively due to the success of The Square
14:37:07 10 in Tallaght. And Ms. Dillon asked you earlier on how much you were to receive
11 from that, which is effectively 5% of 1.8 million I gather.
12 A. Uh-huh.
13 Q. 615 Which was 90, 000. This was suggested -- this scheme by which you would be
14 remunerated over time was suggested in 1991. Can I, Ms. Gosling, ask you.
14:37:32 15 And the Tribunal has asked you and Ms. Dillon has asked you. That you were a
16 trusted member of the team. And you say so yourself in your statement. Can
17 I inquire about what your remuneration would be over time in the Monarch Group,
18 let's say when this would have happened in 1991, what would your remuneration
19 be?
14:37:50 20 A. I think at that stage it was probably somewhere in the region of 10,000 punts
21 per annum, yeah, punts.
22 Q. 616 And just in the context of the times. You did you consider that to be an
23 overpayment or underpayment?
24 A. Underpayment.
14:38:05 25 Q. 617 A significant underpayment?
26 A. Yes, it was.
27 Q. 618 So in the context of this scheme, which has been alighted on by the Tribunal
28 and put to you. Can you explain how that arose? How it came to pass that you
29 were a beneficiary or purported beneficiary on this scheme?
14:38:24 30 A. Well I think actually the, Mr. Sweeney has got a little bit muddled in his

www.pcr.ie Day 656
94
14:38:34 1 description. My loyalty payment came out of the Tesco situation. And it
2 was --
3 Q. 619 Well, notwithstanding --
4 A. I think it was '89 rather than '91.
14:38:48 5 Q. 620 And you have been very candid with the Tribunal in highlighting this, what you
6 see to be a muddle but notwithstanding the source of the funds, whether they
7 came from The Square or from Tesco?
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. 621 Can you explain -- was it suggested to you, you didn't think up this tax
14:39:04 10 efficient scheme yourself, Ms. Gosling?
11 A. No, I was very chuffed when I discovered I was part of it.
12 Q. 622 I see.?
13 A. So ....
14 Q. 623 Can you explain perhaps as to how you were approached or who approached you?
14:39:18 15 A. Well, I was basically told by Phil that he had agreed to do this.
16 Q. 624 I see. In the context of the -- of how you were told. Were you told that
17 this payment, this lump sum would some how augment your regular salary, which
18 we see was significantly lower than average?
19 A. Yeah, well, I would have made various representations looking for a salary
14:39:45 20 increase.
21 Q. 625 And this lump sum, which you were flattered to be a part of frankly?
22 A. Uh-huh.
23 Q. 626 This would have been seen perhaps as an answer to these representations?
24 A. Yes, it was.
14:39:54 25 Q. 627 I see. And did you receive the lump sum immediately?
26 A. No, I didn't.
27 Q. 628 And over time, over throughout the whole '90s when you were still working, you
28 were working for Monarch. Did you receive a significant uplift in salary or
29 was reference made to this lump sum over time?
14:40:15 30 A. I didn't receive a significant uplift, no. It was always, you know, well, you

www.pcr.ie Day 656
95
14:40:22 1 know, the Circinus monies are there for you when you need them.
2 Q. 629 I see. And ultimately when did you receive the full benefit of the sum?
3 A. Not until I actually left.
4 Q. 630 When was that exactly, Ms. Gosling?
14:40:40 5 A. That was in February 2003.
6 Q. 631 I see. And up to that point can you explain perhaps the reasons that you
7 left?
8 A. Um, basically I left to pursue my own interests.
9 Q. 632 I see?
14:40:56 10 A. The company had -- I mean, the situation had changed back in '97 when it was
11 sold off to Dunloe and the culture was different. And at that time I had
12 begun to become interested in complimentary therapies and so basically I left
13 to pursue those interests.
14 Q. 633 And you are currently pursuing those interests?
14:41:25 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 634 I see. Thank you very much, Ms. Gosling. If you answer any other questions
17 which anyone may have.
18
19 JUDGE FAHERTY: Ms. Gosling, I just want to ask you a couple of things. In a
14:41:41 20 couple of the answers that you gave to Ms. Dillon you appeared to be fairly au
21 fait with what Monarch were looking for regarding Cherrywood in the 1990s.
22 You knew they bought the land?
23 A. Yes.
24
14:41:55 25 JUDGE FAHERTY: And that it was zoned one house to the acre; is that correct?
26 A. Yes.
27
28 JUDGE FAHERTY: And when you would have had this information back in the 1990,
29 where would that have come from?
14:42:13 30 A. Probably from Mr. Monahan.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
96
14:42:14 1
2 JUDGE FAHERTY: Right.
3 A. And the other directors.
14:42:17 5 JUDGE FAHERTY: Right. And could I ask you. Mr. Dunlop has told us in
6 evidence, and we haven't yet heard from any of the Monarch people, in fairness.
7 That he was told when he was being retained in 1993 that there was, if you
8 like, some difference of opinion going forward in 1993 as between Mr. Phil
9 Monahan, the late Mr. Monahan and other people in Monarch. Do you know
14:42:48 10 anything about that, Ms. Gosling?
11 A. I don't recall that.
12
13 JUDGE FAHERTY: Do you recall -- 1992, would you have been aware of the fact
14 that there was a vote which effected, if you like, the Monarch lands?
14:43:02 15 A. Yes, I would have --
16
17 JUDGE FAHERTY: There were a number, in fairness to yourself, but Monarch had
18 been seeking I think from day one increased density; isn't that correct?
19 A. Yes.
14:43:23 20
21 JUDGE FAHERTY: And you knew that
22 A. I knew that.
23
24 JUDGE FAHERTY: Did you know at some point that there had been a vote which
14:43:23 25 was effectively to keep the land at one house to the acre ?
26 A. There were various different votes, yes.
27
28 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes. Did the late Mr. Monahan ever discuss those votes with
29 you or his reaction to those votes at any point?
14:43:34 30 A. I think the general reaction was, you know, one of disappointment.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
97
14:43:38 1
2 JUDGE FAHERTY: Uh-huh. You can't be any more specific?
3 A. No. Perhaps I should say that, just on a personal level, at that time my
4 father wasn't well. So my concentration -- not only was I not involved in
14:43:56 5 Cherrywood as such but my concentration at that time was more on my home scene
6 back in Dundalk.
8 JUDGE FAHERTY: All right. Thanks.
9 A. So ....
14:44:07 10
11 CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you very much, Ms. Gosling.
12 A. Thank you.
13
14 MS. DILLON: Thank you very much.
14:44:15 15
16 I think probably the best thing to do in relation to the list. Is that we
17 will write to Ms. Gosling's solicitors in relation to the matter.
18
19 CHAIRMAN: Yes.
14:44:24 20
21 MS. DILLON: Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Gosling.
22 A. Thank you.
23
24
14:44:28 25
27
28
29
14:44:30 30

www.pcr.ie Day 656
98
14:44:30 1 MR. QUINN: Mr. Philip Reilly.
3 MR. PHILIP REILLY, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS QUESTIONED AS FOLLOWS BY MR. QU
14:44:45 5
9 CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon, Mr. Reilly.
14:45:01 10
11 MR. QUINN: Good afternoon, Mr. Reilly.
13 Q. 635 Mr. Reilly, you were written to by the Tribunal and you responded. And
14 supplied a statement, which is to be found at pages 8303 and 8304 of the brief;
14:45:15 15 isn't that right? If I could just put those on screen. And I'll just take
16 you through that statement and I'll ask you one or two questions arising from
17 it. Is that all right?
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. 636 I think you told the Tribunal that you joined the Monarch Properties in late
14:45:28 20 1987?
22 Q. 637 And had worked previously in the United States from 19 -- I think that's 1983
23 is it to 1987?
24 A. That's a mistake, sorry.
14:45:38 25 Q. 638 And you were recruited by Mr. Phil Monahan?
26 A. Correct.
27 Q. 639 Had you known Mr. Monahan?
28 A. On and off. I knew he had developed Navan Shopping Centre, I lived in Navan
29 at the time.
14:45:50 30 Q. 640 So you had known Mr. Monahan before he recruited you?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
99
14:45:53 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 641 Had you been headhunted by Mr. Monahan?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 642 You go on to say that the title to your position was Group Shopping Centre
14:45:59 5 Manager and you were responsible for shopping centres and other properties at
6 Dundalk, Navan, Finglas, Greystones, Hartstown, City Centre, Athlone,
7 Rathfarnham and Tallaght. Your duties included general day-to-day running of
8 the shopping centres, provision of staff, collection of rents, service charges,
9 dealing with tenants, maintenance issues, budgets, cashflows, marketing
14:46:19 10 promotions and other administrations?
12 Q. 643 Did your duties change at any stage from your initial involvement with Monarch?
13 A. Not really, no.
14 Q. 644 Were you appointed to that position from day one?
14:46:31 15 A. From the beginning, yes, I was, yes.
16 Q. 645 You say you remained with Monarch until the company was transferred to Dunloe
17 House plc in 1997 and remained with Dunloe until the end of 1998?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. 646 Thereafter you went into partnership with Mr. Glennane?
14:46:49 20 A. That's right.
21 Q. 647 Are you still in partnership with Mr. Glennane?
22 A. Yes, yes.
23 Q. 648 You say you have no records on your involvement with Cherrywood and you
24 prepared this statement based on your memory of events and subject to any
14:47:02 25 necessary corrections should further information arise?
26 A. Correct, yeah.
27 Q. 649 You may or may not be aware of this, Mr. Reilly. There's a brief containing a
28 large portion of the documentation, in fact all of the documentation would have
29 been circulated to your solicitors. You would have seen that I take it?
14:47:20 30 A. I got a disc from the Tribunal.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
100
14:47:22 1 Q. 650 Subject to what's contained in that disc. You have access to no other
2 documentation?
4 Q. 651 You have read what's in that disc I take it?
14:47:32 5 A. Out of the 8,000 pages or whatever I got I read as much as I could, yeah.
6 Q. 652 Yes. You go on to say that the Town Square, Tallaght, which at the time was
7 Ireland's largest shopping centre, commenced construction in 1989. So you
8 would have been two years with the Monarch Group before the construction of the
9 Tallaght Town Centre?
14:47:50 10 A. About a full year.
11 Q. 653 About a full year?
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. 654 You say over the next 18 months building period to October 1990 you spent a
14 considerable amount of time as part of the project team. Prior to the opening
14:48:03 15 of The Square you were responsible for building community relations with the
16 people of Tallaght who were very frustrated with the number of delays in the
17 project. You go on to describe your organisation of tree planting ceremonies,
18 site tours, educational awards, newsletters etc. is that right?
19 A. Correct, yes.
14:48:20 20 Q. 655 You say that The Square was opened in 1990. Can I just ask you had Mr. Dunlop
21 any involvement in the opening or organising of the opening of the square?
22 A. No.
23 Q. 656 Had he involvement in organising the opening of the cinema complex?
24 A. Yeah.
14:48:34 25 Q. 657 How long after the opening of The Square?
26 A. I think it was six weeks. Sometime in November.
27 Q. 658 So in November 1990 Mr. Dunlop had been presumably retained by the cinema?
28 A. UCI.
29 Q. 659 UCI?
14:48:46 30 A. Yep.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
101
14:48:46 1 Q. 660 He was at the opening of the shopping centre, I think?
2 A. I didn't see him at it.
3 Q. 661 You didn't see him at it?
4 A. No.
14:48:55 5 Q. 662 You would have known Mr. Dunlop?
6 A. Didn't know him, no.
7 Q. 663 You say that the square opened in 1990 and certain of the units were disposed
8 of to various fund investors at the time. Monarch Properties Services Limited
9 were retained to provide management services to the overall square. This
14:49:11 10 management came under your responsibility. The project was a tremendous boost
11 to the area and won both national and international awards and you advised the
12 Tribunal that you were voted Tallaght Person of the Year in 1990 and again in
13 1998; is that correct?
14:49:29 15 Q. 664 Monarch acquired certain lands in Cherrywood in 1989 and, like other employees
16 in the group, you were involved in the marketing and road shows in the late
17 1991, early 1992 period when details of the development and models were brought
18 to various schools and community halls in the area and there was an interaction
19 between the local community to deal with their potential concerns?
14:49:48 20 A. Correct.
21 Q. 665 Based on your experiences with the community groups in the Tallaght area you
22 were involved with community liaison and outlining the proposals of the scheme.
23 You say that you organised a number of tours to The Square, Tallaght for
24 community groups. Coming up to November 1993, Development Plan vote, you
14:50:02 25 canvassed a number of politicians you had come to know through your involvement
26 in Tallaght. And you set out and explained to them Monarch's proposals in
27 respect of the Cherrywood lands when these opportunities arose.
28
29 At 8304 you conclude by saying that you had a very limited role in relation to
14:50:21 30 Cherrywood as any of your responsibilities related to shopping centre

www.pcr.ie Day 656
102
14:50:26 1 management which took up most of your working days. And you say that you had
2 no active part in the Cherrywood project team which was led by Mr. Sweeney.
3 Is that correct?
4 A. Correct, yes.
14:50:36 5 Q. 666 Now, you have heard the evidence of the previous witness, Mr. Reilly?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. 667 You have been here this morning?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. 668 Before I deal in detail with one or two matters arising in relation to your
14:50:46 10 evidence, is there anything you want to say to the Tribunal or anything extra
11 you want to say to the Tribunal in relation to any matter?
12 A. Well, other than it's focused very much obviously in Tallaght, in terms of the
13 management that I had. I actually managed eight or nine other properties
14 which were mentioned earlier in the scheme. So, it just wasn't only Tallaght
14:51:06 15 I was managing. I was managing, as I said, what I listed there myself.
16 Q. 669 Now, since you are the second Monarch witness. I think perhaps it might be
17 best if I could have 8699.
18
19 Just to start at the beginning, so to speak.
14:51:23 20 A. Okay.
21 Q. 670 This is a statement provided to the Tribunal by Arthur Cox Solicitors, who were
22 involved -- who were involved in relation to the acquisition by Guardian
23 Assurance Plc and Ackwood Estates Limited in relation to the Cherrywood site?
24 A. Okay.
14:51:46 25 MR SANFEY: I'm terribly sorry to interrupt Mr. Quinn. I may be being
26 pedantic here but I think Mr. Quinn referred to Mr. Reilly as being the second
27 Monarch witness.
28
29 I wonder if that's a reference to Ms. Gosling. I don't represent Ms. Gosling.
14:52:02 30 Ms. Gosling is separately represented

www.pcr.ie Day 656
103
14:52:05 1
2 CHAIRMAN: I think he meant he was the second witness from Monarch.
3 MR SANFEY: I would just like it clarified. Perhaps I was being pedantic.
14:52:13 5 CHAIRMAN: You're not acting for ...
6 MR SANFEY: I don't act for Ms. Gosling.
8 CHAIRMAN: She is a witness from Monarch. But not represented by with the
9 other Monarch staff.
14:52:28 10 MR SANFEY: Indeed, Chairman. Thank you.
11
12 MR. QUINN: You are familiar with the acquisition of this site, Mr. Reilly, I
13 take it and the background to it
14 A. Not really. I don't know what you mean by "familiar". I was aware that the
14:52:40 15 site was bought but I wasn't involved in any of the negotiations.
16 Q. 671 Yes. I'm not going to deal with the negotiations?
17 A. Sorry.
18 Q. 672 Just to put it in context. I think that by 1989 it appears that the Tallaght
19 site was going to get off the ground; isn't that right?
21 Q. 673 And construction had commenced?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 674 And obviously Monarch were looking towards new pastures; isn't that right?
24 A. Correct.
14:53:07 25 Q. 675 And for whatever reasonings, the Cherrywood lands, the property of
26 Mr. Gallagher were identified as potential investment property; isn't that
27 right?
28 A. I would assume so.
29 Q. 676 And the position in Tallaght would be that there had been a successful
14:53:22 30 partnership between Monarch and GRE?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
104
14:53:24 1 A. I understand that, yes.
2 Q. 677 And that had been coming to fruition and the lands in Cherrywood having been
3 identified I think there was agreement at some stage between Mr. Monahan and
4 Mr. Gallagher that Mr. Monahan would acquire the lands; isn't that right?
14:53:43 5 A. That was our understanding, yeah.
6 Q. 678 And I think there was some publicity attaching to the acquisition of the lands
7 in or about May or June. June in fact I think 1989; is that correct?
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. 679 We can put on screen if necessary?
14:53:58 10 A. I'll accept that, yeah.
11 Q. 680 8510. This is an article in the Irish Times on the 12th of May 1989.
12
13 And I think it advices that these lands had been acquired.
14 A. Right. Okay.
14:54:10 15 Q. 681 Were you aware that these lands were about to be acquired?
16 A. I don't remember exactly but I probably heard about it in the company itself.
17 Q. 682 Yeah. You were very high up with in the company; isn't that right? At that
18 time?
19 A. I wasn't -- I was an employee of the company. I was given the role of Group
14:54:31 20 Shopping Centre Manager managing shopping centres. Not on the development
21 side.
22 Q. 683 Yes.?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 684 If we could have 2165. This is an extract from Mr. Sweeney's statement where
14:54:45 25 he attempts to give the management team structure for The Square in Tallaght.
26 I think Mr. Monahan is the Chairman and managing director; isn't that right?
27 A. Yes, that's right, yeah.
28 Q. 685 And finance director Mr. Glennane?
29 A. Dominic Glennane, yes.
14:54:59 30 Q. 686 Your current partner. And Mr. Sweeney who is the development director?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
105
14:55:03 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 687 Under Mr. Glennane was Mr. Murray who was the Marketing and Sales?
3 A. Correct, yes.
4 Q. 688 And then immediately after him?
14:55:10 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 689 Was the shopping centre management?
7 A. Correct, yes.
8 Q. 690 And that was you?
9 A. Yes, that's me, yeah.
14:55:15 10 Q. 691 So you held a fairly responsible position?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 692 And a fairly senior position within the company; isn't that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 693 And you held it before, during and after the development of these lands; isn't
14:55:26 15 that right?
16 A. Yes, of Tallaght, yes.
17 Q. 694 So you would have known that Mr. Monahan or the company were about to acquire
18 these lands and enter into negotiations of the acquisition of these lands?
19 A. Not necessarily, no because I was very much focussed. Just to explain. I
14:55:45 20 arrived in '87 and in '88 I had to revamp most of the shopping centres around
21 the country, I'd quite a bit of staff changes to make etc.. Some personal
22 difficulties as well within that year. So I was very much focused on settling
23 into the job and I brought people back, my family back from America.
24 Unfortunately, my two parents died very suddenly during the middle of the whole
14:56:14 25 thing. So I really didn't become involved in Tallaght until early '89, '89.
26 But I wasn't in the mainstream of -- can't in terms of what was happening I was
27 ...
28 Q. 695 So you're saying that, like everybody else, other than Mr. Galvin and
29 Mr. Monahan, you didn't realise that Monarch had acquired these lands until you
14:56:36 30 read about it in the newspaper?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
106
14:56:37 1 A. Well, I might have heard about it in the office. I wasn't at any meetings or
2 discussions. Nobody came and asked me.
3 Q. 696 Now, I think that the lands once acquired, posed a number of difficulties;
4 isn't that right, from a development point of view?
14:56:54 5 A. Well, again I wasn't really aware of that itself. I wasn't involved as I say.
6 Q. 697 Were you not even curious to know what the potential of the site was after it
7 was acquired?
8 A. Curious yeah but not into any great detail. I was told we wanted to build a
9 shopping centre on it. That was extent of it, that was the extent of mine.
14:57:15 10 Q. 698 Shopping centres were the track record of Monarch?
11 A. Correct.
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. 700 But this was a Greenfield site; isn't that right?
14:57:22 15 A. Correct.
16 Q. 701 It had no access?
17 A. Again, at that time I wasn't familiar with it.
18 Q. 702 When did you become familiar with the site?
19 A. Well I suppose the first time I went to it might have been at the end of '91.
14:57:46 20 Q. 703 So you had no involvement with this site?
21 A. Not --
22 Q. 704 Between 1989 when it was purchased?
23 A. Not really.
24 Q. 705 And the end of 1991, did you say the end of 1991?
14:57:46 25 A. Well I'm trying to remember. Sometime in '91.
26 Q. 706 So between 1989 and 1991, even though you were the Manager in charge of
27 shopping centres in the group, you knew nothing about the site and hadn't
28 visited?
29 A. No, it's not that I knew nothing about it. I knew something about it. But I
14:58:02 30 didn't get into any of the detail of ....

www.pcr.ie Day 656
107
14:58:05 1 Q. 707 Did you know that it had been zoned for shopping centre development?
2 A. Well I knew it was zoned for something. It was for development. But, again,
3 sorry, and I don't mean to keep repeating myself. You know, I was running a
4 shopping centre and trying to get a new development off the ground, which was
14:58:22 5 tough.
6 Q. 708 Did you know that there was a moveable line vis-a-vis the proposed Southeastern
7 Motorway running across.
8 A. I wasn't involved in any of that, no.
9 Q. 709 Did you know that there was no immediate access to the site?
14:58:33 10 A. No, I don't recall that.
11 Q. 710 Did you know that there was no planning on the site?
12 A. Well, planning to start building tomorrow, no, there was no planning. I knew
13 that.
14 Q. 711 And you knew that there was no sewage to the site?
14:58:45 15 A. I wasn't familiar with it now. Again, I'm sorry, as I say, I wasn't familiar
16 with that.
17 Q. 712 Can I just ask you. At what stage did you get involved in relation to
18 shopping centre management, is it after or is it before its constructed?
19 A. I suppose to follow the line was -- in Tallaght for instance it had planning
14:59:04 20 permission. I arrived in '89. Work had already commenced on the site itself
21 in '88 we started putting in the foundations. I arrived in '89 and that was
22 to start setting up the management structures and to get to know the people in
23 the community. That's when I really get involved in projects.
24 Q. 713 So you say that you didn't arrive in Tallaght until 1989, is it?
14:59:28 25 A. '89. Correct, yeah.
26 Q. 714 And Tallaght I think was being run at that time, was it, by L & C Properties
27 Limited?
28 A. L & C Properties.
29 Q. 715 L & C Properties?
14:59:41 30 A. Yeah, L & C Properties.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
108
14:59:42 1 Q. 716 And did you have authority to ask that monies be drawn on that company?
2 A. No.
3 Q. 717 I see. So any cheques drawn on L & C Properties?
4 A. No.
14:59:52 5 Q. 718 Did not go through you?
6 A. No.
7 Q. 719 So if you wanted, for example, to expend money in relation to Tallaght. What
8 was the procedure?
9 A. Well, I would obviously check with the project Manager that I was going to
15:00:05 10 spend certain money. I would then -- obviously we'd raise an invoice. The
11 invoice sorry from the company, third party, would be approved by me and paid.
12 Q. 720 So you did have approving rights?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 721 On expenditure?
15:00:19 15 A. Sorry, yeah, on expenditure.
16 Q. 722 Did you a moment ago tell me that you didn't?
17 A. No, sorry. I was interpreting that I could write a cheque. I wasn't
18 involved in that end of it.
19 Q. 723 You didn't have signing authority on the cheque?
15:00:31 20 A. No, absolutely not.
21 Q. 724 But you could ask that a cheque be paid?
22 A. Drawn, yes.
23 Q. 725 And you could approve a request by others, that is a cheque be paid?
24 A. Yeah, if a third party, if one of the team came along and said that they wanted
15:00:43 25 something paid, yes.
26 Q. 726 So whilst your signature wasn't recognised by the bank?
28 Q. 727 Nonetheless you could approve a payment?
29 A. Correct.
15:00:52 30 Q. 728 And your approval wasn't questionable by anybody higher; isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
109
15:00:56 1 A. Oh, it would, yeah. I mean, I would have cleared it with somebody that this
2 was a legitimate expense, Eddie Sweeney probably, as he was the Project
3 Manager.
4 Q. 729 And other than Mr. Sweeney, would you have to clear it with anybody else?
15:01:11 5 A. Depending on the circumstances. Perhaps Dominic Glennane.
6 Q. 730 Yes.?
7 A. Or Noel Murray, depending on what --
8 Q. 731 In what circumstances might you go to Mr. Glennane or Mr. Murray as opposed to
9 Mr. Sweeney in relation to the approval your payment?
15:01:27 10 A. Well, I suppose I wanted to take on some staff, for instance. And to do that
11 I would have had to go to, we would set out an interview process and set out a
12 salary etc. because Mr. Glennane and Mr. Murray were on the marketing and
13 commercial side.
14 Q. 732 Yes. Now, do I understand your evidence to the Tribunal to be that because of
15:01:50 15 the particular role you had in Tallaght, you had occasion to come in contact
16 with the community leaders and local organisations?
17 A. Correct, yes.
18 Q. 733 And in that regard, did you also come in contact with local politicians?
19 A. Correct, yes.
15:02:09 20 Q. 734 And did you build up a rapport with local politicians in Tallaght?
21 A. Not initially. My initial contact was with the Tallaght Community Council and
22 the Get Tallaght Working Group and some other groups, the Tallaght Welfare
23 Society and the schools and people like that. That was the main thrust of the
24 approach on Tallaght.
15:02:29 25 Q. 735 Can I just ask you. Where were you, where were you operating from? Where
26 were your offices?
27 A. Part of my time was in the project office itself.
28 Q. 736 In Tallaght?
29 A. And my other office was in Tallaght.
15:02:40 30 Q. 737 Yes. So you were in Tallaght throughout the development of Tallaght?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
110
15:02:45 1 A. Some of the time, not all of the time.
2 Q. 738 After it was opened in October 1990 did you continue to have a presence in
3 Tallaght?
4 A. Yes, I spent a lot of time there.
15:02:52 5 Q. 739 Yes?
6 A. For the first three or four years.
7 Q. 740 So that would be up to '93, '94?
8 A. And after it, I don't know, Mr. Quinn.
9 Q. 741 Did you ease off on it after your attendance in the other office at that stage?
15:03:05 10 A. No, I still maintained an office in town as I was running other projects for
11 other investors and institutions.
12 Q. 742 And was it usual to have group strategy meetings in Tallaght in relation to the
13 development of the site there?
14 A. Um, sorry. I had meetings with my own team.
15:03:24 15 Q. 743 Yes?
16 A. Which were the shopping centre management team. On occasion.
17 Q. 744 What about the other teams?
18 A. On occasion I would join some of the technical team meetings. But I didn't
19 attend the main board meetings between the two properties L&C and Monarch.
15:03:46 20 Q. 745 We know, for example, by October 1990. If we could have 1255. This is at a
21 time when you would have been well bedded in in Tallaght. There were two
22 payments to a company, Comex Trading Corporation in the sums of 28,000 and
23 28,300 pounds respectively. You'll have seen those?
24 A. Correct.
15:04:04 25 Q. 746 In the documentation which you received?
26 A. Correct.
27 Q. 747 And you will have heard evidence in relation to them this morning?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 748 Did you approve those payments?
15:04:12 30 A. No.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
111
15:04:12 1 Q. 749 Did you know those payments had been made?
2 A. No.
3 Q. 750 When was the first time you heard that those payments had been met?
4 A. A few minutes ago, earlier in the Tribunal.
15:04:23 5 Q. 751 Are you saying that up to the evidence of the last witness you had never heard
6 that two payments totalling 56,300 pounds had been made to a company called
7 Comex Trading Company?
8 A. No, I didn't even know who they were.
9 Q. 752 I was going to ask you that now.
15:04:39 10 A. Sorry, I'm jumping ahead.
11 Q. 753 As somebody intimately involved in the development of Tallaght, can you tell
12 the Tribunal what contribution a company Comex Trading Corporation would have
13 made to the development of the site in Tallaght?
14 A. I had no knowledge.
15:04:49 15 Q. 754 The 16th of October 1990. What was the opening date of the?
16 A. The 23rd of October.
17 Q. 755 Seven days before Tallaght was opened?
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. 756 You can't tell the Tribunal about an expenditure of 56,300 pounds?
15:05:03 20 A. No, no, absolutely no idea.
21 Q. 757 Did you know Mr. Lawlor?
22 A. Yes, I met Mr. Lawlor, yeah.
23 Q. 758 When did you meet Mr. Lawlor?
24 A. I was trying to remember that. Probably sometime in '90. Sometime in 1990
15:05:17 25 I met him socially.
26 Q. 759 Yes. How well did you know Mr. Lawlor by October 1990?
27 A. I didn't really know him. I'd only met him at one stage.
28 Q. 760 Where did you meet Mr. Lawlor?
29 A. At a social party.
15:05:31 30 Q. 761 In Tallaght?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
112
15:05:32 1 A. No, in Sandyford.
2 Q. 762 Well, taking that expenditure as we see it there. Who would have approved
3 that expenditure?
4 A. I don't know.
15:05:38 5 Q. 763 Does that document on screen give you any indication of who would have approved
6 it?
7 A. No.
8 Q. 764 Who in your opinion might have approved it or had the power to approve an
9 expenditure of 56,000?
15:05:51 10 A. I don't know. I don't know. Obviously the people who were in Tallaght, the
11 project leader was Eddie Sweeney. But, you know, other people would have
12 approved payments for John Sisk or other people like that.
13 Q. 765 Well what other people would have approved?
14 A. I don't know. I mean, obviously, for instance, the certificate for John Sisk
15:06:14 15 and Sons was raised every month, although I wasn't involved in that.
16 Q. 766 That's an architect's certificate?
17 A. Yes, an architect's certificate.
18 Q. 767 And who would receive that architect's certificate?
19 A. It would probably go to the Project Manager.
15:06:28 20 Q. 768 That's Mr. Sweeney, is it?
21 A. Yeah, Mr. Sweeney.
22 Q. 769 What about Mr. Glennane?
23 A. No, I don't believe it would have gone to him. Maybe eventually for when the
24 cheque was written but not initially.
15:06:49 25 Q. 770 Somebody would have had to approve the payment and somebody would have to make
26 the payment; isn't that right?
27 A. Correct, yes.
28 Q. 771 And what was the procedure in Tallaght in October 1990 for the making of
29 payments?
15:06:49 30 A. Well once an invoice was passed it was sent to our office in town and they drew

www.pcr.ie Day 656
113
15:06:54 1 the cheque.
2 Q. 772 So an invoice would have had to have been received from Comex Trading
3 corporation in Tallaght or in town?
4 A. Correct.
15:07:02 5 Q. 773 It would have had to have been addressed to someone?
6 A. I assume so.
7 Q. 774 It would have had to have been passed and a direction that the monies had been
8 paid?
9 A. Correct.
15:07:10 10 Q. 775 So whoever engaged a company such as Comex would know that they had been
11 engaged?
12 A. I assume so.
13 Q. 776 Whoever received the invoice for the works done would know that the works were
14 done; isn't that right?
15:07:23 15 A. Correct, yeah.
16 Q. 777 Somebody would have had to approve the invoice isn't that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 778 And then somebody would have to give a direction presumably the same person,
19 that the monies be expended?
21 Q. 779 A cheque would have to be drawn; isn't that right?
22 A. Yes, that was the procedure.
23 Q. 780 A payment made on foot of that invoice?
15:07:42 25 Q. 781 And then was there a procedure for auditing from time to time or cashflow
26 projections?
27 A. Yeah. I assume there were. Maybe just to back up a bit again. I wasn't
28 involved in the accounts end of it. If I had an invoice I wanted paid I got it
29 approved having cleared it with the relevant supervisor or manager or whatever
15:08:05 30 else. It was sent into town and after that it was paid or otherwise.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
114
15:08:09 1 Q. 782 And are you saying that an expenditure such as this would never have come to
2 your attention?
3 A. No, no. Sorry, no, absolutely not.
4 Q. 783 Do you ever recall any discussion about a payment to Mr. Lawlor or indeed to
15:08:28 5 Comex Trading company?
6 A. No, absolutely not. His name was never mentioned in Tallaght.
7 Q. 784 It was never mentioned in Tallaght?
8 A. No.
9 Q. 785 Was his name ever mentioned in connection with any other project involving
15:08:39 10 Monarch?
11 A. No, not that I ever heard of, no.
12 Q. 786 Did you ever hear mention of Mr. Lawlor's name at any stage in relation to
13 Cherrywood or other projects?
14 A. There was one in Prague, Mr. Lawlor was involved in.
15:08:53 15 Q. 787 You weren't involved in that project?
16 A. No.
17 Q. 788 How did you know that Mr. Lawlor was involved in it?
18 A. Probably somebody in the office told me that he was organising it through --
19 probably Ambrose Kelly was the architect.
15:09:04 20 Q. 789 And you had no involvement in it?
21 A. No.
22 Q. 790 Other than Mr. Monahan, who else was involved in the?
23 A. I don't know. I think the project architect was -- Ambrose Kelly was involved
24 in it.
15:09:16 25 Q. 791 I think you yourself, I think received PR payments in 1990, 1989 and 1990;
27 A. No.
28 Q. 792 If we could have 8596, please.
29
15:09:31 30 This is an L&C payment by accounts. Do you see this document?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
115
15:09:40 1 A. I can, yeah.
2 Q. 793 If you go about two-thirds of the way down you see Phil Reilly, PR work? For
3 the month of April 1989?
4 A. I never got that payment.
15:09:54 5 Q. 794 You never got that payment?
6 A. No.
7 Q. 795 Did you make that claim for that payment?
9 Q. 796 Can you you give any indication to the Tribunal as to why your name would
15:10:03 10 appear in such a list for a claim for PR work?
11 A. Other than it's allocated as public relations work which I was doing.
12 Q. 797 Did you make a claim for the public relations work which you were doing?
13 A. No, I did not, no.
14 Q. 798 You were an employee; is that correct?
16 Q. 799 Did you ever get any of the bonuses that we have heard evidence of this
17 morning?
18 A. No.
19 Q. 800 Or any similar type bonus?
21 Q. 801 So you can't tell the Tribunal why Phil Reilly, PR Work, claim for 50,000
22 pounds in April 1989 would have been made?
23 A. Absolutely not, no.
24 Q. 802 You certainly made no such claim against L&C Properties?
15:10:41 25 A. No, certainly not.
26 Q. 803 Therefore, can I take it, if we could have 8597. A claim for 150,000 for
27 April 1990 was also not made by you?
28 A. No, that's the first time I've seen these.
29 Q. 804 These are documents supplied to the Tribunal by Monarch.?
15:11:02 30 A. Yeah. Again, all I can say is that it's public relations work but I

www.pcr.ie Day 656
116
15:11:08 1 absolutely never got these payments.
2 Q. 805 You did public relations work?
3 A. Well, sorry the work I did. I managed shopping centres but I was in the
4 public relations field. But I was talking to various community groups etc.
15:11:20 5 Q. 806 You see, I understood your evidence to be that you were effectively in charge
6 of shopping centres?
7 A. Correct, yes, that's right.
8 Q. 807 So would the designation PR work apply to you at all?
9 A. For that element of it I mean, for instance, we had educational awards, there
15:11:39 10 was 40,000 Euro for or 40,000 pounds given out to schools for scholarships etc.
11 There would have been other public relationships work launching the scheme and
12 whatever but .... you know.
13 Q. 808 You can't help the Tribunal as to why there would be?
15:12:01 15 Q. 809 There would be documentation showing claims or payments to you?
16 A. No.
17 Q. 810 Totalling 300,000 pounds in 1989 and 1990?
19 Q. 811 And you say that you never received those monies?
21 Q. 812 You didn't know of Mr. Lawlor's claim either through Comex or otherwise?
23 Q. 813 For any monies on Tallaght?
15:12:20 25
26 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Quinn, I think it's 200,000.
27
28 MR. QUINN: It's 50,000 and 150,000 -- sorry 200,000. Yes. In fact, if we
29 could have 3061, please and it maybe a further error on the author of this
15:12:38 30 document, Mr. Reilly, but like me, he has totalled the 150 plus the 50 to

www.pcr.ie Day 656
117
15:12:44 1 300,000 as you can see there.
2 A. Sorry, I saw that document and I got the disc and I queried it with my own
3 solicitor to find out what was that all about but I haven't heard back from
4 him. I can certainly assure this Tribunal that I got no 300,000 or 100 or
15:13:01 5 50's, absolutely.
6 Q. 814 Did you know that Mr. Monahan was making a claim for additional management
7 costs in relation to Tallaght in July of 1993, 1992
8 A. No.
9 Q. 815 If I could have 3781.
15:13:21 10
11 You heard the evidence of the previous witness in relation to a letter written
12 in July 1992 by Mr. Monahan on Monarch Property Limited's paper to GRE, its
13 partner. Where there is a claim for in excess of 7 million pounds on foot of
14 the Tallaght project
15:13:44 15 A. Yeah. I had no involvement in that. I never attended any meeting with
16 Mr. Monahan or with GRE.
17 Q. 816 Leaving aside the meetings between Mr. Monahan and GRE, this is a claim in
18 relation to a project that you certainly were involved in; isn't that right.
15:14:00 20 Q. 817 And you would have been involved when the site was designated for tax purposes;
22 A. I don't know when it was designated for tax purposes.
23 Q. 818 It appears to, according to this letter. It had been included in the
24 designated area in the 1989 Finance Act?
15:14:16 25 A. Yeah, I think --
26 Q. 819 I think you told us were employed from 1987; is that right?
27 A. Yeah.
28 Q. 820 So you would have been employed when it was designated; isn't that right?
29 A. Well obviously, yeah.
15:14:27 30 Q. 821 Well it's not just obviously?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
118
15:14:28 1 A. Sorry, yeah.
2 Q. 822 I suggest to you that Mr. Reilly, there's no need to be coy about this?
3 A. I'm certainly not, no.
4 Q. 823 This is something that you would remember as a course; isn't that right? It
15:14:38 5 would have meant a huge uplift in the value of the centre that you were
6 involved in?
7 A. I'm sorry. If I can just restate what my particular role was in the
8 particular scheme itself. I came in 1989 to set up the management structure
9 for The Square Town Centre, Tallaght. Okay? I didn't -- I was not involved
15:14:59 10 in the overall project management of the scheme. My role was to build
11 relations with the community groups. Okay? I, what do you call it, I opened
12 the scheme in October, 23rd of October 1990. I was not involved in any tax
13 designation or whatever else. I had heard designation had been granted.
14 Q. 824 And this would have been something that would not have gone unnoticed by
15:15:29 15 anybody in the Monarch team in Tallaght; isn't that right?
16 A. Tax designated, yeah.
17 Q. 825 It was a huge uplift to the shopping centre?
18 A. It was good for the area. This I understood from -- this was I understood
19 having lobbied by the Tallaght Community Council and on the various other
15:15:48 20 groups as a necessary part of getting the scheme off the ground.
21 Q. 826 Had your employers, Monarch Properties Limited, lobbied for it?
22 A. I would assume they had.
23 Q. 827 Had you lobbied any of the councillors you were getting to know at this time
24 for it?
15:16:00 25 A. No.
26 Q. 828 When you say that it had been lobbied by community groups. Had you encouraged
27 any of the community groups, on behalf of your employers, to lobby for it?
28 A. I wasn't involved in that end of it, no.
29 Q. 829 If we look at 3781. This is, as I say, a letter from Mr. Monahan to GRE under
15:16:32 30 the heading Additional Marketing Costs. This is the type of thing, I suggest

www.pcr.ie Day 656
119
15:16:32 1 to you, Mr. Reilly, that you would know about. It says "to ensure the success
2 of the joint venture, key additional marketing costs were incurred. These
3 costs which were supervised directly by Mr. Monahan were critical to ensuring
4 the tax status and appropriate tax profile for the Tallaght Town Centre.
15:16:41 5
6 Were you involved with the tenant profile for the town centre?
7 A. No.
8 Q. 830 Do you know -- are you familiar with the phrase 'appropriate tenant profile'?
9 A. Yeah, appropriate tenant profile would be the tenant mix, I would call it.
15:16:57 10 Q. 831 Was there any discussion in Tallaght in your time about who might be an
11 appropriate tenant for the shopping certainty?
12 A. When I arrived a deal had been done with, it was Quinnsworth or Crazy Prices in
13 the day. And then UCI came on board, as I recall, and then Dunnes Stores came
14 on board and then they let the rest of the scheme.
15:17:19 15 Q. 832 Did Dunnes Stores come on board when you were with the company?
16 A. Yeah, it would have been, yeah, I think so.
17 Q. 833 Were you involved in the negotiations coming on board?
18 A. No, no. The only -- just to clarify that. The only negotiations I was
19 involved in with Dunnes Stores was the service charge, which I was responsible
15:17:35 20 for the cost of running the scheme when it was open. That's the only meeting
21 I had with Dunnes Stores on that.
22 Q. 834 It says The Square was included as a designated area in the 1989 Finance Act.
23 In fact the designation may have occurred as a result of a government decision
24 in '88. This dramatically increased its value and led to a large level of
15:17:58 25 private and institution investors expressing interest in the project.
26
27 Do you recall, first of all, the increase in value as described here
28 A. I wasn't involved in values. I had no idea what values were. That's the
29 first thing I say to you.
15:18:12 30 Q. 835 Okay.?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
120
15:18:13 1 A. Just to explain to you about Tallaght. When I got there in 1989. We arrived
2 on 100 acres site which was full of scrap cars and it was a tip. There was a
3 lot of frustration in the community in terms of the scheme not having got off
4 the ground. Tallaght at that stage was getting very bad press. My
15:18:32 5 particular role within it was to change the whole perception of Tallaght and
6 hence my involvement, which was my main involvement in Tallaght, was dealing
7 with the community and getting to know the people, getting support for the
8 project and stopping the absolute aggravation that these people had against
9 Monarch for taking so long to get the scheme off the ground. That was my role
15:18:57 10 in the project. I then recruited people, set up the systems and opened the
11 scheme. But I was not involved in the overall management at main board level.
12 I was not involved in negotiations with the tenants, other than when a tent
13 would arrive to start to fit out, to show them where their shop was etc.. But
14 that was my role.
15:19:18 15 Q. 836 The letter goes on to say "significant professional fees were incurred in this
16 area particularly in relation to obtaining the tax status of Tallaght"
17
18 Did you know that significant professional fees ...
19 A. No.
15:19:30 20 Q. 837 Had been incurred in relation to obtaining the tax status of Tallaght?
21 A. No.
22 Q. 838 From your expertise and knowledge of Tallaght and generally as a shopping
23 centre manager, can you identify for the Tribunal what type of fees you think
24 might be incurred in obtaining a tax status for a shopping centre?
15:19:51 25 A. I have no idea.
26 Q. 839 Well under what headings could one look to to find significant fees for that
27 type of activity?
28 A. I really don't know. I don't know how you'd go about getting tax designation.
29 I really don't.
15:20:12 30 Q. 840 And can you give any indication to the Tribunal of how one might incur any

www.pcr.ie Day 656
121
15:20:18 1 fees, never mind significant or significant professional fees, to obtain tax
2 status for a development?
3 A. Well I suppose what you might do, if you were to, maybe you'd employ an
4 accountancy firm or KPMG or somebody to do a study or a marketing study or
15:20:38 5 whatever. I don't know. I was never involved.
6 Q. 841 To your knowledge was any such investment undertaken by L & C Properties or
7 indeed any of the Monarch interest in relation to Tallaght?
8 A. I have no knowledge.
9 Q. 842 We know, for example, from 3782. That the sum being claimed under that
15:20:55 10 heading is 850,000. Although some of that appears to relate to encouraging
11 various interests to acquire a unit in the centre; isn't that right?
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. 843 Yes?
14 A. No, I know nothing about this.
15:21:14 15 Q. 844 So other than commissioning a firm of accountants to prepare some sort of data,
16 you can think of no other ...?
17 A. Sorry, yeah. I mean, no, I'm being asked here for something that I don't
18 really know anything about. I would have to think it how would you go about
19 it and I've given my honest answer.
15:21:31 20 Q. 845 Now, you say that you got involved in the Cherrywood site sometime towards the,
21 was it the end of 1991?
22 A. The end of 1991, yeah.
23 Q. 846 And how did you manage to avoid being involved with the site prior to the end
24 of 1991?
15:21:45 25 A. It wasn't my job to be involved in it.
26 Q. 847 But you did become involved?
27 A. Yeah.
28 Q. 848 How and how did it become your job to get involved?
29 A. Well, what happened was, first and foremost, Tallaght was our show case, all
15:21:59 30 right. It was a very big and successful launch office scheme, that was very

www.pcr.ie Day 656
122
15:22:06 1 well received in the market. It was practically fully let when it opened.
2 It traded well at the start. It was like, as I say, the travelling salesman,
3 it was our show case. My recollection of having got involved in '91 was I was
4 asked by Richard Lynn to go to meet with Bill O'Herlihy to talk about marketing
15:22:29 5 and PR which I had been involved in, in the community aspect, in the launch in
6 Tallaght.
7 Q. 849 That would have been around November 1991?
8 A. I think it was around that.
9 Q. 850 When you went to that meeting with Mr. O'Herlihy at the invitation of Mr. Lynn,
15:22:44 10 were you aware of the zoning status of the site?
11 A. Yeah, it was zoned one house to the acre, as I recall. It was a low zoning.
12 Q. 851 And did you visit the site?
13 A. I probably drove around it but I don't ....
14 Q. 852 Had you attended any of the meetings in relation to the strategy that might be
15:23:09 15 employed?
16 A. No.
17 Q. 853 To change the zoning status of the site?
18 A. No, I hadn't. Not that I can recall.
19 Q. 854 Did you know why Mr. O'Herlihy was being retained?
15:23:17 20 A. Well there was a campaign against Cherrywood itself and the view was, to
21 counter that argument, that they were taking on a public relations firm that
22 would counter that argument.
23 Q. 855 Presumably that firm had to be briefed on the zoning status of the site?
24 A. Yeah, I would think so, yeah.
15:23:34 25 Q. 856 And you say that was towards the end of 1991, I believe that was towards the
26 end of '91. And you attended at least one meeting, did you, with
27 Mr. O'Herlihy?
28 A. Yeah, I did. With Richard Lynn and Bill O'Herlihy in his office.
29 Q. 857 Well, presumably, having made your contribution to the marketing aspect of the
15:23:58 30 brief from Mr. O'Herlihy that ended your involvement?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
123
15:24:02 1 A. No, it didn't. What was discussed at that meeting, as I recall, was the
2 various approaches to the media, obviously press releases, news letters and
3 some other, you know, media, what do you call it, the road shows, that have
4 been mentioned, were one of the particular avenues that they decided that they
15:24:27 5 would use, to go out and tell the public exactly what was proposed for the
6 scheme itself.
7 Q. 858 This was a strategy to advise the public on what was proposed for the site?
8 A. To try and get a balanced message out, yeah.
9 Q. 859 Did you get more and more involved then thereafter in relation to the site?
15:24:44 10 A. No, not really.
11 Q. 860 I see?
12 A. I did attend the road shows and go to some of them, not all of them.
13 Q. 861 In what capacity did you attend the road shows?
14 A. It was just to try and help out and just watch what people were saying. The
15:24:57 15 whole office went out to it, from secretaries to the people in marketing. We
16 even brought our tea lady out to it. So, I mean, it was really a -- we
17 weren't the three headed monsters that perhaps we're being painted as in the
18 media.
19 Q. 862 So who else attended at the meeting between yourself and Mr. O'Herlihy?
15:25:19 20 A. Just myself and Richard Lynn.
21 Q. 863 And was that your very first involvement in relation to the Cherrywood?
22 A. That was as I recall it, yeah.
23 Q. 864 So after November 1991 did you know that planning submissions were being
24 received by the council in relation to the site?
15:25:35 25 A. I wasn't really familiar with that side of it, with the canvassing or lobbying
26 side of it or what was being submitted to the local authority itself.
27 Q. 865 It wasn't lobbying at this stage, it was planning permission put in by planning
28 experts on behalf of Monarch?
29 A. I wasn't involved in any of that. I didn't attend.
15:26:03 30 Q. 866 Did you know what Monarch wanted on the site?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
124
15:26:03 1 A. At that stage they wanted a shopping centre on it.
2 Q. 867 Were they also trying to prove the density on it?
3 A. I believe they were, yes.
4 Q. 868 Who told you about that?
15:26:05 5 A. I suppose Richard Lynn or Eddie Sweeney.
6 Q. 869 Did you attend many meetings with Mr. Lynn and Mr. Sweeney in relation to the
7 site?
9 Q. 870 So you had this one meeting with Mr. O'Herlihy where you may or may not have
15:26:21 10 learned of the zoning on the site?
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. 871 And you attended a few residential meetings thereafter; is that right with the
13 other staff of?
14 A. Yeah, well what happened effectively was from that meeting a model was made, a
15:26:35 15 video was made and it explained the whole development itself.
16 Q. 872 Did you have a contribution to make to the video?
17 A. No, I don't think I was involved in it.
18 Q. 873 So you weren't involved in the video and you weren't presumably involved in the
19 making of the model?
15:26:50 20 A. No.
21 Q. 874 So what was your involvement?
22 A. Sorry. From that I learnt about the scheme itself. Where it was, what was
23 proposed for it.
24 Q. 875 Yes?
15:26:58 25 A. As I recall, there was a designer who worked on The Square. He did some
26 sketch schemes as well about building an underground shopping centre and a
27 village on top of it. And these were some of the, what do you call it
28 thoughts etc. that were put together. And that's as much as how I learned
29 about it.
15:27:20 30 Q. 876 Did you know this much. Did you know that it would require a vote of the

www.pcr.ie Day 656
125
15:27:24 1 councillors to change the zoning on the site?
2 A. I knew there was something happening in '92 all right, yeah.
3 Q. 877 When you say you knew there was something happening?
4 A. Yeah. Sorry. I knew that it had to go through a process, yeah.
15:27:36 5 Q. 878 Did you not know that from the outset of November '91?
6 A. Well my recollection of '91 was, what do you call it, it had been proposed as
7 industrial and that was rejected. That was from a conversation that I had
8 with Richard Lynn. And then the attack was to go out and try and get a
9 balanced view as there was opposition from some residents to the scheme itself.
15:28:00 10 Q. 879 And some councillors I think perhaps?
11 A. Oh, councillors, yeah, there was.
12 Q. 880 Did you know that there was councillors opposed to the scheme?
13 A. Yeah, there was some media coverage at the time as I recall.
14 Q. 881 Yes?
15:28:10 15 A. And the plan then was to get Bill O'Herlihy on board to try and get a balanced
16 view.
17 Q. 882 Yes. And Mr. O'Herlihy produced a video and that was distributed. Had you
18 any input as to who was to see video?
19 A. No, I don't remember sending it out to anybody myself.
15:28:26 20 Q. 883 How many meetings did you attend?
21 A. I was trying to remember that for today. Probably, sorry, these are the road
22 shows?
23 Q. 884 Yes.?
24 A. Probably three or four. One was in the Royal Dublin, which was presented to
15:28:42 25 the councillors.
26 Q. 885 Who attended -- did you attend that meeting?
27 A. I did, yeah.
28 Q. 886 Did you meet any councillors at that meeting that you would have known from
29 Tallaght?
15:28:50 30 A. I can't say I did, no. I might have known one or two. But I didn't have any

www.pcr.ie Day 656
126
15:28:55 1 conversation with them as such.
2 Q. 887 And in what capacity did you attend the meeting then?
3 A. I was just an observer as much. I wasn't familiar enough with the scheme to
4 make any ...
15:29:06 5 Q. 888 Did you at any stage become familiar with the scheme to the extent that you
6 could advice those interested on which way you would like them to have voted?
7 A. Well I suppose we were trying -- my role in this again, I suppose, as somebody
8 said to me one day, I was the friendly face. Monarch were after doing a
9 great scheme over in Tallaght. We were -- it was, what was proposed was a
15:29:30 10 good scheme for Cherrywood. They were a prominent, successful, professional
11 company. That they were trying, I suppose, to get the message across, showing
12 models, showing houses, showing what was proposed. One to the councillors and
13 then to bring that out to the public. To try and get the public reaction.
14 At this stage there was a lobby group against the scheme itself. And they
15:30:02 15 were trying to get a balance in the thing.
16 Q. 889 And you were heading up that with Mr. Lynn and Mr. Sweeney; is that right?
17 A. No, I wasn't heading it up at all.
18 Q. 890 You were just helping out?
19 A. I was just helping out when I had time.
15:30:16 20 Q. 891 Okay. Did you know that the Manager had proposed in DP92/44, for example,
21 that there would be an increase in density in the site or that the density
22 would be at four houses to the acre?
23 A. I don't remember.
24 Q. 892 You don't remember that?
15:30:30 25 A. No, I don't remember.
26 Q. 893 Did you know that two councillors had proposed that the Manager's proposals be
27 adopted at a meeting in May '92?
28 A. I knew there was a vote in May '92 but I wasn't involved as I can recall in
29 that end of it itself.
15:30:43 30 Q. 894 You weren't involved in that. When you say that end of it what do you mean?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
127
15:30:48 1 A. Meeting councillors or talking to councillors.
2 Q. 895 Well, was Monarch involved in meeting councillors?
3 A. I assume they were, yeah. I assume if you had two councillors. Well Richard
4 Lynn was out talking to councillors.
15:31:00 5 Q. 896 Was there anybody else out talking to councillors?
6 A. I don't know. Perhaps he might have brought some of the technical people with
7 him to try and explain.
8 Q. 897 Did he ever tell you how he was getting on in his chats with the councillors?
9 A. It wasn't -- certainly I don't remember it. Maybe a conversation --
15:31:15 10 Q. 898 You have given me the impression, Mr. Reilly, as somebody who had no great
11 interest, if you don't mind me saying o?
12 A. Sorry, that's not true. I don't mean it to come across like that to this
13 Tribunal. I can assure you of that. I was busy running my business.
14 Q. 899 I accept all that. I'm really anxious to find out your involvement in relation
15:31:34 15 to Cherrywood.?
16 A. Yeah. What my involvement was. I went to the road shows. I tried to help
17 out and explain to anybody who asked me a question about what I knew about
18 houses, about where the valley was, there was Tully Church, how would they get
19 into the place, when would it be built. There was a very positive response
15:31:56 20 from the public at large. Each member of the public was asked to sign a
21 comment sheet on the way out. There was a stack of them in the office that
22 were mainly 90% for it. The objective of this road show was to balance, as I
23 said, the anti-development stance that some of the neighbours were taking and
24 on that basis that it was, what do you call it, to try and get support from the
15:32:25 25 councillors.
26 Q. 900 Exactly Mr. Reilly?
27 A. So sorry, I'm not ...
28 Q. 901 You were involved in the road show and you attended three road shows including
29 one where you tried to brief councillors; isn't that correct?
15:32:36 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
128
15:32:36 1 Q. 902 In the Royal Dublin?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 903 And we know that there was a meeting in May 1992?
4 A. Correct.
15:32:41 5 Q. 904 You should have known, I suggest to you?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. 905 That the support of the councillors was vital; isn't that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 906 And apart from allaying fears amongst locals, the big push coming up to May '92
15:32:55 10 would have been to get the support of councillors; isn't that right?
11 A. Correct, yes.
12 Q. 907 And Monarch required a motion to be put down by at least two councillors isn't
13 that right?
14 A. Well yes.
15:33:03 15 Q. 908 And we know that Councillors Lydon and Hand did table a motion?
16 A. I wasn't aware who was tabling what.
17 Q. 909 You weren't aware that there was a motion being tabled?
18 A. I didn't know what the process was.
19 Q. 910 You didn't know what the process was even though you were intimately involved
15:33:19 20 with it at the time?
21 A. Intimately is too strongly a word I believe.
22 Q. 911 You were able to tell anybody who asked you where access was likely to be,
23 where the development was likely to take place?
24 A. Yes.
15:33:31 25 Q. 912 You were on the road shows. For any disinterested person or any interested
26 person you were representing the Monarch interest?
27 A. I didn't.
28 Q. 913 You were at the top table for any of these road shows?
29 A. Not the top table as such.
15:33:46 30 Q. 914 And you knew that the councillors would have to vote?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
129
15:33:50 1 A. Yeah. I knew it would have to go through a process.
2 Q. 915 Were you not just curious as to how it was going, how it was going to be tabled
3 or likely to get on the agenda?
4 A. Sorry. I had never been involved in planning before in terms of the process
15:34:00 5 itself. I knew that the councillors had a vote on it. I didn't know the
6 process that it was..
7 Q. 916 Did you never discuss the process with the others from within Monarch who were
8 involved in it?
9 A. Sorry, I did, yeah. My understanding was that the Manager was proposing that
15:34:18 10 this scheme would go ahead in a certain way and that was with four houses to
11 the acre. Maybe -- I'm trying to be clear , actually at the time it was four
12 houses to the acre.
13 Q. 917 But you also knew that for the matter to be debated that there would have to
14 have been a vote or a motion; isn't that right? We know that Councillors Lydon
15:34:42 15 and Hand did table a motion. If we could have 7209, please. This is a
16 motion that had been put forward by Councillors Lydon and Hand. Now, it
17 didn't proceed in the event because the Manager's proposals were unsuccessful.
18 When did you first discover that that motion, for example, had been signed and
19 was tabled for the meeting in May' 92?
15:35:01 20 A. Sorry. Just to be clear. I didn't know the process. I didn't know what
21 happened to it. I thought that you just went to a meeting and that the
22 proposal was put up. I didn't understand the process of motions or whatever.
23 Q. 918 Were you ever at a meeting with Mr. Lynn or Mr. Sweeney at which there was
24 discussion on what was likely to happen?
15:35:19 25 A. Not at that stage, no.
26 Q. 919 Not at that stage?
27 A. No.
28 Q. 920 Did your involvement become greater at a later stage?
29 A. Yes, it did.
15:35:27 30 Q. 921 Who was spearheading, from within Monarch, the Monarch position at this stage?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
130
15:35:31 1 A. Well Richard Lynn certainly was doing all of the public relations work and all
2 of that. And he was dealing with the councillors and I was aware and Eddie
3 Sweeney was the project Manager.
4 Q. 922 So would it be fair to say that Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Lynn were directly involved
15:35:46 5 and you to a lesser extent at this stage?
6 A. Well I was very periphery, very periphery.
7 Q. 923 After Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Lynn, other than yourself, who was the most senior
8 other Monarch person involved at this time, even in a peripheral way?
9 A. Well in a peripheral way I suppose you had the in-house project team, which
15:36:08 10 there were a number of architects working on that.
11 Q. 924 Did you ever attend any meetings with Mr. Monahan in relation to the
12 development at this time?
14 Q. 925 Did you ever attend any meetings between Mr. Monahan, Mr. Sweeney Mr. Hand, Mr.
15:36:24 15 Lynn?
16 A. No.
17 Q. 926 Did you meet any councillors at this stage in relation to the matter, other
18 than the meeting that you referred to earlier where the video was produced?
19 A. I -- my -- I have a very good friend, Therese Ridge, who I would have spoken to
15:36:40 20 a couple of times about it. But there was no great detailed discussion about
21 what was coming up for a vote and as I recall the Manager was proposing
22 something. But I didn't do anything really at that stage or.
23 Q. 927 At that stage you didn't ask her to support a proposal?
24 A. Well I said the scheme looks good to me or something like that.
15:37:01 25 Q. 928 Sorry?
26 A. The scheme looks good to me.
27 Q. 929 You said?
28 A. Yeah.
29 Q. 930 And did you look for her support?
15:37:07 30 A. I hope you can support it. Something like that I would have said to her.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
131
15:37:11 1 Q. 931 Did you ask her would she seek to get the support from some of her colleagues
2 for the scheme?
3 A. No.
4 Q. 932 Just her support only?
15:37:17 5 A. Yeah.
6 Q. 933 Now in, the event we know that the Manager's proposal as proposed by
7 Councillors Lydon and McGrath was unsuccessful?
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. 934 We see that at 7207?
15:37:31 10 A. Is this it here now yeah?
11 Q. 935 It should be coming up now. Did Councillor Ridge say that she would support
12 the proposal?
13 A. Well yeah, I think she said if it was the Manager. She said she'd look at it
14 as I recall. Yeah, I think she did.
15:37:49 15 Q. 936 She did support it; isn't that right?
16 A. Did she? Sorry, Ridge I see it, yeah, T Ridge.
17 Q. 937 Are you saying that you didn't know until just now that Councillor Ridge ...
18 A. No, no, sorry I'm trying to remember.
19 Q. 938 It's the type of thing you would remember whether your friend had supported it
15:38:04 20 or not?
21 A. No, you're right, yeah.
22 Q. 939 So you did know?
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. 940 So it's not a surprise to you to discover now that she did support it?
26 Q. 941 Were you at that meeting?
27 A. No.
28 Q. 942 You didn't go to that council meeting?
29 A. No.
15:38:20 30 Q. 943 Were you not curious to know what went on at the meeting?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
132
15:38:23 1 A. Again it wasn't my primary job. I don't want to go back to saying I was busy
2 at other things. I was very busy at other things. It wasn't my job. I had
3 helped as I understand, as I was asked to do.
4 Q. 944 Did you know for example that councillors O'Callaghan and Gilmore had a motion
15:38:42 5 for the shopping centre or for a town centre, or neighbourhood centre?
6 A. Which one was this now?
7 Q. 945 In May '92 for the site.
8 A. Yeah, I had.
9 Q. 946 7214. Who told you about that?
15:38:56 10 A. Probably Richard.
11 Q. 947 So he had told you about one motion but not about the other; is that it?
12 A. That's not fair to say. What was being proposed was that there be a shopping
13 centre on it. That was my keen interest.
14 Q. 948 You knew that there was going to be a proposal that there be a shopping centre
15:39:15 15 there?
16 A. I thought it was the Manager's
17 Q. 949 You thought it was the Manager's?
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. 950 Now, Councillor Ridge supported that proposal also. Presumably you had asked
15:39:25 20 her to support the shopping centre?
21 A. Yeah.
22 Q. 951 Did you know that there was a proposal also for the meeting that the site be
23 zoned at one house to the acre?
24 A. Yeah, that was Sean Barrett's motion, yeah.
15:39:47 25 Q. 952 Did you know of that in advance?
26 A. Yes, I knew Barrett was opposed to the development that had been discussed in
27 the office.
28 Q. 953 That had been discussed in the office?
29 A. Yeah.
15:39:47 30 Q. 954 Had you been at the discussions on that?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
133
15:39:47 1 A. No, it was just, I'd say it was just said we have to get over Barrett's motion.
2 Q. 955 So you knew that there was at least one motion which would, if successful,
3 would have adversely effected the site?
4 A. Well it wouldn't have changed the zoning on it.
15:40:01 5 Q. 956 Would it have reduced the density on the site?
6 A. I think it was still only one to the acre wasn't it.
7 Q. 957 No, it was four to the acre at this stage.?
8 A. Was it.
9 Q. 958 On piped sewage. On the manager's proposal. On DP90/1249 A voted on in May
15:40:19 10 1991?
11 A. Sorry, I thought it was always ...
12 Q. 959 Had you asked Councillor Ridge to vote against Councillor Barrett's detail?
13 A. I didn't get into that detail, sorry.
14 Q. 960 Did you know that she voted against his proposal?
15:40:31 15 A. I suppose I did, but I don't recall.
16 Q. 961 So in any event, it was now one house to the acre coming out of that meeting in
17 May '92, isn't that right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 962 Despite the road shows and all of the different various meetings; isn't that
15:40:45 20 right?
21 A. It didn't work.
22 Q. 963 It didn't work?
23 A. No.
24 Q. 964 So were you at any strategy meetings thereafter as to how matters might
15:40:51 25 proceed?
26 A. Well what happened after that. My recollection is that within probably a
27 couple of weeks after that either Eddie Sweeney, probably Eddie, called me into
28 the office one day, as Richard had said look, the only way we're going to get
29 these lands through is to get support from the local councillors. And Eddie
15:41:14 30 said since we've been involved in Tallaght, since you have been involved in

www.pcr.ie Day 656
134
15:41:17 1 Tallaght, one of my architects lives in Loughlinstown, would you join him at a
2 meeting with the Loughlinstown Community Council and tell them what we're
3 trying to do. And explain to them. And Michael Cassidy was the man's name.
4 We went to a meeting that night at the Loughlinstown Community Council. And
15:41:46 5 he talked to them about what the proposal was and whatever else. My
6 recollection of that meeting is that they were a bit sceptical about us, what
7 are you coming near us for. And it evolved over the next couple of months
8 that somebody suggested, and it probably was myself, that perhaps they might
9 like to see, as I said earlier, a show case in Tallaght. And we organised
15:42:12 10 tours to bring them over to Tallaght to see the project. And it was at least
11 two, maybe three, on a Saturday. And apart from taking them through the
12 scheme etc, most of them hadn't been there, because it was -- the area was
13 pretty deprived from Loughlinstown and Ballybrack. We also introduced them to
14 the Tallaght Community Council, who made a short presentation on their
15:42:39 15 experience with the Monarch Company in Tallaght, with their frustrations and
16 delays etc. getting the scheme up and running. But with the marvelous -- I
17 suppose change that it brought to the whole Tallaght area and it had given a a
18 great boost to the community. And my recollection is that the community
19 council went back and thought about it and were very invigorated about what
15:43:05 20 they had seen and what they'd heard in Tallaght and they'd spoken to the
21 community council people. And they then went back to their local councillors
22 to say look, we want this development to proceed.
23 Q. 965 In early 1993 I think Mr. Dunlop got involved; isn't that right?
24 A. Yeah, sometime in March.
15:43:27 25 Q. 966 March '93?
26 A. Yeah.
27 Q. 967 Mr. McCabe, who was the planner dealing with the site said he did not know Mr.
28 Dunlop was involved?
29 A. Yeah.
15:43:39 30 Q. 968 And the last witness, Ms. Gosling, said she did not know that Mr. Dunlop was

www.pcr.ie Day 656
135
15:43:43 1 involved?
2 A. Right.
3 Q. 969 Is there any reason that you can proffer to the Tribunal why both of those
4 witnesses would not know that Mr. Dunlop had become involved with the project?
15:43:52 5 A. I don't know. I don't know. I can't help you there, sorry.
6 Q. 970 What involvement had you with Mr. Dunlop becoming involved in this site?
7 A. None. To be honest with you.
8 Q. 971 Did you know Mr. Dunlop was involved in it?
9 A. I did. Well, sorry, I knew when I was told.
15:44:09 10 Q. 972 Well when were you told.
11 A. I was told when I was called into a meeting sometime, again, in March, into the
12 board room and ...
13 Q. 973 Who was present at that meeting?
14 A. Well Richard Lynn was there certainly.
15:44:21 15 Q. 974 Yes?
16 A. And Eddie Sweeney, was there.
17 Q. 975 Yes?
18 A. I was there.
19 Q. 976 Yes?
15:44:26 20 A. And I believe one of our architects was there, pat Lafferty, and there may
21 have been one or two others there as well.
22 Q. 977 Was Mr. Monahan at the meeting?
23 A. No.
24 Q. 978 And had the decision been made at that stage to involve Mr. Dunlop?
15:44:44 25 A. He seemed to have been appointed.
26 Q. 979 Sorry. He was already appointed?
27 A. He was there to help.
28 Q. 980 Was Mr. Dunlop at that meeting?
29 A. He was, yeah.
15:44:49 30 Q. 981 So before that meeting which Mr. Dunlop attended you did not know Mr. Dunlop

www.pcr.ie Day 656
136
15:44:54 1 was going to be involved?
2 A. No.
3 Q. 982 You did not meet Mr. Dunlop?
4 A. Oh, I had. Sorry, I had met him at the council.
15:45:01 5 Q. 983 You had met him in the council?
6 A. In the council offices on a number of occasions.
7 Q. 984 So you had been attending the council had you?
8 A. Sorry, I was never at a council meeting. I was never inside the chamber.
9 Sorry. Monarch had two other projects.
15:45:17 10 Q. 985 Yes?
11 A. Somerton and Ongar.
12 Q. 986 Yes?
13 A. Which, I was outside the council at those meetings and I believe that's where I
14 met Frank Dunlop for the first time.
15:45:29 15 Q. 987 What were you doing outside the council at those meetings?
16 A. Well I was, what do you call it, I had spoken to a couple of councillors
17 telling them that there was a couple of projects comes up and if they could
18 help us with it, if they could support it, we'd appreciate it.
19 Q. 988 Were you lobbying for the rezoning of those projects?
15:45:47 20 A. Well, I would have to debate with myself what's lobbying or canvassing.
21 Q. 989 We'll take the neutral. Were you canvassing support for both of those on
22 behalf of your employers?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 990 Presumably you must have been familiar with the old process?
15:46:06 25 A. Not really.
26 Q. 991 You didn't know what was required to change the zoning on a particular site?
27 A. I knew that you had to get the majority of councillors to support a project.
28 Q. 992 Yes?
29 A. Okay. And in relation to Ongar. That was some lands outside of Clonsilla
15:46:24 30 and Somerton. Obviously one in Castleknock. I knew that you had to have a

www.pcr.ie Day 656
137
15:46:29 1 majority of councillors to support those.
2 Q. 993 When did you get involved with Ongar and the other project?
3 A. It wasn't that long, a couple of weeks before that.
4 Q. 994 So '92, '93 you became more and more involved with canvassing councillors for
15:46:46 5 their support to change zoning on behalf of Monarch?
6 A. I go back. My job was running shopping centres. This was a side show in the
7 whole scheme of things. I spent very little time doing that.
8 Q. 995 You spent very little time doing this. But yet Mr. Dunlop has given evidence
9 to the Tribunal, and from what I understand you to be now saying, you don't
15:47:08 10 dispute it. That he would have met yourself and Mr. Lynn outside the council
11 chamber during council meetings?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 996 Which were considered rezonings of lands around Dublin?
14 A. Yeah. But Mr. Dunlop also gave the impression that I was working full-time on
15:47:22 15 this and whatever. I was not. It was only a very small part. And the
16 reason for that was I knew some councillors from Tallaght and got on well with
17 them. They knew we had done a good development over there and hence I was, I
18 suppose, there to remind them that we were good developers.
19 Q. 997 You could have written to them?
15:47:42 20 A. Yeah, I suppose I could have. But I think the personal touch is always
21 better.
22 Q. 998 And you kept on attending various meetings; isn't that right?
23 A. Not that many, no. No, sorry, I never went to a meeting. I would go to
24 the -- either the lobby to meet them ...
15:47:57 25 Q. 999 Yes?
26 A. Sorry. Just a moment.
27 Q. 1000 I'm not saying that you physically attended a council meeting?
28 A. No.
29 Q. 1001 Attended a council meeting, Mr. Reilly?
15:48:04 30 A. No.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
138
15:48:05 1 Q. 1002 But you know what I?
2 A. I went to where the meetings were taking place, sorry. And obviously you'd
3 meet them in either Toddy's or Royal Dublin.
4 Q. 1003 And yet you did not know that it was the intention of your employers,
15:48:19 5 notwithstanding on your involvement on behalf of this and other sites with
6 councillors, to retain the services of Mr. Dunlop until his services were
7 actually retained; isn't that correct?
9 Q. 1004 Even though you might have met him from time to time at meetings you must have
15:48:34 10 been tremendously surprised to turn up at a meeting and find him present?
11 A. I was surprised, yeah.
12 Q. 1005 Did you ask him who employed him or why he was there?
13 A. I didn't, no.
14 Q. 1006 Did you make any inquiries from your employers why he was there or how he came
15:48:50 15 to be there?
16 A. No, I didn't to be honest with you. It was just another, somebody added to
17 the team.
19
15:48:59 20 This is an entry in Mr. Dunlop's diary for the 9th of March 1993.
21
22 You will see that Mr. Dunlop had a meeting at five o'clock on the previous
23 evening with Mr. Sweeney. Have you seen that?
24 A. E Sweeney is it?
15:49:15 25 Q. 1008 Yes.?
26 A. Yeah.
27 Q. 1009 And then on the 9th of March he has a 5:15 meeting with Richard Lynn/Philip
28 Reilly. Do you see that there?
29 A. I do, yeah.
15:49:25 30 Q. 1010 There's no mention there of Mr. Sweeney or Mr. Lafferty?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
139
15:49:28 1 A. No.
2 Q. 1011 Is that the first meeting that you had with Mr. Dunlop or do you say?
3 A. No.
4 Q. 1012 That meeting never took place?
15:49:34 5 A. That meeting never took place.
6 Q. 1013 That meeting never took place?
7 A. I believe that meeting was sometime in the morning.
8 Q. 1014 In the morning?
9 A. Some day.
15:49:41 10 Q. 1015 Rather than?
11 A. And then.
12 Q. 1016 Yeah. Why was it in the morning do you believe?
13 A. I don't know it's just my memory.
14 Q. 1017 What was discussed at the meeting?
15:49:50 15 A. What was discussed was the meeting had started when I got in and as I recall,
16 as I said, Richard was outlining, I suppose, the current status of the project
17 and as I said there was a general discussion on how it would move forward and
18 there was a vote coming up later, what year was that? '93. There was a vote
19 coming up later, in fact, at the end of the year. And what we discussed then
15:50:21 20 was I had been talking to, as I say, my good friend Therese Ridge and a couple
21 of councillors, and after that then it was, I'm a bit fuzzy on it other than I
22 think I was going to continue doing what I was doing. That's what I remember
23 from it.
24 Q. 1018 Which was to?
15:50:37 25 A. Just to talk to the people I knew about the project.
26 Q. 1019 Yeah. So the people you knew included Therese Ridge, who else did you know?
27 A. Therese Ridge, some of the other councillors.
28 Q. 1020 Perhaps now is the time to name the councillors?
29 A. Well if I can remember them all.
15:50:52 30 Q. 1021 Yes?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
140
15:50:52 1 A. I would have known quite a number of the Tallaght people.
2 Q. 1022 Let's name the councillors that you were going to talk to, Mr. Reilly.?
3 A. I was going to talk to Breda Cass. I was going to talk to probably Mary
4 Elliott. Olivia Mitchell. Who else was there? I was going to talk to, I
15:51:14 5 knew some the lads in the labour party, Eamon Walsh, some of the Fianna Fail
6 people like John Hannon, Charlie O'Connor whom I knew. And there was probably
7 some more. I'm just speaking from memory, you know.
8 Q. 1023 Yes. These were going to be your responsibility?
9 A. Not necessarily my responsibility. But I would say 'look I'll keep talking to
15:51:38 10 these people, you know'.
11 Q. 1024 Yes. And what was Mr. Dunlop going to do?
12 A. Well, I suppose he was going to talk to some of the people that he knew.
13 Q. 1025 Did he identify the people that he knew?
14 A. I don't believe he did, no. And I don't believe he mentioned the names.
15:51:54 15 Q. 1026 He mention no names?
16 A. I don't believe so, no.
17 Q. 1027 Did you know the circumstances of Mr. Dunlop's engagement?
18 A. No.
19 Q. 1028 Did you know how much he was being paid?
15:52:02 20 A. No.
21 Q. 1029 Did you not inquire?
22 A. No, I didn't, no. It was none of my business.
23 Q. 1030 I see. Who would have employed Mr. Dunlop?
24 A. Well Monarch would have employed him.
15:52:15 25 Q. 1031 No, but who within Monarch?
26 A. I suppose Eddie Sweeney was the project Manager but I don't know, I can't
27 answer that.
28 Q. 1032 You don't know who employed him. If anybody was to employ him Mr. Sweeney was
29 the most likely person?
15:52:29 30 A. Or Phil Monahan.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
141
15:52:30 1 Q. 1033 Or Phil Monahan. You didn't inquire of the circumstances under which he came
2 to be employed?
3 A. No.
4 Q. 1034 How long did Mr. Dunlop stay employed with Monarch?
15:52:43 5 A. I think up to the end of the year.
6 Q. 1035 How many meetings did you attend with Mr. Dunlop during that period?
7 A. I believe I dropped plans down the following day or a day or two afterwards to
8 his office that he asked. And that was the only formal meeting that I can
9 recall.
15:52:57 10 Q. 1036 What plans did you drop to his office?
11 A. Well the Cherrywood plans.
12 Q. 1037 And how did you?
13 A. Sorry. One of the architects came with me to explain him.
14 Q. 1038 Did you brief Mr. Dunlop?
15:53:07 15 A. Well the architect briefed Mr. Dunlop.
16 Q. 1039 In your presence?
17 A. Yeah.
18 Q. 1040 So yourself and the architect attended in Mr. Dunlop's office with a set of
19 plans and you briefed Mr. Dunlop?
15:53:19 20 A. Yes. Pat Lafferty briefed him.
21 Q. 1041 If we could have 4049. This is a telephone attendance of Mr Dunlop on the 10th
22 of March 1993 where you appear to have rang looking for Mr. Dunlop and giving a
23 telephone number. Is that correct?
24 A. Yeah.
15:53:30 25 Q. 1042 Is that you?
26 A. Yeah, I could have been returning his call either.
27 Q. 1043 And at 8832. This is a further telephone attendance for the 16th of March.
28 Where you seem to have rang twice on the same day?
29 A. I could have been bringing the plans, I don't remember.
15:53:58 30 Q. 1044 So having briefed Mr. Dunlop on the plans. Can I ask you. Was there any --

www.pcr.ie Day 656
142
15:53:58 1 any divergence or view within Monarch at that stage as to what was required on
2 this site?
3 A. No. I think, sorry. My recollection of it was what we needed to do, what
4 the company needed to do was to obviously get enough councillors to vote in
15:54:09 5 favour of the --
6 Q. 1045 Well in favour of what, Mr. Reilly?
7 A. Well that's a good question. I suppose in favour of the proposal for four
8 houses to the acre.
9 Q. 1046 Did you hear Mr. Dunlop's evidence, Mr. Reilly?
15:54:24 10 A. Some of it, yeah.
11 Q. 1047 Did you hear his evidence in relation to that meeting with Mr. Sweeney when he
12 first became involved?
13 A. If you'd maybe repeat it, please.
14 Q. 1048 Well his evidence. I'm going to summarise it.?
15:54:36 15 A. Sorry.
16 Q. 1049 That Mr. Monahan was doing his own thing in relation to the matter, the
17 circumstances under which he came to be engaged effectively to reign in
18 Mr. Monahan?
19 A. Yeah, I heard that, but I didn't understand what he meant.
15:54:51 20 Q. 1050 I see. Are you saying that there was no divergence or view within Monarch at
21 that stage as to what was required?
22 A. I wasn't aware of it.
23 Q. 1051 You weren't aware of any?
24 A. No.
15:55:01 25 Q. 1052 As far as you were concerned, the concept was to get increased density from one
26 to four houses to the acre and to proceed with the shopping centre; was that
27 right?
28 A. Yeah, that was my understanding, yeah.
29 Q. 1053 Now, you continued, you say, to liaise with your councillors; is that right?
15:55:21 30 A. Yeah.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
143
15:55:22 1 Q. 1054 In the lead up to the November '93 vote. I think there had been a proposal at
2 some stage, had there, to move the golf club from Dun Laoghaire to Cherrywood;
3 isn't that right?
4 A. I wasn't aware of that.
15:55:37 5 Q. 1055 You weren't aware of that?
6 A. No. I knew there was some talk about moving golf clubs somewhere but I wasn't
7 aware of it.
8 Q. 1056 I take it this vague talk somewhere about moving golf clubs. Can you tell the
9 Tribunal vaguely when you might have heard about that sort of talk?
15:55:53 10 A. Maybe it was sometime over the summer, I don't know.
11 Q. 1057 If we could have 8516, please. This is a letter from Mr. Noel Smyth who
12 appears to have been acting for Mr. Monahan and the Monarch interest at this
13 time. You'll have seen this brief written in August 1993.?
14 A. Right.
15:56:09 15 Q. 1058 Do you see a reference there to a deal with Dun Laoghaire to transfer the golf
16 course to Cherrywood?
17 A. Yeah.
18 Q. 1059 Yes?
19 A. I see that all right, yeah.
15:56:21 20 Q. 1060 Did you know in August 1993 that there was a suggestion that the golf course
21 would --
22 A. Probably heard about it, yeah.
23 Q. 1061 Who was promoting that at the time?
24 A. I don't know. It could have been Phil himself.
15:56:33 25 Q. 1062 Yes. It's unlikely that Mr. Monahan would have been promoting that idea
26 without bringing it to the attention of the rest of the board and particularly
27 those who were involved in seeking the rezoning of the site?
28 A. That's right, yeah. That's Noel's job.
29 Q. 1063 That's the type of information that might be of interest to councillors,
15:56:48 30 particularly those in the Dun Laoghaire area; isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 656
144
15:56:54 1 A. Perhaps, yeah. I'm not saying it would.
2 Q. 1064 It would be of benefit to those canvassing those councillors for their support
3 for the Cherrywood site; isn't that right?
4 A. Yeah, I suppose it could be, yeah.
15:57:06 5 Q. 1065 That would include you; isn't that right?
6 A. Well it could include me, yeah.
7 Q. 1066 It's the type of information I suggest to you that you would know about not
8 just in a vague way --
9 A. Sorry.
15:57:16 10 Q. 1067 You would have been briefed on it?
11 A. I wasn't briefed on it, no.
12 Q. 1068 You weren't briefed on it?
13 A. No.
14 Q. 1069 Who would have told you about it?
15:57:23 15 A. I would have probably heard about it in the office.
16 Q. 1070 Were you surprised you weren't briefed on it?
17 A. Not really. Again, this was not my full-time job. I was only --
18 Q. 1071 I accept it wasn't your full-time job, Mr. Reilly.?
19 A. You keep saying that. Sorry, I do.
15:57:38 20 Q. 1072 You attended the meetings. You were bringing the architect to Mr. Dunlop who
21 has been recently appointed. You are talking to at least eight councillors
22 that you have identified You are updating them on what's happening. And you
23 are saying that you don't know the proposal to move the golf course to
24 Cherrywood?
15:57:55 25 A. I heard about it in the office but I had no detail on it.
26 Q. 1073 Did you not acquire or seek detail on it?
27 A. No, not really and just to be clear about talking to seven or eight
28 councillors. What happened, as I recall, was in April, May or whenever,
29 whenever the, what do you call it, the summer intervened. There was very
15:58:26 30 little contact, as I recall, with the councillors etc.. What happened then

www.pcr.ie Day 656
145
15:58:26 1 was it was coming back up for a decision in, later in the year, in October or
2 November, I think it was November in the end. There was no -- nobody ever
3 came back to me and said look we're going to go this, that or the other or
4 anything else.
15:58:38 5 Q. 1074 Do you not think that the councillors that you were talking to, Mr. Reilly,
6 would be very disappointed if you weren't able to tell them the proposals of
7 Monarch in relation to the transfer of the golf course?
8 A. I never spoke to them about it.
9 Q. 1075 I accept that. Had they heard what you heard. Do you not think they would be
15:58:56 10 very disappointed that you couldn't brief them on it?
11 A. I'm not sure they heard it.
12 Q. 1076 You only heard it by the by in the office?
13 A. I think there was some talk about it, yeah.
14 Q. 1077 Well who spoke about it?
15:59:06 15 A. I don't know. It could have been Richard Lynn. I don't remember.
16 Q. 1078 Yes. Had it board approval?
17 A. Oh, I don't know about that.
18 Q. 1079 Was that something that was being promoted by Mr. Monahan himself?
19 A. It could have been, yeah.
15:59:18 20 Q. 1080 Did you know Mr. Whelan?
21 A. I'd met Jack, yeah, on a few occasions, yeah.
22 Q. 1081 What was Mr. Whelan's involvement with Monarch?
23 A. He was a land agent as I understand it.
24 Q. 1082 Do you know why he would have sought a quarter of a million pounds in the early
15:59:37 25 1990s from Monarch in relation to the Cherrywood project?
26 A. No.
27 Q. 1083 Did anybody tell you anything about that in the office Mr. Reilly?
28 A. No.
29 Q. 1084 Did Mr. Lynn ever discuss it with you?
15:59:48 30 A. No.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
146
15:59:49 1 Q. 1085 Did Mr. Monahan ever discuss it with you?
3 Q. 1086 If we could have 8574, please. You'll have seen this document on the screen
4 earlier, Mr. Reilly?
16:00:00 5 A. Yeah.
6 Q. 1087 You will see the claim there 'fees to services in relation to residential
7 consultancy at Cherrywood 150,000 plus VAT' making a total of 180.?
8 A. Uh-huh.
9 Q. 1088 Do you know anything about that?
16:00:12 10 A. No.
11 Q. 1089 When was the first time you saw that document?
12 A. A few minutes ago.
13 Q. 1090 You had never seen it before this morning?
14 A. No.
16:00:19 15 Q. 1091 Yet you knew Mr. Whelan?
16 A. I knew Jack.
17 Q. 1092 How well did you know Mr. Whelan?
18 A. Not very well.
19 Q. 1093 When did you first get to know Mr. Whelan?
16:00:28 20 A. Oh, I don't know. Maybe a year or two before that. He'd been a land agent.
21 Q. 1094 Yes. When you say before that. Before 1991 or 1992?
22 A. '92. I can't say exactly. I just can't say exactly.
23 Q. 1095 And in what context did you get to know Mr. Whelan?
24 A. He was working for Phil Monahan doing some work.
16:00:46 25 Q. 1096 What was he doing for Mr. Monahan?
26 A. I don't know.
27 Q. 1097 What was he doing for Mr. Monahan that would have enabled him to submit a fee
28 for 150,000 in 1991 or 1992 in relation to the Cherrywood residential
29 consultancy?
16:00:59 30 A. No idea. Absolutely no idea.

www.pcr.ie Day 656
147
16:01:02 1 Q. 1098 Even now, are you not curious, Mr. Reilly, to know how that claim might have
2 arisen?
3 A. I am, but I don't know what he did.
4 Q. 1099 Well, what might he have done, from your knowledge of him and his association
16:01:15 5 with Mr. Monahan?
6 A. I don't know. Unless he was trying to buy extra land or something out there.
7 I don't know. I'm speculating. I can't help the Tribunal. I'm sorry.
8 Q. 1100 Why would Mr. Monahan pay somebody nearly 180,000 pounds to help him buy land,
9 Mr. Reilly?
16:01:33 10 A. I assume as a fee.
11 Q. 1101 Why would you pay somebody to help you buy land. I can understand a fee in
12 relation to selling land. I don't understand the fee in relation to acquiring
13 land?
14 A. I think agents can earn fees both ways. They can act as an agent to acquire.
16:01:51 15 Q. 1102 Yeah. If we can have 5040. This is a claim for a further 121,000 for
16 introducing Dwyer Nolan. Do you see that? This is a claim on GRE by Monarch?
17 A. Oh, I see it down near the end, yeah.
18 Q. 1103 Do you know anything about that?
16:02:12 20
21 CHAIRMAN: Sorry. Mr. Quinn, it's four o'clock. Or it's after four
22 o'clock. So we might adjourn now until half ten tomorrow.
23 A. Okay.
24
16:02:23 25
26
27 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING DAY, THURSDAY, 22ND JUNE
28 AT 10:30 A.M..
29
16:03:51 30

www.pcr.ie Day 656
1
2 22ND JUNE, 2006, AT 10:30 A.M.:
10:42:21 5
8 Mr. O'Halloran, please.
10:42:25 10 JOHN O'HALLORAN, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS QUESTIONED AS
11 FOLLOWS BY MR. DOYLE:
12
13 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Mr. O'Halloran.
14 A. Good morning.
10:42:52 15
16 JUDGE FAHERTY: Good morning.
17
18 Q. 1 MR DOYLE: Mr. O'Halloran, I believe that you were first elected on the 22nd of
19 June 1991 to the Lucan ward of Dublin County Council, isn't that correct?
21 Q. 2 And I think that you are a member of the Labour Party at that time?
22 A. I was.
23 Q. 3 You subsequently left the party, isn't that correct?
24 A. Yes.
10:43:11 25 Q. 4 What I propose to do, Mr. O'Halloran, is just briefly bring you through some of
26 the statements and or correspondence you've sent to the Tribunal and any
27 matters arising out of those and then go through some of the planning in
28 relation to the Development Plan up as far as 1994. All right?
29 A. That's grand.
10:43:33 30 Q. 5 Okay. Now, I think that you sent a statement to the Tribunal on the 20th of

www.pcr.ie Day 657
2
10:43:39 1 December, 2000. And that was sent on foot of a letter from the Tribunal of
2 the 22nd of November, 2000. And in your letter to the Tribunal, I'll quote
3 you directly in relation to your statement so that there's no confusion.
10:43:57 5 You made a number of points in your statement. And just to, as I say, page
6 1775. I think that you have said there's no allegation in this module that A,
7 "I did not receive any payment from Frank Dunlop in the course of the review of
8 the 1993 Dublin County Development Plan." And I think you went on to say that
9 "you had received a donation of 3,500 in 1996 election, by-election."
10:44:22 10 A. That's right.
11 Q. 6 I think at D then, at page 1776 you said "I do confirm that I did not seek or
12 obtain sums of money from Phil Monahan of Monahan Properties in 1996/1997 on my
13 on behalf whether connected to or in the proposed rezoning or planning matter.
14 I recall on one occasion approaching Mr. Monahan for a contribution to the
10:44:38 15 Multiple Sclerosis Society which I raised funds during this period and I
16 further recall receiving a donation from Mr. Monahan of approximately 100
17 pounds by way of cheque which I believe I transmitted onward to this society.
18
19 I may have sought other small donations from Mr. Monahan." 1777. "On behalf
10:44:56 20 of the Multiple Sclerosis Society during this period."
21
22 I think you go on and your solicitor, a letter sent by your solicitor to the
23 Tribunal dated 25th of November 2002, and that's page 1779. And I think you
24 clarify in relation to your recollection of a payment. And at the second
10:45:16 25 paragraph there your solicitors Cullen & Co. state that "Our client has now
26 brought to our attention that he has a recollection of receiving a political
27 donation from Mr. Dunlop in the sum of approximately 500 pounds."
28
29 And further on you say "Between June 1991 and December 1993 at or in the
10:45:33 30 environs of the council headquarters in upper O'Connell Street, he believes

www.pcr.ie Day 657
3
10:45:37 1 that the donation was made by Mr. Dunlop following a conversation. You
2 further state that the donation was a straight forward political contribution
3 without any express or implied agreement or understanding that -- accept in was
4 in return for agreeing to support any land rezoning proposal in the Dublin
10:45:52 5 Draft Development Plan either concerning lands in Carrickmines or otherwise.
6 And it was with a matter of considerable embarrassment to our client that he
7 did not recall this political contribution at an earlier stage."
9 I think the Tribunal wrote to you in relation to this module on the 7th of
10:46:10 10 April 2006. And that's at 1789.
11 And I think you having suffered an unfortunate bereavement very recently, your
12 solicitors advised us of this. And in the circumstances your evidence here
13 today is effectively your evidence and/or in the absence of a statement your
14 views of what transpired in relation to the Development Plan and Cherrywood.
10:46:39 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 7 Now, I propose just to deal with the planning then, Mr. O'Halloran. I think
17 when you were elected it was late, June 27th of June 1991. And I think when
18 you came into the council the previous May, around the 24th of May, the council
19 had already voted on a Development Plan and map proposal and that is at page
10:47:06 20 7019.
21
22 And that was map DP90/129A. Maybe just to re -- or to familiarise yourself
23 once again with this area. You can see the map on screen there. And I think
24 it's clear from the map that there, if you can see there the Monarch lands are
10:47:26 25 outlined in red.
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 8 Do you recollect this map? Does it make any sense to you?
28 A. No, no.
29 Q. 9 No. The Cherrywood lands are on this map here, the Monarch lands are outlined
10:47:44 30 in red as I've stated. There's a line going through, a dotted line going

www.pcr.ie Day 657
4
10:47:44 1 through the Monarch lands. And that was the proposed line of the Southeastern
2 Motorway. And on the map you can see AS 1 to AP. Now, that was a change
3 proposed change in residential density on the lands and that was from a density
4 of one house per acre to a four houses per acre on piped sewage. And this map
10:48:11 5 was the map that was in existence when you came to the council?
6 A. Uh-huh.
8 A. I accept that.
9 Q. 11 Yeah. And I think then that this map was put on public display between
10:48:22 10 September 1991 or a version of if. And that's at page 7021, was put on public
11 display between September '91 and December '91. That was put on public display
12 and again, you can see a very similar map, the Monarch lands/Cherrywood lands
13 are outlined again in orange. There are a number of proposed lines of the
14 Southeastern Motorway transecting the lands there. You can see that in
10:48:49 15 relation again it's quite small. If we could bring up, if it's possible to
16 bring up the size of the map again. Again the residential zonings and
17 densities are outlined on this map.
18
19 So a number of objections and representations were received and you would have
10:49:08 20 been in attendance in a meeting of the County Council on 13th of May 1992.
21 Have you any recollection of that meeting?
22 A. I don't.
23 Q. 12 You don't. And I believe it was at that meeting that the manager reported on
24 the representations and objections received and made a number of
10:49:25 25 recommendations regarding the proposed lands and zoning and density in the
26 Southeastern Motorways, the line of the Southeastern Motorway. And that
27 ultimately led o to DP92/44. And that's at 7203.
28
29 Now, as you can see from that map, there's a - and I will deal with that in a
10:50:01 30 moment. This map was a map that arose out of and by reason of the

www.pcr.ie Day 657
5
10:50:07 1 representations received from the County Council from various parties. Do you
2 remember any of the representations or the manager discussing any of the
3 proposals or objections?
4 A. I don't recall them offhand, no, I'll be honest.
10:50:21 5 Q. 13 All right.
6 A. Although I'm aware of the density question but not with regard to any
7 specifics.
8 Q. 14 Right. And when you say you're aware of the density --
9 A. There was, I remember the one per acre and then somebody else had suggested
10:50:39 10 more houses per acre but I can't recall specifically any particular argument
11 for or against.
12 Q. 15 Do you remember the manager reporting on a particular representation being
13 representation 1117, this was representation of Monarch Properties?
14 A. No, no I don't, no.
10:50:56 15 Q. 16 And which it was proposed by Monarch that there be a higher density on the
16 lands. That some of the lands be rezoned from agricultural to residential and
17 the line of the Southeastern Motorway be moved.
18 A. No, I'm really sorry. I can't remember the specifics.
19 Q. 17 Not to worry. If you can see from the map there, the proposal in DP92/44 was
10:51:17 20 that the lands go from AP, that is four houses to the acre, to A1P, piped
21 sewage no density limitation. And if you can see there's a big black line
22 going through that. That would be the proposed route of the Southeastern
23 Motorway. And if you can see west of that B to A1 and that would be the
24 agricultural land as previously zoned would be A1. That is residential and no
10:51:45 25 density limitation.
26
27 Have you any recollection of this map or having discussed this map?
28 A. No.
29 Q. 18 In any event, this meeting, there was no decision made at this meeting. I
10:51:59 30 think that there was a meeting held on the 27th of May 1992. And that's at

www.pcr.ie Day 657
6
10:52:04 1 7205, please.
3 Again, you were at this meeting, Mr. O'Halloran. Do you have any recollection
4 of being at this meeting, which DP92/44 was discussed?
10:52:14 5 A. Sorry, I know it sounds evasive. It's a long time ago I wouldn't have a
6 particular recollection of individual meetings to be honest with you.
7 Q. 19 Other than the density meeting as you say?
8 A. Other than, I accept the record shows I was there and ....
9 Q. 20 Yeah. All right. Now, I can I can advise you or maybe help your memory in
10:52:29 10 relation to this meeting: there was 11 motions considered and obviously I
11 don't intend dealing with all of them. But there were and No. 3 in particular
12 important motions. And the first motion was a motion of Councillor Lydon and
13 McGrath. That's 7207, please.
14
10:52:50 15 And if you can see there "It was proposed by Councillor Lydon and seconded by
16 Councillor McGrath that the manager's report proposed amendments to the draft
17 plan and recommended therein shown DP92/44 be adopted and approved." That is
18 to approve the zoning density in relation to the lands and the rezoning of
19 certain of these lands from agricultural to residential.
10:53:14 20
21 Now, do you remember voting on this motion?
22 A. Again, I'm sorry. Not particularly. But I'm looking at the record and I
23 accept that's an accurate record so ...
24 Q. 21 And you'll see that there for and against the motion was lost. You did vote
10:53:30 25 for the motion. And as I say, it was lost. You have no recollection of
26 voting on that are you saying?
27 A. I don't, no.
28 Q. 22 Do you remember any -- anything about this motion, any discussion about this
29 motion?
10:53:44 30 A. No but going back to that time, I mean, it was a good hectic time in the

www.pcr.ie Day 657
7
10:53:49 1 council.
2 Q. 23 Uh-huh.
3 A. So there was a lot of activity. It would be difficult to recall unless you
4 had records.
10:53:54 5 Q. 24 Uh-huh.
6 A. Which, I don't have.
7 Q. 25 Of course. This, as we've heard --
8 A. I accept. I would have been generally in favour of development within the
9 county.
10:54:02 10 Q. 26 Sure.
11 A. In fact, I would have supported a motion of a higher density. If somebody
12 lives in an area where there's 12 and 14 houses per acre it didn't seem to be
13 sensible to be building houses one to the acre and indeed four to the acre.
14 So I think I would have been generally in favour of a higher density.
10:54:18 15 Q. 27 Right. This particular piece of land where it was the largest tract of
16 development land in South County Dublin at the time. That's why I, I'm
17 wondering did it not stand out in your mind. In that it wasn't -- I know
18 there was many maps being dealt with over the months --
19 A. Yeah.
10:54:36 20 Q. 28 -- this would have been a significant piece of land, a significant tract of
21 land and did involve considerable debate and a lot of media reporting?
22 A. Well I can recall debates around those subjects but not in any specific way.
23 That's all I was trying to say. I can't recall meetings specifically or
24 indeed votes specifically.
10:54:53 25 Q. 29 Right. All right. As I say, you voted for that. There was another, moving
26 on, another motion amongst the 11. And that was the Gilmore O'Callaghan
27 motion. And that is at 7214, please.
28
29 And that motion proposed that Dublin County Council resolve that the lands on
10:55:19 30 map 27 be zoned C, so that was -- they were seeking to have a town centre on

www.pcr.ie Day 657
8
10:55:22 1 the lands. And again, I can say that you voted and you voted in favour of
2 this motion which was carried by the council. Have you any recollection of
3 that?
4 A. Again, I'm really sorry. I don't have a specific recollection but I accept --
10:55:37 5 I'm looking at the records here and I accept the record is accurate and I voted
6 for it. Yeah.
7 Q. 30 And I think then there was a motion, the final one, around that motion. This
8 meeting was the Barrett Dockrell motion. And that motion was to reduce
9 density residential density to one house per acre. And can we have that,
10:56:06 10 7216, please.
11
12 And you can see there that "Dublin County Council hereby resolves that the
13 lands indicated in red stretching from Glenamuck Road to Cherrywood Road,
14 Loughlinstown be zoned for residential development at a density not exceeding
10:56:24 15 one house per acre. You voted against this motion.
16 A. Well, as I said a few minutes ago --
17 Q. 31 Yep.
18 A. -- I mean, that would have been in line with the way I would have thought or
19 believed, yeah.
10:56:34 20 Q. 32 Yes. And I think in fairness to you, Mr. O'Halloran, I think there were a
21 number of other motions. I won't go into but they were seeking a lower
22 density on the land and in each of those motions you voted against lower
23 density. As we can see from the record here, you would have voted
24 prodevelopment and proincreased zoning density.
10:56:54 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 33 Now, in relation to your voting, and I accept it's some time ago and you're
27 saying you seem to have a vague recollection of it. Notwithstanding, can you
28 remember being approached by anybody or being asked for your views on how you
29 might vote in relation to these motions at this meeting?
10:57:20 30 A. I was lobbied by a couple of people from Monarch Property but I honestly can't

www.pcr.ie Day 657
9
10:57:25 1 remember their names because it would have been early on in my council career,
2 who showed a proposal and whatever. But I cannot remember the two gentlemen.
3 Like, I can't remember their names. That's -- but I would have been lobbied
4 by fellow councillors and, you know, councillors for the area, whatever, you
10:57:52 5 know, in a similar fashion.
6 Q. 34 Councillors for the area being whom?
7 A. Whoever, I mean, it was the normal process if there was a motion effecting your
8 area if you were in support of it you would try and secure support from your
9 fellow councillors.
10:58:00 10 Q. 35 All right. Going back to what you just said in relation to certain persons
11 from Monarch. If we could have 1414, please.
12
13 It might assist you in relation to this matter. This is a statement from
14 Mr. Richard Lynn dated the 14th of June 2000 regarding the lands to Cherrywood
10:58:25 15 and you can see there at one. "I met" Mr. Lynn states in the statement "I met
16 with most members of Dublin County Council up to 1993 and all members of Dun
17 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council after 1993. As a sample of those I have met
18 I attach an extract from the County Council meeting on the 16th of October 1992
19 and have placed a tick against those members that I recollect having met in the
10:58:47 20 context of Cherrywood."
21
22 And 1416, please. 1416. Now, this was a document handed in, Mr. O'Halloran,
23 by Mr. Lynn as an example of his contacts.
24 A. Uh-huh.
10:59:04 25 Q. 36 And this relates to one meeting only but from his statement, as you can see,
26 this is just an example of his general form over this period. Now, this, as
27 you can see, is the meeting held on the 16th of October 1992. And he has
28 ticked off a number of names as he has said in his statement. And he has
29 placed a tick against those names I recollect having met. Again, beside your
10:59:32 30 name there is a tick. Does this help your memory in any way?

www.pcr.ie Day 657
10
10:59:35 1 A. No. Again, I'm not refuting it either. I just have no memory.
2 Q. 37 No memory of meeting Mr. Lynn in particular?
3 A. No, not at that time.
4 Q. 38 So are you saying you don't remember meeting Mr. Lynn or you don't remember --
10:59:48 5 A. Meeting him in connection to this development.
6 Q. 39 Do you know Mr. Lynn?
7 A. I do. I subsequently would have got to know him but I mean that's 14 years ago
8 so I wouldn't have --
9 Q. 40 When you would you have first met Mr. Lynn?
11:00:01 10 A. Well, if he claims that he spoke to me in 1992, I presume that's the first
11 time. I can't remember absolutely.
12 Q. 41 Well would it have been during the '80s or the '90s or when would you have got
13 to know Mr. Lynn?
14 A. Oh no. No, it would have been after I got elected, some time after I was
11:00:17 15 elected to the council.
16 Q. 42 Sometimes after June '91?
17 A. Yeah.
18 Q. 43 And how do you or do you remember the circumstances under which you met Mr.
19 Lynn?
11:00:28 20 A. Again, I can't really, I mean.
21 Q. 44 Well you know him well now, isn't that right?
22 A. Well I would have gotten to know him because he was involved in other projects,
23 I think, you know, at a later stage.
24 Q. 45 All right.
11:00:40 25 A. So I don't know, he would be around the council and whatever. In 1992 I
26 wouldn't have known many of these people. You know they were only faces as
27 far as I was concerned.
28 Q. 46 If I could have page 571, please.
29
11:00:54 30 This is an interview Mr. Dunlop was engaged in with the Tribunal on the 25th of

www.pcr.ie Day 657
11
11:01:07 1 May 2000. And Mr. Dunlop is asked by Mr. Gallagher to discuss his relationship
2 with Monarch. As you can see there at the top. And at page 578, please.
4 And this is in relation to, as I say, Monarch and persons involved in Dublin
11:02:41 5 County Council. At 20 there. Question 20. At page 578. "It's okay. In
6 other words, that persons has agreed to.
7 A: It could be two things. It might not always mean that when it was said
8 that he or she has been paid that that person was on the payroll but you would
9 not want again to remember what was exactly said. But you would not want an
11:02:41 10 IQ of more that one to know that there was a specific list and it is a small
11 list all the time. It is the same people. For example, I'm aware that there
12 would have been very close contact between Richard Lynn and Liam Cosgrave.
13 Between Richard Lynn and Tony Fox. Between Richard Lynn and Don Lydon and
14 others that he would need to come on board then like some of the independents
11:02:43 15 Lyons, O'Halloran, who may well have been still in the Labour Party at that
16 stage, had not come out of it but even though he was in the Labour Party he was
17 operating on an independent basis."
18
19 That was Mr. Dunlop. Regarding your relationship with Mr. Lynn. Would you
11:02:43 20 like to comment in relation to that?
21 A. No. Mr. Dunlop has made allegations, with suggestions that he approached me on
22 different projects and I said here on a number of occasions --
23 Q. 47 That's correct --
24 A. And I never ever discussed anything with Mr. Dunlop.
11:02:57 25 Q. 48 Right. But this is Mr. Dunlop about your relationship with Mr. Lynn.
26 A. Well I have no comment.
27 Q. 49 You accept you had a relationship with Mr. Lynn?
28 A. No, no, no.
29 Q. 50 No. Would you accept that you were close to Mr. Lynn, as this would seem to
11:03:07 30 indicate?

www.pcr.ie Day 657
12
11:03:07 1 A. No. I mean, it depends. I mean, I wasn't close to him. I would have met
2 him on several occasions because he was around the council and whatever but I
3 wouldn't suggest there was a close relationship.
4 Q. 51 That you might have come on board as a result of Mr. Lynn's relationship with
11:03:26 5 you?
6 A. No.
7 Q. 52 Who introduced you to Mr. Lynn?
8 A. I'm not sure. He probably introduced himself to me, I'm not sure.
9 Q. 53 You were aware that Mr. Dunlop was a lobbiest at this time?
11:03:41 10 A. Yes. But, as I said before I was --
11 Q. 54 You have given that evidence on previous modules.
12 A. Not for the project.
13 Q. 55 I accept that's --
14 A. Absolutely.
11:03:53 15 Q. 56 For another matter, Quarryvale I believe.
16 A. Yeah.
17 Q. 57 Could Mr. Dunlop have introduced to you Mr. Lynn?
18 A. He could have, but I don't remember. He could have again, I can't say he did
19 or he didn't. To deny it would be wrong. In the same way to suggest he did
11:04:07 20 would be also wrong because I don't remember.
21 Q. 58 Right. So you certainly would have known Mr. Dunlop at this time as a
22 lobbiest?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 59 In or around the environs of the City Hall.
11:04:18 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 60 And you came to know Mr. Lynn around this time.
27 A. Around 1992?
28 Q. 61 Yes.
29 A. I can't remember back that far. Again, I know I sound vague but there were so
11:04:30 30 many people around South Dublin County Council, Dublin County Council as it was

www.pcr.ie Day 657
13
11:04:34 1 then, that it's not possible at times to remember when people appeared first or
2 whatever. But where people would have a constant presence, Mr. Lynn could
3 have been one of them.
4 Q. 62 Right but you have no specific memory but you accept that you would have known
11:04:48 5 him at this time?
6 A. Oh, yeah. Probably at that time. I've no memory of when I first would have
7 met him.
8 Q. 63 Did Mr. Lynn lobby you in relation to Cherrywood?
9 A. I mean, I've been asked this and I have thought about it. I can never remember
11:05:02 10 him asking me anything about Cherrywood. I remember two different -- two
11 gentlemen came to me. And I don't think one of them was Richard Lynn.
12 Q. 64 You don't think?
14 Q. 65 Who was the other man?
11:05:13 15 A. I can't remember their names. I mean it was only a fairly brief fleeting kind
16 of a conversation and presentation or whatever.
17 Q. 66 Would you have met Mr. Lynn with, say, Mr. Dunlop?
18 A. No, no.
19 Q. 67 You're certain of that?
11:05:26 20 A. Positive, yeah, yeah, absolutely. Certainly in relation to Cherrywood, no.
21 Q. 68 You can't remember meeting -- you can't remember much detail but you can say
22 that you are positive you didn't meet Mr. Lynn with Mr. Dunlop?
23 A. In relation to Cherrywood. If you're asking me did I meet both of them at the
24 same time on any occasion, I could have.
11:05:47 25 Q. 69 And so you could have in Cherrywood?
26 A. Yeah but Mr. Dunlop would never have approached me or spoke to me about
27 Cherrywood or any other project.
28 Q. 70 So you are certain of that.
29 A. Absolutely.
11:05:57 30 Q. 71 You're not certain that you could have met Mr. Dunlop with Mr. Lynn. It's a

www.pcr.ie Day 657
14
11:06:01 1 possibility, isn't it?
2 A. In a casual way, yeah.
3 Q. 72 This was in the environs of the City Hall.
4 A. Yeah, in the County Council offices, yeah.
11:06:10 5 Q. 73 Where you would be meeting Dunlop as you've said in previous evidence in
6 relation to another development?
7 A. No, no, meeting with him is a casual hello, goodbye it wasn't a meeting set up
8 to discussion anything, you know.
9 Q. 74 Right. And likewise, Mr. Lynn would have been around the environs of City
11:06:27 10 Hall and you would have been discussing --
11 A. He would have been.
12 Q. 75 And it's possible you discussed Cherrywood with Mr. Lynn?
13 A. It is possible, yeah.
14 Q. 76 And possibly in the company of Mr. Dunlop. You can't say you didn't?
11:06:37 15 A. It's unlikely. That's all I'm saying.
16 Q. 77 Yes.
17 A. Because as I say, I wasn't aware of Mr. Dunlop's involvement.
18 Q. 78 Right. Now, I think arising out of the meeting of the 27th of May 1992. A
19 further, and that is map page 7217. And this is the map that went ultimately
11:07:10 20 on public display and I'll deal with that in a moment in relation to the lands.
21 And I'll come back to that. Just to conclude, as a result of the meeting of
22 the 27th of May and as you say yourself, you haven't a great recollection but
23 you certainly know that you were there and we know how you voted; and that was
24 pro the rezoning and pro the increased density?
11:07:29 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 79 Right. Now, just in -- could I have page 4041, please.
27
28 There are a number of meetings and whilst I accept that some of these have been
29 dealt with in previous modules. I don't think your evidence was that you could
11:07:49 30 recollect. But we're -- having dealt with some of the evidence here already

www.pcr.ie Day 657
15
11:07:55 1 today. I'm hoping that maybe you will remember. These are meetings and/or
2 contacts with Mr. Frank Dunlop between March and June of 1993. So this is
3 after the vote in May 1992 in relation to the Development Plan and prior to the
4 next meeting on the 11th of November '93.
11:08:18 5
6 And at 4041. The 8th of March 1993, telephone attendance "Mr. Frank Dunlop
7 John O'Halloran in Dublin County Council this afternoon". I'll just go
8 through them briefly and you can comment. "9th of March 1993, 4046, 9th March
9 1993. 10:30 John O'Halloran don't send out cheque for football gear."
11:08:39 10 A. Sorry. I didn't get the last piece of that.
11 Q. 80 It's what is written in. It's a telephone attendance 10:30 John O'Halloran.
12 "Don't send out cheque for football gear." That's at 4046.
13 A. I see it a.
14 Q. 81 At 10:30 do you see that? 10th of March.
11:08:56 15 That's a 12 noon, that's 4049. Page 4049, "12 noon John O'Halloran will call
16 again later."
17 4096. 23rd of March 1993. "12:55 John O'Halloran."
18 4179. 3rd of May 1993. "2:40. John O'Halloran in the centre. FD
19 looking for him." That's at 240.
11:09:31 20 On the 13th of May. 4196. 13th of May 1993. 11:15 "John O'Halloran will
21 see you in council tomorrow."
22 17th of May. 4198. "John O'Halloran in DCC hall parter."
23 And finally. 4254. 17th of June 1993. 9:20 John O'Halloran and two
24 numbers given there.
11:09:57 25
26 Now, in relation to that and those contacts, does it surprise you that there
27 are so many?
28 A. Well it does really, yeah, yeah.
29 Q. 82 And have you any explanation as to why Mr. Dunlop would have contacted you over
11:10:15 30 this period of time, on certainly not a frequent basis but certainly a regular

www.pcr.ie Day 657
16
11:10:20 1 basis?
2 A. Well I refer back to the cheque for the football gear. Mr. Dunlop would have
3 been very --
4 Q. 83 You mean March, is that correct?
11:10:30 5 A. Generous. Presumably it would have been money with regard to donations to
6 clubs in the area.
7 Q. 84 Uh-huh.
8 A. I would have on occasion contacted Mr. Dunlop in the hope of getting some
9 support for whatever club it might be, whether it be football or indeed any
11:10:43 10 other club.
11 Q. 85 Sure.
12 A. So I would have had contact with him, you know.
13 Q. 86 During this period did you ever have any contact with Mr. Lynn for similar
14 projects?
11:10:52 15 A. No, no.
16 Q. 87 And you're certain of that?
17 A. Positive, yeah.
18 Q. 88 And is it possible that these contacts with Mr. Dunlop were in relation to the
11:11:00 20 A. No.
21 Q. 89 You're certain of that?
22 A. Positive, yeah.
23 Q. 90 But you can't tell us exactly why they might have been other than ...?
24 A. No.
11:11:11 25 Q. 91 All right. Moving on to the map, 27, at 7217. We'll go back to that. This
26 map, as I say, was as a result of the vote taken on the 27th of May 1992.
27 This was the map that was put on public display 1st of July to August '93.
28 And you can see in that map we now have, if we could increase the size there,
29 please, of the map, in particular the specific Cherrywood lands. There are a
11:11:44 30 number of proposed routes for the line of the Southeastern Motorway. The

www.pcr.ie Day 657
17
11:11:49 1 Monarch lands are outlined in red. You can see that the density that is
2 change No. 3, is now one house to the acre. There's also 4A and 4B, that is
3 the town centre proposal and Mr Gilmore and O'Callaghan's now appear on the
4 map. And there's the lands west of the Southeastern Motorway which is cutting
11:12:15 5 right through the Monarch property. You can see that?
6 A. I can, yeah.
7 Q. 92 Now, do you remember anybody saying to you, Mr. Lynn at this time, do you
8 remember anybody such as Mr. Lynn expressing concern regarding this proposed
9 plan and map?
11:12:31 10 A. No.
11 Q. 93 At all in relation to its impact on the Cherrywood lands?
12 A. No.
13 Q. 94 You say you were, have given evidence that you would have been prodevelopment,
14 pro increased zoning and this, as I've said to you, being the largest tract of
11:12:56 15 development land in south County Dublin at the time. You don't remember
16 anybody commenting to you in relation to the low density zoning on this land?
17 A. Not specifically. I remember there was an issue at the time but I don't
18 remember anybody particularly coming to me and discussing it.
19 Q. 95 All right. Now, I think there was a meeting in relation to this -- this map.
11:13:14 20 And representations received and that was on the 11th of November '93, that's
21 7258, please.
22
23 You can see there, Mr. O'Halloran, on the right-hand side half way down your
24 own -- you were in attendance at this meeting. I have to ask you again do you
11:13:33 25 remember attending this meeting?
26 A. No.
27 Q. 96 Do you remember anybody discussing this meeting in advance in relation to
28 voting --
29 A. Again, I am he sorry. I have to say now. I mean, it's 13 years ago.
11:13:43 30 Q. 97 Sure.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
18
11:13:43 1 A. I don't remember specific meetings. We were having meetings up to eight
2 meetings a week. I can't remember specific meetings.
3 Q. 98 I accept that. Again as you say -- or advised it was a very very
4 controversial piece of zoning at the time?
11:13:57 5 A. Yeah.
6 Q. 99 And that's why I was hoping it might stand out in your mind.
7 A. It doesn't, sorry.
8 Q. 100 As you say, you also knew or had met with Mr. Lynn who was one of the persons
9 from Monarch who, Monarch were the developers of this land. And it's in that
11:14:12 10 context that I ask you, do you remember this specific meeting?
11 A. No.
12 Q. 101 And I think in relation to this. Again, there were a number of motions
13 received in relation to this proposed zoning and densities. And in
14 particular, there was a motion to confirm or two motions to confirm low
11:14:36 15 density. And 7261, please.
16
17 That was by Councillor Smyth and Buckley and at 7262 by Councillor Gilmore and
18 O'Callaghan. And these two motions were to maintain the status quo, to
19 maintain the low density zoning on those lands. You voted against those, as
11:15:02 20 the record would show. And then there was the, what's known as the
21 Marren/Coffey motion and that's at 7263. This motion was to delete,
22 effectively delete change No. 3 on the map, which was the one house per acre,
23 and to increase the density to two per hectare. Do you remember that?
24 A. Again, I'm really sorry, I don't.
11:15:41 25 Q. 102 I'll show you a copy of the motion. It's 7226, please.
26 Map No. 27 change No. 3 "Dublin County Council hereby resolves to accept the
27 county manager's recommendation and delete the 1993 amendments in respect of
28 lands outlined in red on the attached map."
29
11:16:01 30 Now, I should have said, Mr. O'Halloran, that the -- and assisted your memory.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
19
11:16:06 1 The manager recommended the removal of change No. 3, that is to increase the
2 density. To remove the low density and to increase the density on the lands.
3 And this motion was seeking to accept the manager's recommendation. And
4 there's an amendment there regarding the balance of the lands to remain at two
11:16:26 5 per hectare. Could we have 7227, please.
7 Again, this is a map, Mr. O'Halloran, showing the lands that this motion
8 relates to. And as you can see, these are the Monarch and Monarch owned lands
9 only. And the balance of the lands are not effected by an increased in zoning
11:16:56 10 density. And Mr. Marren and Ms. Coffey signed those. Have you any
11 recollection of this vote?
12 A. No.
13 Q. 103 Of seeing this map?
14 A. No.
11:17:06 15 Q. 104 And I can tell you that you voted in favour of the increase in density and this
16 motion was carried. Did anybody approach you, and can you remember, in any
17 way in relation to any motion, this is the specific motion you say you can't
18 remember. Do you remember anybody approaching you in relation to a motion to
19 increase zoning density in regards to these lands?
11:17:34 20 A. No. But I do what I do say to you is this; when councillors put forward
21 motions they would generally lobby fellow councillors with regard to the
22 motion. So I would assume that the proposers would have sought my support.
23 I would have been available anyway because I wouldn't agree with low density
24 housing anyway. So -- but I have no recollection of anybody particularly or
11:17:58 25 specifically.
26 Q. 105 Do you know what objective criteria you would have used to vote yes or no other
27 than your general belief in increased ...?
28 A. Well I thought it was very useful land.
29 Q. 106 Right. Useful land.
11:18:13 30 A. No, better use of land.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
20
11:18:25 1 Q. 107 Better use of the land?
2 A. To put more houses on it.
3 Q. 108 You remember that much.
4 A. That's a philosophy I had but not specifically with regard to any of these
11:18:25 5 motions or maps.
6 Q. 109 Again in, relation to your relationship with Mr. Lynn, who as I have said and
7 it has been put to you, would have met you some time in and around 1992. This
8 is late 1993. Do you remember Mr. Lynn approaching you in relation to
9 increased density?
11:18:44 10 A. No.
11 Q. 110 Or in relation to these lands?
12 A. No.
13 Q. 111 Not at all?
14 A. No.
11:18:51 15 Q. 112 A number of other motions were dealt with in relation to the changes to the
16 town centre zoning and maintaining those and I don't intend to go into detail
17 in any of those matters.
18
19 There's a -- 4761, please. This is a further contact between yourself and Mr.
11:19:09 20 Dunlop. At 10.10 am on the 30th of November 1993. Do you recall --
21 A. I don't.
22 Q. 113 -- such contact. Do you recall discussing any matter to do with lands,
23 density, zonings in relation to the Development Plan with Mr. Dunlop?
24 A. No.
11:19:29 25 Q. 114 Around this period in relation to the Cherrywood lands?
26 A. No. As I said earlier --
27 Q. 115 Yes, I accept that.
28 A. No, not at all.
29 Q. 116 Okay. If I might -- page 5165, please.
11:19:47 30

www.pcr.ie Day 657
21
11:19:47 1 5065. This is a, an expenses claim form. It's signed by Richard Lynn and
2 it's a Monarch document. And it's dated week ending 22nd of April 1994. And
3 second line down you can see "Development Plan review J O'Halloran". So this
4 would have -- this is an expenditure claim form for Mr. Lynn to Monarch
11:20:29 5 indicating some contact between yourself and himself at this time and the
6 expenditure of same. Do you remember meeting Mr. Lynn in April '94 in
7 relation to lunch or for a meal?
8 A. No.
9 Q. 117 Have you any comment to make in relation to this document?
11:20:51 10 A. None at all, no.
11 Q. 118 Again, 5029, please. It's a similar document, 20th of May 1994 and again, five
12 lines down. "Development Plan J O'Halloran, 40.15 pounds." Any recollection
13 of meeting Mr. Lynn around this time?
14 A. No.
11:21:13 15 Q. 119 20th of May.
16 A. Could I just qualify that. I'm not denying it either but I just don't -- I
17 don't recall it, you know. So I'm not suggesting that it never took place.
18 I mean, if he has records of it I'd have to accept that.
11:21:31 20 A. It's a better recollection than I would have.
21 Q. 121 All right. There's a further document in July of 1995. 5274. It's
22 similar, it's an expenses claim form. And I take it that your evidence is the
23 same in relation to that?
24 A. Yeah.
11:21:45 25 Q. 122 There's a, 5758 a diary entry for the 14th of March 1996. "Mr. Dunlop". And
26 subsequent to that 5776, there's a memo from Richard Lynn regarding Dublin west
27 by-election. And requests for financial contribution. Your name appears on
28 that 5776. "John O'Halloran, independent 500 pounds."
29
11:22:19 30 Do you recall seeking funds from Mr. Lynn during this period?

www.pcr.ie Day 657
22
11:22:24 1 A. I don't particularly. I don't even remember receiving it but I accept that he
2 probably would have paid it, yeah. I would have welcomed any support at the
3 time, yeah.
4 Q. 123 And have you any explanation as to why Mr. Lynn would have provided you with
11:22:36 5 election funds around this time?
6 A. No, I'm afraid Mr. Lynn would have to offer that explanation.
7 Q. 124 Sorry.
8 A. No, I can't explain why he would have offered support other than he was
9 generous enough to do it.
11:22:48 10 Q. 125 And there's a number of documents, you don't deny, there's a cheque at 5793 for
11 500 pounds made out to yourself, dated 29th of March 1996. And this payment
12 goes through Monarch Properties Services Limited on that same date 29th of
13 March '96. And it's attributed to yourself 500 pounds and that's at 5787.
14 As you say, you've no recollection of receiving the money and you don't know
11:23:20 15 why you might have received it?
16 A. No, other than support for, towards expenses of the by-election, you know.
17 Q. 126 And I think you received further sums from Mr. Monahan and that's at 5822.
18 And that's in 1996, that's in April 1996. "MS fundraiser, 250 pounds."
19 Again, you can see there's -- would the contacts with Mr. Dunlop and these
11:23:54 20 funds received by you, is there any connection between the two?
21 A. Sorry, can you repeat that?
22 Q. 127 Your contact with Mr. Dunlop in March '96 and these payments by Monarch to you,
23 these election donations and the MS fundraiser, is there any connection between
24 the two?
11:24:09 25 A. No.
26 Q. 128 Do you ever remember discussing with Mr. Dunlop seeking funds from Monarch?
27 A. No.
28 Q. 129 Thank you. Did you ever discuss receiving these funds do you remember
29 receiving discussing receiving funds from Monarch in a general way with Mr.
11:24:26 30 Dunlop?

www.pcr.ie Day 657
23
11:24:27 1 A. No.
2 Q. 130 And then finally in January 1997. Again, there's a receipt at page 6151.
3 It's a letter you write to Mr. Richard Lynn seeking support for Multiple
4 Sclerosis fundraiser. And there's a receipt of payment of 500 pounds from Mr.
11:24:51 5 Lynn and a cheque as well. Do you recollect that in 1997?
6 A. Not specifically but Mr. Lynn has been a very generous supporter for my walking
7 for MS and indeed continues to be. So, I mean, it wouldn't have been unusual
8 for me to seek his support and indeed get his support.
9 Q. 131 And notwithstanding that, did he ever seek from you any, anything in return for
11:25:23 10 his friendship or his provision of electoral funds or funds for MS or
11 otherwise?
12 A. No, no, there was no tie in between support for MS or anything else.
13 Q. 132 And/or your election funding?
14 A. If he was associated with something I'm sure he would have tried to gain my
11:25:43 15 support but there is no connection between any financial support politically
16 and any support I would have given in terms of voting.
17 Q. 133 All right. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Halloran. You might answer any of my
18 colleagues questions.
19 A. Okay.
11:25:59 20
21 JUDGE FAHERTY: Just one short matter, Mr. O'Halloran. Could I have 7217 for
22 a moment please. Can I just ask you, Mr. O'Halloran, on the 11th of November
23 when the final vote was taken in relation to the Cherrywood lands, the very
24 first couple of motions were motions to confirm what had gone out on the
11:26:27 25 display after Mr. Barrett's motion. That was motions to confirm the lands at
26 one house per acre. And the record shows I think, as Mr. Doyle has pointed
27 out, you voted against that. And I think earlier you told us that you came --
28 your ward was west Dublin, Lucan?
29 A. That's right.
11:26:46 30 JUDGE FAHERTY: And I think everybody knows that in most of Lucan, certainly

www.pcr.ie Day 657
24
11:26:50 1 the ones, the parts that's developed, there would be 12 to 14 houses to the
2 acre, by and large.
3 A. And more.
11:26:57 5 JUDGE FAHERTY: And more perhaps indeed. So obviously by voting against
6 motions to confirm it at one house to the acre, you were looking at a broader
7 picture, that you wanted --
8 A. Well I'd like to think --
11:27:11 10 JUDGE FAHERTY: You saw no reason why these lands should just be one house to
11 the acre. And we know that later on there was another motion then, the motion
12 that was proposed by Mr. Marren and Ms. Coffey, had been signed by a number of
13 councillors. And they were seeking to change it, to delete the change, to go
14 back to what it had been on the first display effectively. Four houses to the
11:27:37 15 acre. But they -- their proposal -- they were at idiom with the Manager on
16 that because the manager was also recommending that the one house per acre be
17 scrapped effectively and go back to four houses per acre.
18
19 And the manager was recommending that and had made his report I think on the
11:27:58 20 3rd of November and indeed on the 11th of November. But Mr. Marren and
21 Ms. Coffey's motion that was proposed was qualified that they were only seeking
22 the four houses to the acre for the Monarch lands. And in fact the map that
23 was produced and there was an amendment on the motion that the rest of the
24 lands and if you look at that map, the Monarch lands are outlined in a red
11:28:22 25 outline. But there is still a substantial body of lands that were zoned
26 residential that they were happy enough to leave at one house to the acre. Or
27 at least for some reason they left it at one house to the acre. You seem to
28 have a particular view on land and on the use of lands.
29
11:28:48 30 Why would you have supported that particular motion when they were only, if you

www.pcr.ie Day 657
25
11:28:52 1 like, outlining a proposal for four houses to the acre in relation to certain
2 lands?
3 A. Because at the time I probably felt it was the best thing he could get at that
4 time.
11:29:08 5
6 JUDGE FAHERTY: But --
7 A. Well my own preference would have been for a much higher density.
9 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes. But why not -- why confine it just to the lands
11:29:24 10 outlined in red Mr. O'Halloran?
11 A. I can't recall the specifics of the motion now or the whys or wherefores.
12
13 JUDGE FAHERTY: Did you know that the map that was produced was a particular
14 boundary of a particular landowner's lands at the time?
11:29:36 15 A. I suppose so. When a motion is put you either vote for it or against or
16 abstain. The motions they put, I felt was a reasonable compromise.
17
18 JUDGE FAHERTY: But there is provision presumably for anybody to seek
19 amendments to the --
11:29:53 20 A. There is, yeah.
21
22 JUDGE FAHERTY: But you didn't seek any amendments.
23 A. No.
24
11:29:56 25 JUDGE FAHERTY: If you were going to go the way you were going it would be for
26 all of the lands at the time?
27 A. That would have been my preference, yes.
28
29 JUDGE FAHERTY: Do you know why you didn't do that or?
11:30:06 30 A. I don't.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
26
11:30:07 1
2 JUDGE FAHERTY: All right. Thanks very much, Mr. O'Halloran.
3 A. Okay.
6 A. Thank you.
11:30:16 10 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Reilly is due at half eleven. Well perhaps rather than break
11 his evidence we will take a short break now.
12
13 MS. DILLON: You are going to rise now?
14
11:30:27 15 CHAIRMAN: Yes. Just for ten minutes.
16
18
21
22 MR. QUINN: Mr. Reilly, please.
23
24
11:49:43 25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 657
27
11:49:43 1 MR. PATRICK REILLY, CONTINUED TO BE QUESTION
2 BY MR. QUINN AS FOLLOWS:
4 MR. CHAIRMAN: good morning, Mr. Reilly.
11:49:54 5 Q. 134 MR. QUINN: Thank you Mr. Reilly. Yesterday you had been telling the Tribunal
6 about your involvement in relation to the Cherrywood lands, isn't that right?
8 Q. 135 And I think you advised the Tribunal that you didn't really become involved in
9 the lobbying process or indeed the PR campaign in relation to Cherrywood until
11:50:12 10 late 1991 and that was in relation to Mr. O'Herlihy's involvement? Is that
11 right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 136 And that you attended a number of road shows but that you did not attend the
14 meeting in 1991 or indeed 1992, that is the council meeting in '92, is that
11:50:27 15 correct?
16 A. Correct, yes.
17 Q. 137 Well after 1992 I think you indicated that you probably became more involved.
18 Is that right?
19 A. I did, that's right.
11:50:34 20 Q. 138 And I think you were also involved in relation to other Monarch lands and
21 attempts to have those rezoned, isn't that right?
22 A. Correct, yes, that's right.
23 Q. 139 I think you told the Tribunal that you began to attend the council chamber but
24 not -- but only in an observer capacity and for the purposes of keeping up
11:50:55 25 contacts with councillors, isn't that right?
26 A. Correct, yes.
27 Q. 140 And keeping up contacts with councillors in relation to other Monarch lands but
28 also the Cherrywood lands?
11:51:04 30 Q. 141 And you would have met Mr. Dunlop I take it?

www.pcr.ie Day 657
28
2 Q. 142 And Mr. Dunlop has a recollection of meeting yourself and Mr. Lynn at those
3 meetings?
11:51:12 5 Q. 143 And then I think you advised the Tribunal that although you did not know he was
6 being appointed, you had a formal meeting with Mr. Dunlop and Monarch architect
7 in Mr. Dunlop's offices after his appointment for the purposes of briefing him
8 in relation to the lands. Is that right?
11:51:31 10 Q. 144 I take it that meeting would have taken place some time after March 1993?
11 A. As I remember it, yeah.
12 Q. 145 You recall Mr. Dunlop's evidence that there was confusion and I think he said
13 that there was annoyance on your part in relation to the way Mr. Phil Monahan
14 was effectively going about having the lands rezoned, isn't that right?
11:51:51 15 A. Yeah, that was his evidence, yeah.
16 Q. 146 I accept that. That was Mr. Dunlop's evidence. And you heard Mr. Dunlop in
17 relation to that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 147 Do you agree with Mr. Dunlop's evidence in that regard?
11:52:02 20 A. Not really, no. I didn't --
21 Q. 148 Well was there a divergence of view as to how matters might proceed in these
22 lands in early or mid 1993?
23 A. Not that I was aware of, no.
24 Q. 149 So Mr. Dunlop is completely mistaken in his perception that you had, that you
11:52:19 25 were frustrated with Mr. Phil Monahan's approach to this matter?
26 A. I would say so, yeah, I think he was wrong, yeah.
27 Q. 150 Was there any basis for Mr. Dunlop coming to the conclusion that there was
28 frustration or dissension or confusion putting it at its mildest, within the
29 Monarch camp in relation to these lands?
11:52:40 30 A. Not to these lands but I suppose in relation to Phil, Phil operated out of

www.pcr.ie Day 657
29
11:52:46 1 Somerton in Castleknock and, I mean, he -- we didn't really -- I certainly
2 didn't know what other developments Phil would have been involved in.
3 Q. 151 You didn't know what other developments he was involved in?
4 A. No.
11:53:01 5 Q. 152 Did you know that he was involved in a meeting with politicians or councillors
6 in relation to these lands?
7 A. No, I wouldn't know that.
8 Q. 153 Did you is suspect that he might have been involved?
9 A. No, not really, no.
11:53:08 10 Q. 154 Did you hear his secretary yesterday, Ms. Gosling, say that Mr. Monahan was the
11 type of man that would do whatever was necessary to have --
12 A. I heard that.
13 Q. 155 The position of his companies?
14 A. I heard that, yes.
11:53:20 15 Q. 156 Would you agree with that evidence?
16 A. I'd say he worked hard for his company, yes.
17 Q. 157 And would it surprise you therefore that he would have met politicians with a
18 view to convincing them that they might take an approach or take a rezoning
19 view to these lands?
11:53:36 20 A. It would have surprised me that he would have gone out to meet councillors,
21 yes.
22 Q. 158 You think he might have gone out to see more senior politicians?
23 A. I don't know, I don't know.
24 Q. 159 You agreed with me yesterday and I think it is the case that there was nothing
11:53:49 25 going to happen in Cherrywood in the absence of a favourable vote from
26 councillors?
27 A. Correct, yes.
28 Q. 160 And if Mr. Monahan was anxious to improve the development potential of his
29 lands he would need the support of councillors?
11:54:01 30 A. Correct, yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
30
11:54:02 1 Q. 161 And if Mr. Monahan was the type of man who was prepared to do whatever was
2 necessary in order to improve the development potential of lands, presumably he
3 would also approach councillors?
4 A. Well I don't believe he approached councillors.
11:54:15 5 Q. 162 You don't believe he --
6 A. I never heard he approached councillors, no.
7 Q. 163 I see. Does that surprise you?
8 A. Not really, no. Because --
9 Q. 164 Yeah.
11:54:24 10 A. Yeah, it's just, I mean, I suppose Mr. Monahan operated, Phil operated out of
11 Somerton. He didn't come to the office that very often and when I was around
12 the centres managing the centres, he didn't visit the centres that often. So
13 he was working on his own out in Castleknock. Now, I don't know, as I said,
14 there were never any formal meetings that I was at with Phil or any other
11:54:50 15 people. He would call occasionally to the office, sorry.
16 Q. 165 He would call but would you be surprised that he would take an interest in what
17 was happening?
18 A. Oh, I'd say he took an interest in it.
19 Q. 166 Cherrywood was the single biggest project after Tallaght and possibly now that
11:55:11 20 Tallaght was underway, the biggest project?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 167 And the rezoning of Cherrywood was itself this single biggest project?
23 A. Yes, it would have been.
24 Q. 168 And it dominated Monarch's business throughout '92 and '93, isn't that right?
11:55:22 25 A. Well it was part of it, yes.
26 Q. 169 That prospect of the development in Cherrywood had been set back because of the
27 vote in May '92, isn't that right?
28 A. Well it was going through its process, yes.
29 Q. 170 But it had suffered a set back in May '92 with the vote in May '92?
11:55:37 30 A. Well it was still on Barrett's motion of one house to the acre, yeah.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
31
11:55:41 1 Q. 171 Yes. It was always on one house to the acre isn't that right even back in 1989
2 and 1990 when the lands were purchased, the lands were on one house to the acre
3 albeit on septic tank, isn't that right?
4 A. Yeah. That's as I understand it, yeah.
11:55:54 5 Q. 172 So it was back to square one in 1992 vis-a-vis residential development?
6 A. I suppose it was.
7 Q. 173 And there was substantial monies owed on these lands, isn't that right?
8 A. I didn't know what was borrowed on it. I wasn't involved in the financial
9 side.
11:56:07 10 Q. 174 At all?
11 A. No.
12 Q. 175 Just in relation to Tallaght. Just to go back to Tallaght for a moment. You
13 have indicated that you were the manager of the centre in Tallaght. Did you
14 have any involvement at all in the financial end of Tallaght?
11:56:19 15 A. No.
16 Q. 176 Were you not appraised of the incoming -- sorry the outgoings and the income in
17 Tallaght ever?
18 A. No.
19 Q. 177 Were you ever circulated with any of the accounts analysis sheet?
11:56:37 20 A. No.
21 Q. 178 Monthly figures or anything like that?
22 A. No. I wasn't the Manager in Tallaght. I was the group shopping centre
23 manager. I appointed a Manager in in Tallaght, sorry.
24 Q. 179 Okay. You appointed --
11:56:46 25 A. Yeah, sorry, I just ....
26 Q. 180 But as group shopping centre manager, you say you never had any responsibility
27 and you were never furnished with any of the financial information of the group
28 or any of the companies within the group?
29 A. No.
11:57:00 30 Q. 181 And did you know any of the financial information concerning the group

www.pcr.ie Day 657
32
11:57:05 1 otherwise than --
2 A. No, it wasn't my end of the business. I wasn't --
3 Q. 182 I appreciate that you say that you had no responsibility for it but presumably
4 you knew the various companies within the group?
11:57:16 5 A. I knew of them but I was never involved in the financial side of the business.
6 Q. 183 But did you know for example that there was Monarch Properties Services
7 Limited, a company which was responsible for carrying out the project
8 development in Cherrywood for example?
9 A. Yes, I did, yeah.
11:57:33 10 Q. 184 Did you know that there was an L&C Properties Limited?
11 A. Yes, L&C was the Tallaght project.
12 Q. 185 Monarch Properties Limited.
13 A. That was the mother company, yeah.
14 Q. 186 So you did know the individual companies?
11:57:44 15 A. Absolutely, yeah.
16 Q. 187 And when you would give directions, as you indicated yesterday, for monies to
17 be paid, did you direct from which account to which company was to pay the
18 monies?
19 A. No, I didn't, no.
11:57:55 20 Q. 188 You never gave such a direction?
21 A. No. Just on that. Just to be clear, I would have cleared an invoice for --
22 it would normally come in MPSL, Monarch Properties Services Limited.
23 Q. 189 But you would have never indicated the account from which it was to be paid?
24 A. I don't believe so, no.
11:58:15 25 Q. 190 Could I have 6095, please.
26 This is an instruction to a Bill McMunn, which appears to be from you,
27 Mr. Reilly dated 17th of October 1996.
28 A. Right.
29 Q. 191 And the subject is Colm McGrath golf classic.
11:58:28 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
33
11:58:28 1 Q. 192 It says "I attach herewith the original signed receipt, 500 pounds by Richard
2 Lynn which should be charged to Monarch Property Limited."
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. 193 "Thank you for all your help."
11:58:37 5 A. Yeah. Sorry, that can I --
6 Q. 194 You say that that receipt was already charged to Monarch Properties Services
7 when you received it?
8 A. No, I'll tell you exactly what happened in that case. I got a call from our
9 accounts girl just to say that Richard Lynn was very upset. He was going to a
11:58:57 10 golf classic that day and the cheque wasn't signed and could I get some money
11 to cover the cost of the golf classic itself.
12 Q. 195 Why, since you had no responsibility with finance, did that request come
13 through to you?
14 A. Sorry. What happened was, I'm explaining, from the accounts office, the girl
11:59:18 15 rang me, she was very upset. Richard was after getting very annoyed with her
16 and said obviously the cheque hadn't been signed and was delayed or whatever
17 else. I said I believe I may have been in Tallaght at the time. I said I
18 get 500 pounds from petty cash from Bill McMunn, who was our head of security.
19 And I brought that cheque in, brought that cash in. I got Richard to sign for
11:59:44 20 it.
21 Q. 196 Yes.
22 A. And I sent an instruction back to ensure because that was from The Square
23 Management Limited, which was a separate company, which was the, owned The
24 Square at that stage, to charge this back to Monarch Properties Limited was it,
12:00:02 25 yeah.
26 Q. 197 You see, I still don't understand how the cash query came to you Mr. Reilly,
27 since you had no responsibility?
28 A. Sorry it wasn't a cash query. It was a row between two members of the
29 company. Monarch had a very difficult job and I arranged this and I said made
12:00:20 30 sure it's charged, it was not a Square receipt.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
34
12:00:23 1 Q. 198 You didn't want it as a Square receipt?
2 A. No, it was nothing to do with The Square.
3 Q. 199 Why did Mr. Lynn not get on to, or the girl in accounts not get on to Mr, for
4 example, Mr. Glennane, since he was the accounts --
12:00:37 5 A. I don't know.
6 Q. 200 Expert --
7 A. I can't answer that, no.
8 Q. 201 So you say that's how you came to charge that payment --
9 A. Exactly.
12:00:45 10 Q. 202 -- to Mr. McGrath to Monarch Properties Limited?
11 A. Yes, yes. I got I think a receipt signed by Richard for that.
12 Q. 203 I asked you yesterday what the objective was in 1993 after Mr. Dunlop came on
13 board in relation to the lands. And you indicated it was to increase density,
12:01:06 15 A. No, it was to get the lands approved.
16 Q. 204 Yes but approved for what I asked you?
17 A. Sorry. Increase from one acre to four acres.
18 Q. 205 Yes. Was there a suggestion at this time also that the lands might be zoned
19 for industrial purposes?
12:01:19 20 A. I don't remember that, no.
21 Q. 206 That's the type of thing you, if it were the case, you should have known, isn't
22 that right?
23 A. I would say I would have, somebody would have told me I guess, yes.
24 Q. 207 Because you were out lobbying some councillors particularly those in the
12:01:31 25 Tallaght area, isn't that right?
26 A. We're back to canvassing.
27 Q. 208 Or canvassing. My apologies. I'll stick to the terminology you dictate and
28 we will call it canvassing.
29 A. Sorry.
12:01:42 30 Q. 209 You were out canvassing councillors that you knew in relation to the lands.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
35
12:01:45 1 A. Yeah.
2 Q. 210 And obviously you would know or should know or ought to know what you were
3 seeking on the lands, isn't that right?
4 A. Yes.
12:01:53 5 Q. 211 And you say that you did not know that you were looking for industrial zoning
6 on the lands in 1993, isn't that right?
7 A. What I was told and I can't remember the exact period was that the best that
8 could be got on the lands was the manager's proposal, which was four houses to
9 the acre on sewerage. And a neighbourhood shopping centre. And that was
12:02:20 10 what canvassing I did.
11 Q. 212 If we could have 4312. This is a memorandum of a meeting held in the County
12 Manager's office between Mr. Pat Field of GRE, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Lynn, and
13 Mr. O'Sullivan, who is the manager, and Mr. Murray.
14
12:02:38 15 Now, it would appear are from this memorandum that there were two possible
16 proposals from the Monarch side. And it commences ES, whom I presume is
17 Mr. Sweeney, "tabled two draft submissions for the Development Plan review and
18 outlined two possible proposals. C zoning A1 that's action area, plus F open
19 spaces or C, zoning with E zoning, that is science and technology/industry. A
12:03:03 20 1, which action area zoning and F, zoning."
21
22 Did you know that there was the question of industrial zoning being sited on
23 these lands in July 1993?
24 A. I don't believe I did. Maybe at a later stage, yes.
12:03:20 25 Q. 213 Did you know that there was a strategy being devised whereby the manager was
26 being offered lands for a science and technology park in exchange for an
27 increased density?
28 A. No, I didn't know that.
29 Q. 214 You didn't know that that strategy was taking place?
12:03:37 30 A. No.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
36
12:03:38 1 Q. 215 Are you surprised now that you didn't know of that at the time?
2 A. No. Well if I can remember, as I say, I'm going back on my memory itself.
3 What I recall was that the plan went on display some time after that in July or
4 August. I think it was August. What happened then was that there was a
12:03:57 5 discussion about a shopping centre, which I was originally interested in. And
6 I gather I think as I recall Richard Lynn came back and said look Willie Murray
7 won't let anything go into it other than a neighbourhood shopping centre and
8 the manager was continuing to support four houses per acre on septic tanks.
12:04:21 10 Possibly at later stage there was some talk about a science park or whatever
11 else but that was never brought out to bring to councillors or anything else
12 like that.
13 Q. 216 No, I'm not suggesting that it was being brought to councillors at this stage.
14 But what I'm saying is that the strategy was being devised at this stage. And
12:04:37 15 that there had been meetings and discussions with the manager and his staff and
16 certain representatives of Monarch in relation to that strategy at this early
17 stage, that is to say July 1993.
18 A. Right.
19 Q. 217 You say you did not know in July 1993?
12:04:51 20 A. I do --
21 Q. 218 That that strategy was being devised or that those meetings were taking place?
22 A. No, I do not know that I knew at that stage.
23 Q. 219 Yes. To an observer, let's say take any of the councillors, you would have
24 been identified with Mr. Lynn as someone who would have been seeking the
12:05:07 25 rezoning of these lands at that time, isn't that right?
26 A. Um, possibly, yeah, I suppose, yeah. I was in the council.
27 Q. 220 Yes.
28 A. Or outside the council offices.
29 Q. 221 Other than yourself and Mr. Lynn, and indeed latterly be Dunlop on behalf of
12:05:23 30 Monarch, was there any other representative of Monarch outside the council

www.pcr.ie Day 657
37
12:05:27 1 offices?
2 A. Maybe our architect came along in case there was a technical query.
3 Q. 222 Yes. But otherwise it would have been yourself and Mr. Lynn?
4 A. Yeah, but --
12:05:37 5 Q. 223 And you had in the mind of councillors you would have been, the two of you
6 would have been associated with the Monarch Group and the Monarch strategy?
7 A. Certainly I was associated with Monarch and with Tallaght. I keep going back
8 to that but I have to keep going back because it was not my -- I have to keep
9 repeating it, I'm sorry.
12:05:54 10 Q. 224 Yes.
11 A. It was a side show for me.
12 Q. 225 Yes. Was there anything going on in Tallaght that required rezoning at this
13 time?
14 A. No, I don't so.
12:06:01 15 Q. 226 So you were if you were attending these meetings it was for Monarch Properties
16 other than Tallaght?
17 A. Either Ongar or Somerton or Cherrywood.
18 Q. 227 If I could have 4321. Mr. McCabe, presumably you knew that Mr. Fergal McCabe
19 was the planner retained on behalf of Monarch, isn't that right?
12:06:18 20 A. Yeah, I knew Fergal was involved, yeah.
21 Q. 228 And Mr. McCabe drafted three different letters. And unfortunately, the
22 Tribunal has been unable it to know, which, if any, were submitted to the
23 council in relation to the 1993 draft plan. I think in fact it's the 1993
24 amendments to the 1991 draft plan.
12:06:43 25 A. Right.
26 Q. 229 But for the moment we'll call it the 1993 draft plan which was on display in
27 July '93. And you see there a submission which speaks about increasing the
28 density on the residential to effectively four houses to the acre. And on
29 industrial seeking industrial increase on 28 hectares. Do you see that?
12:07:07 30 A. I do, yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
38
12:07:07 1 Q. 230 That's one letter date the 30th of July 1993 there are two letters. Could I
2 have 8556. This is a letter which we know has a note on it which says "not
3 sent". So we presume that this one was not sent. But again it speaks to
4 the plan in the context of residential and then industrial zoning. And then
12:07:30 5 finally there is a letter, if I could have 7221, a further letter. Again dated
6 30th of July 1993, which speaks to the plan in the context of residential
7 development?
8 A. Right. Okay.
9 Q. 231 Now, would you agree with me that that would tend to suggest that at that stage
12:07:48 10 that Monarch were undecided as to whether or not they would seek industrial
11 zoning on the site at that time?
12 A. Well I haven't read them in detail but if I can explain, I've never seen these
13 letters. I was never involved in the preparation of them. I was never at
14 any meeting that I can recall with the council on this. And I was not
12:08:11 15 involved in the absolute detail of what Cherrywood or what that strategy was
16 for it.
17 Q. 232 So you're saying that you had no involvement in the strategy in relation to
18 Cherrywood?
19 A. Not in terms of science parks or whatever else other than --
12:08:23 20 Q. 233 You never attended any meetings in which there could have been discussions
21 concerning science parks?
22 A. No. No.
23 Q. 234 Mr. Lynn never advised of you about meetings that he had attended with the
24 manager together with Mr. Sweeney as I have identified there at 4312?
12:08:37 25 A. Not in any great detail.
26 Q. 235 But in any detail at all?
27 A. I don't believe so. I don't believe so.
28 Q. 236 Do you think it unusual that you would have been lobbying the support of
29 councillors in the company of the one other representative of Monarch's present
12:08:53 30 and he would have more knowledge in relation to the matter than you would have?

www.pcr.ie Day 657
39
12:08:57 1 A. Richard, this was a full-time job for Richard. I think as I said yesterday,
2 the summer was quiet. Everything went quiet. Everybody wanted holidays,
3 particularly in July and August. The push came on in September.
4 Q. 237 And again in August 1993. I had put up 8156 -- the proposal in relation to
12:09:17 5 the possible transfer or swap of golf course lands with lands in Cherrywood.
6 And again, you said yesterday that apart from some office rumour you had no
7 knowledge of that either?
8 A. None whatsoever, no.
9 Q. 238 Now, if I could have 7258, please.
12:09:37 10 This is the attendance on the 11th of November, 1993. And you are your
11 canvassing campaign would have culminated on the vote on the 11th of November
14 Q. 239 And you would have been campaigning presumably or canvassing that the lands
12:10:00 15 would be zoned at four houses to the acre, is that right?
16 A. My recollection is that it was, we were going for the manager's report and
17 again just to be clear, I wasn't going around with armfuls of plans or motions
18 or whatever else, I was literally saying to anybody I knew, I hope you can
19 support us on the day.
12:10:23 20 Q. 240 Yes. Now, just before I get to that. At 5206, this is a plan drawn up by
21 Mr. Lynn for Monarch on the 15th of June 1994, and we see that at 5212. It's
22 a plan that's drawn up in 1994. So just to put it in context and just to put
23 it in historical context. We had the vote in November 1993?
24 A. Right.
12:10:48 25 Q. 241 And then the plan is confirmed in December 1993?
26 A. Right.
27 Q. 242 There's a meeting which we'll be dealing with in a moment in early January
28 1994. And there is a proposal to have a variation to the Development Plan.
29 This has been acceded to by the council. And then in May 1994 that variation
12:11:08 30 comes before the council as does a motion by Councillor Gilmore that there be a

www.pcr.ie Day 657
40
12:11:12 1 science and technology park. And that variation and Councillor Gilmore's
2 motion which is before the planning and development committee of the council is
3 adjourned to the 26th of June of 1994. And in the intervening period in June
4 1994 a strategy document is put together, possibly by Mr. Lynn but certainly
12:11:41 5 contributed to by Mr. Lynn. And from that strategy document we see under the
6 heading "Progress report for 1994 Cherrywood" at 5206 and it starts with the
7 variation to the Development Plan. And you will recall a moment ago I
8 referred you to a meeting between Mr. Lynn and Mr. Sweeney and the manager in
9 July of 1993?
12:11:56 10 A. Right.
11 Q. 243 And we see now that under the heading "variation to the Development Plan" Mr.
12 Lynn is advising the Monarch representatives that "In September 1993
13 Monarch/Guardian agreed to give a letter to Mr. Kevin O'Sullivan committing the
14 landowners to reserving a significant portion of lands which could be
12:12:17 15 considered by the incoming council for possible industrial use to accommodate a
16 science and technology park. Any residentially zoned lands thus taken up for
17 industrial purposes was to be compensated by bringing in the agriculturally
18 zoned lands for residential purposes."
19
12:12:33 20 Did you know that there had been such an agreement?
21 A. I don't know. I did not, no.
22 Q. 244 Sorry you did not?
23 A. I did not, no. Again, just to be clear. I wasn't involved in any of these
24 discussions.
12:12:43 25 Q. 245 I accept that you may not have been involved in the discussions and indeed, in
26 fairness to you, you don't appear to be -- to appear on any of the memos that I
27 referred to as having been in attendance. But as somebody who was on the
28 ground, so to speak, seeking the support of councillors. Are you saying that
29 you didn't know that this strategy was being devised or if these agreements had
12:13:03 30 been reached?

www.pcr.ie Day 657
41
12:13:04 1 A. No, I didn't know any agreement had been reached.
2 Q. 246 Or that these meetings had taken place with the manager?
3 A. There were ongoing meetings with the council, I was never appraised of the
4 detail of them.
12:13:15 5 Q. 247 Were are you surprised that you weren't appraised as some one who was expected
6 to canvass the support of councillors?
7 A. No.
8 Q. 248 On the current up-to-date level of negotiations?
9 A. Again.
12:13:22 10 Q. 249 Between Monarch and the council officials?
11 A. No, this was not part of my job.
12 Q. 250 But just from a briefing point of view and just to put you in the picture, so o
13 to speak, are you surprised that you weren't au fait with the current
14 up-to-date position in relation to negotiations and discussions between the
12:13:36 15 between the Monarch Group and the planners at this time?
16 A. No, I'm not surprised because I wasn't part of the Cherrywood project team.
17 Q. 251 If a councillor, whose support you were canvassing, had asked you to be
18 briefed -- had asked to be briefed by you in relation to the matter. You
19 would not have been in a position to fully brief him, isn't that right?
12:13:55 20 A. Correct, yeah. If he asked me I would have said if there's any issue talk to
21 Richard Lynn or Eddie Sweeney.
22 Q. 252 And they would -- Mr. Lynn if that discussion had taken place outside the
23 council chamber Mr. Lynn would have been beside you?
24 A. Not necessarily, no.
12:14:10 25 Q. 253 Do you think that a councillor would have great confidence in you if you were
26 not in a position to tell them the up-to-date current position within Monarch
27 in relation to their objectives for their lands particularly in circumstances
28 where you were seeking their support?
29 A. Sorry. Just again just to repeat. I was, as I say, just attended a number
12:14:29 30 of meetings prior to the November '93 vote. I didn't get into any detail with

www.pcr.ie Day 657
42
12:14:35 1 any of the councillors on it. Nobody asked me about science parks or any
2 other parks. I can't say and again, I repeat I didn't go to any of the
3 meetings. I wasn't being appraised of them. And that's as I remember it.
4 Q. 254 Were you on a success bonus?
12:14:52 5 A. No.
6 Q. 255 In relation to the rezoning of the lands?
7 A. No.
8 Q. 256 Could I have 5180, you will have seen the document that I put on screen. You
9 will have seen that report in June 1994. In the CD sent to you and the papers
12:15:07 10 sent to you, Mr. Reilly, I have no doubt?
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. 257 And you will see this there that in dealing with the projective zoning costs
13 for 1994 there was 10,000 pounds being set aside per Mr. Sweeney for
14 entertainment and lobbying. Do you see that?
12:15:21 15 A. I do, yes.
16 Q. 258 And then for staff. "Success bonuses". You were in for 30,000 pounds?
17 A. Yes, I see my name there.
18 Q. 259 Are you surprised --
19 A. Absolutely.
12:15:30 20 Q. 260 -- that you were include in 30,000 pounds success bonus?
21 A. Absolutely. It was never discussed with me. Just it be clear, when the 1993
22 vote went through, as I said before, I was working on the shopping centres. I
23 then went back to my shopping centres and I faded out of Cherrywood entirely.
24 Just, as I say, to bring it to the point. The only time I would have been
12:15:53 25 involved in Cherrywood would be perhaps say there is a lunch on I've bought
26 tickets for something can you come out.
27 Q. 261 So can you give or proffer any explanation to the Tribunal as to why Mr. Lynn
28 or Mr. Sweeney would have indicated that you would be due a 30,000 success
29 bonus in early 1994 for the industrial zoning of these lands?
12:16:15 30 A. I have no idea. Absolutely no idea.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
43
12:16:18 1 Q. 262 And do you see the -- did you ever see this document other than when you
2 received it in the brief?
3 A. No, the first time I saw it was when you sent it. And was it ever sent
4 anywhere can I ask you.
12:16:30 5 Q. 263 You are Monarch's first official representative in the witness box.
6 A. Okay.
7 Q. 264 So we'll have to ask Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Lynn presumably.
8 A. Sorry.
9 Q. 265 Where it went and who saw it and why it was prepared. You say in any event
12:16:44 10 you knew nothing about it?
11 A. Absolutely not. It was never discussed with me.
12 Q. 266 Do you see the very first item there "lobbying - entertainment 10,000 pounds."
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. 267 Pre um, Presumably lobbying there is in the context of councillors?
12:16:59 15 A. I assume so, yeah.
16 Q. 268 Yes.
17 A. Or whoever else would be involved in it. Maybe there was, I don't know.
18 Q. 269 Well a change in the plan would only be brought about by a vote of the
19 councillors as I understand?
12:17:11 20 A. I presume so.
21 Q. 270 So therefore if that change were to take place it would be in relation to the
22 councillors, isn't that right?
23 A. I assume so.
24 Q. 271 Now I'm talking -- now do you see underneath entertainment "other"
12:17:24 25 A. I didn't.
26 Q. 272 So in other words the entertainment expense was to be 10,000. But can you
27 give any indication to the Tribunal what the reference "other per E S" would
28 be?
29 A. No, I haven't a clue. Sorry.
12:17:37 30 Q. 273 Do you know if Mr. Lynn got 100,000 pounds success fee in relation to the

www.pcr.ie Day 657
44
12:17:42 1 rezoning, industrial rezoning of the shopping centre?
2 A. No.
3 Q. 274 Or of the Carrickmines lands?
4 A. No.
12:17:47 5 Q. 275 Do you know if Mr. Lafferty or indeed any others got success bonus fees in
6 relation to the Cherrywood lands?
7 A. No, no.
8 Q. 276 Do you see the reference to Mr. Lynn, 100,000 (similar to JW)?
9 A. Yeah, I see that, yeah.
12:18:03 10 Q. 277 Apart from Mr. Whelan, were there others within the Monarch Group who had the
11 reference JW, to whom the initials JW might have applied?
12 A. I can't, no, I don't believe so. There were a couple of Whelans in it but
13 they were, one was Donna Whelan and there was a, she was a secretary and her
14 mother worked there as well, Marie Whelan, that was all. W, no, I can't say.
12:18:28 15 Q. 278 Yesterday I think you told the Tribunal whilst you knew Mr. Jack Whelan, you
16 could not think of any reason as to why he might have received almost or sought
17 or received almost a quarter of a million pounds in relation to the Cherrywood
18 lands?
12:18:43 20 Q. 279 Now, the -- under the heading "note". What was required was being set out
21 there. "Over the next six months it would be necessary for the above staff to
22 be available on a 7 day basis to meet with local politicians, community
23 representatives, sporting groups and others who will have a vested interest in
24 the outcome of the move to the variation of the Development Plan. The staff
12:19:04 25 will have to be suitably briefed and be available to arrange and attend
26 functions, meetings and briefings and be sufficiently alert to counter adverse
27 representations which will be made to the local politicians. The above is in
28 addition to attending meetings with the local authority officials."
29
12:19:20 30 Did you carry out any of those functions --

www.pcr.ie Day 657
45
12:19:22 1 A. No.
2 Q. 280 -- in 1994 in relation to the variation of the Development Plan?
3 A. No, I don't believe I did. No.
4 Q. 281 Did you have any involvement in relation to the siting of the science and
12:19:31 5 technology park?
6 A. No, no.
7 Q. 282 In --
8 A. No.
9 Q. 283 Were you aware that those functions were being performed by others in relation
12:19:41 10 to the matter at that time?
11 A. Well I assumed Eddie Sweeney or Richard Lynn would have been dealing with that.
12 The only thing I can remember on the science park, Eddie asked me to do a
13 management proposal for managing the park when it was built. That's the only
14 thing I can remember.
12:19:57 15 Q. 284 Now, if I can 5178. This is another schedule and you will have seen it again
16 in the documentation, dated the 20th of June 1994. And it's under the heading
17 "general promotions". Again, it's a projection I suggest to you of, of outlay
18 that might be incurred in relation to this matter. And you see there a number
19 of political parties and round sum figures being placed beside them?
12:20:19 20 A. Right.
21 Q. 285 Do you know anything about that type of transaction?
22 A. I never saw that document before. I had no input it.
23 Q. 286 Do you see sponsorship?
24 A. Yeah.
12:20:30 25 Q. 287 And again, you see round figure sums?
26 A. I do, yes.
27 Q. 288 I think in Tallaght you were quite involved with community support groups?
28 A. Absolutely.
29 Q. 289 You see there a sum of 10,000 pounds being set aside for community support
12:20:43 30 groups?

www.pcr.ie Day 657
46
12:20:43 1 A. I do, yes.
2 Q. 290 Do you see gifts, vouchers, flowers, 5,000 pounds?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 291 Entertainment 5,000. General commerce 2,000?
12:20:52 5 A. Right, yeah. I do, yes.
6 Q. 292 Now, if I could go back to 1993. If I could have 7258, please. This is a
7 list of councillors present at the meeting on the 11th of November 1993. And
8 just for completeness sake, perhaps if we go through the list you might
9 identify your councillors. Mr. Dunlop in evidence said that yourself Mr. Lynn
12:21:21 10 and himself more or less decided the councillors into three between you. And
11 I think you yesterday named a number of councillors?
12 A. I named a few, yeah.
13 Q. 293 That you had particular close association with in particular Councillor Therese
14 Ridge, is that right?
12:21:35 15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. 294 And I think you said some other local councillors including Councillor Charlie
17 O'Connor?
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. 295 John Hannon, was that correct?
12:21:43 20 A. Yeah.
21 Q. 296 Breda Cass?
22 A. Breda Cass, yeah.
23 Q. 297 Yes.
24 A. Can I just clarify that.
12:21:49 25 Q. 298 Yes.
26 A. Just on that meeting, there was no list taken out and a tick, this is Phil or
27 this is Frank's and this is Richard's. I just said what I was going to
28 continue to do.
29 Q. 299 But presumably there was to be -- there was some organisation to what you were
12:22:07 30 doing yourself and Mr. Dunlop and Mr. Lynn. You weren't all meeting the same

www.pcr.ie Day 657
47
12:22:11 1 councillors presumably?
2 A. Well it wasn't a case of meeting the councillors. I never met them other than
3 as I can recall outside the chamber or they were in either Toddy's or the Royal
4 Dublin. I was just to continue to talk to them.
12:22:27 5 Q. 300 Would you agree with me that having regard to what you have said this morning
6 in relation to your knowledge of what was going on. You yourself were badly
7 briefed to meet with councillors in relation to this project?
8 A. Badly briefed. I don't know what you mean by badly briefed. As far as we
9 were concerned --
12:22:46 10 Q. 301 You weren't au fait with everything that was going on?
11 A. No.
12 Q. 302 In relation to the site, isn't that right?
13 A. Science parks or anything like that, no. Or golf courses, if you are
14 referring that, yes.
12:22:56 15 Q. 303 So you were badly briefed insofar as you were meeting councillors and putting
16 forward a strategy or proposal or seeking their, canvassing their support for
17 rezoning on the site?
18 A. Yeah, but I wasn't meeting councillors in the site of arranging a meeting, sit
19 down and have a long discussion about the pros and cons of it. I was running
12:23:14 20 shopping centres. And on days when there were, what do you call it meetings
21 and particularly coming up to the '93 meeting. I attended those meetings and
22 said without getting into any great detail I hope you can support, please.
23 Q. 304 Well going through the list now and as best you can, can you identify the
24 councillors that you would have approached at those meetings for support?
12:23:40 25 A. Well if you can take them easy. You see, again, it was in the corridor or
26 whatever. Wait until we see now. We can go through them. Breda Cass,
27 certainly, I asked her. Mary Elliott, I probably said the same to her.
28 Q. 305 Yes.
29 A. Sorry, I'm just going down through as carefully as I can. John Hannon, yes.
12:24:05 30 Q. 306 John Hannon.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
48
12:24:06 1 A. Yeah. Probably Cait Keane. Michael Keating, yes. Stanley Laing, yes.
2 Barry Lohan, yes. Joan Maher, I asked her, yeah, certainly. Olivia
3 Mitchell, Charlie O'Connor. Catherine Quinn, I'd say yes. Therese Ridge.
4 Eamonn Walsh, certainly. There may have been others. I mean, I'm --
12:24:52 5 Q. 307 I make that about 11 of the 78 councillors?
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. 308 Now, did you know which councillors Mr. Lynn and/or Mr. Dunlop were likely to
8 be in contact with?
9 A. Not really. Richard was doing the lobbying, if you want to talk lobbying.
12:25:08 10 Q. 309 Yes.
11 A. I was only canvassing. Sorry, canvassing, yeah. I was, as somebody said, the
12 friendly face of Monarch.
13 Q. 310 Yes. You were the friendly face of Monarch, is that it?
14 A. That's what somebody said to me in the, what do you call it ...
12:25:24 15 Q. 311 You weren't privy to any of the discussions concerning the tactics or the
16 strategy that might be adopted. You didn't know who was promoting the site.
17 You didn't know which councillors were likely to table motions. It was a
18 stage when you didn't even know that it was necessary to table a motion?
19 A. No but what happened closer to the event was that -- and again, it comes back
12:25:45 20 to the strategy that I mentioned about the Loughlinstown and Ballybrack
21 committee, community council. The strategy was that we had to get the local
22 councillors to support the scheme and that was the local councillors.
23 Possibly a few days or a week or so beforehand I think Mr, Councillor Marren
24 had given a commitment that he was going to support it. And one or two
12:26:13 25 others, I don't remember exactly. But that was -- that was what the strategy
26 was.
27 Q. 312 If we could have 7263, please. Was Councillor Marren's commitment seen as a
28 break through?
29 A. I think it was very positive.
12:26:27 30 Q. 313 And were you present when that commitment was given?

www.pcr.ie Day 657
49
12:26:31 1 A. No.
2 Q. 314 Can you recall the circumstances under which you came to hear that Councillor
3 Marren was supporting?
4 A. I'd say Richard told me.
12:26:37 5 Q. 315 Richard Lynn?
6 A. Richard Lynn, yes.
7 Q. 316 And I think that as we see hear here, there was a motion proposed by Councillor
8 Marren and seconded by Councillor Coffey but in fact, it's a motion that was
9 signed by others. Isn't that right?
12:26:52 10 A. Okay, yeah.
11 Q. 317 And do you recall the circumstances under which that motion came to be
12 proposed? Well in the first instance signed?
13 A. Well no other than what I've told you. Richard came back and said that
14 Councillor Marren was going to support it and obviously Councillor Betty Coffey
12:27:11 15 also.
16 Q. 318 Did you canvass Councillor Marren's support for the proposal at any stage over
17 the previous years?
18 A. Not really. I would have spoken to him on a number of occasions but to
19 actually sit down and say, no, please, I want you to sign this motion, no. I
12:27:28 20 mean, again, my introduction to him was through the Loughlinstown community
21 council.
22 Q. 319 Yes.
23 A. What happened, just to be clear, what happened to the Loughlinstown after their
24 tour to Tallaght. They went all of the local councillors and they said we
12:27:43 25 want this development.
26 Q. 320 Can I ask you, you mentioned the tour of Tallaght. Was it usual for
27 politicians to come to Tallaght.
28 A. They were in it all of the time. They were shopping.
29 Q. 321 Well apart from shopping?
12:27:57 30 A. No, sorry, they were.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
50
12:27:59 1 Q. 322 Official visits. Were there ever helicopter visits or tour of politicians to
2 Tallaght. I'm going back to now to '88 or '89?
3 A. Yeah. If my memory serves me correctly. We had a top-out ceremony and we
4 had obviously the official opening. And prior to that I believe in June of
12:28:20 5 '89 we had two nights on the site. The first one was we brought all of the
6 solicitors and accountants and tenants, the fit out people etc, to just to tell
7 them we're opening on the 23rd of October. It's always very difficult to get
8 shops to open on time. Every tenant sits back and leave it until the last
9 minute to fit out. And the second night then we had a party, again,
12:28:48 10 announcing the 23rd of October as our date of opening and we brought anybody
11 from the communities, and schools and the local Garda and politicians and
12 whatever else. Sorry, the centre opened.
13 Q. 323 That was in June '89 you said?
14 A. No, sorry, '90. The year it opened.
12:29:08 15 Q. 324 June 1990?
16 A. Yeah.
17 Q. 325 And any -- was there any politicians at either of those?
18 A. Oh, the second night there were, yeah. All of the community was brought.
19 Q. 326 Was it just local politicians or were there any national politicians, were
12:29:20 20 there any ministers at that?
21 A. No, I don't believe there was. Unless there was a local politician a
22 Minister, I don't remember.
23 Q. 327 Going back to now to 1993 -- you have sought the support of a number of people
24 you say in the lead up?
12:29:34 25 A. Yeah.
26 Q. 328 And you were told by Mr. Lynn that Councillor Marren was going to propose a
27 motion?
28 A. Yeah.
29 Q. 329 This was seen as a break through --
12:29:42 30 A. Oh, it was, yeah.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
51
12:29:43 1 Q. 330 And we know that Councillor Coffey and others supported that motion, isn't that
2 right?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. 331 And the motion was successful?
6 Q. 332 And you say that you had no further involvement with the site after that?
7 A. Very little.
8 Q. 333 And you certainly had -- you knew nothing of the claim in paper, at least, that
9 you were likely to receive 30,000 in bonuses?
12:30:09 10 A. Absolutely no, not.
11 Q. 334 In early '94 in relation to the matter?
12 A. No.
13 Q. 335 And you don't know how that came into existence?
14 A. No, it was never discussed with me.
12:30:18 15 Q. 336 Or --
16 A. No, it was never discussed with me.
17 Q. 337 And yesterday I had dealt with a claim in relation to Tallaght. If I could
18 have 8596. This is a claim for a series of monies for Phil Reilly PR work.
19 And do you recall that? Again, you say you know nothing about?
12:30:34 20 A. It I never got paid that money, I can assure you of that.
21 Q. 338 Did you ever seek it?
22 A. No.
23 Q. 339 Just to -- just in relation to that. Just to, for clarity. I -- I omitted
24 one of the payments. The document on screen, which is 8596, speaks about Phil
12:30:54 25 Reilly/PR work 50,000 pounds under heading April 1989?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 340 And then if I could have 8597. There is Phil Reilly PR work under a heading
28 April 1990, 150,000?
29 A. Yeah.
12:31:11 30 Q. 341 And I had omitted to refer to the second payment on that line under the heading

www.pcr.ie Day 657
52
12:31:16 1 October 1990?
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. 342 100,000.
4 A. Yes.
12:31:18 5 Q. 343 Although I had referred to it, if we could have 8598. A reference to the
6 total of those payments Phil Reilly?
7 A. 300.
8 Q. 344 PR work 300,000.
9 A. I did not get paid that money.
12:31:34 10 Q. 345 My arithmetic was correct. I had forgotten to highlight one of those
11 100,000s.
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. 346 Just looking at the document on screen. Just looking down through it and the
14 payments there. One of the payments there is to MPSL Tallaght account. I
12:31:50 15 presume that that wouldn't be an unreasonable expenditure at that time in
16 relation to Tallaght. That monies would be paid to the MPSL account?
17 A. Yeah, again, I wasn't involved in the accounts but it was, I mean, the public
18 relations figure. And again, I'm using it, it cost about 35 million to build
19 Tallaght.
12:32:10 20 Q. 347 Well do you see the Pembrook, PR. Did the shopping centre have as agent
21 Pembroke?
22 A. John Buttimer, yes.
23 Q. 348 Was Pembroke PR employed in relation to Tallaght?
24 A. Yes, they were, yes.
12:32:26 25 Q. 349 And would a figure of 35, 000 be representative of what they might have sought
26 or been paid?
27 A. It's 10,000 in my sheet here.
28 Q. 350 Well I'm looking. If we could have 8598?
29 A. I'm looking at 1360.
12:32:40 30 Q. 351 I'm going to put 8598. It's just two above Phil Reilly. Do you see that?

www.pcr.ie Day 657
53
12:32:48 1 Pembroke PR 35, 000?
2 A. Oh, yeah. That's petty cash on mine still.
3 Q. 352 Sorry. Apologies. It's 10,000.
4 A. Yeah.
12:32:58 5 Q. 353 Petty cash is 35. Well evening taking the petty cash. Would 35 petty cash
6 have been reasonable for Tallaght at that time?
7 A. I don't know. I don't know, I suppose it would have been, I don't know.
8 Q. 354 Would 10,000 have been reasonable for Pembroke PR?
9 A. I thought it would have been low.
12:33:15 10 Q. 355 Yeah. Do you know Mr. Tierney stone mason who seems to have been in for 10,
11 600?
12 A. There was a PJ Tierney on-site he was working for Sisk, I thought yeah.
13 Q. 356 Did McKeever solicitors do works. Would 62,000 have been reasonable for them?
14 A. I don't know what they did.
12:33:35 15 Q. 357 Or Lombard and Ulster 28,000?
16 A. I don't know. I wasn't involved in any of that.
17 Q. 358 Do you recognise any of the parties named on that sheet?
18 A. Well, yeah, I do, yeah. J Braid Security was security, yeah. Sorry.
19 Q. 359 It's not a fabricated document is it, Mr. Reilly?
12:33:56 20 A. I don't know where it came from. I mean --
21 Q. 360 It came to the Tribunal from discovery from Monarch?
22 A. Oh, did it.
23
24 JUDGE FAHERTY: Mr. Quinn can I ask you the document it says L&C payments
12:34:06 25 accounts
26
27 MR. QUINN: That's correct.
28
29 JUDGE FAHERTY: And there is a date --
12:34:11 30 MR. QUINN: 29th of June 1992.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
54
12:34:13 1
2 JUDGE FAHERTY: 1992.
4 MR. QUINN: These are the accounts total as of November 1990.
12:34:18 5
6 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes, I just wanted to ....
9 Q. 361 MR. QUINN: Who would be able to explain this document to the Tribunal?
12:34:24 10 A. Dominic Glennane.
11 Q. 362 Dominic Glennane?
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. 363 Well perhaps it's --
14 A. He was the financial director of the company.
12:34:31 15 Q. 364 Certainly you say you never sought and were never paid these figures?
16 A. Absolutely not. Just to be clear.
17 Q. 365 Did you seek it?
18 A. No.
19 Q. 366 And decide --
12:34:47 20 A. Absolutely not. Just to be clear. Sorry. Just. When we launched The
21 Square in Tallaght we would have spent pre launch and post launch probably one
22 and a half million pounds at that stage. I think as I said to you, we had a
23 huge task to bring Tallaght, as I say, we got a lot of negative publicity about
24 Tallaght over the previous ten years.
12:35:00 25 Q. 367 Can I just ask you about your involvement and meeting with any senior
26 politician. If I could have 8849. Did you have a meeting with Ministers
27 Michael Smith at any stage in relation to any of the Tallaght projects?
28 A. I got this document about an hour ago. It's the first time I've seen it.
29 And I have no recollection of this meeting.
12:35:27 30 Q. 368 Now, at 8851. This is a Kildare Street visitors book. And it shows a seven

www.pcr.ie Day 657
55
12:35:33 1 o'clock meeting in the Dail for a number of people. Which could be Monarch
2 people, I suggest to you. There is E Sweeney, P -- is that Lafferty?
3 A. Lafferty, yeah.
4 Q. 369 And P Reilly?
12:35:48 5 A. Yeah.
6 Q. 370 And a J Barry. Was there a J Barry employed by?
7 A. No, Monarch, yeah.
8 Q. 371 Who?
9 A. The only J Barry that looking at this document was Jim Barry was a councillor
12:36:02 10 at some stage in Tallaght.
11 Q. 372 Well do you recall a councillor in Tallaght arranging a meeting for you?
12 A. No.
13 Q. 373 With Minister Flynn?
14 A. No.
12:36:11 15 Q. 374 In 1992?
16 A. I'd say it's -- it says Minister Smith here, sorry.
17 Q. 375 Minister Smith I should say sorry?
18 A. No.
19 Q. 376 I understand that there is a line through the entry that means that the people
12:36:24 20 attended?
21 A. I don't know that.
22 Q. 377 Yeah.
23 A. I don't. I have no recollection of ever --
24
12:36:31 25 MR. SANFEY: Chairman, we did only receive this document this morning
26 Mr. Reilly has had no opportunity to consider it or to refer to any
27 contemporaneous resources. I wonder could we be told a little bit more about
28 the document. I notice for instance, that the handwriting on the page 8851 to
29 which Mr. Quinn refers, is different to the handwriting that is below it. And
12:36:54 30 in fact, it seems to refer to appointments which were earlier than the

www.pcr.ie Day 657
56
12:36:58 1 appointments which appear to be for Messrs. Barry, Sweeney, Lafferty and
2 Reilly. Do we know anything about who was the author of this document? Or
3 how the handwriting comes to be different? Or do we indeed know anything about
4 it at all.
12:37:13 5
6 MR. QUINN: I can tell my friend, that if necessary we can call evidence in
7 relation to this but previous similar type documents have been dealt with in
8 other modules. And they are, as best I understand it, from records held at
9 the gate, visitors gate in Leinster House. And it seems to be the practice
12:37:34 10 that visitors to members of the house would have entered, would have been
11 booked to visit and would turn up for their appointments. And once there
12 would have their names crossed out. But if necessary we can call in evidence
13 relation to it. I'm not particularly concerned about the document. I'm more
14 concerned about a possible meeting that Mr. Reilly might have had in Leinster
12:38:01 15 House in 1992. You accept you would either remember or you don't.
16 A. I don't remember having a meeting with Michael Smyth.
17 Q. 378 Do you ever remember having a meeting in Leinster House with anyone?
18 A. I was in Leinster House on a number of occasions over the years for Senate
19 Elections.
12:38:19 20 Q. 379 But you don't remember any meeting with any Minister?
21 A. No, I'm sorry.
22 Q. 380 If I could have 2136. This is an extract from Mr. Sweeney's statement,
23 Mr. Reilly. And just I want to refer you to the last paragraph.
24
12:38:43 25 You see it says "The site set up was very, was run very efficiently and had
26 full catering facilities capable of putting on silver service lunches and had
27 numerous visitors from politicians and businessmen from all over the country as
28 well as abroad. As Tallaght was at the forefront in terms of property
29 development in Ireland at this particular time. From a public relations and
12:39:04 30 employment point of view. Many commercial and political people visited the

www.pcr.ie Day 657
57
12:39:07 1 site. Some of them arriving in Phil Monahan's helicopter and were shown
2 around the development as part of a marketing exercise to raise the profile
3 which was seriously in need of such treatment."
12:39:20 5 That's in Mr. Sweeney's statement.
6 A. All right.
7 Q. 381 Do you disagree with anything that is said there?
8 A. Well many politicians. I don't know how many he means.
9 Q. 382 Well do you recall any politician arriving in Mr. Monahan's helicopter in
12:39:34 10 Tallaght?
11 A. I genuinely don't. A few politicians -- I've outlined the politicians pre
12 opening. Post opening we had a lot of politicians certainly after it opened
13 from Taoiseachs. Any time there was an election on every senior politician in
14 each party arrived for a tour or a walk around.
12:40:01 15 Q. 383 Now, a number of politicians have given evidence here, a number of councillors,
16 Mr. Reilly, and you will have, if you have been present, have heard their
17 evidence. And they have spoken of being canvassed for their support in
18 relation to the Cherrywood site?
19 A. Uh-huh.
12:40:20 20 Q. 384 And quite a number of them have given evidence to the Tribunal and it has been
21 discovered to the Tribunal by Monarch that they have received payments; isn't
22 that right?
23 A. Correct, yes.
24 Q. 385 You would be aware of that. You heard Ms. Gosling's evidence yesterday in
12:40:33 25 relation to that?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 386 And you heard that she felt or that it was Monarch's feeling that claims for
28 monies by politicians was effectively a necessary evil I think she described it
29 as?
12:40:45 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
58
12:40:45 1 Q. 387 I think that was the ethos or the philosophy within Monarch. Would you agree
2 with that?
3 A. I wouldn't, no. Necessary evil is not certainly the way I understood it in
4 Monarch.
12:40:55 5 Q. 388 Sorry.
6 A. A necessary evil was not the way I understood it in Monarch.
7 Q. 389 Yes. Well when you joined Monarch in 1987 was there a policy in place in
8 relation to requests for political subscriptions by councillors and political
9 parties?
12:41:12 10 A. I wasn't aware of it at that stage.
11 Q. 390 You weren't aware of it at that stage?
12 A. No, at what stage did you become aware of a policy in relation to such
13 requests. The first one that I can recall was the '91 Local Elections.
14 Q. 391 Had you known of any payments by Monarch prior to May or June 1991?
12:41:34 15 A. 1991, no, not that I can recall.
16 Q. 392 Had you sanctioned or had anybody sought from you payments prior to May or June
17 1991?
19 Q. 393 Well can you tell the Tribunal the context in which you first came to learn of
12:41:53 20 the policy of Monarch towards such a request for money?
21 A. Well what happened exactly was that I was in the office in Harcourt Street one
22 evening, the elections were coming up, Richard said we're gonna send somebody
23 out to, some donations to politicians. He had a list on his desk and he said
24 did you know any of these people from Tallaght. And I looked down through the
12:42:25 25 list and although I didn't recall, I obviously had met Mary Harney and she had
26 suggested a number of names and I think they were added to the list. And I
27 asked him was this normal and he said yes, he understood that there had been a
28 tradition of making donations to politicians at election times.
29 Q. 394 When I asked you about a culture of payments to politicians. Was there any
12:42:53 30 policy in relation to requests by politicians for payments to others?

www.pcr.ie Day 657
59
12:42:58 1 A. How do you mean?
2 Q. 395 On behalf of for example organisations?
3 A. Oh, yes there was. There would have been, yes.
4 Q. 396 That always existed?
12:43:06 5 A. It did, yeah. Certainly my experience in Tallaght was there was so many
6 needs. The needs were so great out there you were being I suppose canvassed
7 or requested by politicians for donations to different groups.
8 Q. 397 And what was the policy within Monarch towards such requests?
9 A. Support them.
12:43:23 10 Q. 398 And now, we move on to 1991 and you are speaking to Mr. Lynn in Harcourt Street
11 in the context of the upcoming Local Election?
12 A. Correct, yes.
13 Q. 399 And Mr. Lynn is putting forward to you a list of people in the context of
14 payments to people on that list, is that correct?
12:43:42 15 A. In relation to contributions.
16 Q. 400 And it's being spoken about by you and Mr. Lynn in the context of unsolicited
17 contributions by Monarch, isn't that right, because you'd been asked who you
18 knew on the list, isn't that right?
19 A. Well I was being asked did I know any of these people on the list, yeah.
12:44:01 20 Q. 401 Would you agree with me that this implies that those people you identified on
21 the list were going to receive or be offered support by Monarch?
22 A. Can I follow that up, exactly what he asked me to do was to ring some of the
23 people on the list.
24 Q. 402 Yes.
12:44:12 25 A. And ask them could we assist in the election expenses.
26 Q. 403 And this was being brought by Mr. Lynn, isn't that right?
27 A. That's as I understood it.
28 Q. 404 And Mr. Lynn, as I understood it, had nothing to do with the with the financial
29 end of the Monarch Group?
12:44:32 30 A. No, he was a project manager as I understood him to be.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
60
12:44:34 1 Q. 405 Yes. And did you understand from your conversation with Mr. Lynn that he had
2 cleared what he was proposing to do with others or that he had been directed by
3 others to do?
4 A. Well I think he was going to get it cleared.
12:44:45 5 Q. 406 Yes.
6 A. When the list was prepared.
7 Q. 407 Yes. And did you ask him why he was taking upon himself to support the
8 democratic process?
9 A. Well I can't remember the exact words he said but I will be dealing with these
12:45:01 10 people in the future. Monarch will be dealing with these people in the future
11 and I need to be able to talk to them and get their time, something like that.
12 Somewhere along those lines.
13 Q. 408 Yes. And it was in that context that you were asked to look at a list and see
14 were there people on the list that you could recommend for payment or sought?
12:45:20 15 A. Not recommend. That I recognised the names.
16 Q. 409 Yes.
17 A. Again, just despite the fact having been in the business for a long time before
18 that, for 20 odd years. This was the first company I was ever in when there
19 was an election coming up.
12:45:35 20 Q. 410 Yes. And did you identify people? Did you make contact with a number of
21 people?
22 A. Well, on the list I had I said well I recognise that name or whatever else.
23 Despite the fact that there were a hell of a lot of politicians in County
24 Dublin, as you know. And in Tallaght there was quite a number. I didn't
12:45:54 25 know that many of them at the time. I did do what Richard asked me to a
26 couple. I rang, as I said, Therese Ridge who I had become friendly with.
27 No, she was all right. She had a raffle or something on, I said I would buy
28 some tickets for it. I may have rang, I think there was Michael Hanrahan who
29 was running as well. I knew him from -- he was in one of the charities, I
12:46:18 30 certainly rang him. As I say, Mary Harney reminded me of the conversation

www.pcr.ie Day 657
61
12:46:23 1 that I had forgotten and that there was a couple of new councillors that --
2 sorry, they weren't councillors, they were ordinary people. And I gave them
3 to Richard.
4 Q. 411 Were they on the list?
12:46:38 5 A. I don't know if they were on his list originally. I can't remember now to be
6 honest with you.
7 Q. 412 How many names were on Mr. Lynn's list?
8 A. Oh, I don't know. 15 or 20 maybe.
9 Q. 413 And where was he taking the list from?
12:46:52 10 A. I don't know where he got it from.
11 Q. 414 Or how it was compiled?
12 A. I don't know.
13 Q. 415 Was there a discussion about how much you would contribute or how much Monarch
14 would contribute to the people on the list?
12:47:04 15 A. I don't recall, no. As I said, it was my first time in this, at this.
16 Q. 416 How long did the conversation take, the conversation last, the conversation
17 between yourself and Mr. Lynn?
18 A. I'd say three four minutes, maybe five minutes.
19 Q. 417 Did you ask him how much his budget was in relation to it?
12:47:21 20 A. No.
21 Q. 418 Did you have any discussion about what would be a reasonable contribution to
22 make?
23 A. I can't say exactly that I did but, I mean, what do you do. If somebody said
24 something like that what do you normally pay, you know.
12:47:38 25 Q. 419 Sorry?
26 A. What would you normally pay. What donation is a typical donation.
27 Q. 420 Yes.
28 A. But I didn't know, as I say, it was new to me.
29 Q. 421 You were going to ring some of the people on the list, isn't that right?
12:47:48 30 A. Well I assume he set the figure whether it was 300 Euros or 300 Euros or 500 or

www.pcr.ie Day 657
62
12:47:55 1 whatever it was, pounds sorry.
2 Q. 422 If we could have 3248, please. This is again a list supplied to the Tribunal
3 by Monarch. In relation to possible payments in 1991, and going through that
4 list, there appear to be payments made between May and June 1991. Can I ask
12:48:24 5 you, looking at the list can you tell the Tribunal the names on that list as we
6 see it, that you would have been responsible for?
7 A. Well if I can tell you the names I would have recognised.
8 Q. 423 Yes.
9 A. Which is John Hannon. Sean Haughey. Michael Hanrahan. Michael Keating.
12:48:54 10 Quinn, Catherine Quinn. Therese Ridge. S Terry. C Tyndall. And after
11 that I'm -- I don't be -- maybe Senator Larry McMahon.
12 Q. 424 And did you contact those various people that you have identified?
13 A. I can't say exactly. I would have certainly I rang Therese Ridge and I
14 believe I rang Michael Hanrahan. And I would have obviously got the other
12:49:28 15 names from Terry, Tyndall and whatever the third one was -- whoever the third
16 PD was.
17 Q. 425 Cass was it?
18 A. Quinn.
19 Q. 426 Catherine Quinn?
12:49:50 20 A. Catherine Quinn I think it was. But I don't remember calling those.
21 Q. 427 What about Mr. Ryan, did you mention Mr. Ryan?
22 A. No, no, I didn't know him.
23 Q. 428 You didn't know him?
24 A. No.
12:49:51 25 Q. 429 And I think save for Councillor Ridge, all of the others got a subscription of
26 300 pounds, is that right?
27 A. So it would seem, yeah. I'm not crossing checking now as I'm reading this.
28 Q. 430 Did you ring any of the councillors to be told that they didn't require any
29 assistance?
12:50:06 30 A. Well other than Theresa. She said she didn't. I bought tickets for a raffle

www.pcr.ie Day 657
63
12:50:10 1 or something that she was running.
2 Q. 431 And that was the context in which those councillors received --
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 432 So when those councillors say that the monies that they received in 1991 were
12:50:22 5 unsolicited, certainly insofar as the councillors that you have identified are
6 concerned, your evidence to the Tribunal is they were unsolicited?
7 A. Well other than the few I spoke to. I asked them.
8 Q. 433 Yes.
9 A. Could we help them.
12:50:34 10 Q. 434 Yes. But they didn't contact you seeking support, you contacted them in the
11 first instance, isn't that what your evidence is?
12 A. I can't say with certainty that I didn't get a letter or two in but I don't
13 remember.
14 Q. 435 Now, having identified the councillors that you were going to support. What
12:50:53 15 did you next do to implement that?
16 A. I didn't do anything.
17 Q. 436 Well presumably you must have given the names to somebody?
18 A. No, I -- I identified them for Richard and he took it from there.
19 Q. 437 He took it from there. He is the person within Monarch who decided who was
12:51:11 20 going to make the payments?
21 A. Well he asked. I assume he went to somebody, either Eddie or whoever, and
22 just said I want to make these contributions.
23 Q. 438 Well why do you say Mr. Sweeney?
24 A. Well, I don't know. He was working for, he was working on the Cherrywood
12:51:27 25 project at the time.
26 Q. 439 So it was in the context of the Cherrywood project that --
27 A. Well and Ongar and Somerton, I assume.
28 Q. 440 Yes. Was Mr. Sweeney involved in Ongar and Somerton as well?
29 A. Well he was on the technical side so I suppose he was, yeah.
12:51:42 30 Q. 441 Well you either know or --

www.pcr.ie Day 657
64
12:51:44 1 A. Sorry, I assumed he was, yeah, I assumed he was. Sorry, I don't mean to be
2 evasive. I'm just trying to be honest and give you a straight answer.
3 Q. 442 And it was in that context that these monies were paid, isn't that right?
4 A. Correct, yeah.
12:51:59 5 Q. 443 Now, I'm not going to go into detail with you and trace the monies right
6 through. That's perhaps some thing you would rightly tell me you know nothing
7 about, other than the fact that they were paid by Monarch, isn't that right?
8 A. No, I didn't sign the cheques or do any of the accounts or bank reconciliation
9 or anything like that.
12:52:18 10 Q. 444 You don't know which accounts or company made the payments?
11 A. No.
12 Q. 445 Or from whence the payments were made?
13 A. No, no.
14 Q. 446 Or in fact that the payments were made?
12:52:25 15 A. I assume they were made, yeah.
16 Q. 447 Now, I think in 1992 there were, there was a further series of disbursements,
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 448 For candidates. If we could have 1582. Now, can you tell the Tribunal any
12:52:49 20 involvement you had in relation to these payments?
21 A. Well I raised a memo which you probably have on file here, which is probably
22 the ones that the particular ones that I was certainly involved in.
23 Q. 449 If we could have 3190, please. Is this the memo that you were relating to?
24 A. Correct, yes.
12:53:13 25 Q. 450 Well now can you tell the Tribunal the circumstances under which you came to
26 raise this memo of the 18th of November?
27 A. Well this is for the General Election 1922. I went to Dominic and I said it
28 there's an election in 1992. And I went on the basis that these were Tallaght
29 councillors, Tallaght, Clondalkin councillors. These were people that were
12:53:38 30 running for office, sorry, Mary Harney wasn't a councillor, I think she was a

www.pcr.ie Day 657
65
12:53:43 1 TD at the time. And the reason I raised this list was that Tallaght when it
2 started in 1990, I think as I explained was almost a wilderness. The Square
3 had been built. There was still a lot of issues, we were sitting on probably
4 100 acres site of which 20 of it was The Square. And the only other
12:54:08 5 development that was taking place had taken place prior to the arrival of the
6 building was the Garda Station. And I firmly believed at the time, and
7 honestly will say to you, that I wanted good politicians representing The
8 Square in Tallaght. Sorry, the Tallaght area.
12:54:24 10 And I chose these people because I believed that they were all, they were all
11 very committed to their area and they were all very good people.
12 Q. 451 You have just earlier told us of the circumstances and of your contribution to
13 the 1991 payments, isn't that right?
14 A. Correct.
12:54:47 15 Q. 452 And there had been no policy as far as you were concerned in relation to
16 political support but that Mr. Lynn on an evening in Harcourt Street had come
17 to you and had given you a list and asked you to identify people that Monarch
18 might support, isn't that right?
12:55:04 20 Q. 453 And you have contributed to that list?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. 454 And you have made calls to the various people involved?
23 A. Right.
24 Q. 455 And I suggested to you that it was an unsolicited contribution and I think you
12:55:15 25 agreed with me?
26 A. Well unsolicited if that's how you define it, yeah on that basis, yeah.
27 Q. 456 If I could have 1579, please. In correspondence with the Tribunal the
28 solicitors to Monarch. If you look at the third paragraph. Have advised the
29 Tribunal that in relation to the 1991 list, all of the contributions are
12:55:33 30 believed to have risen on foot of requests for assistance to defray Local

www.pcr.ie Day 657
66
12:55:38 1 Elections expenses save as set out, no records have been locate in the this
2 regard.
4 Now, in the first instance I would ask you to agree with me. That that letter
12:55:46 5 suggests that it is Monarch's position that the 1991 contributions all had been
6 solicited?
7 A. Well.
8 Q. 457 Or had all been solicited I should say.
9 A. Well I've given you my evidence.
12:55:58 10 Q. 458 Yes, that's fair enough. And you disagree with Monarch's solicitors
11 understanding of the 1991 contributions?
12 A. Yeah, there may have been some letters in but I don't remember them but
13 certainly --
14 Q. 459 -- certainly in relation to the people you've identified they were unsolicited
12:56:13 15 contributions you say?
16 A. Yeah, other than if I had a conversation with a politician, such as has been
17 given as evidence here, and I think was referred to from the PD people, that
18 they could do with some help. Is that's solicited or unsolicited?
19 Q. 460 That was the request by Ms. Hard Harney I think on behalf of --
21 Q. 461 That letter has been opened. But other than that request. Any other
22 payments that you would have made or authorised would have been unsolicited
24 A. Not -- sorry. Can I go back to my own list maybe if I can talk you through
12:56:47 25 it, my memo?
26 Q. 462 You want to go back to the 1991 list is it?
27 A. No, the '92 memo, please.
28 Q. 463 Sorry, I'm dealing in 1991?
29 A. Sorry.
12:56:56 30 Q. 464 I'll come to 1992 in a moment?

www.pcr.ie Day 657
67
12:56:59 1 A. Sorry. Right.
2 Q. 465 The letter on screen is only dealing with 1991.
3 A. Yeah. Just to be absolutely clear, when I left Monarch in '97 I've had no
4 input other than with Monarch or discussions or whatever else in relation to --
12:57:14 5 they ran the around the business or in relation to this Tribunal until I
6 received correspondence. So nobody asked me when preparing this letter.
7 Q. 466 So for your contribution in relation to that?
8 A. I had no contribution in relation to this letter. That's the point I'm
9 making.
12:57:28 10 Q. 467 I understand. So wherever Messrs. Smyth & Partners got their information.
11 They certainly didn't get it from you?
12 A. Absolutely not. Nobody contacted me.
13 Q. 468 Yes. Does that surprise you that they would, as solicitors to the Group, put
14 forward information to the Tribunal without contacting you, since you were
12:57:44 15 involved in 1991 and 1992 with the contributions?
16 A. Sorry, I don't know what way you want me to answer that. But, I mean, I had
17 no dealings with Smyths.
18 Q. 469 You had a contribution to make to the position concerning payments in '91 and
19 in '92. Isn't that right?
12:58:04 20 A. Well obviously, yes.
21 Q. 470 Now, if we return to your 1992 memo. That's at 3910.
22 A. Yeah.
23 Q. 471 And it's your direction to Mr. Glennane, who is the financial person within
24 Monarch?
12:58:21 25 A. Request. It's a request.
26 Q. 472 Yes?
27 A. It's a request. If I can talk to you.
28 Q. 473 Yes?
29 A. Just about.
12:58:27 30 Q. 474 This is your memo and this is your opportunity Mr. Reilly, to speak to it?

www.pcr.ie Day 657
68
12:58:31 1 A. I know.
2 Q. 475 And take your time. Please, take your time. It's important?
3 A. It's important to me as well.
4 Q. 476 That's the point I'm making?
12:58:38 5 A. Sorry.
6 Q. 477 So you have as much time as you wish in relation to it.
7 A. Certainly on the first one. Michael Keating or how the 1,000 Euros arose. I
8 was talking to one of his people who happened to be a friend of my wife. And
9 it was a casual conversation, how are things going for the Election, which
12:58:56 10 would be typical, were broke. And I assume a bit of help wouldn't be any
11 harm, or words to that effect. They are not the exact words. Do you need
12 some help. That was one of the -- certainly that was one of them.
13 Theresa, I didn't speak to. And I don't believe I spoke to the rest of them.
14 But again, let me repeat. I wanted good people. And very committed to
12:59:19 15 Tallaght. Still even after all these years, they are a huge -- at that time
16 as I told you, there were a lot of problems out there. And I saw the
17 tremendous work the voluntary groups were doing. As far as I believe and have
18 given evidence to this Tribunal, I wanted the best people in the Dail to try
19 and get the hospitals, the schools, etc.. And that is why I wrote that
12:59:47 20 specific memo and that's why I asked for that money from Dominic
21 Q. 478 Now, there's no doubt but that you were able to sanction payments totalling I
22 think about 4,000 pounds, per that list?
23 A. Yes, request.
24 Q. 479 You had that authority to request that payments be made?
13:00:03 25 A. Yes, please.
26 Q. 480 Well "sanction" or "request"?
27 A. No, there's a big difference in my mind.
28 Q. 481 I see.
29 A. Sanction would, that would have to go then to the accounts office. And
13:00:11 30 somebody in the accounts office would say well who has -- requested and

www.pcr.ie Day 657
69
13:00:16 1 sanctioned are different in my view.
2 Q. 482 I see.
3 A. So Dominic Glennane had to say to whoever in the accounts office will you draw
4 up these requests.
13:00:27 5 Q. 483 So you are saying even though you sent in that request to Mr. Glennane, that
6 somebody else within Monarch could have refused to make those payments?
7 A. Yes, correct, yes.
8 Q. 484 Have you ever submitted a request which has been refused?
9 A. Yes. Not for politics.
13:00:41 10 Q. 485 Yes?
11 A. Not for this end of it, you know.
12 Q. 486 Refused, presumably, because there wasn't a proper backup invoice or?
13 A. Not necessarily. It may have been too dear or what the hell are you doing
14 with that, why are you spending money on that, you know, that's crazy, sorry
13:00:57 15 about this.
16 Q. 487 Nobody within Monarch raised that query about this request?
17 A. No, because as I firmly believed, as I said to you today, I said to Dominic at
18 the time.
19 Q. 488 Did you have a chat with Mr. Glennane at the time about it?
13:01:12 20 A. Oh, I did, yeah, I spoke to him about it.
21 Q. 489 And did he have any contribution to make towards the list?
22 A. Not that I recall other than, I suppose, maybe he saw the bit of passion that
23 was in me about it, you know.
24
13:01:25 25 CHAIRMAN: All right, Mr. Quinn, it's just gone one o'clock. So we'll
26 adjourn until two o'clock.
27
28
13:01:44 30

www.pcr.ie Day 657
70
3 Q. 490 MR. QUINN: Just before lunch, I think before lunch we were dealing with 3910,
4 which was your memo to Mr. Glennane. And I think you were advising the
14:04:17 5 Tribunal of a discussion you had with Mr. Glennane in relation to contributions
6 which you proposed to make during that election. Isn't that right?
8 Q. 491 And can I ask you, you have given evidence and you have -- that you selected
9 the councillors that you proposed or the politicians or candidates that you
14:04:39 10 proposed to support in that election. Isn't that right?
11 A. That's right.
12 Q. 492 That's your selection?
13 A. That's my selection, correct.
14 Q. 493 Can I ask you, did you also decide the amounts you were going to contribute or
14:04:51 15 was that somebody else's input?
16 A. No, that was my input.
17 Q. 494 How did you settle on the figures that we see there, can I ask you?
18 A. Well, I suppose, I had an idea from the '91 elections what sort of
19 contributions were given. And what I did then was certainly having spoken to
14:05:12 20 one of the Fine Gael people, it was obviously a national election is a lot more
21 expensive than a Local Election. So I just picked those amounts, I suppose,
22 maybe I was trying to pick the winners.
23 Q. 495 Yes. When you say you were trying to pick the winners, you were trying to
24 give more to the people who were likely to be successful?
14:05:36 25 A. Perhaps, yeah, to put it that way. That's all I can remember.
26 Q. 496 If we can have 8579, please. This is an internal list in relation to the June
27 '91 payments. Did you prior to receiving this list in the brief did you ever
28 see this, these?
29 A. No, I never saw that before.
14:05:55 30 Q. 497 We see there that in that Local Election that the standard contribution

www.pcr.ie Day 657
71
14:06:02 1 appeared to be somewhere between 300 and 600 pounds, isn't that right?
2 A. Yes, that's right, yeah.
3 Q. 498 Did you have any input into the amounts being given in that election?
4 A. That's the '91?
14:06:14 5 Q. 499 Yes.
6 A. No, I believe I was guided by Richard on that.
7 Q. 500 Do you know that Mr. Tom Hand for example had received 5,000 pounds in 1991?
8 A. No, I did not.
9 Q. 501 Did you know the late Mr. Hand?
14:06:33 10 A. I met him a couple of times but I didn't know him at that stage.
11 Q. 502 Mr. Dunlop gave the impression that you, perhaps through your association with
12 Ms. Ridge, was more associated with the Fine Gael parties than perhaps with the
13 other parties would that be fair?
14 A. Sorry, I knew some Fine Gael parties. But I knew everybody in every other
14:07:25 15 party. Mr. Dunne with all due respects didn't know me. I'm not associated
16 just for the record.
17 Q. 503 You're not associated.
18 A. Not with any party.
19 Q. 504 Had you met Mr, the late Mr. Hand?
14:07:26 20 A. Yes, I did, yeah.
21 Q. 505 Did you know that Mr. Hand was supportive of the Monarch position in relation
22 to Cherrywood?
23 A. I didn't really know what position he was in.
24 Q. 506 I see.
14:07:26 25 A. I didn't discuss it where him so --
26 Q. 507 You don't know what position he held?
27 A. No, not really, no. But I think he may have supported some motions.
28 Q. 508 Did you know Mr. Lydon?
29 A. Yes, I knew Mr. Lydon, yes.
14:07:27 30 Q. 509 Did you discuss the Cherrywood position with Mr. Lydon?

www.pcr.ie Day 657
72
14:07:27 1 A. No, not discuss, no.
2 Q. 510 Did you mention the Cherrywood?
3 A. Well I would have said I hope we'll be all right on the day or whatever,
4 something like that. I hope you can support it.
14:07:36 5 Q. 511 Yes. I think your word for that is "canvass". Did you canvass Mr. Lydon's
6 support?
7 A. Other than what I've said to you if that's canvassing. Yeah.
8 Q. 512 Yes. Was a Mr. Lynn with you when you spoke with Senator Lydon?
9 A. The only time I can recall speaking to Senator Lydon was in the lobby. He
14:07:55 10 could have been there, I don't know, it was in the middle of a crowd. It
11 wasn't a special meeting anyway.
12 Q. 513 He didn't receive any special treatment for you, from you other than any other
13 councillor who would support you?
14 A. No, no.
14:08:06 15 Q. 514 Did you know that Mr.-- that Councillor Lydon was supportive of the Monarch
16 proposals?
17 A. Yeah, well he had a proposal in, in '92 as I recall, yeah.
18 Q. 515 Yes. Yes. And you knew that, if not in '92 certainly subsequently?
19 A. Oh, I did, yeah, yeah.
14:08:22 20 Q. 516 And was he seen within the Monarch Group as a supportive councillor?
21 A. Well, I would say about supportive councillors, I think the majority of Fianna
22 Fail people I spoke to would have been pro-development and Senator Lydon
23 wouldn't have been any different I believe.
24 Q. 517 Yes. Did you know that Councillor Hand was supportive?
14:08:45 25 A. Yes, I did, yes, I would say yes.
26 Q. 518 Councillor Coffey I think seconded the motion in 1993, isn't that right?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 519 Did you seek her support at any stage for this proposal?
29 A. Again, no more than a casual, maybe a comment. Her biggest issue was,
14:09:41 30 originally was Dun Laoghaire. That if we build a big shopping centre in Dun

www.pcr.ie Day 657
73
14:09:41 1 Laoghaire it would kill Dun Laoghaire.
2 Q. 520 And I think that Monarch at some stage hit upon the idea of developing Dun
3 Laoghaire and developing both the Pavilion site and what is now the Bloomfield
4 site?
14:09:42 5 A. The Bloomfield site, yes.
6 Q. 521 And was that brought to Councillor Coffey's attention?
7 A. I'm sure she was aware of it at that stage, yes.
8 Q. 522 Now, I think you would have written and contributed after '92 to different
9 candidates and different politicians, isn't that right?
14:09:43 10 A. Monarch would have.
11 Q. 523 Monarch would have. Within Monarch you would have been associated with
12 directing some of the payments, isn't that right?
13 A. Requesting them, yeah.
14 Q. 524 If we could have -- this by the way. I don't intend to go through them all.
14:09:57 15 A. All right, yeah.
16 Q. 525 If we could have 4170, for example. This is a memo to you from Ms. Gosling.
17 And it's dated the 27th of April 1993. I don't believe there was an election
18 in 1993. But in any event, Senator McGennis was looking for support for the
19 MS association.
14:10:17 20 A. Yeah.
21 Q. 526 And I think Ms. Gosling wrote to you and referred to a telephone conversation.
22 And said you were going to deal with it. And we see a note at the bottom
23 right hand corner "200 pounds to be given to me to deliver in person". Is
24 that a note written by you or somebody?
14:10:35 25 A. I think it's looks like Richard's writing, Mr. Lynn's.
26 Q. 527 And is it directed to you?
27 A. Yes, it is, yeah.
28 Q. 528 So you must have spoken to Richard Lynn?
29 A. I probably asked him, yeah.
14:10:48 30 Q. 529 As to what --

www.pcr.ie Day 657
74
14:10:49 1 A. What we'd do, yeah.
2 Q. 530 Did he tell you why he wanted to deliver it in person?
3 A. No, he didn't, no.
4 Q. 531 I think sometimes your view was sought in relation to payments, isn't that
14:10:58 5 right? If I could have 3807. It's -- you're writing to Councillor Flaherty
6 on the 5th of August 1992.
7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. 532 And you are referring to a letter from Eddie Sweeney and Richard Lynn and I
9 think there's a note at the bottom. Is that in your handwriting?
14:11:21 10 A. It is, yeah.
11 Q. 533 It would be paid?
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. 534 You were anxious to confirm whether or not it was paid, is that right?
14 A. Well I think as I recall, obviously she had written in requesting something for
14:12:54 15 a golf classic and both Eddie and Richard were away, obviously not available.
16 Both on holidays. And I don't know when I wrote Richard would be paid this.
17 I don't know if we ever made a contribution to it or not.
18 Q. 535 If I could have 5972. This is a letter to Mr. Monahan from Councillor
19 McGrath?
14:12:55 20 A. Right.
21 Q. 536 There's a note on the bottom right hand corner "Richard talk to me". Is that
22 Phil?
23 A. That's me, yeah.
24 Q. 537 That's 17th of May. Do you recall speaking to Mr. Lynn I presume?
14:12:56 25 A. It is, Richard Lynn, yeah, yeah.
26 Q. 538 On the bottom left hand corner "Richard Lynn recommended 500 Euros".
27 A. That's my note, yeah.
28 Q. 539 Do you recall discussing whether or not that payment should be made?
29 A. Yes, I did, yeah, with Richard, yeah.
14:12:56 30 Q. 540 And was it Mr. Lynn that sanctioned the payment?

www.pcr.ie Day 657
75
14:12:56 1 A. Well he said pay 500 Euro.
2 Q. 541 Yes.
3 A. And I would have assumed I sent it over to the accounts office.
4 Q. 542 Yes. Was Mr. Lynn the contact person within the company that you would
14:12:56 5 generally talk to about whether or not these sort of --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 543 Subscriptions should be paid?
8 A. Yes, he was, yes.
9 Q. 544 You wrote I think to Senator Owen in June '97. At 8300 enclosing a
14:12:57 10 contribution. Isn't that right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 545 Would you have cleared it with Mr. Lynn or --
13 A. We would have discussed it, yes.
14 Q. 546 There is 1996 please. This is a letter of the 3rd June 1997 to Mr. Don
14:13:07 15 Tipping.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 547 Again, you enclosed a contribution, would you have discussed that with Mr.
18 Lynn?
19 A. Probably, yes, I would have, yeah.
14:13:12 20 Q. 548 If we could have sorry 4654.
21 This is a request for the Labour Party national collection 1993 dated the 12th
22 of November 1993. And you see up on the top "how much should we give". Is
23 that in your writing
24 A. Sorry. I'd say that's from. Yeah, it looks like Eddie's writing I think.
14:13:38 25 Q. 549 Mr. Sweeney. And who is he directing it to?
26 A. Directing it to me for some reason it seems.
27 Q. 550 That's Mr. Sweeney asking you whether or not a contribution should be given or
28 how much should be given?
29 A. Yeah I believe I sent back 200. It says if anything -- on the side of it Phil
14:13:56 30 and he said yes and I ended up paying 100 for some reason. I don't know why

www.pcr.ie Day 657
76
14:14:00 1 but anyway.
2 Q. 551 That was Mr. Sweeney seeking your advice on that occasion?
3 A. Yeah, this is Mervyn Taylor, yeah.
4 Q. 552 If I could have 8559. This one on the 5th of March 1997. It's a letter to
14:14:12 5 Noel Murray on behalf of a community enterprise society. Is that your writing
6 Noel approved?
7 A. Question mark, yeah. And he must have obviously.
8 Q. 553 Yes.
9 A. PR to, I don't know what that says, the one on top. PR to action is it?
14:14:31 10 Q. 554 I don't know.
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. 555 Would that be Phil Reilly to action?
13 A. I assume so, yeah.
14 Q. 556 Somebody would have written that to you is that --
14:14:38 15 A. Yeah, it was written in Owen Murray.
16 Q. 557 What position did Mr. Murray hold within the company?
17 A. He was the marketing director for the company, he was the commercial marketing
18 director.
19 Q. 558 Did he operate out of Tallaght or out of Harcourt Street?
14:14:53 20 A. No, Harcourt Street, 57 Harcourt Street.
21 Q. 559 Did you have to report to Mr. Murray or did you work closely --
22 A. On some occasions Noel was marketing the units in the centre, so if a unit
23 became vacant in any of the eight or nine centres he would initially advice on
24 which agency we would use.
14:15:09 25 Q. 560 And would Mr. Murray come into play once the developments were up and running?
26 A. Oh, prior to it.
27 Q. 561 Prior to it?
28 A. Yeah.
29 Q. 562 Prior to them coming on stream?
14:15:19 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
77
14:15:19 1 Q. 563 He would be involved?
2 A. Yes, he would be letting the shops.
3 Q. 564 I see. But his input would be after the development had been undertaken but
4 before completion where he would advise on how to, tenants etc.
14:15:33 5 A. Correct, yeah. Tenant mix and agree in terms and all of that, yeah.
6 Q. 565 Was Mr. Murray with the company when you joined it in 1987?
7 A. He was, yes.
8 Q. 566 Did you have -- can I just ask you. Did you have any contacts or interaction
9 with council officials at any stage in relation to the Cherrywood site or
14:15:58 10 indeed any of the Monarch lands?
11 A. On Cherrywood, no, I don't believe I had. Although there is one memo I think
12 which you may have there of a discussion that took place at which I attended
13 with Willie Murray after the opening in April I think.
14 Q. 567 This is April of 1991?
14:16:19 15 A. '94.
16 Q. 568 April' 94. The one I was more particularly concerned about. If I could have
17 5603. Is an entry in Mr. Murray's diary for the 22nd of October 1993.
18 A. Where is it? Sorry, I can't see it.
19 Q. 569 It's at 2.30 entry for Phil Reilly I think and Pat Lafferty is it Monarch?
14:16:42 20 A. Yeah, it is, yeah.
21 Q. 570 Do you recall meeting Mr. Murray in October 1993 with Mr. Lafferty?
22 A. I could have put I don't have any recollection at this stage.
23 Q. 571 Was that in connection with Cherrywood?
24 A. I don't honestly know.
14:17:00 25 Q. 572 Was there -- we know that you met Mr. Dunlop with Mr. Lafferty after his
26 appointment in March '93, isn't that right?
27 A. Yes, I did, yeah.
28 Q. 573 You gave evidence --
14:17:13 30 Q. 574 -- in relation to that. So could you have met Mr. Murray with Mr. Lafferty in

www.pcr.ie Day 657
78
14:17:18 1 relation to Cherrywood in October '93?
2 A. Possibly, yes, I could have, yeah but I don't recall it. I'm sure if it's in
3 the diary I would have met him, yeah.
4 Q. 575 Earlier this morning I was asking you about meetings between other Monarch
14:17:35 5 representatives and the council officials and the manager in July and in
6 September '93. And you had no knowledge of those meetings or what was taking
7 place at those meetings?
8 A. Correct, yeah.
9 Q. 576 Can I now ask you what that meeting was in connection with?
14:17:51 10 A. I have no idea, sorry, I can't help you.
11 Q. 577 If it were in connection with Cherrywood, would you agree with me that you were
12 at a complete disadvantage meeting the planning officer in relation to
13 Cherrywood since you had no knowledge of other meetings taking place in or
14 around that time between other Monarch representatives and Mr. Murray and
14:18:11 15 Mr. O'Sullivan?
16 A. Oh, yeah I would have been. I would have been au fait with what was going on.
17 Q. 578 Do you know if there were any other meetings between you and other Monarch
18 representatives with council officials dating back to '87, '88, '89?
19 A. In 1987 certainly in Tallaght I was involved with the local authority at the
14:18:36 20 time. We set up a little subcommittee of one of the development people plus
21 one of the officials from the council. And it was a communications group
22 between what was happening in the centre itself.
23 Q. 579 Yes. Did you ever have meetings with Mr. Redmond, for example?
24 A. No.
14:18:56 25 Q. 580 If I could have 2816.
26 A. No.
27 Q. 581 There appears a series of meetings. You will have seen them in the meeting
28 with Mr. Redmond and Monarch representatives. These are Mr. Redmond's
29 diaries. That's for the 23rd of February 1998.
14:19:12 30 A. No.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
79
14:19:13 1 Q. 582 And if I could have 2817. That's the 26th of February. 11.30 meeting. If
2 I could have 2818, please, again. That's the 6th of April.
3 A. I never met Mr. Redmond.
4 Q. 583 And finally on the 18th of April at 2819.
14:19:31 5 A. No, I never met Mr. Redmond at any time.
6 Q. 584 There may also have been a meeting --
7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. 585 Sorry. Did you have a meeting with Mr. Cremin in April '94? If I could have
9 5073, please.
14:20:00 10 A. I don't believe so, no.
11 Q. 586 You say that you had no meetings in connection or no involvement in connection
12 with the Cherrywood lands after the vote on the 11th of November '93. Is that
13 right?
14 A. Yes, there is one, as I say, minute of a meeting if I can explain if you can
14:20:17 15 put it up.
16 Q. 587 Yes. What date is the meeting?
17 A. I think it's in early '94 with Willie Murray. I don't know what number it is.
18 Q. 588 Is that the 4th of January '94 I think.
19 A. I'll see if I have a note of it. Myself and Pat Lafferty went to meet him
14:20:34 20 about Nutgrove. Sorry. If it can be found. That's the only one that ....
21 Q. 589 There's a meeting of the 6th of January, '94. If I could have 4923, please.
22 Mr. Lafferty is noted as having attended a meeting with Willie Murray --
23 A. No, it's not that one, no.
24 Q. 590 It's not that one?
14:21:04 25 A. No, it's one later. If I can just ... that's the only one that I can recall
26 that I was with Willie Murray with. It ran on but the primary purpose of that
27 was Nutgrove was making some changes there, we were adding extensions. Pat
28 Lafferty was the project architect. And Willie Murray went on to talk about
29 Cherrywood and Pat kept the memo, because I didn't know what he was talking
14:21:48 30 about. Sorry. Just for the record.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
80
14:21:48 1 Q. 591 You had no understanding of what --
2 A. They were talking roads and all of that.
3 Q. 592 Access, is that correct?
4 A. It could have been, yeah. Sorry, I just can't put my finger on it now myself.
14:21:52 5 Q. 593 We'll come back to that if that's okay. If we could have 2764. There are a
6 series of expenses claims form, which you, if you have been present --
7 A. Sorry.
8 Q. 594 -- will have been dealt with a number of councillors. Can I just in the first
9 instance, without getting into the specifics. Was it the practice within the
14:22:11 10 Monarch Group for executives to submit expenses claims forms?
11 A. Yes, it was, yes.
12 Q. 595 And presumably that's for the purpose of being paid expenses incurred in
13 connection --
14 A. Yes, yes, with any development, which any ...
14:22:25 15 Q. 596 I agree, yes. The form itself had set out the company that the claim was to
16 be made in respect of or the project, isn't that right?
17 A. Yes, yes.
18 Q. 597 And there were so many different companies presumably there were so many
19 different projects coming on?
14:22:39 20 A. Charities.
21 Q. 598 So therefore whoever filled out the form gave the designation of the charge,
23 A. Well that was my practice anyway.
24 Q. 599 And it appears to have been Mr. Lynn's practice also. So, for example, if we
14:22:51 25 look at the claim form on screen which appears to be for January. I
26 understand it may be in fact for January 1993. This is a claim form submitted
27 by, is that your signature?
28 A. Yes, correct.
29 Q. 600 Is that company described by you as Somerton, Cherrywood and Ongar?
14:23:10 30 A. Ongar.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
81
14:23:12 1 Q. 601 They were the three projects which were before the council at that time?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 602 I think it's a claim form headed or the nature of the expense is Senate canvass
4 - T Ridge?
6 Q. 603 Can I ask you to explain to the Tribunal what that was in connection with?
7 A. Well she was running for the Senate. She was, as I said, a good friend of
8 mine, still is. By accident she said she was coming down to Meath and Cavan.
9 I am originally from Cavan and I live in Meath. And I said I know how tough
14:23:44 10 Senate campaigns are or I certainly knew after this day or two I spent with
11 her. And I said if you want a drive for a bit of company. And a friend of
12 mine, S MacEntee there joined us and we drove around Cavan and Meath, it was
13 just to give her a hand but I didn't take part. I didn't know any of the
14 councillors or anybody that she was going to visit. That's the background to
14:24:07 15 it. We did that again when ever the next election was.
16 Q. 604 Just before we leave that?
17 A. Yeah.
18 Q. 605 This is a -- your contribution to Ms. Ridge's election campaign?
19 A. Senate.
14:24:18 20 Q. 606 Senate campaign?
21 A. Yeah.
22 Q. 607 Ms. Ridge, is a friend of your's?
24 Q. 608 But it's being charged up to your employers Monarch, isn't that right?
26 Q. 609 It's being charged up in connection with Cherrywood, Somerton and Ongar, is
27 that right?
29 Q. 610 So presumably you and your employers, you are submitting an expense form claim
14:24:39 30 form to your employers and your employers sanctioning the payment must have

www.pcr.ie Day 657
82
14:24:42 1 been of the view that this was a worth while expenditure in relation to
2 Ms. Ridge?
3 A. Well I wouldn't quite put it like that. It was an expense that I incurred in
4 the course of the day and they paid it.
14:24:57 5 Q. 611 But it wasn't just a meeting with Ms. Ridge, it was incurred and identified
6 correctly as having being incurred in relation it her Senate canvass, isn't
7 that right?
8 A. Canvass, correct, yes.
9 Q. 612 Presumably as I understand it, I may be wrong, that Senators, or potential
14:25:17 10 senators have to canvass existing TDs and Senators and others councillors,
12 A. Councillors.
13 Q. 613 Only councillors?
14 A. Only councillors as I understand it.
14:25:24 15 Q. 614 So what we are looking at there is your contribution to transporting Ms. Ridge
16 to councillors somewhere in the State for support in connection with her 1993
17 campaign?
18 A. Cavan, Meath and Louth to be exact, yeah.
19 Q. 615 Did she select the councillors or did you select the councillors?
14:25:43 20 A. Oh, no she selected them. I didn't know any of them.
21 Q. 616 Did you solicit support from any councillors on behalf of Ms. Ridge?
22 A. No, I didn't know any of them. I just was the driver.
23 Q. 617 Now, if we could have page 4057, please. I think there's another
24 representation of an expense claim. This time assigned to the Ongar Stud in
14:26:08 25 relation to modest expenditure in connection with refreshments and
26 entertainment. Is that right?
27 A. Correct. Yes, that's correct.
28 Q. 618 Can I just ask you going back to the last expense claim form at 2764. How did
29 you, how did you decide to designate the expense to both -- to all three
14:26:28 30 projects. That is to say Cherrywood, Somerton and Ongar?

www.pcr.ie Day 657
83
14:26:33 1 A. I don't know. I suppose there wasn't any activity, I suppose, I don't know.
2 I suppose I put if in to them because maybe that was, when was it, January '93?
3 I don't really know, I suppose. I just put those down as possibly, you know,
4 that's the expense heading I put it in to.
14:26:52 5 Q. 619 There are no companies, Cherrywood, Somerton and Ongar. There are three
6 projects but no company, isn't that right?
7 A. No. That's right, yeah. I don't know where it was charged in the end.
8 Q. 620 Yes. Who would have decided where the charge would lay?
9 A. I'd say somebody in the accounts office would just pick one of those and put it
14:27:08 10 through.
11 Q. 621 Yes. Who had overall responsibility in the accounts office?
12 A. Well, I mean, the top man is back Mr. Glennane again, Dominic Glennane. But I
13 don't know if he ever got involved in the nitty gritty of minor payments like
14 that of where they were charged.
14:27:26 15 Q. 622 Nut whoever received in this expense must have been satisfied that you,
16 Mr. Reilly, had incurred an expense in relation to those three projects, isn't
17 that right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 623 For example if we could have 5729. This again is a modest expenditure in
14:27:40 20 relation to Ms. Ridge on the 15th of December. It's a Christmas time
21 expenditure but this time it's being written up under MPSL, isn't that right?
22 A. Yeah.
23 Q. 624 Not any of the--
24 A. No.
14:27:57 25 Q. 625 -- three projects?
26 A. No, I wasn't involved in any other.
27 Q. 626 Projects. Whereas you were involved in the Cherrywood project in '93, isn't
28 that right?
14:28:07 30 Q. 627 And might that have been the reason why you felt it was know an expense

www.pcr.ie Day 657
84
14:28:11 1 incurred in connection with Cherrywood?
2 A. Probably. Yeah, yeah.
3 Q. 628 I'm not going to go through the others. You have seen them in the --
4 A. Yeah.
14:28:18 5 Q. 629 -- in the brief. Unless there is anything in particular you want to draw to
6 the attention's Tribunal in relation to it?
7 A. No, I don't think so anyway.
8 Q. 630 Can I just go back to one document. Could I have 4346, please. This a is a
9 cost projection to the 1st of January 1994. It's so it's a cost projection
14:28:37 10 created in 1993. In fact the 1st of September 1993 as it appears from the
11 bottom left hand corner?
12 A. Okay.
13 Q. 631 I just want to get your assistance in relation to this. Do you see the last
14 three items? Item No. 12. This is a cost projection. "Carrickmines Valley
14:28:57 15 sewage scheme 1994. Third party costs to accelerate access to the sewer."
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 632 Can you give any indication to the Tribunal as to what sort of costs are
18 referred to there or are understood to be referred to there?
19 A. No, I'm sorry. I can't help.
14:29:14 20 Q. 633 Do you see the next one. No. 13. "Incentive bonus payments for Senior staff
21 1994 for achieving zoning and enhanced value of site."
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 634 Do you have any idea?
24 A. No.
14:29:25 25 Q. 635 Did you know that if there were a bonus system in place for senior staff in
26 1994?
27 A. No.
28 Q. 636 For achieving zoning and enhanced value?
29 A. No, no, it was never discussed. I think that was in an earlier document you
14:29:38 30 showed me.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
85
14:29:39 1 Q. 637 Yes. If such a system ask did exist having regard to your contribution
2 presumably you would have been entitled to benefit from such a scheme?
3 A. Yeah well there was no scheme that I was aware of.
4 Q. 638 Yes. Was Mr. Lynn in receipt of bonus payments 1994 or 1993?
14:29:55 5 A. Well I think I saw some correspondence on the GRE paper.
6 Q. 639 Yes.
7 A. Or some correspondence. That's all I knew. I never discussed his payments.
8 Q. 640 You didn't know at the time?
9 A. No.
14:30:05 10 Q. 641 And you never knew what Mr. Dunlop was being paid or what the arrangement was
11 for his payment.
12 A. No.
13 Q. 642 You never discussed his payment?
14 A. No.
14:30:11 15 Q. 643 And what system was in place between March 1993 and November 1993 between
16 yourself, Mr. Lynn and Mr. Dunlop and indeed Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Murray,
17 Mr. Monahan in relation to your progress with your canvassing of support from
18 councillors?
19 A. Well there wasn't any formal system that I recall. As I said, there was that
14:30:31 20 meeting in March. And then it went quiet for the summer.
21 Q. 644 Well how did you update each other on --
22 A. Well I suppose we spoke on the telephone or just had a quick chat but I don't
23 believe --
24 Q. 645 Were there ever any regular meetings where you would discuss the rate of
14:30:55 25 progress?
26 A. No, no, it was -- there were just informal discussions.
27 Q. 646 For example, when you first heard that Councillor Marren had come on board.
28 Was that at a meeting or a semi formal meeting in relation to the Cherrywood
29 site?
14:31:07 30 A. I can't say exactly. It was just, it could have been Richard standing outside

www.pcr.ie Day 657
86
14:31:14 1 my door talking to somebody else saying it's good news Mr. Marren will support
2 the scheme.
3 Q. 647 And you'll have over heard what he said?
4 A. Not over heard. He might have said, listen this is the latest development.
14:31:26 5 Q. 648 Just in relation to your offices, you had told us I think you had an office in
6 Tallaght for a time and you had an office in Harcourt Street?
7 A. Harcourt Street up to the time I left my employment.
8 Q. 649 Yes. Had Mr. Glennane an office. Where was Mr. Glennane's office?
9 A. He was on the first floor.
14:31:42 10 Q. 650 In Harcourt Street?
12 Q. 651 Mr. Murray?
13 A. He was next to him.
14 Q. 652 Mr. Sweeney?
14:31:47 15 A. He was at the back of the reception.
16 Q. 653 In Harcourt Street?
17 A. In Harcourt Street, yeah.
18 Q. 654 Mr. Phil Monahan?
19 A. He was in Somerton. He'd no office in Harcourt Street. When he'd come in
14:31:57 20 he'd use the board room the seldom time he'd come in.
21 Q. 655 And what about Mr. Lynn?
22 A. Mr. Lynn had an office on the same floor as I had.
23 Q. 656 Was it close to your office?
24 A. Next door to it.
14:32:08 25 Q. 657 So the two of you operated out of the same floor, next door offices?
26 A. Yeah.
27 Q. 658 What about Mr. Paul Monahan?
28 A. No, I don't think he was around much at the time. If he was he was in
29 Somerton.
14:32:19 30 Q. 659 I think Ms. Gosling has given evidence that she was in Somerton?

www.pcr.ie Day 657
87
14:32:22 1 A. Somerton, that's right, yes.
2 Q. 660 Thank you very much, Mr. Reilly.
3 A. Thank you.
14:32:27 5 CHAIRMAN: All right. Mr. Sanfey?
7 THE WITNESS WAS QUESTIONED BY MR. SANFEY AS FOLLOWS:
9 MR. SANFEY: Just one or two questions, Mr. Chairman.
14:32:33 10
11 Q. 661 Mr. Reilly, you weren't at -- well in attendance in May 1992 in relation to the
12 vote on the Manager's proposals, isn't that right?
13 A. No, I wasn't there, no.
14 Q. 662 So you certainly can't assist us as to Mr. Lynn's whereabouts on that day?
14:32:49 15 A. No, no.
16 Q. 663 In relation to the Marren Coffey motion in November 1993. You were present on
17 that day I think?
18 A. I was but not in the chamber.
19 Q. 664 Yes. Is, what's your recollection of Mr. Lynn's movements on those, on that
14:33:03 20 date?
21 A. I think he was in the chamber most of the day.
22 Q. 665 Is that what you would have expected?
23 A. Oh, I would have yeah. I would have stayed in the chamber when there was a
24 vote on, yeah.
14:33:14 25 Q. 666 In March 1993 when Mr. Dunlop was taken on board, did you have any idea at that
26 time that Mr. Dunlop's modus operandi, if I can put it that way, was to pay
27 money to councillors for votes?
29 Q. 667 To your knowledge did anybody in Monarch have that understanding?
14:33:35 30 A. No.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
88
14:33:36 1 Q. 668 You are not aware of anybody in Monarch having that understanding?
2 A. Absolutely not, no.
3 Q. 669 Thank you, Chairman.
14:33:43 5 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Do you want to ask any questions?
6 Could I just ask you, Mr. Reilly, in relation. In relation to the issue of
7 the extent of the briefing that you got before going off to lobby councillors
8 or talk to councillors.
9 A. Uh-huh.
14:34:09 10
11 CHAIRMAN: You got little or no briefing, as I understand. You say you knew
12 very little about the detail of what was being proposed or what plans Monarch
13 had in relation to the lands. Presumably, when you went to talk to
14 councillors you would want to be in a position where you could deal with
14:34:30 15 queries that they would raise. I'm just wondering how you've -- how you
16 carried out that function without detailed briefing?
17 A. Yeah. I mean, as I said earlier, for the November vote itself, what we were
18 looking for was seeking the manager's support. If a councillor had a query, I
19 would get Richard to deal with it. I would call Richard in and say look
14:35:05 20 there's a query on this or a query on , that you know, that ....
21
22 CHAIRMAN: Does that mean that you saw your job as merely a messenger where
23 you would go to one of the councillors that you knew and say please vote for
24 whatever?
14:35:22 25 A. That was the extent of what I did.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: Without knowing much about what you were asking them to?
28 A. I was clear on what I was asking them to support the manager's position.
29
14:35:34 30 CHAIRMAN: Yes, but if they turned to you and said well what is the manager's

www.pcr.ie Day 657
89
14:35:38 1 position would you have been able to answer them?
2 A. I would have said it was four houses to the acre on septic tank.
4 CHAIRMAN: And would that be the extent of your --
14:35:56 5 A. That was the extent of all I needed. I didn't have any plans or motions or
6 any documents with me.
8 CHAIRMAN: And who would tell you that, that such a motion was coming up next?
9 A. Richard Lynn.
14:36:01 10
11 CHAIRMAN: Richard Lynn. So he would effectively point you in the direction
12 of the council or the councillors?
13 A. Correct.
14
14:36:08 15 CHAIRMAN: Or the councillors from time to time.
17
18 CHAIRMAN: And did, in practice did councillors question you as to the pros
19 and cons of a particular motion or --
14:36:19 20 A. Well, I would believe that by the time I was in the lobby of the hall that
21 Richard would have met most of them and explained in detail what was -- what
22 was proposed etc. No, there was very few queries from me but, again, without
23 I suppose describing me as the messenger, I wasn't the lead singer, if you want
24 to put it that way. I was only assisting Richard to the extent I've already
14:36:46 25 explained.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: But was there a tendency amongst the councillors that you would
28 approach or lobby in this way to say yes, confirm yes, I'll support that or?
29 A. Not necessarily. Some of them said no. Some said that they would think
14:37:03 30 about it. And some wouldn't give any commitment.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
90
14:37:07 1 CHAIRMAN: But you wouldn't then engage in any discussion with them about it,
2 possibly in an effort to change their view?
3 A. Well, yeah, I wasn't -- no, I would say to them, as I recall, you know, it's
4 the manager's position. We hope you can support it. The local councillors
14:37:24 5 are supporting it and if you could please help. That was the extent of my
6 canvass.
8 CHAIRMAN: And why were you brought in for that purpose? Was it because of
9 your close link to the councillors involved?
14:37:42 10 A. No.
11
12 CHAIRMAN: I mean, you weren't being brought in as an expert in any shape?
13 A. No, correct that's true. I was brought in because I was quite well known to a
14 number of councillors in the Tallaght area. The second thing was, I suppose,
14:37:57 15 it was a reminder to the great scheme that has made such a difference to
16 Tallaght even up to this very day. It was a catalyst for all of the
17 development. The -- Monarch were good developers, they delivered on what they
18 said. And I suppose I was almost there like as a reminder to those people of
19 that, as I said, the show case, the Tallaght show case.
14:38:21 20
21 CHAIRMAN: Did you have any sense yourself that Monarch were -- that Monarch
22 were in effect paying money to councillors either for their support or to keep
23 them on side, so to speak?
24 A. No, not in that sense.
14:38:42 25
26 CHAIRMAN: You didn't think that was the?
27 A. No, absolutely not, no. The payments were made, as we've talked about and as
28 you've seen, generally at election time or subsequent to that when they wrote
29 in for contributions to golf days or whatever other charities that they wanted
14:39:03 30 to support.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
91
14:39:03 1 CHAIRMAN: But do you think the generosity of Monarch would have been at the
2 level it was if Cherrywood didn't exist?
3 A. Well my experience, and all I can talk about is my experience of Monarch was.
4 I referred to it earlier, that certainly at Tallaght and it continued after
14:39:22 5 Tallaght, that they were very generous to the community at large. I mentioned
6 that there was I believe almost 40,000 pounds donated to the Education Awards
7 in Tallaght. And these were kids that although that they were getting free
8 education, it was to support them buying clothes, books or whatever else. I
9 remember in Dun Laoghaire that they set up the golf show, which still -- not
14:39:46 10 the golf show, the horse show, it still runs today. And by the nature of the
11 business that we're in in terms of shopping centres. It is the focal point of
12 the community and even to today the shopping centres I manage, all they are
13 continual requests for payments from charity events etc..
14
14:40:06 15 CHAIRMAN: Well charity is one thing --
16 A. Yes, yes.
17
18 CHAIRMAN: Paying -- making contributions or paying councillors -- paying
19 politicians is a slightly different category.
14:40:18 20 A. Yes.
21
22 CHAIRMAN: It's not a charity.
23 A. No. But today there are still requests coming in for golf classics etc. for
24 politicians, to this day.
14:40:29 25
26 CHAIRMAN: And what about contributions at election time?
27 A. Well I haven't had an election in a couple of years. I don't -- I can't
28 remember now just at this stage. I'll have to think about that.
29

www.pcr.ie Day 657
92
14:40:44 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes. Just one or two things. Could I have document 8596,
2 please. I think that's the one. Yes, it is. Mr. Reilly, could I just ask
3 you a couple of things about that document. Maybe that's not the one I'm
4 looking for. It might be one prior to that. But anyway, Mr. Quinn asked you
14:41:04 5 about a document where there's references between April '89 and October '90.
6 That there's sums of money -- it isn't that one I'll have to look -- it should
7 be attributable to being paid. Do you understand? There was sums put to you
8 --
9 A. Yeah, that's right.
14:41:20 10
11 JUDGE FAHERTY: -- earlier by Mr. Quinn --
12 A. Yes.
13
14 JUDGE FAHERTY: 50,000 in April '89. 150,000 in April 1990 and October 1990
14:41:30 15 100,000.
16 A. Yes.
17
18 JUDGE FAHERTY: I think there's one document where there's a composite, they
19 are all on the one document and they add up to 300,000.
14:41:38 20 A. Yes.
21
22 JUDGE FAHERTY: And it would appear that --
23
24 MR. QUINN: 3061.
14:41:51 25
26 JUDGE FAHERTY: Thanks Mr. Quinn. That's the one I'm looking for probably.
27 Yes. Do you see that document?
28 A. That's the total amount, yeah.
29
14:42:02 30 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes, exactly. And it's made up of the three composite amount

www.pcr.ie Day 657
93
14:42:05 1 we've talked about. That's headed L&C payments accounts.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 670 Do you see the very top line?
4 A. Yes.
14:42:15 5
6 JUDGE FAHERTY: Do you know what that means?
7 A. I do not know and I didn't see this document until I got it from the Tribunal
8 itself. Just for the record, I've asked my solicitor to query from that
9 figure came from. To repeat I did not receive 300,000 Euro or 300,000 pounds.
14:42:34 10
11 JUDGE FAHERTY: I just want to ask, a lot of the sums there would appear that
12 monies paid out by L&C to various suppliers, isn't that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14
14:42:43 15 JUDGE FAHERTY: And presumably most of those, there's Murrays Van Rental there
16 for example and Mondello Sports Limited and various other consultancies and
17 suppliers obviously.
19
14:42:59 20 JUDGE FAHERTY: And I think this was in relation to Tallaght, is that correct?
21 A. Yes, L&C Properties was Tallaght, yes.
22
23 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes, I think Mr. Quinn mentioned that. And presumably
24 most -- you will be able to give this general evidence. That most amounts
14:43:13 25 paid out by L&C Properties would be on foot of invoices.
26 A. Correct, yes, that's right. All that, yeah, you needed paper to get anything.
27
28 JUDGE FAHERTY: For actually, for sums to be paid out.
29 A. Yes.
14:43:24 30

www.pcr.ie Day 657
94
14:43:24 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: Are you surprised to see the sum of 300,000.
2 A. Absolutely.
4 JUDGE FAHERTY: Attributed to you. That either you got that for you work
14:43:33 5 that you did as PR work. Or you got it to pay for PR work.
6 A. No. I can assure you --
8 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes, I know that.
9 A. Absolutely surprised.
14:43:42 10
11 JUDGE FAHERTY: Are you surprised to see that attribution to you
12 A. Yes absolutely surprised. I've asked my solicitor to get details of that.
13
14 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes. Because this is -- we don't know and I can't say
14:43:54 15 obviously how the sums, how it comes to be described thus in this document.
16 But would you agree with me that if the books of L&C were audited by the
17 Revenue back in, back in 1993 or '94 or whatever time they might -- that they
18 would -- that you would be seen as having received 300,000 over and above.
19 And you were an employee of --
21
22 JUDGE FAHERTY: Who employed you exactly?
23 A. I think it was Monarch Properties Services Limited.
24
14:44:28 25 JUDGE FAHERTY: Monarch Properties Services. But wouldn't you agree with me
26 that that, if it had been audited, you are down as an employee and you were
27 paid and your tax was deducted.
28 A. Correct.
29
14:44:41 30 JUDGE FAHERTY: But it would appear that you received extra monies.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
95
14:44:44 1 A. I have to keep repeating.
3 JUDGE FAHERTY: Oh absolutely. Somebody could come to that conclusion that
4 either as a sole trader or as an independent contractor or whatever.
14:44:54 5 A. They could. They would be totally wrong. The only thing I can put it down
6 to was, part of my public relations role for Tallaght, dealing with the
7 community groups etc. We would have spent approximately one and a half to
8 2,00000 pounds on all of the various launches, promotions, activities within
9 that. Whether that figure is put against it or not.
14:45:16 10
11 JUDGE FAHERTY: Why would that be attributed you to you specifically?
12 A. I don't know.
13
14 JUDGE FAHERTY: You were an employee but at that rate they could pick anybody
14:45:22 15 and just attribute that sum to.
16 A. Maybe I was identified in having the public relations role.
17
18 JUDGE FAHERTY: But surely, Mr. Reilly, you are employed. If you were doing
19 that work, that was part of your job if you like. You were there, you were
14:45:46 20 the group manager.
22
23 JUDGE FAHERTY: And you were on the ground in Tallaght and that's what you
24 were being paid for, isn't that correct?
14:45:47 25 A. That's correct, yeah. And I have asked, as I said, for how that figure is
26 made up, through my solicitor.
27
28 JUDGE FAHERTY: Fair enough.
29 A. And please God we'll be able to get that detail.
14:45:55 30

www.pcr.ie Day 657
96
14:45:55 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: But you were surprised in any event?
2 A. Astounded. Not surprised, astounded
4 JUDGE FAHERTY: And can I is ask you just to deal with something else in your
14:46:05 5 responses there to Mr. Quinn in relation to the claim form for January 1993.
6 You said I think that you made a claim regarding three projects.
7 A. Yes.
9 JUDGE FAHERTY: Or referred to three projects Cherrywood, Ongar and I think it
14:46:18 10 was Somerton. And this was the day you were driving Ms. Ridge?
11 A. Correct, yes. Days I think there were two days.
12
13 JUDGE FAHERTY: Did you discuss matters with her on that day, Mr. ?
14 A. Not about, no -- we were, what do you call it we were trying to find out where
14:46:36 15 this guy lived or this councillor lived or what roads to take.
16
18 A. And whatever.
19
14:46:41 20 JUDGE FAHERTY: Presumably that sum was paid?
21 A. Oh, it was, yes.
22
23 JUDGE FAHERTY: If you were able to put in an expenses claim form for that
24 particular day, whatever day in January it was. Obviously, you did so as an
14:46:57 25 employee of Monarch?
26 A. Monarch Properties Services, yeah.
27
28 JUDGE FAHERTY: And obviously you hadn't taken a day off to assist a friend.
29 A. No, I was working.
14:47:06 30

www.pcr.ie Day 657
97
14:47:06 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: So you were working for Monarch
2 A. Yes, that's right, yes.
4 JUDGE FAHERTY: Driving Ms. Ridge effectively.
14:47:12 5 A. Exactly. Well I was doing it as a friend, I can assure you of that. Nobody
6 asked me to go out and drive her around. I volunteered.
8 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes. But then why bill Monarch for the costs of the lunch or
9 whatever it was or the petrol or whatever you were billing Monarch for,
14:47:27 10 Mr. Reilly. If you were doing it as a friend?
11 A. Well that was what I did.
12
13 JUDGE FAHERTY: You didn't take a day's leave to say well I'm off today to
14 help a friend, isn't that correct?
14:47:38 15 A. That's correct, yeah.
16
17 JUDGE FAHERTY: I mean, you saw fit to bill the company.
18 A. Yes. And the company paid it.
19
14:47:44 20 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes. And that -- so you must have regarded it as being in
21 the nature of your duties for the company then.
22 A. Yes. I suppose yes if you want to put it that way, yeah.
23
24 JUDGE FAHERTY: And just one other matter. You said the late Mr. Hand, you
14:48:02 25 didn't -- you were brought in late '92 I think you said or after the vote.
26 A. Well sorry, yeah, I became actively involved.
27
28 JUDGE FAHERTY: You knew about the whole, obviously the proposals.
29 A. Yeah.
14:48:14 30

www.pcr.ie Day 657
98
14:48:14 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: Do you know who in Monarch dealt with Mr. Hand or talked to or
2 liaised with Mr. Hand?
3 A. Sorry, I believe it was Richard Lynn, I believe.
14:48:22 5 JUDGE FAHERTY: Was it? You had said earlier that you were liaising with
6 Fine Gael people. The late Mr. Hand was Fine Gael.
7 A. Sorry, Frank Dunlop said that. I did have some Fine Gael people but I did
8 cover others --
14:48:35 10 JUDGE FAHERTY: You mentioned more than Fine Gael people, in fairness to
11 yourself, including Mr. O'Connor. You didn't have any interactions in
12 relation to mr. Hand?
13 A. Not with Mr. Hand, no.
14
14:48:44 15 JUDGE FAHERTY: Thanks very much.
16
17 JUDGE KEYS: Yes. Mr. Reilly, I wonder could you answer this question for
18 me. do you believe that it's a healthy practice where you have a development
19 company, such as Monarch, who has, who is in the process of attempting to
14:49:04 20 rezone part of its lands, or all of its lands, to pay councillors monies during
21 the process of that rezoning project?
22 A. Well if I can answer you personally just to clear this.
23
24 JUDGE KEYS: Yes.
14:49:22 25 A. I mean any of the payments that I recommended there was no ties to them
26 whatsoever.
27
28 JUDGE KEYS: Whether there are ties or not?
29 A. Yeah.
14:49:29 30

www.pcr.ie Day 657
99
14:49:29 1 JUDGE KEYS: Do you think it is healthy that a development company who is
2 under going a process of, attempting to rezone its lands, pay considerable sums
3 of money to councillors even at election time when they have the power to vote
4 on whether that piece of land is rezoned or not?
14:49:51 5 A. Well I suppose having gone through this I'd prefer if it wasn't done.
7 JUDGE KEYS: Pardon?
8 A. I'd prefer if it wasn't done, yes.
14:49:58 10 JUDGE KEYS: Well do you think it's unhealthy, do you think there's something
11 wrong with it or do you think it's all right?
12 A. If you have to go through a Tribunal like I have I'd prefer it wasn't done to
13 be honest with you.
14
14:50:09 15 JUDGE KEYS: Well, I mention that because as I understand it, when you were
16 talking to Mr. Lynn in relation to what politicians should receive donations.
17 He more or less, as I understand your evidence, said words to the effect well
18 we'll be meeting these people in the future.
19 A. Correct, yes.
14:50:28 20
21 JUDGE KEYS: Now, one can read into that enormous lengths such as that we'll
22 have to meet these people again in the future because we're depending on their
23 votes to sway the council in voting in favour of rezoning their lands?
24 A. Yeah.
14:50:43 25
26 JUDGE KEYS: But surely there's something wrong with that?
27 A. No. Well again, I think it's back to I don't believe. I'm saying this,
28 obviously.
29
14:50:51 30 JUDGE KEYS: Yes

www.pcr.ie Day 657
100
14:50:52 1 A. That any of those payments were linked to them doing something. All right?
3 JUDGE KEYS: But why would any company pay large sums of monies like that?
4 Why?
14:51:04 5 A. Well it was a tradition in the company. Because again, going back to, I
6 suppose, shopping centres, with the nature of it being the focal point no more
7 than when my own father was in business, when it was a small pub down the
8 country, when there was a raffle on for something else --
14:51:23 10 JUDGE KEYS: Well a raffle is different.
11 A. I know that.
12
13 JUDGE KEYS: I'm talking about money, cash, either by cash or cheque --
14 A. Cheque.
14:51:30 15
16 JUDGE KEYS: Into somebody's hand. And they are in the process of
17 considering whether a company who has given them that money is going to have
18 their lands rezoned which in turn will make that particular company very well
19 off.
14:51:43 20 A. Well, I think it's incumbent on any company, and I'm not defending Monarch or
21 whatever, my own company, to try and get them maximum for what they are doing,
22 okay?
23
24 JUDGE KEYS: Yes but it depends on how you do it. There are ways of doing it,
14:51:57 25 there is the correct way and the incorrect way.
26 A. My understanding, which I queried at the time was this okay from Richard Lynn.
27
28 JUDGE KEYS: Yes.
29 A. And he said yes, these were elections expenses.
14:52:07 30

www.pcr.ie Day 657
101
14:52:07 1 JUDGE KEYS: And these were people we're going to be meeting again.
2 A. Correct.
4 JUDGE KEYS: And meeting again whether in the context of whether we can secure
14:52:16 5 their vote in our favour so that we can rezone our lands and develop them
6 A. I don't think he extended it to that.
8 JUDGE KEYS: No I know but can you give me another meaning then? Why would
9 they want to meet them again if that's the case? For what purpose?
14:52:29 10 A. Because by the nature of when you're dealing with councillors etc. you want to
11 be able to get access to them all right?
12
13 JUDGE KEYS: Yes.
14 A. And you were supporting, I suppose, to some extent the democracy and that
14:52:46 15 you -- what do you call it, made these donations.
16
17 JUDGE KEYS: Couldn't democracy be supported in other ways for example,
18 Monarch could have said to the Fianna Fail party we will give a lump sum to
19 headquarters for them to equally distribute the monies to the councillors
14:53:02 20 rather than the company individually paying councillors who had the actual vote
21 in deciding that the lands were going to be rezoned or not.
22 A. Well payments were made from the records I have seen to headquarters, whatever,
23 and what happened it I don't know after that.
24
14:53:22 25 JUDGE KEYS: Well put it like this. Do you think that Monarch would have
26 paid those sums of monies if they had no property in Cherrywood or in that area
27 and there was no motions going to come before the council? Do you think these
28 councillors would have been paid any monies by Monarch?
29 A. I think some of the councillors would have been paid by Monarch.
14:53:45 30

www.pcr.ie Day 657
102
14:53:45 1 JUDGE KEYS: Even though they have no business interests whatsoever in the
2 area, the company has no development plans?
3 A. Well I can take it and bring it back to my '92 memo that I asked for. There
4 was no Development Plans I'm aware of that the council were involved in at that
14:54:04 5 time or since. And those monies were paid on, at my request, on the basis
6 that I believed that it was good to have a strong representation in the Dail to
7 try and approve Tallaght.
9 JUDGE KEYS: That was in relation to yourself. I'm talking about the company
14:54:20 10 Monarch as a whole.
11 A. Sorry.
12
13 JUDGE KEYS: I asked you did you believe that Monarch as a whole, Mr. Lynn,
14 along with all of the other members of the company would have paid these sort
14:54:32 15 of monies if they had no development plans in the area and no motions were
16 going to come before the council?
17 A. Monarch paid the memo that I put through.
18
19 JUDGE KEYS: I know that.
14:54:41 20 A. Right. But Monarch paid it. Yes, if that's the answer that you want. At
21 that stage that they did that they had no activity in Tallaght at that stage.
22
23 JUDGE KEYS: Well can I put it like this. I do take it then -- I think the
24 opening of this module there was a figure of something like half a million
14:55:00 25 mentioned in relation to monies which were paid in contributions, call them
26 contributions. Are you saying that that sum of money would have been paid
27 irrespective of whether Monarch had any interest in building or looking for
28 rezoning in the Cherrywood area?
29 A. Well again I think I was an employee of the company. I think that's something
14:55:19 30 that should be perhaps addressed to the directors of the company.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
103
14:55:22 1 JUDGE KEYS: Yes but you are part of the company. You were part of a group
2 of people who went out to canvass councillors. I'm just asking you for your
3 views. You may think it's an unfair question because you don't want to say
4 anything which may damage Monarch but it's a question which I think is very
14:55:36 5 pertinent.
6 A. I have come here to be very honest.
8 JUDGE KEYS: Yes.
9 A. With what I believe.
14:55:40 10
11 JUDGE KEYS: Yes.
12 A. If there was half a million pounds, I didn't think it was that high that was
13 paid over.
14
14:55:46 15 JUDGE KEYS: It's over a period of time now.
16 A. Over 12 or 14 years.
17
18 JUDGE KEYS: At a time when all developments were going on in these areas.
19 Where Monarch had, as I understand it, had business interests, they had lands
14:55:59 20 to be rezoned. They were involved in Tallaght and so forth. I'm just asking
21 you, do you believe that the same sort of monies or the level of monies being
22 paid if this development wasn't being carried on by this company at all?
23 A. I, I suppose I -- if you want. Let me just think about that for a moment.
24 Would they have paid out the money.
14:56:22 25
26 JUDGE KEYS: Yes.
27 A. I don't know I suppose is my answer. If you want a personal opinion on the
28 future, which I suppose this whole Tribunal, it's better if no monies were paid
29 by any organisation, whether a developer or whatever, to a political party.
14:56:39 30

www.pcr.ie Day 657
104
14:56:39 1 JUDGE KEYS: Well perhaps at a time when you may be correct, I don't know,
2 it's a matter of -- we'll have to think about in more detail. But perhaps
3 that's why I asked you. Is it fair or sorry -- is it proper really that when
4 you have a business interest like a motion pending before a council, that that
14:56:59 5 particular company should depart money to politicians who have the power to say
6 you will succeed or you will not succeed? That's the point I'm making. It
7 goes back to --
8 A. Well I suppose having looked back on the last ten years it's preferable if they
9 didn't do that.
14:57:17 10
11 JUDGE KEYS: Do you agree then it's an unhealthy point of view from the point
12 of view of democracy and the public perception that people would have a
13 perception of politicians.
14 A. Well people's perception is certainly it's not healthy. From my experience
14:57:30 15 with the Monarch people. I always found them to be honest, straight forward
16 people. Any of the payments that were made, were made, what do you call it
17 the cheques were made payable to the councillors or to the parties themselves.
18 And they were straight forward.
19
14:57:46 20 JUDGE KEYS: Yes. Thank you very much.
21
22 MR. SANFEY: Judge, just before we finish. There was just one point you made
23 when you were speaking to Mr. O'Reilly. I think you referred to a sum of 500
24 pounds paid as political contributions referred to in the opening. I wonder if
14:58:01 25 I could just clarify that by reading from Ms. Dillon's opening statement.
26
27 MS. DILLON: I think it was under inquiry. It wasn't suggested that half a
28 million pounds for political contributions. What I said in the opening
29 statement was looking at all of the figures that were the subject matter of
14:58:17 30 inquiry in this module, they amounted to 510,000 pounds.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
105
14:58:21 1 JUDGE KEYS: I just called them contributions.
3 MR. SANFEY: If we could just clarify --
14:58:27 5 CHAIRMAN: Certainly.
7 MR. SANFEY: -- that they were political contributions. And if I may also
8 point out that Ms. Dillon just before breaking down that 500,000 pounds also
9 said it's not being suggesting that the full sum of 508,000 pounds amount to
14:58:40 10 corrupt payments but rather by reason of the matters that are set out in this
11 opening they have become the subject of inquiry.
12
13 So subject to that clarification.
14
14:58:48 15 JUDGE KEYS: I'm not stating whether the 500,000 pounds. I don't want it to
16 be interpreted by anybody that they were corrupt payments. I'm just saying
17 that a sum of money was paid out in certain circumstances. I just asked the
18 witness whether in fact it was healthy bearing in mind that the people
19 receiving the monies had in fact had the power to decide whether the company
14:59:10 20 benefits or not from their vote.
21
22 MR. SANFEY: Yes, I suppose Judge, the point I wanted to clarify is that I
23 don't think it ever has been suggested that the 500,000 pounds all went to
24 politicians.
14:59:19 25
26 JUDGE KEYS: Fair enough. That clarifies the matter.
27
28 MS. DILLON: Just to be absolutely clear about it.
29 There are a number of those payments that, withdrawals and payments cheques
14:59:29 30 drawn on the books of Monarch where it is not known who the payee was. And

www.pcr.ie Day 657
106
14:59:36 1 it's not to say that they're not political payments. The situation is that
2 the payee or the recipient of the monies is not yet known but may become known.
4 JUDGE KEYS: Well that clarifies the matter.
14:59:53 5
6 MR. QUINN: Sir, there was just one matter arising out of Mr. Reilly's answer
7 to Judge keys.
9 THE WITNESS WAS QUESTIONED BY MR. QUINN AS FOLLOWS:
14:59:54 10
11 Q. 671 I think, Mr. Reilly, you referred if I could have 3910 to your payments in
12 November '92, isn't that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 672 And I think you said that they had nothing to do with the Cherrywood project.
16 A. Sorry, I said that they were for, as far as I was concerned they were for
17 Tallaght.
18 Q. 673 You may not know this but the evidence I think will show that they were
19 assigned to the Cherrywood project?
15:00:17 20 A. Were they, yeah, sorry. I didn't know that, sorry. Okay.
21
22 CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you very much.
23 A. Thank you.
24
15:00:23 25 CHAIRMAN: Is that the?
26
27 MS. DILLON: That's the conclusion of the witnesses for today.
28
29 There are two witnesses for tomorrow morning, commencing at half ten. And
15:00:30 30 it's anticipated that they will both conclude before lunchtime tomorrow.

www.pcr.ie Day 657
107
15:00:34 1
2 CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you. Half ten.
4 MS. DILLON: Thank you.
15:08:53 5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 657
1
2 23RD JUNE, 2006, AT 10:30 A.M.:
4 MR. QUINN: Mr. Colm McGrath, please.
10:33:44 5
6 CHAIRMAN: Good morning.
8 MR. COLM McGRATH HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS QUESTIONED
9 BY MR. QUINN AS FOLLOWS:
10:34:16 10
11 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Mr. McGrath.
12 A. Good morning.
13
14 Q. 1 MR. QUINN: Good morning, Mr. McGrath.
16 Q. 2 Mr. McGrath, you were a member of Dublin County Council I think from 1985 until
17 December 1993 and thereafter I think you became a member of South Dublin County
18 Council, isn't that right?
19 A. Yes.
10:34:31 20 Q. 3 You had been first elected I think in June 1985 is that correct? You had been
21 reelected in the June 1991?
22 A. Yes, I think we've established all of that already.
23 Q. 4 Yes. And you were written to I think in November 2000 by the Tribunal and you
24 were advised -- if we could have 1482, please -- that the Tribunal were
10:34:53 25 investigating certain allegations being made. Isn't that correct?
26 A. Yeah.
27 Q. 5 And in particular, that since 1990 you had directly or indirectly received on a
28 number of occasions monies from Mr. Dunlop in connection with certain rezoning
29 projects, isn't that correct?
10:35:10 30 A. No.

www.pcr.ie Day 658
2
10:35:11 1 Q. 6 And you responded to that letter. If we could have 1485, please. On the
2 14th of December 2000. And in that letter you advised the Tribunal that you'd
3 received unconditional political donations from Monarch Properties amongst
4 others, donations typically 500 pounds by way of cheque and lodged to your bank
10:35:33 5 account, isn't that correct?
6 A. Um, yeah.
7 Q. 7 And you say that "Monarch Properties and/or Richard Lynn supported my
8 fundraising and unconditional cheque donations were lodged to my bank account."
9 Isn't that correct?
10:35:43 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 8 I think earlier this year you were written to in the context of lands at
12 Cherrywood. That's a letter of the 14th of March, 2006. Which is at both
13 pages 1493 and 1494 of the brief. And you responded I think on the 18th of
14 April 2006. And I think you advised the Tribunal that you'd been lobbied by
10:36:01 15 Mr. Lynn on several occasions and you recall contact with Mr. Philip Reilly and
16 Mr. Richard Lynn. Is that correct?
17 A. That's not up but I remember that, yes, yeah.
18 Q. 9 Yes. And you said that you could not recall any contact from Mr. Philip
19 Monahan, Eddie Sweeney or Dominic Glennane, is that correct?
10:36:21 20 A. Yes, that's correct.
21 Q. 10 And I think you said that you never received any payment from anybody in
22 relation to the Cherrywood lands?
24 Q. 11 You said Monarch Properties, Richard Lynn, Glenroy Properties Limited, Frank
10:36:29 25 Dunlop & Associates supported your fundraising on various occasions, is that
26 correct?
27 A. Yes, yeah.
28 Q. 12 And then you referred cheques you said from fundraising events would have been
29 lodged to your bank account and you gave your bank account details.
10:36:42 30 A. Yeah.

www.pcr.ie Day 658
3
10:36:42 1 Q. 13 Now, just in relation to these lands. You were elected I think for the Lucan
2 ward, is that right? For south --
3 A. Clondalkin.
4 Q. 14 Clondalkin.
10:36:51 5 A. Yeah.
6 Q. 15 The lands in Cherrywood would not, you wouldn't have been the local councillor
7 for the lands in Cherrywood, isn't that right?
8 A. No, no.
9 Q. 16 But you recall, I take it, being in attendance in late 1990 at a series of
10:37:04 10 special meetings of the council to review the Development Plan. And you may
11 or may not recall the manager proposing certain proposals for development of
12 lands including the Cherrywood lands. If we could have 6397. This is a map
13 which is referred to as DP90/123 which would have included the Cherrywood area.
14 Do you recall that?
10:37:28 15 A. Vaguely, yes.
16 Q. 17 Yes. I think the records of the meetings, the special meetings show you in
17 attendance?
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. 18 I think the Cherrywood lands or the Monarch lands are to be seen on the bottom
10:37:39 20 right hand corner of that map. You would have attended those meeting, isn't
21 that right?
22 A. Yes, I was there I'm sure, yeah.
23 Q. 19 Yes. If we have 6930 I think it shows you being in attendance on the 18th of
24 October 1990.
10:37:55 25 A. Uh-huh.
26 Q. 20 And again on the 16th of November 1990, at 6945, you are again recorded as
27 having been in attendance. And then I think the matter came on by way of a
28 motion on the 6th of December 1990. If I could have 6952. Again, you are
29 recorded as having been in attendance.
10:38:14 30

www.pcr.ie Day 658
4
10:38:14 1 Just before I get to that meeting on the 6th of December 1990. Evidence has
2 been given to the Tribunal, Mr. McGrath, by Mr. Fergal McCabe, who is a well
3 known planner, who had been retained by the Monarch interest. Did you know
4 Mr. McCabe?
10:38:32 5 A. Not personally no.
6 Q. 21 Did you ever meet Mr. McCabe?
7 A. I think I met him in the recent past but not around that time.
8 Q. 22 Yes. And it was Mr. McCabe's recollection that he had a meeting with three
9 councillors on the eve of this meeting on the 5th, 6th of September 1990. If
10:38:50 10 I could have day 650, please, page 111.
11
12 Mr. McCabe had an involvement at that time with the council of Irish Planning
13 Institute and had been requested to attend a meeting with a number of
14 councillors. And he identified two of those councillors as being Deputy Liam
10:39:18 15 Lawlor, who would in 1990 have been a member of Dublin County Council, yourself
16 and possibly Councillor GV Wright. A meeting which may have taken place in
17 Buswells Hotel. Do you have any recollection of any such meeting?
18 A. No.
19 Q. 23 Could such a meeting have taken place?
10:39:39 20 A. Well ...
21 Q. 24 And you would have forgotten about?
22 A. I think you know the answer to that yourself now.
23 Q. 25 Yeah.
24 A. Let's not be silly now.
10:39:47 25 Q. 26 Sorry, Mr.--
26
27 CHAIRMAN: Mr. McGrath, that is not silly. You are being asked. We have to
28 be certain what your evidence is. You're being asked --
29 A. I'm being asked a hypothetical question, Chairman.
10:39:58 30

www.pcr.ie Day 658
5
10:39:58 1 CHAIRMAN: No. You are being asked -- then you can give an answer. But it's
2 not a silly question and a response like that is not called for.
3 A. Well, I mean, a lot of what's being put to me before we even get into the
4 questioning is already established fact. I have no recollection. I have
10:40:13 5 already said I have no recollection of having a meeting with Mr. Fergal McCabe.
6 So why is not just then left like that?
8 CHAIRMAN: Because the answer then could have been I'm absolutely certain I
9 may not have met him. Or I could have met him but I cannot recall.
10:40:31 10 A. Chairman, with respect there's only one answer to the last question put to me.
11 I think the question was is it possible that such a meeting could have taken
12 place?
13
14 CHAIRMAN: Yeah.
10:40:38 15
16 MR. QUINN: And you could have forgotten about it.
17 A. You couldn't say no to that. Of course it's possible.
18
19 CHAIRMAN: You could have said I wasn't there at the time. I wasn't in
10:40:46 20 Dublin.
21 A. I can't be sure of that. I can't remember whether I was there or not.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: If that's your attitude --
24 A. That's not an attitude. If you are trying to establish facts on the basis of
10:40:58 25 hypothetical questions that's not a very good way of going forward.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: It's not a hypothetical question.
28 A. Well I think it is anyway. Maybe we should move on.
29 Q. 27 MR. QUINN: Mr. McGrath, just on that before we do move on, maybe if I put the
10:41:09 30 meeting in context for you. Do you recall any level of irritation amongst

www.pcr.ie Day 658
6
10:41:14 1 councillors in late 1990 in relation to the contacts between the officials and
2 the councillors concerning the Cherrywood lands?
3 A. No, I don't recall any irritation.
4 Q. 28 Sorry.
10:41:29 5 A. I don't recall any irritation.
6 Q. 29 Yes. Do you recall any discussion amongst councillors in relation to the
7 views of the Irish Planning Institute in relation to rezonings at that time?
8 A. Not specifically, no. I recall that there was a wide ranging debate about the
9 Cherrywood lands with various different opinions being expressed from all
10:41:54 10 quarters. I -- if there were differences of opinions as between the elected
11 members and the council management, well that would not be uncommon. In fact,
12 that was very common. It didn't cause irritation. It was just a mutual
13 respect for each other's opinions I'd say.
14 Q. 30 Yes. Do you ever recall, for example, discussing with Deputy Lawlor or your
10:42:18 15 colleague, Mr. Wright, the prospect of meeting with members of the Irish
16 Planning Institute to discuss if there were any common grounds between you as
17 councillors and them in relation to the review of the Development Plan?
18 A. No, not specifically, no. Although I do recall attending several of the Irish
19 Planning Institute's conference over the years.
10:42:39 20 Q. 31 Yes.
21 A. And I might have expressed opinions at that.
22 Q. 32 Yes. If we could just have perhaps 3068, please. This is a letter from Mr.
23 McCabe to Mr. Sweeney. Mr. Sweeney was involved on behalf of Monarch and
24 Mr. McCabe had been retained by Monarch. And Mr. McCabe is reporting back to
10:43:06 25 Mr. Sweeney in relation to the meeting he had had the previous night. You
26 will have seen that letter in the brief, Mr. McGrath.
27 A. I may have all right.
28 Q. 33 Yes. When asked about that letter Mr. McCabe said that he was a member of the
29 council of the Irish Planning Institute, which was a body which represented
10:43:30 30 professional planners. And during the period, they were quite disturbed that

www.pcr.ie Day 658
7
10:43:45 1 planning developments in the Dublin area. And in relation in particular to
2 the rezoning of land use in north County Dublin. And that he had been invited
3 by Deputy Lawlor to a meeting to see if there was any common ground between the
4 parties. And he identified you as one of three councillors, including
10:43:58 5 Councillor Lawlor, who attended that meeting. Does that in any way assist you
6 in your recollection of whether or not such a meeting took place?
8 Q. 34 And you have no recollection of discussing the views of the Irish Planning
9 Institute with Deputy Lawlor or Deputy Wright?
10:44:18 10 A. No, no recollection whatsoever.
11 Q. 35 And it was Mr. McCabe's view was expressed in that letter. And arising from
12 that meeting that there was a degree of irritation by those present at the
13 meeting because of the lack of consultation in relation to the Cherrywood site
14 between the planners and the councillors.
10:44:39 15 Again, does that in any way assist you in relation to your recollection?
16 A. No, it doesn't but it doesn't surprise me either though because I'm surprised
17 that Mr. McCabe didn't know the way the system worked. The manager produced a
18 draft plan without the elected members input and that was then presented to the
19 members for their input and comments and observations. So maybe it was at the
10:45:02 20 stage of the manager's draft preparation that Mr. McCabe observed what goes on.
21 And he probably didn't take into account that the members did have quite a
22 substantial input into the preparation of the plan following on from the
23 manager's draft preparations.
24 Q. 36 No. Mr. McCabe was quite specific. And as appears from that contemporaneous
10:45:25 25 letter of the 6th of December, Mr. McGrath --
26 A. Yeah, I'm reading it here.
27 Q. 37 -- that in fact his view was that there was a degree of irritation because
28 there hadn't been adequate consultation between the planners and the
29 councillors in advance of the publication of that draft, which I had on the
10:45:42 30 screen a moment ago, that is DP90/123.

www.pcr.ie Day 658
8
10:45:46 1 A. All right. His actual words were that was the impression he got.
2 Q. 38 Yeah.
3 A. I would put that a little bit lower than a view. I don't think that he'd
4 actually formed a view on it he just got an impression.
10:45:58 5 Q. 39 You are interpreting what he said from that letter. I'm putting to you what
6 he said in evidence, Mr. McGrath.
7 A. Okay, well I'm not aware of what he said in evidence.
8 Q. 40 Yeah. It's to that extent I'm putting it to you.
9 A. All right.
10:46:10 10 Q. 41 So you say no such meeting took place and if such a meeting took place it's
11 unlikely you would have been at it?
12 A. I cannot recall being at any meeting with Fergal McCabe.
13 Q. 42 You have no recollection of any discussion between yourself, Mr. Lawlor and
14 Mr. Wright either in relation to the publication of the draft plan or the
10:46:25 15 prospect of having a meeting with the representatives of the Irish Planning
16 Institute?
17 A. No. Not in relation to Cherrywood, I have no specific --
18 Q. 43 Well no, I'm not saying that the meeting was called in the context of
19 Cherrywood, although Cherrywood was raised in the course of the meeting, do you
10:46:41 20 understand? It was a general meeting in relation to the views of the Irish
21 Planning Institute at that time?
22 A. Well I would have probably discussed the general Development Plan on several
23 occasions with Mr. Lawlor and Mr. Wright in the course of the general adoption
24 of the Development Plan. But I can't recall that specific meeting or whatever
10:47:05 25 it's being referred to there.
26 Q. 44 Well can you recall the special meeting of the council on the 6th of December
27 1990? If I could have 6952 again, please.
28
29 This is a meeting which dealt with the Carrickmines area and in particular
10:47:20 30 dealt with the motion tabled by Councillors McDonald and Coffey. If I could

www.pcr.ie Day 658
9
10:47:25 1 have 6953, please. Councillors McDonald and Coffey had tabled a motion that
2 the draft development for the 1990 for the Carrickmines Valley area be prepared
3 on the basis of limiting zoning development to the eastern side of the
4 Southeastern Motorway proposed line and taking cognisance of developments
10:47:46 5 approved for the area -- if we look at 6954 -- adoption of the 1983 plan and in
6 doing this, significantly reduced the number of areas proposed for industrial
7 zoning and indicate where public open space/parks could be provided and
8 indicate the nature of residential zoning for proposed industrial lands.
10:48:01 10 That was a proposal or motion put forwards by Councillors McDonald and Coffey.
11 I think -- do you recall that motion coming on?
12 A. Not specifically but I mean it's there and I was there. And did I vote for
13 it?
14 Q. 45 Well you voted -- first of all, you voted against a proposed amendment as we
10:48:23 15 see there. And then in relation to the vote -- that proposed amendment was
16 unsuccessful. And if we look at 6955 we see that you voted in favour of the
17 actual motion itself?
18 A. Uh-huh. Okay.
19 Q. 46 Do you recall that vote?
10:48:30 20 A. I don't but obviously I did.
21 Q. 47 Yeah. That would have effectively limited development to the line on the
22 proposed Southeastern motorway, isn't that right? Do you recall?
23 A. Presumably so, yes. If that's what the motion said.
24 Q. 48 And that was your proposal at the time. Then on the 25th of May 1991. If I
10:48:53 25 could have 7003. There was a further meeting or special meeting of the
26 council in relation to the Development Plan. And at that meeting the manager
27 put forward three proposals. If I could have 7006. And he was proposing
28 that there would be one of three options put forward for the Draft Development
29 Plan 1991. And the first option was a drawing DP90A/129A. And you voted
10:49:22 30 against that proposal. Do you recall that vote?

www.pcr.ie Day 658
10
10:49:24 1 A. No.
2 Q. 49 You don't recall that vote? You don't recall that meeting or you that vote?
3 A. No. I don't recall any of these meetings --
4 Q. 50 I see.
10:49:35 5 A. -- but I'll accept what's in the minutes, you know what I mean.
6 Q. 51 I see. Do you recall anything about the can lands in Cherrywood, Mr. McGrath?
7 A. Oh, I do I recall that I would have supported their development.
8 Q. 52 Yes. You would have supported the Monarch development?
9 A. The development of the Cherrywood lands.
10:49:51 10 Q. 53 Yes. When I'm referring to the Cherrywood lands now I'm referring in the
11 context of Monarch Properties. When you're referring to the Cherrywood lands
12 are you referring to the lands at Cherrywood including the Monarch lands?
13 A. I would be, yes.
14 Q. 54 Yeah.
10:50:05 15 A. I wouldn't be attaching any significance to the ownership.
16 Q. 55 I see. Well the matter came back before the council I think in May 1992. Do
17 you recall the matter coming back before the council in May '92.
18 A. No but if you remind me I'm sure I will.
19 Q. 56 Yes. If I could have 7193, please. On the 13th of May '92, the manager
10:50:28 20 presented his report, which was map DP90/44. If I could have 7203, please.
21 Do you recall this map being debated and being voted upon?
22 A. Not specifically but I mean, I have no no doubt that that was the map
23 presented.
24 Q. 57 If I could have 7144, please. This is a motion in the name of Councillors
10:50:57 25 Lydon and Hand which had been signed, received by the council on the 4th of May
26 '92. And would have come on in the normal way for review on the 25th of May
27 '92. Do you recall that motion or receiving that motion?
28 A. Not specifically. I don't specifically recall any motion. But if it was on
29 the agenda I would have --
10:51:21 30 Q. 58 Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 658
11
10:51:22 1 A. -- deliberated over it I'm sure.
2 Q. 59 Yes. Do you recall any meetings in Conways where the Fianna Fail grouping
3 would discuss upcoming matters in the council agenda?
4 A. Yes, we had regular meeting in Conways.
10:51:35 5 Q. 60 Do you recall any meeting in which this proposed motion was discussed?
6 A. Not specifically but it would have been discussed I'm sure. Yes.
7 Q. 61 I think Councillor Lydon would have been a member of your party at this time,
8 is that right?
10:51:47 10 Q. 62 And do you recall discussing the motion with Councillor Lydon?
11 A. I don't recall discussing it with him but I'm sure I would have discussed it
12 with him because it was in his area.
13 Q. 63 Yes, yeah. At that meeting on the 25th, I said in fact it's the 27th of May
14 1992. If I could have 7207, please. The manager's proposal at DP92/44 was
10:52:12 15 proposed by Councillor Lydon and yourself, Mr. McGrath. And I'm just
16 wondering if you can assist the Tribunal on how you came to second that
17 proposal on that date.
18 A. It could have been for a variety of reasons.
19 Q. 64 Well can you give the actual reason in the first instance Mr. McGrath?
10:52:29 20 A. Well I can't specifically give you the actual reason.
21 Q. 65 Why not?
22 A. I would have -- I'll try and explain to you now.
23 Q. 66 That's what I'm asking you.
24 A. One reason could have been which was very often --
10:52:41 25 Q. 67 I don't want a hypothetical reasons, Mr. McGrath. I'm anxious that you can,
26 give the precise reason and how you supported and seconded that motion?
27 A. Well I'll try and recall why I did that.
28 Q. 68 Please.
29 A. Let me see now. Perhaps I was sitting beside Councillor Lydon at the time.
10:53:02 30 And to put the motion on the floor I may have seconded it. But more than

www.pcr.ie Day 658
12
10:53:07 1 likely, the more than likely answer is that I supported the thrust of the
2 motion and I was happy to second it.
3 Q. 69 Yes. So the Tribunal has the option of accepting either the fact that you
4 happened to be located beside Councillor Lydon on the day or alternatively you
10:53:25 5 supported the proposal?
6 A. No, I think what I'm trying to say to you and it's not hypothetical. Is that
7 very often in the cauldron that was Dublin County Council at the time. If a
8 colleague had a motion before the floor and was proposing a motion, courtesy
9 alone was enough reason -- enough to second somebody's motion. Because
10:53:44 10 without a seconder a motion doesn't fly and it falls. So common courtesy some
11 times just was the reason why some people seconded motions. To get them on
12 the floor for debate and then to be dealt with by the council. So there may
13 necessarily have been no motive or no reason behind some times seconding a
14 motion. But I would be fairly confident in that case I was happy to second
10:54:08 15 that motion because I supported it.
16 Q. 70 If we could have 7144, please. This is the actual motion that Councillor
17 Lydon was proposing for the meeting, Mr. McGrath. And he had a seconder for
18 that motion, that was Councillor Hand. And we can see at 7205 that Councillor
19 Hand was present on the occasion. We can see also that Councillor Hand voted
10:54:29 20 in favour of the motion I had on the screen a moment ago. So Councillor Lydon
21 already had a seconder for his own motion and we know that the seconder voted
22 in favour of the proposal that you seconded?
23 A. Uh-huh.
24 Q. 71 So would you agree with me that it's unlikely that Councillor Lydon would have
10:54:46 25 been deprived of a seconder? Could we have 7207, please.
26 A. Mr. Hand may not have been in the room.
27 Q. 72 Well he voted on the motion?
28 A. But he may not have been in the room when it was proposed.
29 Q. 73 He spoke in favour of it, Mr. McGrath. Do you see 7207? It says "Following
10:55:11 30 discussions to which Councillors Lydon, Hand and others contributed the manager

www.pcr.ie Day 658
13
10:55:16 1 replied to queries raised."
2 A. I see that, yeah.
3 Q. 74 And do you also see the motion -- and underneath the motion those councillors
4 that voted in favour of it?
10:55:25 5 A. I do see that.
6 Q. 75 And do you see Councillor Hand's name there as having spoken in favour of it?
7 A. I see that, yeah but that doesn't change the fact that he may not have been in
8 the room when the motion was proposed.
9 Q. 76 So you think that you came to second this motion because Councillor Hand may
10:55:42 10 not have been present in the room even though he spoke in favour of the motion?
11 A. I came to second the motion because -- well I mean it's a question that you
12 have to ask Mr. Hand but --
13 Q. 77 Now, Mr. McGrath.
14 A. I beg your pardon, sorry. That's slipped my memory. If, Mr. Hand may not
10:55:59 15 have been in the room. So if there's a pregnant pause between the proposing
16 of a motion and a seconding, well then somebody has to second it.
17 Q. 78 Yes.
18 A. And if I support the motion, second it.
19 Q. 79 You were there, Mr. McGrath, isn't that right? And you are now here and you're
10:56:14 20 assisting the Tribunal. And I'm asking you what transpired and how you came
21 to second the motion, isn't that correct? And what you're telling the Tribunal
22 is that they should ask the deceased Mr. Hand.
23 A. No, I withdrew that now and I apologised for it so I don't know why you're
24 pursuing that line of questioning. Also -- you see, maybe if you explain what
10:56:33 25 are you trying to get at here. I don't understand your thinking on this.
26 Q. 80 I have no thinking.
27 A. I seconded a motion which I support and voted for and consistently voted for.
28 Q. 81 I'm just asking you, Mr. McGrath, to explain how you came to second the motion.
29 There was already a motion by Councillor Lydon and Councillor Hand.
10:56:50 30 A. But Mr. Hand didn't second it.

www.pcr.ie Day 658
14
10:56:52 1 Q. 82 He didn't second this proposal, even though he has voted in favour of it, isn't
2 that right?
3 A. Is it Mr. Quinn is it?
4 Q. 83 Yes, Mr. McGrath.
10:56:57 5 A. Mr. Quinn, a motion, irrespective of whether it's written down and signed it
6 still has to be proposed on the floor of the meeting to get it, to give
7 ownership to the meeting of the motion. And it has to be proposed and
8 seconded. Now --
9 Q. 84 This --
10:57:14 10 A. I'm suggesting to you and I think it's unreasonable of you not to accept my
11 proposal, that Mr. Hand may have been out of the room when Mr. Lydon proposed
12 the motion. So I seconded the motion to give it flight on the floor of the
13 council meeting.
14 Q. 85 In any event, the motion was unsuccessful, isn't that right? And Mr. Lydon
10:57:34 15 withdrew his motion as did Councillor Hand. Do you recall that meeting,
16 Mr. McGrath?
17 A. Not specifically, no. Not in detail, no.
18 Q. 86 Can I just ask you, by May 1992 had any body from Monarch asked for your
19 support for their proposals?
10:57:53 20 A. I would have discussed it with, I'm sure, yes, various representatives from
21 Monarch.
22 Q. 87 Well could you identify for the Tribunal the representatives that you might
23 have discussed it with?
24 A. I definitely recall discussing it with Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly.
10:58:08 25 Q. 88 How did you know Mr. Lynn?
26 A. I came to know him through his, his regular attendance at council meetings.
27 Q. 89 I take it that Mr. Lynn would have been in attendance seeking support for
28 various of the Monarch proposals?
29 A. He was, yes.
10:58:23 30 Q. 90 I think one of those was the Cherrywood site and another may have been Somerton

www.pcr.ie Day 658
15
10:58:27 1 or Ongar Stud, is that right?
2 A. Ongar. I don't recall that, no, no.
3 Q. 91 Yes.
4 A. However, he was there. He was omnipresent, as they say.
10:58:36 5 Q. 92 Yes.
6 A. As were others, as you know.
7 Q. 93 What about Mr. Reilly?
8 A. Um, well Mr. Reilly, I'm not sure how I came to meet Mr. Reilly, in similar
9 circumstances I would say.
10:58:47 10 Q. 94 Had you met Mr. Reilly by May '92?
11 A. I may have met him in the context of The Square in Tallaght.
12 Q. 95 Yes. That would have been back in 1990 I think?
13 A. Yes, at various ceremonies, opening ceremonies or whatever.
14 Q. 96 I'm just wondering would you have seen Mr. Reilly at council meetings up to May
10:59:06 15 1992 or did his attendance become more prominent after 1992?
16 A. Oh, it's very difficult to say.
17 Q. 97 Yes.
18 A. But, I mean, he was in attendance at some council meetings and I would have met
19 him at an odd one, as they say.
10:59:19 20 Q. 98 Now, we do know that you met Mr. Lynn in early '93, isn't that right? If we
21 could have 4038. This is an expense claim form submitted by Mr. Lynn for the
22 week ending the 26th of February '93. And he has there identified as a series
23 of expenses and one of them, second last one you will see Draft Development
24 Plan McGrath et al. You see that? In connection with the Cherrywood Property
10:59:53 25 Limited. Do you recall meeting Mr. Lynn in February of 1993?
26 A. No, I don't recall it, no.
27 Q. 99 If you did meet Mr. Lynn in February 1993 in connection with the Cherrywood
28 Properties Limited what would it have been in connection with?
29 A. If I did meet him?
11:00:10 30 Q. 100 Yeah. What would you have been discussing?

www.pcr.ie Day 658
16
11:00:13 1 A. In relation to the Cherrywood Properties?
2 Q. 101 Yes.
3 A. I presume we would have been discussing the proposed -- the proposals for those
4 lands.
11:00:22 5 Q. 102 Yes. Were you very much in support of the development in those lands
6 Mr. McGrath?
7 A. I was, yes.
8 Q. 103 Now, Mr. Dunlop has told the Tribunal that in early March 1993 he became -- he
9 was retained by the Monarch interest in relation to the lands and that
11:00:41 10 subsequently he had a discussion with you after he was retained. You'll have
11 seen that in the brief?
12 A. Yeah, I saw some of it.
13 Q. 104 And heard some the parties evidence in relation to it?
14 A. Yeah.
11:00:53 15 Q. 105 You I think had some telephone attendance with Mr. Dunlop on the 9th of March
16 1993, if we could have 4046. Do you recall why you were contacting Mr. Dunlop
17 in March 1993?
18 A. No. I've no idea. It could have been for several reasons.
19 Q. 106 Yes.
11:01:11 20 A. Most likely Quarryvale.
21 Q. 107 Yes. Now, in relation to Cherrywood. Do you recall first hearing that Mr.
22 Dunlop had been taken on board by the Quarryvale team -- sorry the Cherrywood
23 team?
24 A. No, I didn't hear he'd been taken on board, no.
11:01:30 25 Q. 108 Did you know that at some stage he was on board?
26 A. No, it wasn't clear to me for quite some time that he was on board no.
27 Q. 109 When did it become clear to you that he was on board?
28 A. It didn't become clear to me at any stage that he was on board.
29 Q. 110 I see. So --
11:01:45 30 A. But he seemed to be --

www.pcr.ie Day 658
17
11:01:47 1 Q. 111 Did you know that he was ever on board?
2 A. He seemed to be hovering on the wings of it, he seemed to be hovering on the
3 background.
4 Q. 112 So is it your evidence to the Tribunal that you never knew Mr. Dunlop was
11:01:57 5 involved in the Cherrywood proposals?
6 A. No, it wasn't clear to me that he was involved.
7 Q. 113 But in your statement I think you have said that he discussed it with it with
8 you, isn't that right?
9 A. Well sure we would have discussed what was going on on the day, any day, with
11:02:15 10 anybody.
11 Q. 114 Just to put, to be fair to you. You say "I discussed a proposal with Frank
12 Dunlop at least once."
13 A. Yeah, I probably did, yeah.
14 Q. 115 So are you saying that your discussion with Mr. Dunlop in relation to
11:02:27 15 Cherrywood was in the context of a general discussion?
16 A. Yeah.
17 Q. 116 And not in the context of a discussion between you, a councillor, and Mr.
18 Dunlop, a lobbiest, who had been retained by the Monarch interest?
19 A. No, that's a good way of putting it, yeah.
11:02:43 20 Q. 117 Yeah.
21 A. My recollection is discussing it with him but I don't remember it being on a
22 specific mano mano basis vis-a-vis Cherrywood. Him coming lobbying me. I
23 remember just discussing it with him all right.
24 Q. 118 Yes. Now, Mr. Dunlop has said in evidence, Mr. McGrath, that shortly after he
11:03:01 25 was appointed that he had a conversation with you and that he -- he felt that
26 you already knew that he had been taken on board. What do you say to that?
27 A. What do you want me to say? I've just said I didn't know he was on board.
28 Q. 119 He said you seemed to be quite happy with that. That is to say that you were
29 quite happy with the fact that he was now on board?
11:03:30 30 A. Uh-huh. Are you asking me a question?

www.pcr.ie Day 658
18
11:03:32 1 Q. 120 Yes.
2 A. Go ahead.
3 Q. 121 I'm asking you to comment on Mr. Dunlop's evidence because I'm putting to you
4 what Mr. Dunlop has said, Mr. McGrath. Just to give you an opportunity to
11:03:41 5 comment on it, do you understand?
6 A. I really have nothing to say to that, I mean it's --
7 Q. 122 Okay.
8 A. Honest to God.
9 Q. 123 He goes on to say that "He had a suspicion that you already knew that he was on
11:03:51 10 board."
11 A. A suspicion. Why would he use the word suspicion?
12 Q. 124 Yeah. Now, you had had a meeting with Mr. Lynn on I think the 26th of March as
13 we saw a moment ago. And Mr. Dunlop dates his appointment to early -- sorry
14 26th of February I should have said. And Mr. Dunlop dates his appointment to
11:04:08 15 early March which would be about a week later. Did you discuss the possible
16 involvement of Mr. Dunlop with the site with Mr. Lynn when you met him on the
17 26th of February '93, can you recall?
18 A. No, I wouldn't have, no.
19 Q. 125 Mr. Dunlop said that he knew from his discussions with Mr. Richard Lynn that
11:04:28 20 you had already been lobbied in relation to the proposal?
21 A. No comment.
22 Q. 126 He said that there was a relationship there in the sense of lobbying. That is
23 to say a relationship there between you and Mr. Lynn. I think you've given
24 evidence that you had been lobbied by Mr. Lynn, isn't that right?
11:04:49 25 A. I was lobbied by Mr. Lynn, yes.
26 Q. 127 So he could be correct in that assertion?
27 A. Well I would be very, very slow to attach correctness to anything Mr. Dunlop
28 says to be honest with you. But the point is, I don't see where this is going
29 really, you know, Mr. Dunlop -- ah go on anyway, I don't where this is going!
11:05:08 30 Q. 128 I don't want to interrupt anything you want to say that might be of assistance

www.pcr.ie Day 658
19
11:05:12 1 to the Tribunal, Mr. McGrath. But is there something you do want to say?
2 A. No, I've nothing to say about those. I find them very trivial and very
3 frivolous. Can we get down to the --
11:05:25 5 CHAIRMAN: Mr. McGrath, what do you find trivial and frivolous?
6 A. Well going back to some of the previous questions, Chairman.
8 CHAIRMAN: What previous question as soon as --
9 A. What difference does it make whether I'm happy or not about --
11:05:39 10
11 CHAIRMAN: We're not asking you to say whether you are happy or not.
12 A. Chairman, can I suggest to you, the questions are sort of being put in such a
13 way that it almost makes one seem to be uncooperative because they are --
14
11:05:51 15 CHAIRMAN: No, no. This is a similar line of questioning that is adopted with
16 everyone or with most witnesses. Things that Mr. Dunlop have said to the
17 Tribunal, one of our tasks is to determine the extent to which Mr. Dunlop may
18 or may not be telling the truth to the Tribunal and other witnesses. So items
19 of evidence or statements of evidence made by Mr. Dunlop that relate to you or
11:06:16 20 that might be relevant to you, to your position, are quite properly put to you.
21 A. Yes.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: So that you can -- it doesn't mean that Mr. Quinn believes that
24 that particular statement is a truthful statement. But it's quite correct
11:06:32 25 that you be given the opportunity to comment on what Mr. Dunlop has said. And
26 you can disagree or agree with it or ....
27 A. Okay.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: Or say --
11:06:53 30 A. In response to that, Chairman, can I just say this. If Mr. Quinn asks me a

www.pcr.ie Day 658
20
11:06:53 1 question which involves details of something that happened whatever it is, 15
2 years ago at a meeting and I honestly tell him that I cannot specifically
3 recall and you know and thankfully with prompting from the screen and all of
4 the paperwork you have, some times it jogs your memory. If I can't give him
11:07:07 5 details in relation to questions, around something that I do recall attending
6 and being involved to the extent that I was there and involved in debate and
7 that. And then he comes along and asks me a question about do I recall a
8 sentence involving seven words that's supposed to have been said to me 15 years
9 ago by a individual and I say no or I say -- and he wants me to comment. All
11:07:30 10 I'm saying is how does he expect me to remember whether or not Frank Dunlop
11 said something to me 15 years ago, when I can't remember something that I was
12 involved in and had lots of paperwork to back it up and loads prompting and
13 loads of reminders of what was going on. So I'm not saying I don't remember.
14 I'm just saying do you really expect me to be able to remember that? That's
11:07:50 15 what I'm saying.
16
17 CHAIRMAN: Well we don't know. Because people's memories vary. And we know
18 that witnesses who initially might say they don't recollect something. And
19 who then are prompted by evidence that may have come into the possession of the
11:08:04 20 Tribunal or evidence of other witnesses, when prompted, they then start to
21 recollect or recollect something more than they -- than was the position
22 earlier. So that's the reason why these bits of evidence are put to you. It
23 doesn't mean or suggest that Mr. Quinn or anyone else disbelieves you when you
24 say that you can't recollect. The purpose of prompting you with other
11:08:30 25 evidence is to see if we can -- if that aids your recollection.
26 A. All right.
27
28 CHAIRMAN: And some witnesses have been able to provide very significant
29 additional material having been so prompted. Not because they were
11:08:46 30 withholding it but because their memories have been aided by whatever the

www.pcr.ie Day 658
21
11:08:50 1 prompt was. And that's the reason for it.
2 A. Okay. I accept that Chairman, right.
4 Q. 129 MR. QUINN: Mr. McGrath, Mr. Dunlop went on to say that when he discussed the
11:09:00 5 matter with you, that you were quite aggressive about what could be done or
6 what should be done on the site. In other words, in a you were very much pro
7 developing the site, very much pro having the site developed for residential,
8 increased density residential development.
9 A. I was pro-development on the site. I would never describe my attitude to any
11:09:23 10 of those matters as being aggressive. The strongest I would put it would be
11 enthusiastic. But I do not recall discussing that with Mr. Dunlop.
12 Q. 130 Do you recall being disappointed that the manager's 92/44 that we had on the
13 screen a moment ago, that you seconded, that that proposal had been
14 unsuccessful and Councillor Barrett's motion was successful which effectively
11:09:46 15 proposed a zoning of one house to the acre on the land at the time?
16 A. No, I wouldn't describe my feelings about losing on a vote like that as
17 disappointment. That's just the cut and thrust of the democratic system.
18 Q. 131 Yes. Mr. Dunlop went on to say that you made some remarks about why you were
19 in the situation you were in. That is to say why the lands were now proposed
11:10:07 20 for a zoning at only one house to the acre. When you -- you've told the
21 Tribunal that you recall discussing the site with Mr. Dunlop on at least one
22 occasion, isn't that right?
23 A. Yeah, I think I did, yeah.
24 Q. 132 Can I ask you to tell the Tribunal your recollection of that discussion? What
11:10:23 25 would you have said to Mr. Dunlop in relation to the site, can you recall?
26 A. I'd be -- I can only speculate on what I might have said to him. I more than
27 likely told him that I was supporting the development of those lands at a
28 reasonably -- at a sustainable density. Something like that. I can only
29 speculate on what I might have told him, you know. I probably gave him enough
11:10:47 30 to leave him with the impression that I was supporting --

www.pcr.ie Day 658
22
11:10:50 1 Q. 133 Yes.
2 A. -- the motions to rezone, so.
3 Q. 134 He'd have known that I presume had he attended any of the council meetings
4 because you would have et vote in the favour of the proposals on the site,
6 A. Yeah, I think my position in the Development Plan was fairly consistent so.
7 Q. 135 Did it occur to you to ask Mr. Dunlop why he was asking you how you were likely
8 to vote or what your attitude was in relation to the site?
9 A. No, I wouldn't have had any reason to ask him that either.
11:11:29 10 Q. 136 Were you not curious?
11 A. No because it was part of his job. It was what he did.
12 Q. 137 Yes.
13 A. Um.
14 Q. 138 So therefore, that implies that you you knew that he was employed in relation
11:11:31 15 to the matter?
16 A. No, it doesn't. As I said to you earlier, we may have just discussed it in
17 general discussion. And we very often may have discussed other projects that
18 he wasn't involved in in the course of general discussion.
19 Q. 139 Mr. Dunlop's recollection of those meetings and in particular this meeting
11:11:49 20 which took place in and around 1993 and shortly after he was retained by the
21 Monarch interest, was that he advised you or told you that he needed your
22 support. And your response to that was fine but it'll cost you?
23 A. (laughter) No, I reject that out of hand.
24 Q. 140 He says you began a negotiation and that he agreed to give you 2,000 pounds.
11:12:14 25 A. No, I totally refute that.
26 Q. 141 You refute that you entered into a negotiation request Mr. Dunlop for your
27 support for the site. Is that right?
28 A. Totally! Totally refute that.
29 Q. 142 Yes. He says that you were a key figure -- were you a key figure,
11:12:34 30 Mr. McGrath, in relation to the group, the Fianna Fail grouping in the council

www.pcr.ie Day 658
23
11:12:38 1 in 1993?
2 A. I wouldn't have regarded myself as a key figure. No.
3 Q. 143 Yes. You had been in the council I think since 1985, isn't that right?
4 A. Um, yes.
11:12:47 5 Q. 144 And you had survived the election in 1991, isn't that right?
6 A. I like the way you put it.
7 Q. 145 Well when I say that, Mr. McGrath, I think that a lot of councillors did not
8 survive the 1991 election, isn't that right? There was quite a big turn around
9 in 1991.
11:13:02 10 A. Well the electorate are very fickle, Mr. Quinn.
11 Q. 146 Yes.
12 A. And you know, you can attribute a variety of reasons as to why somebody might
13 not be reelected.
14 Q. 147 Yes.
11:13:11 15 A. Or why somebody is reelected. It's something I've never managed to fathom
16 over the years.
17 Q. 148 There had been a big turn around in 1991, isn't that right? A lot of your
18 colleagues had lost their seats in 1991.
19 A. There was a swing against Fianna Fail in 1991 as far as I can recall. Yeah.
11:13:28 20 Q. 149 And you had been reelected?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 150 So you would have been seen by the incoming fresh councillors as somebody with
23 experience and somebody who had been in the council for some time, isn't that
24 right?
11:13:40 25 A. Perhaps so.
26 Q. 151 Yes. And you had quite a detailed knowledge of the council and its working at
27 that stage, isn't that right?
28 A. I'll accept that, yes.
29 Q. 152 Do you recall being lobbied by any of the Monarch interest between May 1992 and
11:13:54 30 November 1993 in relation to the project?

www.pcr.ie Day 658
24
11:13:58 1 A. I'm sure Mr. Lynn would have been in regular -- he was in regular contact with
2 us.
3 Q. 153 When you say in regular contact. Do you mean to imply that he was regularly
4 on the phone to you and regularly meeting with you?
11:14:15 5 A. No, was regularly in attendance.
6 Q. 154 At council meetings?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 155 And was it your practice to meet with him there and maybe have a coffee with
9 him or --
11:14:24 10 A. The meeting was unavoidable.
11 Q. 156 Yes.
12 A. I don't recall specifically. Yeah, we may have had coffee or perhaps a drink
13 together on occasions but --
14 Q. 157 Yeah.
11:14:35 15 A. -- that was just the logistics of Dublin County Council at the time.
16 Q. 158 Did you come to see Mr. Reilly at the council meetings at that time also?
17 A. Yes, I recall him being there at least once or twice anyway, yeah.
18 Q. 159 Did Mr. Reilly ever ask for your support for the project?
19 A. I can't recall him specifically asking for my support, no.
11:14:59 20 Q. 160 Did you ever discuss with --
21 A. But he would have discussed it with me I'm sure.
22 Q. 161 Yes. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Lynn the possible support for others for
23 the project?
24 A. Not the possible support of others, no but we may have discussed in general
11:15:13 25 terms who might be likely to support it.
26 Q. 162 Yes. That's what I mean.
27 A. Yeah, we probably did, yes.
28 Q. 163 And would you have an idea of the councillors within Fianna Fail in particular
29 who might or might not support the project?
11:15:26 30 A. Not specifically but I would only be able to go on patterns of --

www.pcr.ie Day 658
25
11:15:31 1 Q. 164 Yes.
2 A. -- similar to my own.
3 Q. 165 Yes. People who were generally --
4 A. Pro-development.
11:15:38 5 Q. 166 In favour of rezoning?
6 A. Well pro-development.
7 Q. 167 Yes. Well pro-development councillors would have been well known, I take it,
8 to somebody like Mr. Lynn who was regularly in attendance at these meetings,
9 isn't that right?
11:15:48 10 A. Well it's not hard to identify pro-development councillors.
11 Q. 168 What I'm asking you, Mr. McGrath, is did a rapport develop between yourself and
12 Mr. Lynn in relation to the site or Monarch interest at this time?
13 A. I wouldn't call it a rapport, no, but obviously familiarity creeps in.
14 Q. 169 Yes. You were on first name terms for example?
11:16:13 15 A. Yes, we would have been after several meetings.
16 Q. 170 And were you on first named terms with Mr. Reilly?
17 A. Eventually, yes.
18 Q. 171 Eventually?
19 A. Yeah.
11:16:21 20 Q. 172 So would it be fair to say that Mr. Lynn was more prominent than Mr. Reilly in
21 relation to the project?
22 A. Yes, in attendance, yes, yeah.
23 Q. 173 Yeah. Mr. Reilly played a lesser role?
24 A. Yes, I would say so, yeah.
11:16:36 25 Q. 174 Did you ever discuss the project with Mr. Lynn in the company of colleagues, in
26 other words, other councillors?
27 A. Oh, um, I may have but I don't specifically recall that, no.
28 Q. 175 How long would those --
29 A. Sorry, there may have been -- often there might be a grouping of people
11:16:53 30 together.

www.pcr.ie Day 658
26
11:16:53 1 Q. 176 That's what I'm asking you Mr. McGrath, yeah.
2 A. We were in confined spaces.
3 Q. 177 Yeah.
4 A. If you stopped to talk to somebody, there may be already somebody there or in
11:17:03 5 ear short or shoulder to shoulder. Yeah, the answer is I suppose is yes we
6 would have.
7 Q. 178 Did you often retire to the local hostelries with Mr. Lynn and others after or
8 during those council meetings?
9 A. I would say probably yes but not by specific arrangement.
11:17:15 10 Q. 179 I appreciate that.
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. 180 But you could find yourself perhaps in Mr. Lynn's company?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 181 In Conways is that fair?
11:17:22 15 A. I think it's fair to say we all gravitated to Conways after meetings or during
16 lunch breaks.
17 Q. 182 So for example if somebody were to go into o Conways in mid or late 1993 it
18 wouldn't be unusual to find you there with Mr. Lynn or other councillors or
19 find Mr. Lynn there with other councillors?
11:17:39 20 A. No, that wouldn't be unusual, no.
21 Q. 183 Maybe even Mr. Dunlop there also?
22 A. I think he made the odd appearance, yes.
23 Q. 184 Yeah. And would you have discussed with Mr. Lynn at any of those meetings
24 your view of how the motions in relation to the project were likely to go at
11:18:00 25 future meetings?
26 A. No. I'd be fairly confident in saying that when one got to Conways we regarded
27 that as our break from what were sometimes seven and eight hour long meetings.
28 And we really relished the chance to get out of that chamber and go for a cup
29 of coffee and a sandwich. So very often, you know, it was a little taboo to
11:18:24 30 be getting into the actual discussion of the items that were up, you know. We

www.pcr.ie Day 658
27
11:18:28 1 usually took a break and talked about more domestic things, you know.
2 Q. 185 You were off duty.
3 A. Off duty, that's a good way of putting it, yeah.
4 Q. 186 Did you ever discuss this project with Councillor Fox, for example?
11:18:40 5 A. No, not that I can recall, no.
6 Q. 187 Do you ever recall a Fianna Fail meeting in Conways at which the Carrickmines
7 or the Cherrywood lands were, the Monarch lands were discussed?
8 A. They would have been discussed at our group meeting, yes.
9 Q. 188 Yes. And do you recall who spoke in favour of the project at those meetings
11:18:58 10 and who spoke against the project at those meetings?
11 A. Um, well, Councillor Lydon would have spoke in favour of them. Perhaps
12 Councillor Fox. Now, I can't recall anybody speaking against them, no.
13 Q. 189 Yes. But you will have identified Councillor Lydon with the project, would
14 you?
11:19:21 15 A. Not specifically, no. It was his area. That's the only reason.
16 Q. 190 That's what I mean?
17 A. Yeah.
18 Q. 191 He was the local councillor, isn't that right or certainly --
19 A. Usually when an item came up for discussion at a group meeting, the Chairman of
11:19:33 20 the meeting would advert to the local councillor in the first instance to get
21 his synopsis on the situation, you know.
22 Q. 192 Did you ever discuss the matter with Councillor Lydon?
23 A. I'm sure I would have, yes.
24 Q. 193 Did you ever discuss strategy in relation to the site with Councillor Lydon?
11:19:54 25 A. Strategy in relation to the site?
26 Q. 194 Yes.
27 A. Um, no, not strategy in relation to the site, I wouldn't think so, no.
28 Q. 195 Yes.
29 A. There were so many various proposals for that site.
11:20:10 30 Q. 196 Between March and October 1993, and I'm not going to put these up on screen

www.pcr.ie Day 658
28
11:20:16 1 unless you want me to, Mr. McGrath, there were a number of telephone
2 attendances on you, that is to say you ringing Mr. Dunlop's office. Mr.
3 Dunlop not being there and his secretary taking memos of the fact that you had
4 rang. I think in all there were 16 calls recorded as having been made between
11:20:34 5 March '93 and October '93. Would it be fair to say that you were in
6 reasonably regular contact with Mr. Dunlop at this time?
7 A. Yeah, that's fair to say, yeah.
8 Q. 197 You would have been ringing him and presumably you would have been meeting him
9 in the way that you described with Mr. Lynn earlier at the special meetings?
11:20:55 10 A. I'd probably be returning his calls.
11 Q. 198 I appreciate that.
12 A. Do we have those records?
13 Q. 199 Yes. They are in the brief and we can put them up if you wish?
14 A. No, his calls to me.
11:21:07 15 Q. 200 No. You haven't discovered any such calls, Mr. McGrath?
16 A. Well, I don't have the resources to discover those calls.
17 Q. 201 Do such notes exist, Mr. McGrath?
18 A. No, they don't but --
19 Q. 202 And therefore --
11:21:19 20 A. Could you not have established these facts from Eircom?
21 Q. 203 No. Mr. McGrath, the issue of resources don't arise. If you don't have the
22 notes they don't exist, isn't that right?
23 A. Resources. I'm putting time as being the most important resource not money.
24 I would put it to you that I think you should have got the records to show if
11:21:43 25 Mr. Dunlop had made a call to me around the same time -- or on the same days
26 and prior to my call coming to him.
27 Q. 204 So you --
28 A. I think that's very relevant.
29 Q. 205 You think it's relevant that the contacts which are recorded as having been
11:21:59 30 made by you with Mr. Dunlop in that period ought to be put in the context of

www.pcr.ie Day 658
29
11:22:04 1 you returning calls that is Mr. Dunlop made to you is that correct?
2 A. Well if you're attaching any relevance to -- you are making a point that I
3 contacted him 16 times over a seven or eight month period. So I'm saying to
4 you that perhaps I was returning phone calls. We can't seem to be able to
11:22:20 5 prove that.
6 Q. 206 The point I'm making to you, Mr. McGrath, is that and you've agreed with it,
7 is that there was regular contact between yourself and Mr. Dunlop in this
8 period whether it was 16 times or 20 times you've accepted it I think?
9 A. I have accepted it, yes.
11:22:33 10 Q. 207 And it is your evidence I understand to the Tribunal, that there was regular
11 contact between you in this time?
12 A. Yes but I'm curious to know if those entries in Mr. Dunlop's diaries are
13 supported by Eircom evidence?
14 Q. 208 You think these are a forgery?
11:22:46 15 A. I'm suggesting to you that they can be.
16 Q. 209 Are you suggesting that you didn't make those contacts?
17 A. No, I'm not suggesting that at all.
18 Q. 210 If you look at the document on screen, Mr. McGrath?
19 A. I'm suggesting that --
11:22:55 20 Q. 211 Just look at the document 4046 on screen. It's a telephone message of the 9th
21 of March 1993. 9:25 Colm McGrath. Not urgent please call him." And there are
22 two telephone numbers including a mobile did you recognise either of those
23 numbers, Mr. McGrath?
24 A. I think you're missing the point, Mr. Quinn.
11:23:15 25 Q. 212 No, no just answer my question, Mr. McGrath.
26
27 JUDGE FAHERTY: The point that Mr. Quinn is making in relation to the specific
28 telephone call and I only put it -- one can only speculate. The manner in
29 which it is recorded if it is a contemporaneous note suggests and I'll only put
11:23:28 30 the word suggests, because we can't do anything in fairness to everybody --

www.pcr.ie Day 658
30
11:23:33 1 A. Okay.
3 JUDGE FAHERTY: Colm McGrath at 9:25 on the 9th of March called Mr. Dunlop's
4 office and left to numbers.
11:23:42 5 A. Okay.
7 JUDGE FAHERTY: I think what Mr. Quinn is, in relation to that specific one,
8 that in itself couldn't be further grounded by any search in the Eircom
9 telephone records because that's, save your own telephone records, Mr. McGrath,
11:23:59 10 because that suggests --
11 A. Okay.
12
13 JUDGE FAHERTY: -- a call coming in to Mr. Dunlop's. That's not to say that
14 other calls by you may well be a response to a telephone call from Mr. Dunlop.
11:24:11 15 A. All right.
16
17 JUDGE FAHERTY: I think that's as much as Mr. Quinn is putting to you that
18 specific one.
19 A. All right. I accept that and thank you for that. But the point I still
11:24:20 20 maintain is No. one, I can neither say whether these calls were in response to
21 a call made to me. I can't confirm nor I won't confirm any of those calls
22 made by me to Mr. Dunlop for the moment anyway. If we're going to go down
23 this road of attaching importance to whether I made them or not.
24
11:24:41 25 I'm also surprised to see that in March of 1993 that I would see it necessary
26 to leave my two phone numbers with Mr. Dunlop. Two numbers which he quite
27 well knew at the time and probably had them in his mobile phone. I'm
28 surprised to see that I would have to leave numbers for him. Now, I'm not
29 trying to be awkward Chairman, I'm just trying to say that if a secretary -- I
11:25:03 30 accept that I was in regular contact with Mr. Dunlop on the phone but I'm not

www.pcr.ie Day 658
31
11:25:08 1 going to confirm any specific time or date that I phoned him.
3 CHAIRMAN: No. We're not asking you to condition firm that because that
4 would be very difficult for you to do.
11:25:19 5 A. It, yeah.
7 CHAIRMAN: The importance of the evidence, insofar as it is important, is to
8 establish the level of contact between yourself and Mr. Dunlop. Which in
9 itself doesn't mean that there's anything amiss about that --
11:25:30 10 A. No, I accept that.
11
12 CHAIRMAN: It's just to establish. Now, it doesn't really matter whether
13 it's 15 times or 20 times or whether you called him or he called you or
14 whatever. We're not interested in that detail.
11:25:44 15 A. Okay.
16
17 Q. 213 MR. QUINN: Mr. McGrath, just in relation to the numbers on screen. Do you
18 say that they were your phone numbers at that time?
19 A. Yes, and still are.
11:25:51 20 Q. 214 You recognise them?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 215 Now, if we could have 4264. This is a message, for example, that you appear
23 to have left on the 25th of June '93. "At 4:25. Please call him over the
24 weekend" and you give another number.
11:26:06 25 A. Yeah.
26 Q. 216 Yeah.
27 A. I see that.
28 Q. 217 Yeah. You were anxious that Mr. Dunlop would call you over that weekend?
29 A. No -- I have to repeat myself. I'm not confirming any of those phone calls.
11:26:20 30 Q. 218 You're not confirming any of those calls.

www.pcr.ie Day 658
32
11:26:22 1 A. No. All I'll confirm is that I was in regular contact with Mr. Dunlop during
2 that period.
3 Q. 219 If we could have 8051. This was a message left on the 1st September 1993, two
4 messages one at 10:10 in the morning and the other at 4:30. Again, two
11:26:42 5 numbers given "need to speak to you before he sends this out. Fax from him."
6 Again, do you recognise those numbers?
7 A. Yeah, the same numbers.
8 Q. 220 They are the same numbers?
9 A. Yeah, I recognise those numbers. I repeat though I'm not confirming any of
11:26:56 10 these notes as being 100 percent accurate.
11 Q. 221 8504. On the 24th of September 1993. 11:15 Colm McGrath Fianna Fail rooms
12 in DCC -- which presumably is Dublin County Council and the number given.
13 A. Uh-huh.
14 Q. 222 Is that the number for the Fianna Fail room?
11:27:13 15 A. Yes, I recognise the number, yes.
16 Q. 223 On the 16th of September '93 at 8503. 10:36 a.m. a mobile number given.
17 A. Uh-huh.
18 Q. 224 And you say that despite this level of contact between yourself and Mr. Dunlop,
19 you had no specific conversation with him in relation to the Cherrywood lands
11:27:38 20 although you would have discussed it in a general way with him and you, as I
21 understand it, did not understand him to have been retained by Monarch in
23 A. No, that wasn't made clear to me. My contact with Mr. Dunlop was
24 predominantly in relation to the Quarryvale Module. And after that I cannot
11:27:59 25 confirm to you any of those calls or their contents, which is probably more
26 interesting, the content would be more interesting I'm sure.
27 Q. 225 Well there are only two people that can give that evidence, Mr. McGrath?
28 A. Exactly.
29 Q. 226 You are one of them, isn't that right?
11:28:14 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 658
33
11:28:15 1 Q. 227 But you are not in a position, you say to tell the Tribunal what that is?
2 A. Well I can't recall seeing anything in the folders that suggested that Mr.
3 Dunlop was able to say what the content of those calls were.
4 Q. 228 Well whatever about the contents of the telephone calls, Mr. Dunlop has given
11:28:30 5 very specific evidence which you objected to my putting to you in detail a
6 moment ago concerning a meeting some time in March 1993 where he sought your
7 support in relation to Cherrywood where you asked him, told him it would cost
8 him. You asked him for money. There was a negotiation and there was an
9 agreement that you would be paid 2,000 pounds. And that was his evidence,
11:28:51 10 Mr. McGrath.
11 A. Yeah. Okay.
12 Q. 229 Now, can you recall the vote on the 11th of November 1993?
13 A. No.
14 Q. 230 If we could have 7258, please. Did you know, for example, that Councillors
11:29:07 15 Marren and Coffey and others had tabled a motion for the 11th of, which was
16 heard on the 11th of May '93?
17 A. I would have been aware of it, I'm sure if it was on the agenda.
18 Q. 231 7266, please.
19 A. Have we established that it was an agenda motion?
11:29:26 20 Q. 232 Well it would appear to be tabled on the day I think has been the evidence to
21 date?
22 A. Okay. Well if it was tabled -- sorry.
23 Q. 233 There is the motion on the screen. In fact there were two motions. There's
24 another motion in relation to the neighbourhood centre.
11:29:41 25 A. Okay.
26 Q. 234 Taking the motion on the screen.
27 A. Yes. The answer then is if it was tabled on the day I would have had no
28 notice of it.
29 Q. 235 In advance.
11:29:53 30 A. No. That wasn't unusual.

www.pcr.ie Day 658
34
11:29:55 1 Q. 236 The motion was, what appears to have been on the agenda for the day Ms. Dillon
2 advices me. Which I think would suggest that it had been tabled in advance,
3 isn't that right?
4 A. In which case I would have had notice then.
11:30:08 5 Q. 237 Yes.
6 A. Okay.
7 Q. 238 Do you recall discussing the motion with any of the people who either proposed
8 or seconded the motion in advance?
9 A. No, not specifically. I would have -- I may have involved myself in the
11:30:22 10 discussion when it was put to the floor, other than that I have no recollection
11 of discussing it with anyone.
12 Q. 239 Do you have a recollection of discussing the motion in Conways?
13 A. No, I don't.
14 Q. 240 I think in fact the motion was tabled on the day. Councillor Coffey will be
11:30:41 15 giving evidence in a moment and she can clarify the matter?
16 A. Okay.
17 Q. 241 The evidence to date has been that it was tabled on the day?
18 A. Okay. Well I would have had no notice of it so.
19 Q. 242 Yes. And would you have notice of it even if it were tabled on the day at the
11:30:55 20 Conway meeting, do you think?
21 A. No. I -- just looking at that particularly with the handwritten addendum to
22 it.
23 Q. 243 Yes.
24 A. It looks like a motion that was formulated on the day arising out of the
11:31:10 25 debate, arising out of discussions in the chamber.
26 Q. 244 Yes. Do you recall anything of the debate or on the day?
27 A. Well I can -- I generally recall that there was quite a robust debate on it
28 because there was a lot of opinions being expressed vis-a-vie the development
29 of these lands and how they should be developed and there was reference to a
11:31:35 30 science and technology park. There were -- the core issues seemed to revolve

www.pcr.ie Day 658
35
11:31:41 1 around what densities that these lands should be developed at.
2 Q. 245 Either one or four houses to the acre, isn't that right?
3 A. Well whatever, yes, yeah, there was, yeah. That's where the real crux of
4 difference of opinion occurred as far as I recall.
11:31:57 5 Q. 246 Yes. In any event, you voted in favour of that proposal, isn't that right?
6 And you would say that it was consistent with your position to date, is that
7 right?
8 A. Yeah, consistent with my opinion that land in County Dublin shouldn't be wasted
9 at such low densities.
11:32:14 10 Q. 247 Mr. McGrath, did you continue to meet with Mr. Lynn after that motion and that
11 is to say after November 1993?
12 A. As in what context, Mr. Quinn?
13 Q. 248 Well if we look at, if I could have 5433, please. There have been a series of
14 expense claim forms discovered to the Tribunal by the Monarch interest. Which
11:32:41 15 appear to have been submitted by Mr. Lynn. And the one on screen is for the
16 3rd of November 1994. Now, in November 1994, as I understand it, you would
17 have been a councillor for south Dublin, is that correct?
18 A. Yes, I was, yeah, yeah.
19 Q. 249 And do you see the second last entry in that form?
11:32:58 20 A. I do, yes. I see it.
21 Q. 250 "Development Plan review C McGrath." And then there's an expense claim, which
22 is irrelevant.
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. 251 But did you meet Mr. Lynn in November 1994 in relation to the Development Plan
11:33:11 25 review?
26 A. I may have, I may have. I've no recollection of it.
27 Q. 252 The Development Plan would have been confirmed I think in December 1993?
28 A. Yeah.
29 Q. 253 Although there was a variation to the plan in relation to lands including these

www.pcr.ie Day 658
36
11:33:26 1 A. Yeah, yeah, there would have been, yeah. Is there any more supporting
2 documentation to the expense claim form?
3 Q. 254 Well what type of documentation would you like, Mr. McGrath?
4 A. Venue.
11:33:37 5 Q. 255 Where might you have met Mr. Lynn?
6 A. Well that's what I'm seeking your assistance on.
7 Q. 256 Yeah. Can you recall where you met Mr. Lynn other than in the council
8 meetings, Mr. McGrath?
9 A. No. Except perhaps in one of the nearby hotels.
11:33:51 10 Q. 257 So your meetings with Mr. Lynn would have been either in the foyer of the
11 council chamber or in one of the nearby hotels?
12 A. Or in Conways perhaps.
13 Q. 258 Or in Conways.
14 A. Yeah.
11:34:04 15 Q. 259 And do you recall meeting Mr. Lynn in 1994 in any of those three locations,
16 Mr. McGrath?
17 A. Um, yes, I'm sure I do but I couldn't be specific as to when.
18 Q. 260 That expense claim form is in relation to the Cherrywood Properties. Do you
19 see that in the top left hand corner under the heading "company"?
11:34:27 20 A. Yes, I see that.
21 Q. 261 But you would have been a councillor in South Dublin County Council at that
22 time, isn't that right?
23 A. Yes, I would.
24 Q. 262 Can you tell the Tribunal why Mr. Lynn might be meeting with you in the context
11:34:46 25 of Cherrywood Properties which was situated in Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County
26 Council when you were a member of South Dublin County Council?
27 A. No, I can't tell you why. It may have been for some other reason then.
28 Q. 263 Yes.
29 A. Perhaps Mr. Lynn was representing somebody else as well.
11:34:53 30 Q. 264 Well did Mr. Lynn ever approach you in relation to other properties in

www.pcr.ie Day 658
37
2 A. Um, in Cherrywood?
4 CHAIRMAN: Other than Cherrywood.
11:35:03 5
6 Q. 265 MR. QUINN: Other than Cherrywood. Sorry.
7 A. No. I can't specifically. No, I don't think he did, no.
8 Q. 266 Did he ever receive your support for other Monarch Properties? Yesterday,
9 Mr. Reilly gave evidence that there were two other projects current at this
11:35:17 10 time. One in relation to Ongar Stud and the other in relation to Somerton,
11 where Mr. Monahan was based.
12 A. No, I don't recall him approaching me about those, no.
13 Q. 267 Did you know Mr. Phil Monahan?
14 A. Not personally, no.
11:35:32 15 Q. 268 Did you ever meet Mr. Phil Monahan?
16 A. Yes, I've met him once I think, yeah.
17 Q. 269 Did anybody other than Mr. Lynn or Mr. Reilly ever seek your support for the
18 Cherrywood project?
19 A. As in relation to the Monarch group?
11:35:45 20 Q. 270 Yes.
21 A. No, I think they are the only two I can recall dealing with.
22 Q. 271 Now Mr. Dunlop has told the Tribunal, Mr. McGrath, that following on his
23 negotiation and following on the debate and the vote that in accordance with
24 his prior agreement with you. That he paid you 2,000 pounds in cash. You
11:36:03 25 have seen that evidence, isn't that right?
26 A. Yeah, I've seen that evidence, yeah.
27 Q. 272 Now, you presumably denied that you received that?
28 A. Absolutely.
29 Q. 273 You have given evidence in the past of having received unsolicited cash from
11:36:16 30 Mr. Dunlop, isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 658
38
11:36:17 1 A. I have, yes.
2 Q. 274 But you say that you did not receive this money, isn't that right?
4 Q. 275 You did receive some support from the Monarch interest, isn't that right?
11:36:28 5 A. Yes, I did. They supported my fundraisers, yes.
6 Q. 276 In 1991 I think, on the 5th of June 1991, if we could have 1584, please.
7 Sorry. 1581. Monarch have discovered to the Tribunal a document which would
8 appear to suggest that you had been paid on the 5th of June 1991 a sum of 600
11:37:02 10 A. Well I don't -- I'm on record already. I don't accept the word "pay". I
11 received a donation.
12 Q. 277 Did you seek that donation?
13 A. Quite possibly.
14 Q. 278 Who would you have sought it from?
11:37:16 15 A. Um, I would have written to their headquarters I'm sure. I can't remember who
16 specifically.
17 Q. 279 At 3809. This is for 1992, Mr. McGrath, on the 17th of November 1992, Monarch
18 have discovered to the Tribunal records which suggest that you received a sum
19 of 500 pounds for what was described as General Elections expenses of that
11:37:46 20 year.
21 A. Uh-huh.
22 Q. 280 If I could have 3880. This is an extract from the Monarch Properties Services
23 Limited cash book. And you will see at No. 18 on that screen, a payment to
24 Colm McGrath Fianna Fail 500 pounds. Did you -- first of all, I take it that
11:38:04 25 you accept you received that money?
26 A. I'm sure I did. I'm sure I did.
27 Q. 281 And again, could I ask you, did you seek that money or -- and if you did from
28 whom?
29 A. I would have probably -- it's the same answer. Yeah, it was a fundraiser I
11:38:18 30 would say which they were sent a brochure and that was their response.

www.pcr.ie Day 658
39
11:38:22 1 Q. 282 And I think you sent a letter to Mr. Monahan in May 1996. If we could have
2 5972, please. Where you again sought, I think funds of --
3 A. Yeah.
11:38:41 5 A. That's typical of what I would do at around election time.
6 Q. 284 You were seeking a contribution to your election war chest?
7 A. Yeah.
8 Q. 285 Which you said was crucial to the success of your campaign, isn't that right?
9 A. Yes.
11:38:54 10 Q. 286 And I think on foot of that request, you received 500 pounds, isn't that right?
11 Can I just ask you in relation to that, Mr. McGrath, you would have known Mr.
12 Lynn quite well at this stage, isn't that right, this is 1996?
13 A. Yes, we would have developed a relationship, yeah.
14 Q. 287 And you knew Mr. Lynn was working for Monarch?
11:39:12 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 288 You had ever only met Mr. Philip Monahan once, isn't that right?
17 A. Yes, I think so, yeah.
18 Q. 289 Why didn't you write to Mr. Lynn within Monarch for that subscription? Why did
19 you write to Mr. Monahan as opposed to Mr. Lynn?
11:39:26 20 A. Maybe Mr. Lynn suggested that I write to Mr. Monahan.
21 Q. 290 Uh-huh. I think you got a further subscription in July 1996 of 500 pounds?
22 A. Sorry. There's another part to that answer perhaps.
23 Q. 291 Yes.
24 A. Was Mr. Lynn not out on his own at that stage?
11:39:47 25 Q. 292 I understood he was still with Monarch but I may be wrong in that.
26 A. '96? Maybe he was, yeah. He did go out on his own I think at one point.
27 Okay.
28 Q. 293 At 6038, there appears to be a further payment on the 3rd of July '96, to
29 Mr. Colm McGrath. "MCC Fianna Fail 500 pounds." Again, I take it that you
11:40:12 30 acknowledge receiving that payment?

www.pcr.ie Day 658
40
11:40:13 1 A. I'm sure I did, yes, yeah.
2 Q. 294 On the 3rd of October 1996, at 6096, there's a further 500 pounds towards a
3 golf classic. Isn't that right? And again at -- I take it that you accept
4 receiving that money?
11:40:29 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 295 Cheque 8540?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 296 And I think you received a further sum of 500 pounds in May 1999 for a golf
9 classic fundraiser towards your Local Election funds, at 6753. Again I take it
11:40:48 10 that you accept that?
11 A. Yeah, I accept that, yeah.
12 Q. 297 Thank you, Mr. McGrath.
13
14 CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions for Mr. McGrath?
11:41:00 15 A. Okay.
16
17 JUDGE FAHERTY: Just to ask you, Mr. McGrath. You've said I think and
18 previously said that you were generally pro-development?
19 A. Uh-huh.
11:41:11 20
21 JUDGE FAHERTY: And you said that I think earlier that in terms of the density
22 on the houses. You didn't think that land should be wasted with low density?
23 A. No, that's right, yes.
24
11:41:22 25 JUDGE FAHERTY: And we know, as far as I understand it, that when the
26 manager's map was put up, as his recommendations to go out on the second
27 display, this is back in May 1992. He was recommending at that stage I think
28 four houses to the acre.
29 A. Uh-huh.
11:41:39 30

www.pcr.ie Day 658
41
11:41:39 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: With an action area plan I think?
2 A. Yes, yeah.
4 JUDGE FAHERTY: And indeed, he was also recommending, if I recall, a further
11:41:47 5 extension of lands to be zoned further south or further west, whichever way you
6 look at it. And you vote in the favour of that?
7 A. Yes, I would have.
9 JUDGE FAHERTY: Now we know, and the record shows that in fairness. Now, we
11:42:02 10 know that that motion didn't get anywhere because it was fairly narrowly
11 defeated. I just want to ask you, and I've asked this to other people,
12 Mr. McGrath. When it came to debating these lands again, which was some 18
13 months later or whatever, I take it your view was still the same in terms of
14 you, you think there should be --
11:42:28 15 A. Higher density?
16
17 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes, that there should have been higher density.
18 A. It would have been, yeah.
19
11:42:34 20 JUDGE FAHERTY: Because we know what happened after May when Mr. Barrett's
21 motion was passed. All the lands the subject matter of that motion and
22 including the lands of all Cherrywood, were zoned one house to the acre.
23 A. Uh-huh.
24
11:42:47 25 JUDGE FAHERTY: You obviously were fairly pro active in the council because it
26 looks as if back in May when, this is '92, when the manager was putting forward
27 his proposals, you've seconded that. And you've said fair you have enough
28 that could be courtesy
29 A. Uh-huh.
11:43:05 30

www.pcr.ie Day 658
42
11:43:05 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: It would appear that your voice was heard in any event.
2 A. Fair enough.
4 JUDGE FAHERTY: In some shape or form on the day. Can I just ask you. A
11:43:13 5 motion was produced and obviously it appears, probably Ms. Coffey will be able
6 to give us more details, the motion in 1993 is produced.
7 A. Uh-huh.
9 JUDGE FAHERTY: Which seeks to uphold or support the manager's recommendation
11:43:27 10 to take away change three I think it is, which was to take away the one house
11 and to put four houses to the acre on the lands. But that there's a -- but
12 that's only in relation to the Monarch lands.
13 A. Uh-huh.
14
11:43:42 15 JUDGE FAHERTY: And I'm just wondering if -- can you recall if at all, why you
16 wouldn't have queried why it should be just as it was apparently the lands of
17 Monarch? Because the manager was recommending the change be deleted for the
18 entire of the lands.
19 A. Yeah.
11:44:06 20
21 JUDGE FAHERTY: And that's something in fairness that you had supported back
22 in May '92.
23 A. Uh-huh. Well I can only speculate as to why. Densities -- my recollection
24 of when densities were being sited upon, if you were proposing the development
11:44:21 25 of lands in close proximity to an existing development. And if that existing
26 development had a density of X per acre, it was normal practice that the
27 immediate development which was proposed to take place in the newly zoned lands
28 would be in sympathy for a certain distance with the existing development.
29 And then -- in fact, that still prevails today. And then perhaps as you move
11:44:49 30 further away from those lands at the lower density, you can then raise the

www.pcr.ie Day 658
43
11:44:53 1 density.
3 JUDGE FAHERTY: If you put up 7217.
4 A. It's more sympathetic.
11:45:00 5
6 JUDGE FAHERTY: I just want to get the map. Do you see that map? That was
7 the map that was, that went out, as I understand it, after the -- Mr. Barrett's
8 vote effectively. And if you look at the lands outlined in red, they were
9 ultimately then zoned or not zoned but voted on for four houses to the acre.
11:45:23 10 But outside of that red line we're left at one house to the acre.
11 A. Uh-huh.
12
13 JUDGE FAHERTY: Whereas, yourself and indeed others who have given evidence,
14 back in May, the year previously, were supportive of the fact that all of the
11:45:41 15 lands marked, zoned, in yellow, which are the residential lands --
16 A. Uh-huh.
17
18 JUDGE FAHERTY: -- should be four houses to the acre on the action area plan.
19 A. Yeah, that would have been --
11:45:51 20
21 JUDGE FAHERTY: I'm just wondering then why you would have restricted or
22 modified your views.
23 A. I don't think I modified my view. I would assume that there was -- there was
24 resistance. In fact, I recall there was resistance from local residents
11:46:08 25 associations to the four per acre density. And obviously that was reflected
26 eventually in the modified proposal.
27
28 JUDGE FAHERTY: But do I take it from what you're saying, that you don't know
29 why if there was debate on the day or indeed, why the actual land that was
11:46:34 30 zoned four to the acre would have run along the boundary of Monarch

www.pcr.ie Day 658
44
11:46:40 1 effectively?
2 A. I can't recall why that.
4 JUDGE FAHERTY: Obviously not all because there was some land left
11:46:45 5 agricultural in fairness. No, I can't say why that actually happened on the
6 day. I mean, I would have supported four to the acre on the entirety of the
7 lands. So perhaps I saw it as just a good fall-back position that at least we
8 got four to the acre on a substantial portion of the lands.
11:47:01 10 JUDGE FAHERTY: All right.
11 A. I wasn't that tuned into the fact that it was specifically Monarch lands.
12 That wasn't very clear to me at the time.
13
14 JUDGE FAHERTY: We know -- just on that point as I understand it, especially
11:47:13 15 in May '92 there were a number of motions put to the floor. And a lot of
16 them -- these were zoned, to keep it, after the first display, where it was
17 four to the acre, to keep it at one to the acre. And a lot of the motions I
18 think, refer specifically to Monarch. I mean, Monarch, the word Monarch would
19 have seemed from the minutes appeared on a fairly regular basis.
11:47:34 20 A. Yeah.
21
22 JUDGE FAHERTY: Would you agree with that, Mr. McGrath?
23 A. Well I have no doubt yes they did because I've read some of the minutes, yeah.
24 Chairman, you'd have to be in constant attendance or Judge, at some of these
11:47:47 25 meetings to really have 100 percent feel for exactly what's going on at any
26 given time. That sort of detail is quite often lost on the members if they're
27 actually there for the full debate.
28
29 JUDGE FAHERTY: All right. Thanks very much, that's all I have.
11:48:02 30

www.pcr.ie Day 658
45
2 A. All right.
4 CHAIRMAN: We'll rise for, say, ten minutes.
11:48:07 5
11:48:14 10 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED FOR A SHORT BREAK
12
13 MS. DILLON: Good afternoon, Sir. Ms. Elizabeth Coffey, please.
14
12:02:23 15 MR. FARREN: Chairman, before Mrs. Coffey gives evidence. This is Brian
16 Farren, counsel for Mrs. Coffey instructed by Langwell solicitors. Mrs. Coffey
17 was granted limited representation in relation to two previous modules. I
18 would simply apply for a continuation of that.
19
12:02:39 20 CHAIRMAN: All right. Granted.
21
22 MR. FARREN: Thank you, Chairman.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 658
46
12:02:43 1 MRS. BETTY COFFEY HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS QUESTIONED BY
2 MS. DILLON AS FOLLOWS:
4 CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon, Ms. Coffey.
12:02:57 5
6 Q. 298 MS. DILLON: Good afternoon, Mrs. Coffey.
7 You have previously given evidence to the Tribunal in the Carrickmines 1
8 Module, isn't that right? And also in a subsequent module dealing with lands
9 in north County Dublin?
12:03:13 10 A. That's correct, Ms. Dillon.
11 Q. 299 And you were during the period that we're looking at in the Carrickmines lands
12 a member of Dublin County Council and subsequently a member and indeed
13 Cathaoirleach of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council?
14 A. Correct.
12:03:32 15 Q. 300 Now, in relation to the evidence that you gave to the Tribunal in the
16 Carrickmines 1 Module, is there any part of that evidence that you wish to
17 change?
18 A. No.
19 Q. 301 If I could deal, first of all, with the sequence of your disclosure to the
12:03:41 20 Tribunal in relation to payments in connection with Mr. Frank Dunlop. And if
21 I could start by showing you what you told the internal Fianna Fail Inquiry, at
22 page 148, please. Now, this is a record of the report on the interview with
23 you that was carried out by the Fianna Fail Inquiry.
24
12:04:05 25 And at the second paragraph it records that "Councillor Coffey indicated her
26 dismay at the recent revelations and the manner in which they reflected on
27 councillors, who like herself, had dedicated themselves to public service and
28 who had never been motivated by personal gain."
29 A. Yes.
12:04:20 30 Q. 302 "Constituency records show that Frank Dunlop made a donation of 250 pounds to a

www.pcr.ie Day 658
47
12:04:22 1 constituency fundraising committee. This donation was for constituency
2 funding. Councillor Coffey received no personal donation from Mr. Dunlop and
3 no personal donations from any developer or builder."
12:04:33 5 Now, is that accurate insofar as it relates, in the first instance, to Mr.
6 Dunlop and in the second instance to developers or builders, Ms. Coffey?
7 A. Well the interview with Fianna Fail I wasn't clear and I had no records, by the
8 way, of any donations for election campaigns. As a matter of fact, I had
9 phoned Frank Dunlop to ask him and I think that's recorded, had he given me any
12:04:59 10 donations and he informed me he had. So I had no records and I stand over
11 that statement.
12 Q. 303 Uh-huh.
13 A. In the sense that my family and their friends, who are business friends, would
14 fund my General Election campaigns. And indeed, would fund Fianna Fail
12:05:20 15 fundraising events.
16 Q. 304 So your position is that you did not receive any personal donations from Mr.
17 Dunlop and you did not receive any personal donations from any developer or
18 builder, is that your position?
19 A. Since that statement I wrote a letter in to Fianna Fail to tell them that I had
12:05:35 20 discovered a donation from Monarch for the 1992 General Election of 1,000
21 pounds. I actually wrote to letter to Fianna Fail.
22 Q. 305 And insofar as Mr. Dunlop is concerned, has your position in relation to what
23 monies Mr. Dunlop might have given you changed?
24 A. Well, I accept that Mr. Dunlop gave me 1,000 pounds for the 1992 General
12:05:59 25 Election which I sent him a letter thanking him for. He had said he gave me
26 1,000 in 1991, which I do not remember and I have no records.
27 Q. 306 Yes.
28 A. And I don't think he has either.
29 Q. 307 Do you recollect receiving 1,000 pounds from Mr. Sean Dunne for the 1991
12:06:20 30 elections?

www.pcr.ie Day 658
48
12:06:21 1 A. No, I don't remember that. That's it.
2 Q. 308 Yes. So insofar as your initial position with the Fianna Fail Inquiry was,
3 Mrs. Coffey, as I understand what's recorded in the document at page 148. Was
4 that you hadn't received any personal donations from Mr. Dunlop or any personal
12:06:39 5 donations from any developer or builder. Your position now is, is that you
6 accept you did receive at least 1,000 pounds from Mr. Dunlop in 1992 for which
7 you wrote a letter thanking him which I'll come to in a moment. And that you
8 did at least receive 1,000 pounds from Monarch Properties, isn't that right?
9 A. Since that I discovered that I received 1,000 pounds from Monarch Properties.
12:07:05 10 I was a member of the fundraising committee in Dun Laoghaire, I was one of the
11 prominent members of it. And there was a lot of people, including builders,
12 that contributed to those fundraising events. And I informed Fianna Fail
13 committee, who was sitting then, of that.
14 Q. 309 So --
12:07:27 15 A. So, some of them could have been, like, some -- I find the fundraising events
16 were confused with personal contributions to General Elections.
17 Q. 310 Yes. But the position is as of now, Ms. Coffey, that 1,000 pounds that you
18 received on the 17th of November 1992 was a personal donation to you from
19 Monarch Properties, isn't that right?
12:07:48 20 A. It was.
21 Q. 311 It wasn't anything to do with constituency fundraising or anything else, isn't
23 A. No, it was a contribution for a General Election. And like when you say
24 "personal."
12:07:58 25 Q. 312 Yes.
26 A. You know, I want to make it clear. And I think we have been down this before.
27 A contribution for a General Election is not what I consider a personal, as
28 it's worded there. It's a contribution to fund election times and that is the
29 law of the land, it's not personal to me.
12:08:29 30 Q. 313 Yes. Insofar as you first provided information to the Tribunal, Mrs. Coffey,

www.pcr.ie Day 658
49
12:08:29 1 in connection with your dealings with Mr. Dunlop at page 160 please. The
2 statement you provided to the Tribunal in connection with the Carrickmines 1
3 Module. If I just draw your attention to the last sentence in that statement,
4 Ms. Coffey. And I quote "Insofar as I can assert and no contribution donation
12:08:40 5 or payment whether for elections expenses or otherwise" and in the view of what
6 you just said a moment ago I emphasise the word "otherwise" was ever made by
7 Mr. Frank Dunlop to me."
8 A. Yes, I accept that's there.
9 Q. 314 And you --
12:08:53 10 A. I accept that I made a mistake. Actually I rang Frank Dunlop and you have it
11 in one of the documentations, to ask him had he contributed to any campaigns.
12 And in reading through the statements, he told me he had. I hadn't got the
13 letter at that time and I don't know -- oh, no he had the letter that's right.
14 I didn't have that letter in file with where I thanked him. He had the
12:09:18 15 letter. So I was wrong and I admit I was wrong but I actually phoned him to
16 find out had he.
17 Q. 315 Yes. So that it was your belief in October of 2002 that you had not received
18 any money for any purpose whatsoever from Mr. Dunlop, isn't that the position?
19 A. It was.
12:09:34 20 Q. 316 And you subsequently came into the Tribunal on day 412 and you swore to the
21 truth of that statement, isn't that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 317 At question 138. And you confirmed on sworn testimony to the Tribunal that
24 you had not received any money from Mr. Dunlop isn't that also the position?
12:09:49 25 A. That was what I believed at that time, yes.
26 Q. 318 And when I asked you this morning was there any part of your evidence in
27 relation to Carrickmines 1 that you wished to change, you indicated that there
28 was no part of your evidence that you had given in the Carrickmines 1 Module
29 that you wished to change. And I ask you again now. Is there any part of
12:10:06 30 your evidence that you had previously given to the Tribunal in the Carrickmines

www.pcr.ie Day 658
50
12:10:09 1 1 Module that you now wish to change?
2 A. Are you asking me and I want to be very careful about this because I had a very
3 gruesome time in the Carrickmines 1 Module with the questioning, or I was very
4 upset at it, I must say. And I understand what the Tribunal is at and I want
12:10:44 5 to assist the Tribunal in every way. If you're asking me did I lie, I didn't
6 lie. If you're asking me for the record, am I to change it now that I've
7 discovered that Frank Dunlop gave me 1,000. Well I will change it and say
8 yes, change that, please. But if you're asking me did I lie to the Tribunal.
9 CHAIRMAN: No you are simply being asked do you want to change your evidence.
12:11:10 10 It doesn't mean --
11 A. It doesn't mean that I'm lying.
12
13 CHAIRMAN: It doesn't necessarily mean that you lied to the Tribunal.
14 A. No.
12:11:17 15
16 CHAIRMAN: But it's important that we know that the evidence which is there on
17 the record, if it's to be changed, for whatever reason.
18 A. Right.
19
12:11:24 20 CHAIRMAN: That it is changed. That's why you're being asked.
21 A. Okay. Well that's fine. Well then you can change it to say that I got, to
22 the best of my knowledge. No, not to the best of my knowledge, because we have
23 proof of it now because Mr. Dunlop gave the letter that I sent him. That's a
24 form of a letter to people who thanked, who do things for you during election.
12:11:47 25 1,000 pounds in 1992. Is that all right?
26
27 Q. 319 MS. DILLON: Is it your position then, Ms. Coffey, just so the Tribunal
28 understands it, that it was not until production of the letter by Mr. Dunlop
29 that you recollected that you had in fact received money from Mr. Dunlop?
12:12:09 30 A. Well that was the proof I got that I had received it. I think -- I don't know

www.pcr.ie Day 658
51
12:12:14 1 when the phone call took place. I can't recollect what date that was. He
2 did say he gave it to me but I had no records and I had no proof.
3 Q. 320 Can you recollect now whether that donation by Mr. Dunlop was in cash?
4 A. No, I can't.
12:12:33 5 Q. 321 According to Mr. Dunlop, you see, Mr. Dunlop says that when he -- that when he
6 paid you this May donation in 1992, that it was probably in cash and it may
7 have been either 1,000 or 2,000 pounds. And can you assist at all as to the
8 amount that Mr. Dunlop gave you?
9 A. Well Mr. Dunlop did a summary of payments to Betty Coffey, page 332. In which
12:13:01 10 he stated Betty Coffey 1,000; 1991. 1, 000; 1992. 1,500 for fundraising
11 events. And I'm quite positive about the 1,500 because he attended the
12 women's lunch which the Taoiseach was at and he would have paid 500 pounds for
13 that. That's where he said he met me for lunch. You may recollect that from
14 my previous evidence. And 1,000 pounds for a St. Patrick's Day event. So
12:13:32 15 that's that. But when he tots it up he won't get ten out of ten for maths.
16 He tots it up as the 4,500 in in fact it amounts to 3,500.
17 Q. 322 Did you you accept that's the amount of money Mr. Dunlop paid you; 3,500?
18 A. He didn't send me 3,500. He says he sent me 1,000 in 1991. He doesn't know
19 if it was from him or from Berland. I have no records. He has no records
12:14:05 20 but I have no problem whatsoever in saying to you I accept that he may have
21 sent me an election campaign donation. And I'm -- I must emphasise that.
22 Nobody ever paid me anything only at election time to contribute to help me get
23 elected.
24 Q. 323 All we're trying to do at the moment, if we can at all, Ms. Coffey. And if
12:14:31 25 you'd answer the questions I ask you we might make a bit more progress. Is to
26 try and now establish in light of your previous evidence and the correspondence
27 you have had with the Tribunal, what in fact you now accept that you got from
28 Mr. Dunlop. And do I understand your evidence to the Tribunal today to be,
29 that you now accept you got 1,000 pounds in 1991 and a similar amount in 1992
12:14:52 30 from Mr. Dunlop?

www.pcr.ie Day 658
52
12:14:54 1 A. I accept I got 1,000 pounds in 1992. I've no record and I don't remember
2 getting 1,000 pounds in 1991. And the other sum of money he's mentioned, which
3 I brought to the attention of the Tribunal by the way and asked them to correct
4 it, which they haven't, was for fundraising, fianna Fail fundraising events so
12:15:15 5 we're talking about two payments. One of which I don't remember and I have no
6 records of it and doesn't appear he has either.
7 Q. 324 So is it your evidence then that you accept that you received in 1992 a sum of
8 1,000 pounds from Mr. Dunlop?
9 A. Absolutely.
12:15:31 10 Q. 325 And did you get that money in cash, as Mr. Dunlop says he paid it?
11 A. I don't remember. I would have thought it would have been a cheque but I
12 don't remember.
13 Q. 326 It wouldn't appear that there are any cheques in a, for that sum in Mr.
14 Dunlop's records or the records of Mr. Dunlop's business to you in 1991,
12:15:51 15 Ms. Coffey.
16 A. Mr. Dunlop has never handed me personally cash. He may have come to what we
17 always had an election campaign office and a team would be there and he could
18 have left it for me. But he never personally handed me cash to the best of my
19 memory. And I think I would remember if he handed me cash.
12:16:14 20 Q. 327 And certainly you accept that Mr. Dunlop was a supporter of your -- of the
21 fundraising of the Fianna Fail organisation in Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown, is that
22 right?
23 A. Absolutely.
24 Q. 328 And can I ask you about Mr. Sean Dunne and Berland Homes and whether or not you
12:16:32 25 ever recollect receiving 1,000 pounds from Mr. Dunlop and being told it was
26 being paid on behalf of Mr. Sean Dunne?
27 A. No. I've no memory of that whatsoever.
28 Q. 329 You will have seen the statement that has been provided to the Tribunal by
29 Mr. Sean Dunne, 8852.
12:16:48 30 A. Yes, I just got that today.

www.pcr.ie Day 658
53
12:16:49 1 Q. 330 Yes. And you will see there that Mr. Dunne confirms and will apparently next
2 week tell the Tribunal, that he made a payment of 1,000 pounds in 1991 as a
3 contribution to it your Local Election campaign.
4 A. Yes.
12:17:00 5 Q. 331 It was made on behalf of Berland Homes Limited which I understand to be a
6 development company, and I cannot recollect whether it was made directly to
7 Ms. Coffey or through Mr. Dunlop. It was fully approved by the board of
8 Berland Homes Limited.
9 A. Uh-huh. I have no problem with that but I have no record of it.
12:17:15 10 Q. 332 Right. Do you know Mr. Sean Dunne?
11 A. I do.
12 Q. 333 Is Mr. Dunne a developer?
13 A. He is.
14 Q. 334 And is Berland Homes a developer?
12:17:23 15 A. They are.
16 Q. 335 And is Monarch Properties a developer?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 336 And when you told the Fianna Fail Inquiry, I think we looked at a it earlier.
19 A. Can you go back to that statement. Can you put that one back up again?
12:17:37 20 Q. 337 Which one do you want, the Fianna Fail one?
21 A. Yes, the Fianna Fail statement.
22 Q. 338 Yes 148, please. Now, "Councillor Coffey received no personal donations from
23 Mr. Dunlop and no personal donations from any developer or builder."
24 A. Yes. I never received anything on a, on a personal nature from any developer
12:18:06 25 or any builder, anything I ever received which I didn't look after at all, I
26 received as a contribution to my um, election campaigns.
27 Q. 339 Yes.
28 A. I think the question put to me. And I cannot be sure, was did you ever
29 personally get any money. No, I never personally got any money from anyone.
12:18:22 30 Q. 340 And certainly when you were asked by the Tribunal to identify the source of

www.pcr.ie Day 658
54
12:18:26 1 political donations received by you. You provided information which is
2 recorded on pages 149 and 150. And while you identify having received a
3 political donation from Mr. Sean Mulryan and indeed Monarch Properties. You
4 don't identify having received any money from Mr. Sean Dunne or Berland Homes,
6 A. Well actually you have more than that. You have --
7 Q. 341 Sorry. The question, Ms. Coffey, is did you identify having received a sum of
8 money from either Mr. Sean Dunne or Berland Homes. So if you just answer that
9 question and then expand on whatever point you want to make.
12:19:02 10 A. No, I didn't put it in. And I'm sure there's other people I've left out too
11 because I can't remember who paid me. I have a -- my family is in business.
12 They are all in business and some of their business friends would have sent me
13 political contributions.
14 Q. 342 And --
12:19:21 15 A. And it's actually unfair to put the few names down you can remember though you
16 don't have records and leave out all of the others. So there's more than Sean
17 Dunne by the way that would have sent me a political contribution but I know
18 Sean Dunne well.
19 Q. 343 But you weren't in a position, is that the case, your memory was jogged by the
12:19:40 20 recent correspondence from Mr. Dunne in relation to that payment, is that
21 right?
22 A. Yes. Well, Sean Dunne said, I'm confused by the '91 contribution. If Sean
23 Dunne said he sent me 1,000 pounds for the 1991, I would accept that.
24 Q. 344 Yes. And you accept now having seen the letter that you wrote to Mr. Dunlop
12:20:02 25 that you got a payment from Mr. Dunlop in 1992?
26 A. I do.
27 Q. 345 Yes. And if we just look then very quickly at the situation in relation to
28 Monarch Properties?
29 A. Uh-huh.
12:20:13 30 Q. 346 There were a number of payments, Ms. Coffey, and some of them were payments in

www.pcr.ie Day 658
55
12:20:20 1 connection with the St. Patrick's Day lunch in Dun Laoghaire, isn't that right?
3 Q. 347 And that's, as I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, a
4 fundraising activity that's carried out in the constituency as it were?
12:20:35 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 348 And is it the position that the funds generated by that are constituency funds?
7 A. Yes, definitely.
8 Q. 349 Yes. But insofar as the November 1992 contribution of 1,000 pounds is
9 concerned, that was a contribution to yourself, isn't that right?
12:20:48 10 A. It was a contribution, an unsolicited contribution to my election campaign of
11 1992. Which I believe Monarch sent to very many politicians of different
12 parties reading through the, some of the statements you sent out to me.
13 Q. 350 Yes. It would appear that in June of 1991 at 3185. That a cheque was drawn,
14 apparently, in favour of you but never sent because it was cancelled by Monarch
12:21:18 15 Properties. If you look some half way down approximately of that list between
16 Paddy Madigan and Therese Ridge you will see "Betty Coffey FF 300 pounds" and
17 the word "cancelled" beside it. Can you confirm in fact that you did not
18 receive that donation?
19 A. Well I don't know anything about that donation to be honest with you. And I
12:21:38 20 missed it when going through these. And may I apologise to the Tribunal for
21 one thing. I have something like 19 volumes of documents and I have some
22 very, grave family commitments at the moment. I haven't been able to read
23 through all of them but I tried to choose the pieces that I thought would be
24 relevant. So my apologies for that. I haven't really been able to have the
12:22:04 25 time to do it.
26 Q. 351 And insofar as November 1992 is concerned, Ms. Coffey. I think you accept
27 that you received a sum of 1,000 pounds by way of a cheque?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 352 You say that that was unsolicited and you didn't seek it, is that correct?
12:22:18 30 A. Correct.

www.pcr.ie Day 658
56
12:22:18 1 Q. 353 At that time would you have known Mr. Richard Lynn?
2 A. Yes.
4 CHAIRMAN: Sorry, Ms. Dillon. That 1,000 pounds is that from Monarch?
12:22:25 5
6 Q. 354 MS. DILLON: Yes. That's from Monarch Properties. Sorry, the 1,000 pounds
7 from Monarch Properties is recorded at page 3880. Just above a payment of
8 1,000 pounds to Mr. GV Wright.
9 A. Yes.
12:22:48 10 Q. 355 You will see that, an extract from the cheque payments book that records
11 receipt, payment of a cheque in the sum of 1,000 pounds to you, isn't that
12 right, Mrs. Coffey?
14 Q. 356 And I think that in March of 1994, Monarch Properties disclose at page 5005,
12:22:59 15 payment of a sum of 1,000 pounds as a fundraiser to the St. Patrick's Day
16 lunch.
17 A. That's.
18 Q. 357 And in brackets Betty Coffey "B Coffey", isn't that right?
12:23:12 20 Q. 358 And would it have been the normal way, would you have written out to Monarch
21 Properties seeking their support for that?
22 A. It would have been, we would have sent out Comhairle Dail cheantair headed
23 paper to various people, in the area, all the business people in the Dun
24 Laoghaire/Rathdown area seeking support for the lunch.
12:23:32 25 Q. 359 And I think Monarch Properties also contributed a sum of 700 pounds towards an
26 activity that was being run by Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown Chamber of Commerce.
27 8567. This was the Endeavour Awards, isn't that right?
28 A. That's right.
29 Q. 360 And I just want to draw to your attention a note at the bottom where it's
12:23:54 30 recorded that "Betty Coffey's husband is running this". Do you see that note

www.pcr.ie Day 658
57
12:23:59 1 at the bottom?
2 A. I see T 1994. I think my husband was president of the Chamber of Commerce
3 then.
4 Q. 361 And that?
12:24:05 5 A. I could be wrong though but he was at certain stages.
6 Q. 362 And that request is directed to Mr. Noel Murray. Would you have known
7 Mr. Noel Murray?
8 A. Yes, you would meet Noel Murray at various functions particularly the Chamber
9 of Commerce. I think they were members of the Chamber of Commerce, Monarch
12:24:23 10 and you'd see Noel Murray and people like that there.
11 Q. 363 Yes. And I think again in February of 1996 you wrote to Mr. Richard Lynn
12 seeking support for the St. Patrick's day lunch. 5763.
13 A. Uh-huh.
14 Q. 364 You confirm that you wrote that letter, isn't that right?
12:24:41 15 A. Well you see again I signed it "Betty" but the top of it, it's from the Fianna
16 Fail Comhairle Dail cheantair Dun Laoghaire. And they would have asked me to
17 sign that because that's ...
18 Q. 365 Yes.
19 A. They would have known that I knew Richard Lynn.
12:24:57 20 Q. 366 Because there's a note there at the bottom there "Richard phone me re this
21 lunch" and that's a note from you, is it?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 367 So you were asking Mr. Lynn to contact you directly about the lunch, isn't that
24 right?
12:25:06 25 A. To see did he want it take a table at lunch so we'd know how many tables we
26 sold.
27 Q. 368 Right, so he did in fact -- I think the sum of 1,300 pounds was paid on that
28 occasion, isn't that right?
29 A. That's right.
12:25:17 30 Q. 369 And I think again Dublin -- Dun Laoghaire Community Enterprise Society, of

www.pcr.ie Day 658
58
12:25:23 1 which you were a member of the board, received funding from Monarch Properties
2 as well isn't that right, in the sum of 1,000 pounds?
3 A. Well the Dun Laoghaire Enterprise Board was made up of and indeed the founder
4 members, John Docklan and myself. And it was to set up an enterprise centre
12:25:45 5 in the centre of Dun Laoghaire which we're very proud of, to try and create
6 some jobs. And yes, we wrote to every business person in the community and
7 asking them to help us and sponsor it. And the building is there today, it is
8 the old fire station, very successful.
9 Q. 370 And did you yourself make a personal approach in advance of any correspondence
12:26:03 10 from the board to Monarch in order to get funding?
11 A. No, I wouldn't do that. The letter would go out. That's it.
12 Q. 371 Could I have page 8559, please. This is the letter that was sent on the 5th
13 of March 1997 which appears to be the first or introductory letter. And I
14 just want to draw to your attention the second paragraph "I understand from
12:26:20 15 Councillor Betty Coffey, who is a member of our board, that Monarch kindly
16 agreed to donate 1,000 pounds towards the cost of this work. We are indeed
17 grateful for the contribution and I am now writing to request that you might
18 forward same as your convenience as we are now nearing completion of the
19 project."
12:26:36 20
21 That would suggest, Ms. Coffey, if it's an accurate note of the letter, that
22 you had been in touch with Monarch directly and sought the sponsorship. Isn't
23 that right?
24 A. Well, I think I can put it a different way to you.
12:26:50 25 Q. 372 Now I'm just dealing with the answer you gave a few minutes ago when I asked
26 you would you have made a direct approach to somebody in Monarch and you said
27 no?
28 A. I would on a regular have basis have met business people at Chamber of Commerce
29 lunches, I would have met Noel Murray, I would have met all of the Monarch
12:27:08 30 people. And not only to them but to other people I would have said look the

www.pcr.ie Day 658
59
12:27:13 1 enterprise centre now is definitely going to happen will you support it. Not
2 me personally an enterprise centre.
3 Q. 373 Yes but insofar as I had asked you a few moments ago whether you had approached
4 Monarch Properties directly in advance of correspondence issuing the DUn
12:27:35 5 Laoghaire Community Enterprise Society Limited, do you accept now that the
6 position is that it is likely that you would have made a direct approach to
7 somebody in Monarch for this support in advance of the correspondence?
8 A. Well I don't remember. But if it's in writing, then I did it.
9 Q. 374 Yes. And certainly it would appear that you must have known some of the
12:27:46 10 people in Monarch well enough to be able to approach them to seek their support
11 for a project such as this, isn't that right?
12 A. Well the people in Monarch were involved in everything in Dun Laoghaire. It
13 would be very hard if you were Cathaoirleach for instance and a member of the
14 council not to know all of the people in Monarch. They were in the Chamber of
12:28:04 15 Commerce. They were sponsors of the Horse Show. I couldn't name the list of
16 things they were in. They were very well known to everyone.
17 Q. 375 Was it your position in relation to Monarch's proposed development in
18 Cherrywood, Ms. Coffey, that you were against it from the beginning?
19 A. I wasn't against development in Cherrywood. And it's a story in itself and I
12:28:32 20 don't know how to answer your question like yes or no. I know the Tribunal
21 wants to know how things happen.
22
23 I was against massive rezoning all throughout the Carrickmines Valley and over
24 it. I -- the different -- as the meetings evolved it was Monarch's land that
12:28:55 25 was the land that was in the prime position for, say, the first development and
26 they had a very, very aggressive lobby to support what they wanted. You also
27 had -- you had three lobbies. You had the lobby from Loughlinstown,
28 Ballybrack and then you had the Carrickmines Valley Protection Society. But
29 my main aim was that the town of Dun Laoghaire in 1991 there was no
12:29:23 30 development. There was no development anywhere. And I can assure you that

www.pcr.ie Day 658
60
12:29:27 1 there was nobody looking to buy a house at that stage because nobody had a job
2 at that stage.
4 And I was adamantly opposed to Monarch getting a town centre or even a district
12:29:39 5 centre zoning on that land. Completely opposed to it because it would be --
6 it would destroy Dun Laoghaire. We had to try and get investment into the Dun
7 Laoghaire town. That was the main town first before we started thinking of
8 building a huge district centre/town centre opposition to it a couple of miles
9 up the road. That was my position then and it was my position to the day I
12:30:07 10 left the council two years ago.
11 Q. 376 So I just want to understand this before we go to look at the documents and the
12 sequence in relation to the meetings, Ms. Coffey. It's your position that you
13 were opposed to development because of the development of a possible town
14 centre on the lands which would have adversely effected the viability of Dun
12:30:28 15 Laoghaire town centre?
17 Q. 377 Now, at 176 you have provided a statement to the Tribunal and in it you say two
18 things. And I just want to clarify that this is your position so that the
19 Tribunal can understand it.
12:30:44 20
21 In the second paragraph you say the following "During late 1989/1990
22 discussions at Dublin County Council began regarding the lands at Cherrywood as
23 part of the discussion on the proposed County Development Plan. Monarch
24 Properties, the owners of the lands at Cherrywood started to lobby councillors
12:31:00 25 for a major rezoning which included a town centre zoning on the part of the
26 land. I was deeply concerned that a town centre zoning on this land would
27 have drastic repercussions on the future development of Dun Laoghaire town
28 centre. In this regard, I was totally opposed to Monarch's proposals for such
29 rezoning. I considered that this was a major rezoning which would have
12:31:18 30 important implications for the whole of the Dun Laoghaire area and I expressed

www.pcr.ie Day 658
61
12:31:22 1 my views at Fianna Fail group meetings."
3 You then say at subparagraphs one and two that "You were contacted by Mr. Lynn
4 and during the coming years you had several meetings with Mr. Lynn but never
12:31:32 5 changed your mind."
7 Q. 378 That's your position?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 379 So it was always your position that you were an opponent to the Monarch
12:31:40 10 proposals for the rezoning of the lands, for the change in density on the lands
11 at Carrickmines. Is that right?
12 A. For the development of the retail element of the land in particular.
13 Q. 380 Well where in your statement do you make that distinction for the Tribunal,
14 Mrs. Coffey?
12:31:57 15 A. Well I make the distinction in stating that my main concern was the town
16 centre/ what's it district centre zoning was definitely going to destroy Dun
17 Laoghaire. The other aspects of it, which I think you're talking about, is
18 the residential element of it. Well you had then, on the on the other hand
19 you had the Carrickmines Valley, which started off wanting nothing and then
12:32:26 20 stepped down to one house to the acre. And then you had the Loughlinstown
21 group which wanted the whole land developed I suppose for jobs.
22
23 But my -- all my arguments to my colleagues was for the protection of the Dun
24 Laoghaire town centre. The difference in the residential zoning came as a
12:32:55 25 result of the lobbying from both sides. I mean, Monarch wanted 16 to the
26 acre, we've got to remember that. They got nothing in the final motion they
27 got -- I wouldn't say a quarter of what they wanted.
28 Q. 381 You will have seen in the documentation, Mrs. Coffey, that in November of 1993
29 you were a signatory to two motions; isn't that right? Having previously been
12:33:23 30 a signatory to a number of other motions which if necessary I will go back to

www.pcr.ie Day 658
62
12:33:28 1 deal with, but you were a signatory to two motions that dealt in particular
2 with the Carrickmines lands, isn't that right?
3 A. Yes. In '93 you're talking about.
4 Q. 382 The review of the '83 Plan?
12:33:40 5 A. Oh, yes, yes.
6 Q. 383 And in summary. So that I can outline the position in summary. Initially
7 what had happened was that the manager had brought certain proposals before the
8 council for the development of a large portion of land in a map called DP90/123
9 which was the subject of discussion in Carrickmines 1?
12:33:59 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 384 And that was voted down as a result of a motion by yourself in December of
12 1990, isn't that right?
13 A. Correct, yes.
14 Q. 385 And following that, the manager was directed to prepare new maps which he
12:34:09 15 presented to you and your colleagues in January of 1991?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 386 Following that, in May of 1991 prior to the first public display, the manager
18 brought a second map known as option one DP90/129A to the council and that was
19 adopted by the council and went on public display. Isn't that right?
12:34:34 20 A. Uh-huh. Well I don't have the map up and yes if it's there it's right, I don't
21 want to delay the Tribunal.
22 Q. 387 When the matter came back into the council after the first public display, a
23 number of motions were brought before the council and a meeting took place on
24 the 27th of May 1992.
12:34:50 25 A. Uh-huh. Yes.
26 Q. 388 There were 11 motions at that meeting.
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 389 And two of those motions were successful. One was a motion by Councillor
29 Gilmore and others for a district centre on a portion of the lands. And the
12:35:04 30 other was a motion by Councillor Barrett to reduce the density on the

www.pcr.ie Day 658
63
12:35:09 1 residential portion of all of the lands from four to the acre to one to the
2 acre?
3 A. Yes. Now, I don't think I was in attendance at those votes. Not -- was it
4 Eamonn Gilmore's motion for the district centre.
12:35:26 5 Q. 390 What happened and the record shows is you were in attendance on the 27th of May
6 1992. You voted against the manager's proposals on DP92/44.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 391 At page 7207.
9 A. Uh-huh.
12:35:40 10 Q. 392 You will see there on the record you are recorded as voting against the
11 manager's proposals for the rezoning effectively of the plans?
12 A. Oh, yes.
13 Q. 393 And you are not recorded as voting on the balance of the motions that took
14 place.
12:35:59 15 A. Yes, I voted against that motion.
16 Q. 394 You did and indeed, you are recorded in a, in the newspapers the following day.
17 If I could have 8161, please. And if we look at the fourth column across,
18 please. And if we could increase the fourth column across. And it's there.
19 A number of -- Fianna Fail Councillors told the meeting that she would be
12:36:31 20 voting against Councillor Lydon's motion which would have allowed the company
21 to build 6.6 houses on each acre of this site.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 395 Now, the -- can the Tribunal take it, Mrs. Coffey, that everybody at this
24 meeting knew that what was being discussed were the Carrickmines lands were the
12:36:47 25 Monarch lands?
26 A. I wouldn't -- I wouldn't say that they -- that the whole council, 78 members
27 knew that the land was called Monarch. They called it Cherrywood. So they'd
28 say they were voting on the Cherrywood proposal. We didn't always refer to
29 lands as the developer, you know.
12:37:09 30 Q. 396 Well Councillor Lydon seems to have been aware that the lands were Monarch

www.pcr.ie Day 658
64
12:37:13 1 lands because he's recorded in the newspapers as saying and I quote "basically
2 the outcome means the company can build 167 huge mansions on the site but I
3 understand they will not proceed with this said Councillor Lydon after the
4 meeting."
12:37:32 5
6 And it also records that Councillor Lydon had made a passionate plea on behalf
7 of Monarch saying that the project would bring 1,000 permanent jobs to the
8 area. And if one reads the article that was in the newspaper the following
9 day, Ms. Coffey, the only developer or landowner who is mentioned or discussed
12:37:41 10 is Monarch.
11 A. Well in the press by Councillor Lydon but you asked me would all of the
12 councillors be aware that it was the Monarch land. I couldn't answer that but
13 --
14 Q. 397 Were you aware it was the Monarch lands?
12:37:54 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 398 And had you been approached by anybody seeking you -- seeking your support for
17 an increase in density or a change on the Monarch lands?
18 A. What year was that?
19 Q. 399 1992.
12:38:09 20 A. Oh, yes.
21 Q. 400 And 1992 or 1993. Who approached you?
22 A. Well the man I dealt with, and I think the only person I dealt with was Richard
23 Lynn. And many, many meetings with Richard Lynn but he knew my position.
24 And I had passionately spoken in the council chamber that I was not and never
12:38:32 25 would support what Monarch initially wanted. But, you know, people ask for
26 meetings, he met me.
27 Q. 401 So in May of 1992, and as appears to be the position that's set out in the
28 record. Your position was that you were against what the manager was
29 proposing, which is recorded on 7203, please. Which is the manager's map,
12:38:59 30 Mrs. Coffey.

www.pcr.ie Day 658
65
12:38:59 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 402 The manager had brought a report in favour of this map and he had sought
3 changes on the map. And I think the council officials who have given evidence
4 to the Tribunal have agreed that the substantial portion of the changes,
12:39:15 5 suggested on this map, concerned only the Monarch lands. So --
6 A. Okay.
7 Q. 403 So it would appear that certainly from the official point of view what was
8 being proposed by the manager related primarily to the Monarch lands?
9 A. I'm sorry.
12:39:30 10 Q. 404 Yeah. They are the lands outlined in red on that map.
11 A. Yes, I see it.
12 Q. 405 And the manager was proposing a change from AP to A1P and a slight increase in
13 the area that would be zoned residential.
14 A. Yes.
12:39:41 15 Q. 406 And you voted against that.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 407 Now, the manager had in his report to the meeting indicated that what he meant
18 by A1P was low density residential four houses to the acre?
19 A. Correct.
12:39:53 20 Q. 408 So you voted against that?
21 A. I did.
22 Q. 409 So you were not in favour of four houses to the acre on the Monarch lands in
23 May of 1992?
24 A. No.
12:40:01 25 Q. 410 But in November of 1993 you were a co-signatory to a motion which had as its
26 direct effect the increase in density on the Monarch lands from one house to
27 the acre to four houses to the acre, isn't that right?
28 A. Correct.
29 Q. 411 Now, why did you do that?
12:40:19 30 A. Well we are on the motion I signed with Councillor Marren aren't we?

www.pcr.ie Day 658
66
12:40:23 1 Q. 412 Yes.
2 A. Well I'll tell you why I signed that: After the manager's motion I voted
3 against it. The following motion was a motion by Councillor Dockrell, which
4 was one to the acre, which I voted in favour of -- no wrong. The following
12:40:38 5 motion was by Councillor Breathnach and I don't know who seconded it, which was
6 one to the acre, which I voted in favour and that was lost. We now come to
7 the final motion, which is the one had -- you have to forgive me if I don't
8 remember number in all of the motions. So we come to the final motion. Now,
9 the manager's motion was only lost by two votes. Of which I was one. The
12:41:06 10 final motion, which was Donal Marren's motion or including Larry Lohan, myself,
11 Liam Cosgrave and I think it's Anne Ormonde, because it's not right to say one
12 person owns a motion or not, that's incorrect. That motion was very similar
13 to the manager's motion except that there was a certain amount of the land
14 zoned one to the acre. And forgive me if I preempt your question, why did I
12:41:37 15 only support Monarch and leave out one to the acre. I was never aware that
16 the other land was not owned by Monarch. I thought the whole lot was owned by
17 Monarch. You might find that silly or not but that's the way I -- that's the
18 honest truth.
19
12:41:50 20 And you're in a council chamber and you know what support you're getting, cross
21 party or otherwise. And you know the numbers. If you see that the manager's
22 proposal was only lost by two votes, then councillor -- the substantive motion
23 signed by the five of us was definitely going to be voted through.
24 Q. 413 With respect --
12:42:18 25 A. It was the best we could get at the time.
26 Q. 414 You are mixing up two sets of minutes, Ms. Coffey.
27 A. Well I --
28 Q. 415 And I'll take responsibility for that because I've been trying to hurry the
29 process along. You are cobbling together the events of May 1992 and November
12:42:33 30 1993?

www.pcr.ie Day 658
67
12:42:34 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 416 Because the manager's motion takes place on the 27th of May 1992 and is lost.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 417 Councillor Barrett's motion is successful on the same day. And your motion
12:42:43 5 and your colleague's motion to rezone the Monarch lands does not come before
6 the council until November 1993?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 418 So --
9 JUDGE FAHERTY: Ms. Dillon. Just to put it into context in fairness.
12:42:54 10
11 MS. DILLON: I think I'll go back --
12
13 JUDGE FAHERTY: What happens after May 1992, Ms. Coffey, when Mr. Barrett's
14 successful motion, the second public display goes out. And all of the lands
12:43:06 15 the subject matter of Mr. Barrett's motion are zoned one house to the acre.
16 So that's the second public display.
18
19 JUDGE FAHERTY: And that happens over the course of I think it's 1993.
12:43:20 20
21 MS. DILLON: July 1993.
22
23 JUDGE FAHERTY: July 1993 and it comes back then to the council for
24 effectively, the last of the meetings regarding the whole of the Carrickmines
12:43:29 25 Valley for the confirmation meeting.
26
27 Q. 419 MS. DILLON: If I show you a map it might make things simpler. 7217, please.
28 This is the effect of the May 1992 meeting. The yellow lands are all the
29 residentially zoned lands in the Carrickmines Valley. The lands outlined in
12:43:46 30 red are the lands owned by Monarch Properties. And the box part of those

www.pcr.ie Day 658
68
12:43:51 1 lands were the lands zoned for a town centre by Councillor Gilmore at the
2 meeting on the 27th of May. As a result of Councillor Barrett's motion all of
3 the yellow lands has a residential density of one to the acre. Whereas in the
4 first public display they'd had a residential density of four to the acre.
12:44:09 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 420 In May of 1992 you voted for two motions. Councillors Gordon and Reeves and
7 Breathnach and Smyth to keep the lands at one house per acre and that was lost.
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. 421 And Councillor Barrett's motion on which you did not vote, was won. And the
12:44:29 10 effect of that was that all of those lands on the map on screen that are
11 coloured yellow were zoned one house to the acre. That went out on the second
12 public display. It came back into the council for further consideration in
13 November 1993. At which stage you signed two motions. One in connection
14 with the town centre and one in connection with the residential density. The
12:44:53 15 residential density motion that you signed is at 7226.
16 A. 7226?
17 Q. 422 It's going to come on up on screen now. This is the motion in relation to the
18 residential density and the motion seeks to accept the County Manager agencies'
19 recommendation and delete the 1993 amendment in respect of the lands outlined
12:45:16 20 in red on the attached map and the balance of the lands remained at two per
21 acre. The manager in his report to the meeting had recommended deleting the
22 entire of Councillor Breathnach's change and reverting for the entire of the
23 residential lands back to four per acre.
12:45:30 25 Q. 423 The motion, the map that's signed by you and attached to the motion is 7227.
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 424 And the lands that are outlined in red are those portion of the Monarch lands
28 that go as far as the old 1983 Southeastern Motorway line. The residentially
29 zoned portion of the Monarch lands.
12:45:51 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 658
69
12:45:51 1 Q. 425 Right. So what your motion, Ms. Coffey, and Mr. Marren's motion, seeks to do
2 is to change the density on the Monarch lands from one per acre to four per
3 acre and leave the balance of the residentially zoned lands at one per acre?
12:46:07 5 Q. 426 Right.
6 A. And the district centre remains at neighbourhood centre.
7 Q. 427 I will come to the district centre in a moment.
8 A. All right.
9 Q. 428 What I would like you to outline to the Tribunal, do you accept first of all,
12:46:18 10 that this is a change in position for yourself?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. 429 All right. And would you just explain to the Tribunal, the factual basis on
13 which you came to change your opinion and then the circumstances in which you
14 came to sign this motion?
12:46:33 15 A. I will. First of all, we better -- I'll explain to you how I signed the
16 motion to the best of my memory. Councillor Marren came to me with the
17 motion. And as you see, Larry Lohan's name is underneath his name. And
18 asked me would I support, would I support the motion. I said I would. And
19 then he said will you sign it. I remember saying well why do you need to sign
12:47:02 20 it because he said you've spoken so often on the development, if your signature
21 is on it, it will carry weight. So I agreed to do that. Mainly because one,
22 I'd had achieved what I wanted to achieve. I'd had achieved a neighbourhood
23 centre on it and that took the risk away from Dun Laoghaire town centre. Two,
24 the land --
12:47:31 25 Q. 430 Can I just stop you there on that. Are you reading from some sort of prepared
26 script?
27 A. No, I'm not. You can have this if you like. This is the motion in front of
28 me.
29 Q. 431 Before you go on to talk about the neighbourhood centre, can I ask you this,
12:47:43 30 which motion was dealt with first?

www.pcr.ie Day 658
70
12:47:46 1 A. I'm dealing with which is referred to as the Marren Coffey motion. ARe you
2 happy with that?
3 Q. 432 Yes. You're talking about the neighbourhood centre being kept at neighbourhood
4 size. I am suggesting to you, Ms. Coffey, that that motion was voted on after
12:47:57 5 this motion was voted on, isn't that right?
6 A. Well I'm -- I've lost you a bit but I accept what you're saying.
7 Q. 433 We'll just get it clear in fairness to yourself, Ms. Coffey?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 434 You appear to be making a point to the Tribunal because you had satisfied
12:48:11 10 yourself about the size of the neighbourhood centre, you were then in a
11 position to change your position and sign this motion, is that the position?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 435 However, any amendment to the neighbourhood centre change took place after this
14 motion was voted upon so the record shows, isn't that right?
12:48:25 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 436 But if your concern had been to ensure that the changes that you were proposing
17 to the neighbourhood centre, one would have expected that you would have
18 ensured that that motion would have been voted on first?
19 A. Yes.
12:48:37 20 Q. 437 Did that happen?
21 A. Well the manager's report on his initial --
22 Q. 438 Sorry.
23 A. -- motion.
24 Q. 439 Sorry can you just answer the question, Mrs. Coffey?
12:48:45 25 A. I can't answer the question.
26 Q. 440 Was the neighbourhood motion voted on first?
27 A. Sorry, I can't answer the question the way you are putting it. I want to
28 explain to the Tribunal.
29

www.pcr.ie Day 658
71
12:48:53 1 A. I want to explain to the Tribunal.
4 A. When I spoke to the other signatories of this motion which I only spoke to
12:49:01 5 Donal Marren and Larry Lohan. They said that there was agreement to, that the
6 neighbourhood centre would stand, which was in the manager's initial motion
7 which I had vetted voted against. And that this was a completely compromised
8 motion. And I'm sorry, the Tribunal must just remember, we are not just
9 talking plan, we're talking politics. And in politics you have to have
12:49:28 10 positions. You have a position that you might start and another position that
11 you might end. Four houses to the acre is a fairly low density. It
12 certainly would not sustain a district centre or town centre. It would not
13 sustain it. And my understanding was that the reason that Donal Marren put
14 the amendment in his own writing there was to appease the Carrickmines Valley
12:49:55 15 Protection Society and Michael Smyth's group, wherever they were, by keeping
16 some of the land one to the acre. It's as simple as that.
17
18 Q. 441 MS. DILLON: The first motion that was to be dealt with that day. Could I
19 have page please 7224 for Ms. Coffey.
12:50:13 20 A. 7224?
21 Q. 442 Yes. It will come up on screen beside you. The first motion that was to be
22 dealt with was a motion by Councillor Smyth, Buckley and Misteil resolving that
23 the lands on change three be confirmed at low density housing of one or two
24 houses to the acre. And that was the first motion that was dealt with, isn't
12:50:29 25 that right?
26 A. That's right.
27 Q. 443 Now, you had voted in favour of such a motion in May of 1992, isn't that right?
28 A. Uh-huh.
29 Q. 444 You didn't do so on this occasion, isn't that right?
12:50:39 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 658
72
12:50:40 1 Q. 445 Now, what I have asked you to do on a number of occasions, I think this is my
2 third time now to ask you, Ms. Coffey, is to explain to the Tribunal the
3 factual basis on which you came to change your mind?
4 A. Well I don't think that I can explain it any more factually than I explained
12:51:00 5 it. But I will try again. You are in a council chamber made up of all
6 different political parties. You've tried to achieve an end result that suits
7 the people that you represent. There's interlinking going on between the
8 different political parties. It's a political arena. I don't know if
9 everybody watches the West Wing but it would be really, it would educate you
12:51:29 10 about politics. At the end of the day it's numbers. And remember,
11 Ms. Dillon, you told me one time, the last time we're not only bums on seats
12 and I was really insulted but at the end of the day it is numbers. It's what
13 you can achieve. I couldn't achieve one to the acre. And actually one to
14 the acre was a formula by which Monarch could never ever build a major shopping
12:51:59 15 centre because they wouldn't sustain it. Neither could they build a district
16 centre or a town centre at four to the acre.
17
18 CHAIRMAN: What did you understand this motion would achieve?
19 A. The motion would achieve.
12:52:10 20
21 CHAIRMAN: Which would in some way satisfy your own view?
22 A. The motion achieved that in the council chamber, talking to the heads of the
23 different groups that they were happy with a neighbourhood centre. That
24 nobody was going to try and push through a district centre. And this motion
12:52:34 25 sustained a neighbourhood centre and gave, it gave everybody something. It
26 gave Loughlinstown Ballybrack some job creation, something that would keep them
27 going. It gave Monarch enough to develop the land to a neighbourhood centre
28 at four to the acre, which they must have been desperately disappointed in.
29 And they gave the Carrickmines Valley, their one to the acre, and land to the
12:53:05 30 north of it.

www.pcr.ie Day 658
73
12:53:05 1
2 And I tell you I am an honourable person. I'm an honest person. I'm saying
3 it to you now. In all honesty, that was all behind the toing and froing and
4 the numbers game at what you can achieve. I was working for my town. I live
12:53:20 5 in the centre of Dun Laoghaire. I love Dun Laoghaire. I was protecting the
6 people and I look at it now, if anyone here lives in Dun Laoghaire, I mean Dun
7 Laoghaire now has an opportunity to boom. It's fantastic. And if you now
8 drive through Cherrywood and if you see the science and technology park and
9 what has established and the houses. Where were we to go? We were warned you
12:53:47 10 can't go out and meet Wicklow. You only had to go that way. And now we've
11 gone up to Stepaside. Now, I may be going on in yards. But I want to
12 impress on you, I'm not here to cod anyone. I'm here passionately telling you
13 what I did then. And I don't want to get upset, you know, I'm -- that's the
14 way it was.
12:54:08 15
17
18 Q. 446 MS. DILLON: In January of 1994 the councils were going to separate into three
19 separate councils, Mrs. Coffey, isn't that right?
12:54:15 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 447 Fingal, south Dublin and Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 448 This event is happening in November 1993, some two months before Dun
24 Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council takes up its own statutory functions, isn't
12:54:29 25 that right?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 449 And when Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council was established on the 1st of
28 January 1994, the number of councillors dealing with the matter or the area
29 would have been much reduced, isn't that right from the 78?
12:54:40 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 658
74
12:54:40 1 Q. 450 Isn't that the position? Now on the 11th of November 1993, Councillor Barrett
2 brought an amendment to councillor Misteil's motion at which he suggested at
3 7225. That the amendment that the manager be requested to prepare and submit
4 to the new Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown Council not later than June '94, a draft
12:55:03 5 variation of the new County Development Plan for these lands. And they are
6 the residentially zoned lands. Do you see that, Mrs. Coffey?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 451 This was an opportunity I suggest to you to have taken the entire difficult
9 situation that you have described and take it out of the hands of Dublin County
12:55:20 10 Council for a two or three month period and put it in the hands of effectively
11 the local councillors in Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown, isn't that right?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. 452 You voted against that amendment, isn't that right? That's what the record
14 shows.
12:55:34 15 A. Well if the record shows it. You're not putting it up.
16 Q. 453 7261, please?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 454 What I would like you to explain to the Tribunal, Mrs. Coffey, is this. What
19 was the urgency or the great necessity in November 1993 to get four houses to
12:55:51 20 the acre for Monarch?
21 A. The urgency was and I think Councillor Marren put it to you. The urgency was
22 this; 1992, that's 16 years ago isn't it now? 16. And you're asking me, by
23 the way, and I have to remind you, to think back to what way I was thinking 16
24 years ago. 16 years ago I didn't qualify for my bus pass. I do now.
12:56:23 25
26 However, what was trying to be achieved is, and there were huge debates. It's
27 a pity, the minutes don't reflect debates in the council chamber. What this
28 was going to achieve was it was going to get land developed that was going to
29 produce jobs for Loughlinstown Ballybrack. It was going to produce a fairly
12:56:51 30 low density housing to sustain it. And then it was going to, it was a piece.

www.pcr.ie Day 658
75
12:56:56 1 That's all I can say to you. And the debate had gone. Can you give me the
2 vote on that motion? What was the vote on that motion?
3 Q. 455 On which motion the amendment motion?
4 A. Councillor Barrett's.
12:57:07 5 Q. 456 7267. 43 to 27.
6 A. 43 to 27?
7 Q. 457 Uh-huh.
8 A. So 43 people voted it down, did they?
9 Q. 458 Voted against it.
12:57:17 10 A. They voted against it.
11 Q. 459 Yes.
12 A. So if I only could have the debate that was in the chamber. Then I can tell
13 you what I was thinking.
14 Q. 460 What I am asking you, Mrs. Coffey, is to explain how?
12:57:28 15 A. I don't --
16 Q. 461 When the manager had made a substantially similar proposal which he had brought
17 to the chamber in May of 1992 you voted against it.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 462 Yes. You are now voting for Monarch only and signing a motion that benefits
12:57:44 20 Monarch only in November 1993. Isn't that the position?
21 A. It happens to be the way you can interpret the position. But I'm telling you
22 that even though it was a Monarch only piece of land, the other piece of land,
23 one to the acre, I wasn't even aware that Monarch did not own it. So I'm not
24 going to go down that road. And surely by now I've convinced you. Surely by
12:58:08 25 now I've really convinced you of my abiding passion about what I was doing in
26 Dublin County Council.
27 Q. 463 What I'm concerned about, Mrs. Coffey, at 7229 leaving aside any abiding
28 passion you might have. Is why you elected to put your name to a motion that
29 had as its only and direct effect the benefiting of a specific landowner,
12:58:31 30 namely, Monarch Properties. And I really wish, and we might make progress.

www.pcr.ie Day 658
76
12:58:36 1 If you would for the fifth time would address your mind to answering that
2 simple question; why did you bring a motion before the council that is
3 completely contrary to the way you had voted in May of '92 and benefit a single
4 landowner, Monarch Properties. Would you just answer that question, please.
12:58:51 5 A. Well I believe I have answered it. I believe I've answered it twice. It
6 had -- it might be a long-winded answer but I've answered that question twice.
8 MR. FARREN: Chairman, If I may -- I hasten to interrupt my friend in full
9 flight, as it were but I think the witness has answered that question.
12:59:09 10
11 CHAIRMAN: Well she has. She insists that that is the --
12
13 MS. DILLON: Is the answer.
14
16
17 Q. 464 MS. DILLON: All right. Well then the position is this then Ms. Coffey to be
18 fair to you. The following is the position. In 1992 your position was one
19 house to the acre. No town centre. Is that correct?
12:59:26 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 465 In 1993 your position is four house to the acre for Monarch Properties and a
22 neighbourhood centre.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 466 Right. And that is as a result of tick tacking or political negotiation on
12:59:40 25 the floor of the chamber is that right?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 467 And were you approached or persuade in any way by anybody on behalf of Monarch?
28 Did Mr. Dunlop approach you for example?
29 A. No.
12:59:51 30 Q. 468 How do you know?

www.pcr.ie Day 658
77
12:59:51 1 A. I know he didn't because I was never aware that he was working for Monarch.
2 Q. 469 Did Mr. Lynn approach you?
3 A. Oh, several times. I'd several meetings with Richard Lynn.
4 Q. 470 And when did you ever indicate to Mr. Lynn that you had changed your position
13:00:06 5 in relation to Monarch?
6 A. No. Because I think that motion was held on the day. Richard Lynn could not
7 have been happy even with that motion. Monarch could not have been happy with
8 it. They wanted 16 to the acre. They said it was a district centre. They
9 wanted a town centre. That was a step down motion and -- and Monarch must
13:00:25 10 have been very disappointed with that motion.
11 Q. 471 Well did he send you flowers after the vote?
12 A. (laughter) I don't remember.
13 Q. 472 Mr. Lynn?
14 A. I don't remember.
13:00:35 15 Q. 473 8566. You see there flowers ordered by Richard Lynn for Betty Coffey and Phil
16 Reilly for Michael Keating. 11th of November 1993. Do you see that? Well
17 he certainly thought enough of you, didn't he, Mrs. Coffey, or what you had
18 done that he was minded enough to send you flowers the day of the vote, isn't
19 that right?
13:00:54 20 A. Well that was, I mean, I don't remember it. If he did. We got flowers at
21 Christmas always from Monarch.
22 Q. 474 Well I'm drawing to your attention first of all the date which is the 11th of
23 November --
24 A. I see it's the 11th. Richard Lynn is a gentleman. He probably knew he had
13:01:10 25 sort of annoyed me enough seeking enough meetings to get what they wanted which
26 they didn't get.
27 Q. 475 Well he certainly seems to have been happy enough with whatever you had done to
28 consider that you were worthy of receiving flowers on the same date as the
29 motion is passed, isn't that right?
13:01:27 30 A. Oh, yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 658
78
13:01:28 1 Q. 476 And do you accept now looking back on it, Mrs. Coffey, that there is a radical
2 change in your position between May of 1992 and November 1993 in relation to
4 A. No.
13:01:38 5 Q. 477 So you do not see being against a town centre, a neighbourhood centre and being
6 against four houses to the acre and only in favour of one to the acre in May of
7 '92 and being in favour of four to the acre and a neighbourhood centre in
8 November '93 as being a change in position?
9 A. No, I don't. Four to the acre is low density housing. 16 to the acre was
13:01:59 10 the norm then.
11 Q. 478 And do you accept --
12 A. One to the acre would stop any -- any question of any district centre going on
13 the land. Now, I think I've made myself very clear on where, what way I was
14 thinking.
13:02:11 15 Q. 479 Yes. And that's my other question to you. If you had as your stated
16 objective or desire the protection of the business interests in Dun Laoghaire
17 --
18 A. Uh-huh.
19 Q. 480 -- town. Why then did you not support Mr. Misteil's motion to keep it at one
13:02:26 20 to the acre which would have ensured no neighbourhood development on the
22 A. Because then there would be no development and the people in Loughlinstown
23 Ballybrack would have no hope.
24 Q. 481 So you had changed your position?
13:02:37 25 A. No.
26 Q. 482 In May of '92 where you were in favour of no neighbourhood centre to a position
27 where in November '93 you were in favour of a reduced size neighbourhood
28 centre?
29 A. No, '92 I was -- I voted against the manager's proposal because I wanted to
13:02:54 30 slow down the whole process.

www.pcr.ie Day 658
79
13:02:58 1 Q. 483 Sorry, you wanted to slow down what process?
2 A. The process of reaching, of ensuring that we'd got -- that we slowed down a
3 major development which would be provide -- providing a town centre or district
4 centre on the site. That was it.
13:03:16 5 Q. 484 But you could have slowed the process down even further by supporting Mr.
6 Barrett to leave it all over to Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council couldn't
7 you?
8 A. One to the acre. If you supported one to the acre, which I did on one
9 occasion. I mean, it's just not real and you have to be in the council
13:03:33 10 chamber to see what's happening. Anyway there were 11 motions all together.
11 Some of them I wasn't there for. I must have had to go to some either a
12 family thing or another meeting. I know I'm clear on it, Ms. Dillon. I
13 can't explain to you any more what I did I know was right.
14 Q. 485 And when the question of the Monarch lands. Would it be fair to say that you
13:03:56 15 would have known at least when you signed that motion that they were the
16 Monarch lands? When you signed the motion in November '93?
17 A. Yes well I didn't, you know. I -- maybe it was discussions on what we were
18 going to achieve. I thought all of the lands were the Monarch lands. I
19 didn't question the one to the acre. That was, you know, a compromise motion
13:04:19 20 and, you know, Donal Marren is a very able councillor and I would have
21 represented his thinking on a lot of things.
22 Q. 486 Are you saying that you believed that all of the residentially zoned lands in
23 the Carrickmines Valley were all owned by Monarch?
24 A. I don't -- I didn't question it. I just -- I didn't think about it one way
13:04:40 25 or the other.
26 Q. 487 Did you subsequently in 1997 support various motions by or on behalf of Monarch
27 in the review of the plan before Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown to increase the science
28 and technology zoning into the golf course lands?
29 A. Yes.
13:04:59 30 Q. 488 And --

www.pcr.ie Day 658
80
13:05:02 1 A. But I think that the golf course was a very important issue because Larry
2 Butler and myself I know put a motion down to ensure that a golf course could
3 be developed, even though some of us was brought in to accommodate the science
4 and technology park.
13:05:15 5 Q. 489 Yes. A motion --
6 A. But we were assured that a golf course could be built.
7 Q. 490 Yes. You had brought a motion, an amendment to the main motion, in which you
8 sought that the -- moving the science and technology zoning into the golf
9 course lands would be without prejudice to the Council's wish to develop public
13:05:35 10 golf course on the lands, isn't that right?
11 A. That's right.
12 Q. 491 And because of that amendment that was put forward by you. It would appear
13 that the motion itself was passed, isn't that right?
14 A. Yes.
13:05:44 15 Q. 492 And those -- the lands that were on the map, at 7287. These lands with the
16 letter three?
17 A. Uh-huh.
18 Q. 493 They subsequently became zoned for science and technology E1 at that point in
19 time, isn't that correct?
13:06:03 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 494 And did you also support an extension of the development of the town centre
22 into the adjoining lands?
23 A. The neighbourhood centre?
24 Q. 495 Yes.
13:06:13 25 A. Was it a town centre by then?
26 Q. 496 Neighbourhood centre?
27 A. Yes, I'm sure I did. If it's in the minutes I did, yes.
28 Q. 497 I think you were present but it's recorded only as a show of hands. But it
29 would seem likely that you would have supported it?
13:06:29 30 A. Yes. If we were going to be successful in developing a science and technology

www.pcr.ie Day 658
81
13:06:34 1 park and we were able to maintain the development of a golf course, I would
2 have supported anything that helped the science and technology park.
3 Q. 498 And I think the cap on retail development, which had been imposed in 1993, was
4 removed also in 1998, isn't that right?
13:06:53 5 A. Well ...
6 Q. 499 The cap on the retail element at Cherrywood?
9 A. Yes.
13:06:58 10 Q. 501 Because the Manager proposed an alternative amendment, isn't that right?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. 502 And that would have allowed for much greater development on the town centre
13 lands than had been allowed previously?
14 A. No.
13:07:10 15 Q. 503 Much greater retail element, isn't that right?
16 A. District centre then it went up to.
17 Q. 504 Yes?
18 A. District centre, yes not town centre.
19 Q. 505 And is it your position that by the time that motion came on for hearing you
13:07:20 20 were in support of a district centre on the Cherrywood lands?
21 A. By the time '98 came along Dun Laoghaire had developed the Pavilion site. We
22 were also I think now, I could be wrong but I'm just giving you a history of
23 what happened in Dun Laoghaire. The Pavilion site was being developed.
24 Monarch had invested in the Bloomfield site and built another shopping centre
13:07:43 25 and Dun Laoghaire was beginning to grow. The Manager put investment into the
26 redevelopment of the main street itself. And therefore there was no, the
27 district centre would not have effected Dun Laoghaire. Dun Laoghaire can
28 stand on its own and is doing quite well.
29 Q. 506 In view -- in November 1993, Mrs. Coffey, in view of the imminence of the
13:08:08 30 separate local authority of Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council. Why did

www.pcr.ie Day 658
82
13:08:13 1 you not consider yourself bringing a motion that would have left over the
2 entire question to the new council?
3 A. Well, I did try in debates in the County Council to say that I felt we were
4 doing an impossible task in trying to put together a Development Plan for the
13:08:34 5 whole of Dublin County. And there were also staffing problems at that time.
6 Q. 507 Will I repeat the question for you, Mrs. Coffey. Which is this question --
7 A. I'm trying to tell you, Ms. Dillon.
8 Q. 508 We're talking about the zoning of the Carrickmines Valley and the Tribunal is
9 not interested in the zoning of the rest of Dublin because this Module is
13:08:53 10 concerned, at this moment in time, with the Carrickmines Valley. And what I'm
11 asking you, and what I'd like you to answer, first before you elaborate. Is
12 why you didn't elect to transfer the vexed question of the zoning of the
13 Carrickmines Valley into the hands of the new Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown Council
14 which was taking up office two months later?
13:09:13 15 A. Well the zoning that we achieved at the end was going to be carried forward to
16 the Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council. And what we had achieved in, we
17 were quite happy with, the signatories on that motion and the people who voted
18 for it were very happy with what we'd achieved. And that was going to carry
19 over. And we did I think pass a motion to carry out an area Action Plan for
13:09:39 20 the Cherrywood area, which was done, took a long time to do it, and it was just
21 a starting point. And that's it. Nothing wrong with that.
22 Q. 509 The area Action Plan was commenced in January of 1994 on the instructions of
23 Mr. Willie Murray and was brought before the Council in April 1994. And I
24 suggest to you, Mrs. Coffey, that is not a very long time. You were looking
13:10:05 25 at a Draft Action Area Plan by April 1994 and were considering it?
26 A. Mrs. Dillon.
27 Q. 510 So why are you suggesting -- ?
28 A. You have the documentation there. '94. This is 2006. This is 12 years
29 ago.
13:10:14 30 Q. 511 Why --

www.pcr.ie Day 658
83
13:10:15 1 A. Now, I want to tell you. This is -- it's very unfair of you, if you don't
2 mind my saying so, and with all respect to you, to say to me to remember
3 exactly how everything happened. I hadn't studied all of that until I came
4 here. It's --
13:10:32 5
6 CHAIRMAN: Well do you remember, Mrs. Coffey. If the question was put this
7 way. Do you remember considering at the time, in '93, whether it might be
8 better to leave over questions relating to the rezoning of this area until the
9 new Councils were created and a more focused approach by local Councillors
13:10:59 10 would then take on the task? I mean, did you consider whether that might be a
11 better way forward, or what were your views at that time as to whether the
12 decisions should be taken there or should be delayed for what, presumably,
13 couldn't have been more than a few months?
14 A. Absolutely. I agree with you. And I regret now I didn't put down a motion
13:11:25 15 to that effect and try and push it through. But no everyone wanted to go that
16 route. People wanted to participate in the Development Plan then.
17
18 CHAIRMAN: All right. But there was a motion --
19 A. And '92.
13:11:38 20
21 MS. DILLON: There were two --
22 A. Sorry.
23
24 MS. DILLON: There were two motions seeking to achieve that before the
13:11:44 25 council. One was Mr. Barrett's and then --
26
27 CHAIRMAN: Yes. So that opportunity, if you like, was presented to you on a
28 plate, so to speak.
29 A. Yes.
13:11:52 30

www.pcr.ie Day 658
84
13:11:52 1 CHAIRMAN: And we're just wondering where why ...
2 A. I didn't vote for it. I should have probably. Well 46 voted against it.
3 So in the debate there was probably not support for it. And probably my group
4 were saying, were we're not going to go along with this.
13:12:10 5
6 CHAIRMAN: Well do you have any recollection, in any event, of considering it
7 or discussing it amongst yourselves at the time, should we wait or should we
8 deal with it now?
9 A. No, I've no memory of that. Not. I really don't.
13:12:26 10
12 A. You know, hindsight is a great thing but the motion didn't get support,
13 generally across the board it didn't get support.
14
13:12:37 15 CHAIRMAN: Ms. Dillon, it's now one o'clock. Now, if your nearly finished
16 ...
17
18 MS. DILLON: I'm almost finished. In fairness to Ms. Coffey just to give her
19 an opportunity to put her position in relation to the record really I have to
13:12:50 20 ask you this, Ms. Coffey. Did the payment of 1,000 pounds in November 1992,
21 was that a factor you took into account in November 1993 when you came to
22 consider the Monarch position again?
24 Q. 512 Thank you very much, Ms. Coffey. If you would answer any questions anybody
13:13:07 25 else might have for you.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sanfey, do you want to ask a question?
28
29 MR. SANFEY: No, Chairman.
13:13:12 30

www.pcr.ie Day 658
85
13:13:12 1 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Farren, do you want to ask a couple of questions?
3 MR. FARREN: Just a couple of brief questions, Chairman, just for clarifying
4 matters.
13:13:22 5
6 THE WITNESS WAS QUESTIONED BY MR. FARREN AS FOLLOWS:
8 Q. 513 At the very beginning of Ms. Dillon's questioning. Sorry Chairman, Would You
9 prefer to ask questions first?
13:13:27 10
11 CHAIRMAN: No, no, no you're okay.
12 Q. 514 MR. FARREN: Ms. Dillon asked you whether you wanted to change any of your
13 evidence already given to the Tribunal and you indicated no. And I think you
14 did explain in your answers to her subsequent questions that you saw a
13:13:42 15 difference between what was being termed "personal" donations and political
16 donations in the sense of donations to a political General Election campaign?
17 A. Yes.
13:13:55 20 Q. 516 And it was on that basis that you were making that distinction.
21 A. Yes, yes.
22 Q. 517 And as far as you're concerned, when you use the term "personal" as you have to
23 the Tribunal know a number of occasions, you are quite clear that you have
24 received no "personal" donations of any sort?
13:14:13 25 A. I have never received a personal donation for anything in my life. And
26 anything that came -- any money that ever were paid, the process under the
27 Constitution as to the way political fundraising was carried out and elections
28 are funded.
29 Q. 518 And in the context of the contributions that have subsequently become clear
13:14:43 30 from Mr. Dunlop. Mr. Dunlop's evidence as to his contributions. I think

www.pcr.ie Day 658
86
13:14:57 1 when that issue arose you did try to obtain clarification yourself from Mr.
2 Dunlop as to what he was referring to?
3 A. Yes, I did.
4 Q. 519 And you've I think fairly described to Ms. Dillon now how since Mr. Dunlop's
13:15:01 5 evidence to the Tribunal and the somewhat unclear aspects of that itself, you
6 are clear that in 1992, a contribution to your General Election campaign in
7 that year was made only on the basis of Mr. Dunlop's production of that letter
8 from you, isn't that correct?
13:15:23 10 Q. 520 And whereas Mr. Dunlop makes reference to an earlier payment in relation to the
11 1991 Local Elections. You don't have any personal recollection of that?
12 A. I don't. I genuinely don't.
13 Q. 521 And equally, you don't have any recollection if there's a different payment in
14 relation to the payment from Mr. Dunne or Berland Homes?
13:15:43 15 A. I don't remember that.
16 Q. 522 But obviously again today we've been given a letter from Sean Dunne which
17 indicates that he did, he says he did, either through Berland Homes either
18 through Mr. Dunlop or direct to you, give you that payment. And you are
19 willing to accept that but you don't have any recollection of it?
13:16:00 20 A. Yes, I accept that.
21 Q. 523 Now, coming on to the very briefly on to the questions which Ms. Dillon was
22 posing about how you supported the motion, Mr. Marren's motion. As I
23 understand it, that motion was passed by, I think by a substantial majority I
24 think at the time. It's 43 to 27, isn't that right?
13:16:34 25 A. That's right.
26 Q. 524 And does that reflect the recognition, as it were, in the cauldron of the
27 council, how the compromise had been reached to the majority's satisfaction?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 525 And equally, when there was the opportunity that the Chairman has referred to,
13:16:53 30 to as it were, to pass the ball back to Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown when it had been

www.pcr.ie Day 658
87
13:16:59 1 established. The motion was rejected by 43 to 27?
2 A. Yes. I think everyone had felt that they'd done so much work that at that
3 stage and they had attended I'd say 1,000 meetings all together from all of the
4 different groups. That they felt that they had reached a point that they
13:17:21 5 could go forward to Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown.
6 Q. 526 And that majority is similar to the majority in relation to the earlier motion
7 which, is it fair to say, again reflects the political reality of the
8 recognition of the compromise?
13:17:38 10 Q. 527 And finally, Mrs. Coffey, Ms. Dillon made reference to a bunch of flowers being
11 delivered from Mr. Lynn I think. In your capacity as member of the council,
12 have you received flowers on other occasions?
13 A. Well you receive flowers and mass cards and a bottle of wine now and then and a
14 box of chocolates. An old lady often came around and helped me put things
13:18:13 15 into envelopes. That's people. It's a wonderful profession to be in and I
16 enjoyed my 20 years. I'm retired now and I'm very glad of that. I really
17 believe that the people there understand my commitment and my honesty. And I
18 have who say that in the Tribunal today because it is a very difficult
19 situation to be in.
13:18:35 20 Q. 528 Thank you, Mrs. Coffey. No further questions.
21 A. Thank you.
22
23 JUDGE FAHERTY: Can I just ask you, Mrs. Coffey. On the 11th of November,
24 from what I gather from what you've told us. The -- your approach was
13:18:52 25 obviously dictated by your concern for Dun Laoghaire.
26 A. Uh-huh.
27
28 JUDGE FAHERTY: And that it wouldn't loose out, we're now back in 1993, at a
29 time when, as you said, things were needed in Dun Laoghaire. We know from the
13:19:08 30 record, that the records show on the 11th of November that actually the

www.pcr.ie Day 658
88
13:19:12 1 limiting of the district centre to neighbourhood centre motion was in fact, as
2 I understand it, the last motion put.
3 A. Yes.
13:19:21 5 JUDGE FAHERTY: Regarding the Carrickmines lands
6 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE FAHERTY: Isn't that -- I think that's the way it was. Did you -- why
9 didn't you put that motion first? Because to some extent it would have been,
13:19:39 10 if you like, for what you say you wanted to achieve, a safety valve if you
11 like, because the other motions, as I understand it, that are voted on,
12 including the motion that you co-signed and proposed, extending up, if you
13 like, the residential housing to four houses to the acre.
14 A. Um.
13:20:00 15
16 JUDGE FAHERTY: Was first
17 A. Well I'm even confused myself about it. I actually -- when I was discussing
18 with Donal Marren, Larry Lohan and others, whether it was a mistake the motion
19 was put second or not. My understanding was that by putting in that motion we
13:20:20 20 were going to have a neighbourhood centre. So I'm confused as to why that
21 happened and I cannot answer that question. I'm sorry. But there is great
22 trust among the leaders of the group you know, if you say you're going to do a
23 thing you do it. And they informed me that it was a neighbourhood centre plus
24 that, that motion.
13:20:36 25
26 JUDGE FAHERTY: I see. All right. Thanks.
27
28 CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
29 A. Thank you.
13:20:41 30

www.pcr.ie Day 658
89
13:20:41 1 CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Ms. Coffey.
3 THE WITNESS THEN WITHDREW:
13:20:44 5 MS. DILLON: Thank you, Mrs. Coffey. Tuesday. I don't know what time you
6 propose sitting on Tuesday.
8 CHAIRMAN: Half ten.
13:20:48 10 Ms. Dillon: May it please you, Sir.
11
12 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED UNTIL TUESDAY,
13 27TH JUNE, 2006, AT 10:30 A.M.
14
13:24:32 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 658
1
10:17:40 1 THE TRIBUNAL RESUMED AS FOLLOWS ON TUESDAY, 27TH JUNE 2006
2 AT 10.30 A.M:
4 MS. DILLON: Good morning. Mr. Paul Monahan please.
10:34:13 5
6 MR. PAUL MONAHAN, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS EXAMINED AS FOLLOWS
7 BY MS. FOLEY:
9 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Mr. Monahan.
11 Q 1 MS. FOLEY: Good morning, Mr. Monahan. I think you are the current managing
12 director of Monarch Properties Limited, is that correct?
14 Q 2 And when did you take on that role?
10:34:59 15 A I started in May 2002, 2001.
16 Q 3 And prior to that, did you have a role as, you were a director of -- other than
17 managing director?
18 A I wasn't managing director.
19 Q 4 Had you a role within the company?
10:35:13 20 A No.
21 Q 5 Could you give just a general background of your training and when you started
22 to work with the Monarch Group?
23 A Basically I started to work in the Monarch Group in May 2001, that's when I
24 started my employment with the Monarch Group.
10:35:31 25
26 CHAIRMAN: Sorry, Mr. Monahan, I wonder could you pull the, a little bit
27 closer to you, yeah.
28 A Okay.
29
10:35:38 30 MS. FOLEY: Prior to that, what were you doing?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

2
10:35:41 1 A Basically I was at school, I studied accountancy, I trained to become a
2 helicopter pilot, I did my own businesses in both property and in leisure. I
3 was self-employed.
4 Q 6 They were separate businesses to those of the Monahan group?
10:35:58 5 A Yes, separate businesses, yes.
6 Q 7 You furnished a statement to the Tribunal, your second statement in May 2006,
7 and you say that you had no direct knowledge of the events surrounding
8 Cherrywood?
9 A That's correct.
10:36:12 10 Q 8 And that you tried to get this information based on information from other
11 people and who were the people that assisted you in providing your statement to
12 the Tribunal?
13 A Basically a letter came from the Tribunal, basically I did my best endeavours
14 to reply to it in as much detail as possible, so that would involve me having
10:36:31 15 to do some research and would have to involve basically previous officers who
16 were in the company and ask what actually happened so I could make as full a
17 reply as possible to the Tribunal.
18 Q 9 I wish to draw your attention to Mr. Sweeney's statement, page 2135, on the
19 second paragraph there, Mr. Sweeney says that from 1990, Mr. Phillip Monahan
10:36:54 20 operated most of the time from an annex to his new home in Somerton,
21 Castleknock where he set up a separate team of people, including his personal
22 assistant, Ms. Gosling, Mr. Sherwood and also two of Mr. Monahan's sons, Colm
23 and Paul?
24 A Basically on the offices there, it was in Wilton House in Dundalk, it is
10:37:13 25 correct, they did have a site office in The Square, they also had offices in
26 Earlsfort Terrace and they also had offices in Somerton and Harcout Street, my
27 brother Colm Monahan is employed by Monarch Properties but not me.
28 Q 10 You say that Mr. Sweeney is incorrect when he says that from 1990 you moved
29 into the offices in Somerton?
10:37:33 30 A He was talking about Monarch Properties moving into the offices and Phil
www.pcr.ie Day 659

3
10:37:36 1 Monahan and that.
2 Q 11 And when he says Colm Monahan and Paul Monahan, meaning yourself, you didn't in
3 fact?
4 A As you can see if you check my employment details, my employment started in May
10:37:48 5 2001.
6 Q 12 Did you live in Somerton in the residential part of the building?
7 A Basically, I lived between Dundalk and Dublin.
8 Q 13 Right. And Dublin being Somerton?
9 A Yes.
10:38:04 10 Q 14 In your statement of April 2002, page 1562 please, you outline some of the
11 other officers of the company and at the second part of paragraph B you name
12 some of the previous senior officers of the company. Could you just briefly
13 outline your understanding of the role of Mr. Glennane within the organisation?
14 A I understand Mr. Glennane is a qualified accountant and would have been the
10:38:31 15 accountant for the Monarch Group.
16 Q 15 And would he also have been a shareholder?
17 A I understand Mr. Glennane was also a shareholder in the Monarch Group.
18 Q 16 He would have worked closely with Mr. Phillip Monahan?
19 A I am sure as a fellow director and as an accountant he would have worked
10:38:47 20 closely with Mr. Monahan.
21 Q 17 What's your understanding of the role of Mr. Sweeney?
22 A Mr. Sweeney, as far as I know, was a technical director, that was his
23 experience, I don't know exactly what his qualifications were.
24 Q 18 And Mr. Noel Murray?
10:39:01 25 A Noel Murray was in marketing, he originally started as a manager in Nutgrove
26 Shopping Centre and then progressed onwards from there.
27 Q 19 Mr. Phillip Reilly?
28 A Mr. Phillip Reilly, my understanding is that he came in from America and
29 basically his skill is in management and his role is in managing shopping
10:39:24 30 centres.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

4
10:39:24 1 Q 20 Would he have been particularly involved in Tallaght, do you understand?
2 A My understanding is he would have been involved in Tallaght.
3 Q 21 Mr. Richard Lynn?
4 A He originally worked in Dundalk and then he worked for Monarch.
10:39:35 5 Q 22 And do you know what function he performed within the Monarch Group?
6 A Not a hundred percent, no.
7 Q 23 Would these be the people that you looked for assistance to when you were
8 preparing your statements for the Tribunal?
9 A Yes, I would have asked, yes.
10:39:46 10 Q 24 These would have been all the people or would you have also consulted with
11 others?
12 A I would also have consulted with others, yes.
13 Q 25 Briefly about the role of your father, your late father within the group, at
14 your statement you say that he carried a function of director and chairman and
10:40:08 15 was the founder of the group and would have the prime mover in all the
16 developments. Mr. Monahan himself says that he had no direct involvement with
17 day to day running of many issues or indeed the details of the company
18 finances. Whereas at 8038 please in Monaghan's affidavit in 1996, for the
19 litigation against Mr. Sweeney at paragraph B there, Mr. Monahan says that
10:40:35 20 while Mr. Sweeney carried out important work on behalf of the group, he did it
21 at all times under the direct supervision of himself or the second named
22 defendant, Mr. Glennane. The driving force behind the company was at all times
23 Mr. Phillip Monahan and the second named defendant, Mr. Glennane, would that be
24 your understanding of Mr. Monahan's role?
10:40:55 25 A Primarily my understanding was Mr. Monahan was the founder of the company, he
26 started in the late 70s, he would have taken on board Mr. Glennane and
27 Mr. Sweeney. He was certainly the major shareholder in it. He did have
28 periods where he was sick during his time, he had two triple by-passes, he was
29 sick then after that. But my understanding was he was the chairman of the
10:41:23 30 group.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

5
10:41:24 1 Q 26 And essentially the other people that we have just outlined would have been
2 acting on his instructions whether with an intermediary level in the hierarchy
3 or directly?
4 A I don't know exactly, I can't assume exactly how he controlled his business but
10:41:40 5 he was the chairman and he would have employed them originally and Mr. Glennane
6 had a shareholding and Mr. Sweeney had some sort of a shareholding.
7 Q 27 And also in your statement to the Tribunal, you say that if a project was a
8 major, out of courtesy the group would consult with all the major political
9 parties and elected representatives, what's your understanding of who within
10:42:01 10 the group would make this contact with the politicians?
11 A My statement of that was because if you look at all the payments that were
12 made, it's clear that all the payments that were made to all, were to all
13 different types of party and all different --
14 Q 28 When you say that out of courtesy the group would consult with the politicians,
10:42:24 15 political representatives and political parties, whose role was it within the
16 organisation to contact the political representatives?
17 A I don't know whose role it was but my understanding is that they would have --
18 in relation to a project that they would have asked everybody in relation to a
19 project.
10:42:51 20 Q 29 Could I have page 1596 please. This is a letter from your solicitors on behalf
21 of the Monarch Group and the last paragraph of that page you can see that the
22 client, Monarch Properties, has pointed out it doesn't have any records with
23 respect to Monarch Properties Limited and its various subsidiaries before 1991.
24 And subsequently, an order was made on the 18th of April 2002 and you furnished
10:43:25 25 an affidavit to the Tribunal dated -- sorry, 10th of May 2002 and in this
26 affidavit, if I could have page 1574 please, one of the items on the second
27 schedule, which is items that are, that you had but no longer do have is a
28 receipt from 'Shredd it' and then subsequently in May 2002, your solicitors
29 wrote to the Tribunal furnishing them with marketing brochures and also with
10:44:00 30 document at 8897 please, indicating that on the 26th September 2000, 819 kilos
www.pcr.ie Day 659

6
10:44:12 1 of confidential waste was destroyed. The Tribunal subsequently wrote and asked
2 what was the nature of the material destroyed but didn't receive a reply.
3 Would you be able to assist the Tribunal?
4 A Sorry, I wouldn't be able to assist the Tribunal. I wasn't there at the time
10:44:30 5 when --
6 Q 30 But the document was furnished, it was referred to in your affidavit?
7 A Yes. Basically, my understanding on records is that you have to keep records
8 for six years and if you notice from the Tribunal, you have records going back
9 from the company which I personally sent in to you going back 15 years.
10:44:55 10 Q 31 And do you know what was the nature of the documentation that was destroyed?
11 A No idea.
12 Q 32 And -- but you found, you knew about this, which is why you were able to refer
13 to it in your affidavit even though you didn't have the certificate?
14 A Yes.
10:45:09 15 Q 33 And how did you know about it?
16 A We did have the certificate, we didn't have it at the time. I couldn't locate
17 it at the time and that's why --
18 Q 34 But somebody was able to inform you of this?
19 A Exactly.
10:45:16 20 Q 35 Who was the person who provided you with that information?
21 A It would have been Mr. Sherwood.
22 Q 36 And the other documents that were furnished on foot of the affidavit, who
23 assisted you in compiling the documents?
24 A It would have been Mr. Sherwood and anybody else that I would have asked for
10:45:33 25 information for would have assisted me.
26 Q 37 That would be Mr. Glennane --
27 A Yes, anybody I would have asked.
28 Q 38 Mr. Murray, Mr. Lynn maybe?
29 A Yes.
10:45:41 30 Q 39 Yes? In May 2006, the Tribunal also wrote to you and asked you about the
www.pcr.ie Day 659

7
10:45:57 1 Aynsley Trust and Aynsley Holdings?
2 A Yes.
3 Q 40 Could I have 8477 please. This is -- the reply is included in your statement
4 of 2006.
10:46:08 5 A Yes.
6 Q 41 And you say that your understanding is that Aynsley Holding represented the
7 owners of Ansbacher Bank or held shares in Ansbacher and that Monarch
8 Properties borrowed monies from Ansbacher. I am not quite clear on that
9 paragraph, Mr. Monahan, if could clarify it please?
10:46:26 10 A Well, my understanding is that Ansbacher was a bank and that Monarch Properties
11 borrowed money from the bank.
12 Q 42 Where does Aynsley Trust then fit in to that?
13 A My understanding is that the Aynsley Trust was to do with the owners of the
14 Ansbacher Bank.
10:46:43 15 Q 43 Your understanding is Monarch would deal with Aynsley Trust or Aynsley Holdings
16 or Ansbacher or just directly with Ansbacher?
17 A Just with the bank, yes.
18 Q 44 Could I have document 8905 please. This is a note from the discovery of KPMG
19 in respect of Monarch, the Monarch Group and it's the minutes of a meeting of
10:47:12 20 the directors of L&C Properties Limited held on the 31st January 1989. Are you
21 at present a director of L&C Properties or have you ever been a director or L&C
22 properties?
23 A At present I am a director of L&C Properties.
24 Q 45 You see the first paragraph there, Allery limited, the board agreed that steps
10:47:33 25 be taken to acquire a stock company, Allery limited. It was resolved that Paul
26 Monahan, John Sherwood and Patrick O'Shaughnessy should be board members of
27 Allery Limited". Do you recall being nominated to the board?
28 A I do, yes.
29 Q 46 Was that around that time?
10:47:49 30 A 1989, yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

8
10:47:49 1 Q 47 Is that the only company that you were a director of that's connected with the
2 Monarch group?
3 A As far as I am aware, that's the only company I was a director of. I know
4 there was a company called Pre-kay which was to do with a house which I was
10:48:03 5 made a director of and that's about it.
6 Q 48 And your role as a director of Allery limited, what role did that company and
7 your role within it have in the Monarch Group?
8 A It was a company that was, as far as I was concerned, was outside the Monarch
9 Group, it was to do with a gas business in Dundalk which I was involved with.
10:48:30 10 Q 49 Could I have page 1567 please. This is a further extract from your statement
11 Mr. Monahan and in paragraph F you indicated that all payments to any identity
12 would have been supported by invoice or any other documentation such as an
13 invitation to subscribe to a race night, golf outing or such like. From where
14 did you get that information?
10:48:53 15 A Again, from asking various people who would have been involved in Monarch at
16 the time.
17 Q 50 Further documentation furnished to the Tribunal in the context of statements
18 from the Monarch Group indicate that similarly that all of the contributions
19 are believed to have arisen on foot of requests for assistance in relation to
10:49:18 20 the lists of donations that were furnished to the Tribunal. But Mr. Reilly,
21 when he was in giving evidence to the Tribunal last week, indicated that that
22 wasn't entirely his recollection, that he believes that himself and Mr. Lynn
23 worked from a list compiled by Mr. Lynn and contacted people offering political
24 donations in 1991. Were you aware of this?
10:49:42 25 A Again, basically when a letter came in from the Tribunal I used my best
26 endeavours to reply to it as promptly as possible and with as full information
27 as possible.
28 Q 51 Did you speak to Mr. Reilly?
29 A Probably did speak with Mr. Reilly. I am sure I spoke with Mr. Lynn,
10:50:03 30 Mr. Glennane, Mr...
www.pcr.ie Day 659

9
10:50:03 1 Q 52 You spoke with Mr. Lynn on the question of political donations?
2 A I would have asked. I would have said I have a letter from the Tribunal and I
3 need to get a reply back to it, I want to make it as full as possible. That
4 was my duty when the letter came in to reply back to it.
10:50:20 5 Q 53 Mr. Lynn has not yet given evidence so we don't know what he will say about
6 this list but he know that Mr. Reilly is of the view that this list was
7 compiled internally.
8 A Well, again, I just got a letter that came in from the Tribunal of something
9 that I had no hand or involvement in.
10:50:38 10 Q 54 And you haven't heard anything about this list?
11 A And I just basely had to reply back to a letter in as full and complete way as
12 possible.
13 Q 55 Is it your understanding that all of the lists of payments furnished to the
14 Tribunal were similarly solicited by various politicians. There's one list
10:50:58 15 referring to a 1997 list and it's not covered in the letter, it doesn't
16 specifically say that these were also on foot of requests from politicians but
17 is it your understanding that all of the donations were on foot for every year?
18 A Basically I just would have, as I said, I would have got a letter in and I
19 would have replied back to it in as full a way as possible.
10:51:22 20 Q 56 Also in your statement you tell the Tribunal that to the best of your late
21 father's recollection, and to the best of your understanding, the company's
22 patterns of donations would have been similar in the period 1973 to 1990 and
23 that the group had a simple rule of treating all political parties alike and
24 you believe this is evident from the submitted records. But I think that
10:51:46 25 including some of the donations that you furnished on foot of your affidavit,
26 that prior to 1991, the documentation that we have received from your companies
27 indicate that there were perhaps not quite a similar pattern. That in 1989
28 there were five donations, all to members of Fianna Fail, including one to
29 Fianna Fail of 16,000 pounds, which significantly larger than donations post
10:52:13 30 1991 and also we have a donation that was made personally by your father in
www.pcr.ie Day 659

10
10:52:21 1 February 1991 of 25,000 and I was wondering if it is your understanding that
2 there is missing documentation pre-1991 that indicates further donations?
3 A Basically all documentation, basically every single piece of information that
4 we have has been sent into the Tribunal.
10:52:41 5 Q 57 And you have no personal knowledge of other donations that are not covered in
6 the documentation?
7 A I have no knowledge, no personal knowledge, no.
8 Q 58 Did you know a Mr. Jack Whelan?
9 A I did meet a Mr. Jack Whelan, yes.
10:53:01 10 Q 59 And do you know his role within the Monarch Group?
11 A I don't, he didn't have a role in the Monarch Group, he was not an employee of
12 Monarch Properties.
13 Q 60 Did he have some connection with the Monarch Group, did he act in some way?
14 A My understanding of Mr. Whelan, he seemed to be a land dealer, he seemed to
10:53:17 15 deal in land.
16 Q 61 And is it your understanding that any payments that would have accrued to him
17 would have been in that regard?
18 A I have no idea what any payments to him would have been in regard to it but my
19 understanding was that he was a land dealer.
10:53:32 20 Q 62 Could I have page 8576 please. And beside that 8574 please. The Tribunal
21 wrote to you in May 2006 asking you about this particular, this invoice that
22 will appear on screen there beside you which is dated April 1991 but seems to
23 have been stamped received April 1992 so the date, the actual origin is not
24 certain.
10:54:06 25 A Yes.
26 Q 63 And it's for Whelan Land Use Specialists and it relates to fee to services in
27 relation to residential consultancy at Cherrywood of 150,000 plus VAT of
28 30,000. You have responded to this query?
10:54:24 30 Q 64 Advising that Mr. Whelan was used to seek out land opportunities and was a
www.pcr.ie Day 659

11
10:54:28 1 self-employed property consultant, that he dealt with your late father,
2 Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Murray, Mr. Glennane and would you tell us from where you got
3 the information contained in this?
4 A Again, I asked the various different people in Monarch who Mr. Jack Whelan was
10:54:47 5 and what exactly did he do.
6 Q 65 And this was only now about six weeks ago?
7 A Exactly.
8 Q 66 Can you tell the Tribunal exactly who you asked about the role of Mr. Whelan?
9 A I would have asked Dominic Glennane, I would have asked Phil Reilly, I would
10:55:05 10 have asked Richard Lynn, I would have asked John Sherwood.
11 Q 67 In the course of your inquiries, did you come across any reason why Mr. Whelan
12 would be sending a fee of 150,000 and then subsequently at 5040 please, there's
13 an indication of balances with GRE, this is around April of 1994 and third from
14 the end there, you will see Jack Whelan introducing Dwyer Nolan, 121,000. And
10:55:35 15 then could I have page 5180 please. This document is dated 29th June 1994 and
16 indicates, you see there staff success bonus, R Lynn 100,000 and in brackets,
17 similar to J W. You believe that J W, that perhaps would be Jack Whelan?
18 A Well, I wouldn't know if it was Jack Whelan or not.
19 Q 68 So you wouldn't know what services Mr. Whelan would provide that could generate
10:56:05 20 these type of fees and bonuses?
21 A Again I started with Monarch in May 2001.
22 Q 69 You had met Mr. Whelan prior to that?
23
24 CHAIRMAN: Sorry, Mr. Monarch, I don't think that's good enough. You are
10:56:20 25 saying you started in May 2001 with Monarch which may well be the first
26 occasion when you became officially involved with the company but surely you
27 must know a lot more information than you indicate that you know given that you
28 would have had discussions with your late father who, you have an accountancy
29 and business background. I mean listening to your evidence would suggest that
10:56:49 30 you knew absolutely nothing until May 2001 and then your only source of
www.pcr.ie Day 659

12
10:56:54 1 information is whatever employees and former employees of the company have
2 decided to tell you. But surely you must know an awful lot more. Surely this
3 is a topic of conversation around the dinner table at home?
4 A No, sorry, it wasn't a topic of conversation.
10:57:09 5
6 CHAIRMAN: Are you saying you never discussed the business of Monarch with
7 your late father throughout the 1990's?
8 A It wasn't a topic of conversation around the dinner table. Mr. Monahan did his
9 business, he didn't do business with me, he did it with other people, not me.
10:57:23 10
11 CHAIRMAN: But you were his son.
12 A Yes, a family of six, I am not an only son.
13
14 CHAIRMAN: But were there not discussions at home about how the business was
10:57:34 15 doing and what sort of activities it was involved in?
16 A Well, certainly I would have known what, I would have an idea of what my father
17 was doing, but certainly not talking to him about his business.
18
19 CHAIRMAN: And you are saying you have no idea as to what sums, possibly in
10:57:50 20 the region of a quarter of a million pounds paid to Mr. Whelan, what they were
21 connected to?
23
24 CHAIRMAN: And is that your evidence that you don't know?
10:58:03 25 A All I have done is done the research to see what Mr. Whelan did, where he came
26 from, what did he do, my understanding is that those invoices weren't paid, I
27 don't know whether they were or not paid, my understanding is they were not
28 paid.
29
10:58:22 30 CHAIRMAN: Where did you get that information?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

13
10:58:24 1 A My understanding from Mr. Glennane that the first invoice that you mentioned
2 was not paid.
4 CHAIRMAN: And do you know why it wasn't paid?
10:58:34 5 A I think it says it in my letter to yourselves.
7 CHAIRMAN: No, you tell us why you understand it wasn't paid
8 A From Mr. Glennane.
10:58:43 10 CHAIRMAN: But why?
11 A I have no idea why.
12
13 CHAIRMAN: And you never asked why it wasn't paid?
14 A Basically I have a letter from the Tribunal and basically I replied back to it
10:58:54 15 with as much information as I could gather and reply back to it.
16
17 CHAIRMAN: And do you know anything about the payments being made to the
18 different councillors and political parties other than what appears on the --
19 A No, I don't know what's appeared.
10:59:08 20
21 CHAIRMAN: You say it was never discussed between yourself and your father
22 A Yes.
23
24 CHAIRMAN: He never gave you any information about Cherrywood or how things
10:59:16 25 were progressing or about the problems that he had or was experiencing in
26 relation to their rezoning?
27 A I wasn't involved in any dealings in relation to Cherrywood.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: I know you weren't involved but do you have any information, surely
10:59:31 30 it was something that would have been discussed between yourself and your
www.pcr.ie Day 659

14
10:59:35 1 father at home?
2 A Certainly, I didn't talk to my father about Cherrywood or what deals he was
3 doing or what deals he wasn't doing.
10:59:44 5 CHAIRMAN: So he never gave you any information?
6 A No.
8 CHAIRMAN: And -- but you were involved in L&C Properties as a director
9 A I am a director of L&C Properties now, yes.
10:59:55 10
11 CHAIRMAN: And did you now I anything about their business?
12 A As far as I am aware, I would have to double check, I became a director of L&C
13 in July of 2002.
14
11:00:06 15 CHAIRMAN: But were you not a director before that?
16 A As far as I am aware, no. I will have to check but as far as I am aware, no.
17
18 CHAIRMAN: Have you any involvement with any of the family businesses before
19 2001?
11:00:20 20 A Well, the family business was the property business. That's what the family
21 business was.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: But had you an involvement in that before 2001?
24 A I had my own businesses, I did my own property, I had my own businesses.
11:00:30 25
26 CHAIRMAN: Was that part of the family business?
27 A No.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: That your father was involved in?
11:00:36 30 A No.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

15
11:00:36 1
2 CHAIRMAN: You say you had no involvement or no knowledge of any of the
3 dealings in relation to Monarch or any of your father's dealings at all before
4 2001?
11:00:45 5 A Monarch Properties was Monarch Properties, my father ran Monarch Properties,
6 not me.
8 CHAIRMAN: I know that but did he ever discuss it with you?
9 A No.
11:00:51 10
11 CHAIRMAN: Never?
12 A No.
13
14 CHAIRMAN: And did he discuss it with other members of your family?
11:00:56 15 A Not that I'm aware of.
16
17 CHAIRMAN: You knew nothing about your father's businesses until 2001?
18 A I had a general idea of what he was doing.
19
11:01:06 20 CHAIRMAN: Did you qualify as accountant?
21 A No.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: Did you do accountancy?
24 A I did.
11:01:11 25
26 CHAIRMAN: When do you do accountancy?
27 A I started in 1988.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: When did you finish studies?
11:01:17 30 A In 1990, 89, 90.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

16
11:01:20 1
2 CHAIRMAN: So from 1990, even though you were in effect an accountant and
3 businessman, you had no discussion, no detailed discussion with your father
4 about any aspect of his businesses until 2001.
11:01:31 5 A I lived between Dundalk and Dublin and I was doing my, living my own life.
7 CHAIRMAN: Is that your evidence that you had no detailed discussion,
8 informally, at home, or wherever, with your late father between 1990 and 2001?
9 A It is, yes.
11:01:54 10
11 Q 70 MS. FOLEY: Is it not the case that Allery, the company that we referred to
12 earlier on, if I could have 8905 please, the second paragraph there indicates
13 that it was resolved that of the two subscriber shares, one should be
14 registered in the name of this company, ie L&C Properties and one in the name
11:02:11 15 of Mr. Phillip Monahan as the company nominee, so is it not the case that this
16 company is connected with the Monarch Group, if its shareholders are L&C
17 Properties and Mr. Phillip Monahan, it is not an independent company. So in
18 fact this company is connected with the Monarch Group?
19 A That was to do with a gas business in Dundalk, that's where it operated, It
11:02:33 20 operated a gas business in Dundalk.
21 Q 71 Yes, connected with and it is a company owned by the Monarch Group?
22 A It certainly wasn't owned by me anyway.
23 Q 72 When the Tribunal first contacted Monarch Properties in the year 2000, is it
24 your evidence that between 2000 and 2003, that you did not discuss the
11:02:53 25 Cherrywood or the matters before this Tribunal with your father?
26 A Mr. Monahan was a director and shareholder until he died in August 2003 so any
27 of the --
28 Q 73 And you were also a director from 2001?
29 A No, I replaced Ann Gosling as a director when she resigned.
11:03:12 30 Q 74 You have just told the Tribunal you were a director from 2001?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

17
11:03:16 1 A I became involved, employed by Monarch in May 2001.
2 Q 75 Could I have 8477 please. This is the first line of your statement there.
3 Please Mr. Monahan, if you could read it out?
4 A I was appointed managing director of Monarch Properties Limited in 2001.
11:03:49 5 Q 76 Thank you?
6 A I was appointed, I had a management agreement with Monarch Properties signed in
7 May 2001. I did not become a director of the companies until Ann Gosling
8 resigned which was as far as I am aware was in 2002.
9 Q 77 Your statement says 'I was appointed managing director of Monarch Properties
11:04:08 10 Limited in 2001'?
11 A A management agreement is what I obtained in May 2001.
12 Q 78 You were not appointed managing director then, you are changing your evidence?
13 A My directorships began when Ann Gosling resigned but I have an agreement which
14 was signed in May 2001 which appointed me as managing director.
11:04:31 15 Q 79 During your tenure in this position as, how would you describe your role at
16 that point?
17 A Basically Mr. Monahan was still a director and the principal shareholder of
18 Monarch Properties, so I was I suppose in a way working along with him.
19 Q 80 Would you be sort of managing director in waiting?
11:04:51 20 A Kind of, yes.
21 Q 81 During the course of that period, did you discuss Cherrywood and the matters
22 that are before this Tribunal with Mr. Phillip Monahan?
23 A Basically, Mr. Monahan or Mr. Sherwood and I suppose myself would have been --
24 certainly I was helpful in getting all the information, any information that
11:05:09 25 was required and done.
26 Q 82 But you were receiving correspondence from the Tribunal, documents were being
27 furnished on foot of orders from the Tribunal, there must have been some
28 discussion?
29 A Well Mr. Monahan would have dealt with it along with our solicitors, Noel
11:05:23 30 Smyth.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

18
11:05:24 1 Q 83 And yourself?
2 A Well ...
3 Q 84 Clearly you furnished an affidavit in April 2002?
4 A Mmm.
11:05:32 5 Q 85 You must have discussed this with fellow directors, in particular Mr. Phillip
6 Monahan?
7 A I would have got whatever information I could glean from people. I would have
8 got whatever information and replied back to the Tribunal.
9 Q 86 Wouldn't that include discussions with Mr. Phillip Monahan?
11:05:47 10 A I would have asked whoever I would have had to have asked.
11 Q 87 Would you please answer the question, would that include discussions with
12 Mr. Phillip Monahan?
13 A I am sure he would have been part of whatever was being sent back, he would
14 have been part of whatever was being sent back.
11:06:03 15 Q 88 When you furnished documents and replies and statements to the Tribunal, would
16 you have discussed the documentation that you were furnishing with Mr. Phillip
17 Monahan?
18 A What dates were the replies sent in?
19 Q 89 Your affidavit is, the order was in April 2002 and your affidavit is May 2002,
11:06:21 20 you also furnished a statement in April 2002.
21 A Yes, at that time, Mr. Monahan was under 24 hour nurse supervision.
22 Q 90 And Mr. Monahan subsequently furnished a statement to the Tribunal in 2003, in
23 the intervening period, between 2001 and 2003?
24 A Basically in December of 2001, Mr. Monahan had a heart attack in Spain. He was
11:06:50 25 in intensive care, had to be flown home. He was intensive care in St Vincent's
26 and he was under nurse supervision until August of 2002, at that stage I would
27 have --
28 Q 91 And prior to his illness, when you were managing director in waiting and there
29 was contact with the Tribunal, would you not have discussed Cherrywood and the
11:07:09 30 matters before the Tribunal with Mr. Phillip Monahan?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

19
11:07:13 1 A Well, the principal of Monarch Properties at that stage and still the major
2 shareholders of Monarch Properties and the man who knew all the information was
3 Mr. Monahan.
4 Q 92 You would have discussed it with him?
11:07:25 5 A He would have discussed it with our solicitors.
6 Q 93 And you would have discussed it with him?
7 A I would have got whatever information was necessary to make a reply.
8 Q 94 Could I have page 1599 please.
9 A This is the Monarch Group structure, sorry it's not very clear there.
11:07:48 10 Q 95 There's a company called Pallarang which is held 25 percent Aspentree, 10
11 percent Circimus and 15 percent Isotope. I just want to ask you a little bit
12 about Pallarang. Mr. Sweeney's affidavit of March 1996, he indicates as a
13 result of the success of The Square in Tallaght, the group agreed to pay an
14 aggregate dividend of 1.8 million in a tax efficient manner to himself,
11:08:26 15 Mr. Monahan and Mr. Glennane. Subsequently in a replying affidavit by the late
16 Mr. Phillip Monahan, he says in 1991 an opportunity arose to purchase a company
17 with substantial exported sales relief and to involve a number of individuals
18 who significantly contributed to the growth of the Monarch Group and this is
19 referring to the company and the payment discussed by Mr. Sweeney in his
11:08:50 20 affidavit and then page 8077, paragraph 15 there. Mr. Sweeney identifies that
21 the exported sales relief company from which he received the dividend was
22 called Pallarang Limited. We believe this company, from your father's
23 affidavit, to have been purchased in 1991, are you a director of Pallarang
24 Limited?
11:09:12 25 A If it's still in existence, I would be a director, if it's not in existence, I
26 would not be a director.
27 Q 96 When would you have become a director of Pallarang Limited?
28 A I am not a hundred percent sure.
29 Q 97 Do you believe you would have been a director at the time of its purchase?
11:09:27 30 A I don't know. That's to be perfectly honest.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

20
11:09:32 1 Q 98 Do you know what the purpose of the company was?
2 A No.
3 Q 99 Do you know what the purpose of its acquisition by the Monarch Group was?
4 A No.
11:09:38 5 Q 100 The information that you see there from the affidavits and brief indicating it
6 was to makes payments in a tax efficient manner?
7 A I have read that and I have seen what they are, I understand now.
8 Q 101 Were you aware of that before receiving the brief?
9 A No.
11:09:51 10 Q 102 So you became a director of the company but you had no idea what the company
11 did?
12 A Yes, if the company basically, I would have got directorships of all the
13 companies that were in the Monarch Group. I wouldn't necessarily know exactly
14 what they did, I would certainly know now if they were in existence what they
11:10:11 15 did or didn't do.
16 Q 103 When you are a made a director of a company within the Monarch Group, are you
17 informed of this? Are you requested to become a director?
18 A I am sure I would have been requested.
19 Q 104 You would be aware at the time of becoming a director?
11:10:28 20 A I am sure I would be, I am not -- I am sure I would be.
21 Q 105 You believe that people would have asked you?
22 A I am sure.
23 Q 106 But you weren't certain?
24 A I am not sure but I believe I would have been asked.
11:10:38 25 Q 107 So you think that people may have appointed you as directors of companies and
26 not informed you?
27 A I don't honestly know, I don't know.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: Don't you have to sign documentation to become a director?
11:10:54 30 A My understanding is yes, you would have to sign documentation.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

21
11:10:57 1
2 CHAIRMAN: But surely you know, the level of your knowledge strikes us as both
3 extraordinary and ridiculous that you know so little about your business
4 affairs and about the background to Monarch and what it's engaged in, are you
11:11:17 5 serious that you, that your level of knowledge is as minimal as you suggest it
6 is?
7 A Well in relation to Pallarang, is the company still in existence?
9 Q 108 MS. FOLEY: The company, I think was dissolved in August 2003 and incorporated
11:11:45 10 in 1990.
11 A Mmm. And it was dissolved in 2003, I would have been made a director then
12 before it was dissolved, that would be my understanding, because I would have
13 taken over all Ann Gosling's directorships.
14 Q 109 So you believe you only became a director in 2002.
11:12:10 15 A I don't know, I would have to check back on my own records to see exactly.
16 Q 110 Could I ask you now about Mr. Liam Lawlor. It seems from both, from
17 Mr. Lawlor's statement that he first became acquainted with your father in the
18 late 60s or early 70s and your father has told the Tribunal in a statement of
19 2003, he met Mr. Lawlor in respect of the lands which are now the lands owned
11:12:35 20 by Jackson Way Properties. He doesn't refer further to Mr. Lawlor. He said he
21 had known him for a number of years and met him on a number of occasions and
22 what is your understanding of the nature of the relationship between Mr. Lawlor
23 and Mr. Phillip Monahan?
24 A Certainly my father knew Mr. Lawlor. Certainly knew him all right.
11:12:57 25 Q 111 And would you have also met him?
26 A Certainly I met Mr. Lawlor, yes.
27 Q 112 And under what circumstances would you have met Mr. Lawlor?
28 A I met him in the house a couple of times, he was there, and certainly I used to
29 see him at Luttrelstown, he was playing golf. I used to go there for my lunch
11:13:17 30 and I used to see him there playing golf. I would say if you asked him my
www.pcr.ie Day 659

22
11:13:22 1 name, he wouldn't know my name.
2 Q 113 But you met him with your father?
3 A Certainly, he was a guy, with all the coverage he has got, he is a guy you
4 would certainly know.
11:13:32 5 Q 114 Would he have been a frequent visitor to your home?
6 A No.
7 Q 115 Could I have 7594 please. This is a document dated 29th June 1988 and it's
8 signed, I think, by Mr. Phillip Monahan.
9 A Mmm.
11:13:48 10 Q 116 And it's basically extending a guarantee for a loan to Advance Protein Limited,
11 of 14,400 for 36 months. And this is in respect of a car lease.
12 A Yes.
13 Q 117 At 7798?
14 A Mmm.
11:14:05 15 Q 118 Would you have been aware of this at the time?
16 A No.
17 Q 119 Would you have been aware that the friendship between your father and
18 Mr. Lawlor in 1988 was that close, that your father was prepared to guarantee a
19 loan for Mr. Lawlor?
11:14:21 20 A No.
21 Q 120 I see. Could I have 1596 please. This is a letter dated 16th April 2002 from
22 your solicitors and at paragraph 3, it says that with regard to Mr. Lawlor,
23 neither Mr. Phillip Monahan who is now retired or Mr. Paul Monahan have any
24 recollection that Mr. Lawlor received a sum or sums as high as 40,000, as
11:14:49 25 Mr. Lawlor has told the Tribunal over the 70s, 80s and 90s, this is the amount
26 of money he would have received from the Monarch Group. And then the letter
27 goes on to say, "however our client has instructed us that it will again trawl
28 through whatever records it has or make further queries to try and ascertain if
29 any further payments were made." Did you subsequently try to ascertain what
11:15:16 30 level of payments were made to Mr. Lawlor?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

23
11:15:16 1 A Yes.
2 Q 121 And other than the documentation furnished in 2000, did you find or anybody who
3 was able to tell you anything more about it?
4 A Well every single piece of document that we have, we sent into the Tribunal.
11:15:25 5 Q 122 And when you consulted with the people that assisted you in providing your
6 statements to the Tribunal, were they able to help you?
7 A Whatever research was done was put into a letter and sent back to the Tribunal.
8 Q 123 Could I have 1255 please. About seven or eight lines from the end, you see
9 there are two cheques there, number 689 and 690, both dated 16th October 1990.
11:16:01 10 The first for 28,000 and the second for 28,300, both made out to Comex Trading
11 Corporation. 1267 please. The top three lines there. These payments and
12 cheque numbers are allocated in the general ledger at strategy planning. Now
13 the Tribunal understands that from Mr. Lawlor that Comex Limited is a company
14 that Mr. Lawlor used to use for creating invoices. And further that the second
11:16:30 15 cheque there of 28,300 was lodged to the account of Economic Reports Limited, a
16 company controlled by Mr. Lawlor. Can you help the Tribunal with any
17 explanation for these payments?
18 A No, I wouldn't have, I wouldn't have known what they were.
19 Q 124 Did you know that they were made?
11:16:49 20 A (shakes head).
21 Q 125 Did you know Mr. Lawlor may have been receiving payments of that level, 56,000
22 in 1990?
23 A No.
24 Q 126 Have you any idea what services Mr. Lawlor might have provided for these
11:17:00 25 payments.
26 A No.
27 Q 127 Do you have any recollection of Mr. Lawlor at that time in the late 1990s, it
28 would have been around the opening of Tallaght, for example?
29 A Certainly, I was at the opening of Tallaght but no.
11:17:17 30 Q 128 Sorry I mean the early 1990s. Do you recall the opening of Tallaght?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

24
11:17:22 1 A Yes.
2 Q 129 Was that a big event in the company's history?
3 A It was a big event, yes.
4 Q 130 Number 7589 please. This is a letter dated September 2001 from Mr. Phil
11:17:54 5 Monahan to Mr. Liam Lawlor on foot of a request from Mr. Lawlor asking about
6 details of payments made to him and at paragraph 3 the letter indicates that
7 records exist since 1991 and the details I have available pertaining to your
8 good self relate to a payment made 28th July 1994 by cheque to A & L Lawlor in
9 the amount of 3,000 pounds, do you know anything about this payment?
11:18:14 10 A No.
11 Q 131 July 1994?
12 A No.
13 Q 132 Documentation furnished to the Tribunal by your solicitors indicate that it is
14 the company's belief that this cheque to A & L Lawlor was in fact for Mr. Liam
11:18:28 15 Lawlor. Can you assist the Tribunal with how this belief was acquired?
16 A No.
17 Q 133 Did you speak to anybody about this payment?
18 A Well Mr. Monahan sent in the reply back to it.
19 Q 134 But you yourself knew nothing about the payment?
11:18:49 20 A No.
21 Q 135 Nor how it came within the Monarch Group to be believed that this payment was
22 to Mr. Liam Lawlor?
23 A No.
24 Q 136 In June 2000, the Tribunal wrote to Mr. Phillip Monahan asking him about, to
11:19:09 25 inform the Tribunal whether he directly or indirectly on his own behalf or on
26 behalf of any other person or company made any payments with regard to any
27 benefits of any kind to any elected representatives. Could I have 1578 please.
28 This is a reply from the solicitors for the Monarch Group dated 14th June 2000,
29 the third paragraph, it says "we would advise that Mr. Monahan did not on his
11:19:35 30 own behalf make any contributions or provide any benefits of any kind to any
www.pcr.ie Day 659

25
11:19:39 1 elected representatives or any public officials. However, Monarch Properties
2 Limited and companies within the Monarch Group made certain contributions to
3 certain elected representatives." Would you have been aware of this
4 correspondence at the time Mr. Monahan?
11:19:57 5 A No.
6 Q 137 Could I have page 8902, this is the affidavit of Mr. Phillip Monahan made on
7 foot of an order of the Tribunal made 18th April 2002. And if I could have
8 3100, this is a document furnished on foot of the affidavit which is a cheque
9 drawn on the account of Mr. Phillip Monahan and Mary Monahan made payable to
11:20:22 10 Charlie Haughey Party Leaders Fund and signed, I believe, by Mr Philip Monahan,
11 is that your father agency signature?
12 A It looks like it.
13 Q 138 And the payee, does that look like your father's writing to you, Charles
14 Haughey, Party Leaders Fund?
11:20:35 15 A It looks like two different types of writing.
16 Q 139 Were you aware of this payment at the time in February 1991?
17 A No.
18 Q 140 It's a payment made on your parents account for 25,000?
19 A I am not aware.
11:20:51 20 Q 141 Were you aware of the meetings that led to the payment?
21 A No.
22 Q 142 Could I have page 8717 please. This is an entry in your father's diary for
23 February 1991. You will see maybe about halfway down the page, there's S
24 Murphy, 100,000 cash, it looks like it reads. Can you see that entry?
11:21:16 25 A I can.
26 Q 143 Do you see it Mr. Monahan?
27 A Yes, I can see exactly, yes.
28 Q 144 Do you know who S Murphy is?
29 A No.
11:21:33 30 Q 145 And you have no idea why there would be a meeting involving 100,000 pounds in
www.pcr.ie Day 659

26
11:21:38 1 cash with an S Murphy and your father?
2 A No idea.
3 Q 146 Do you know where Mr. Monahan would have sourced cash at the time in 1991?
4 A No idea.
11:21:54 5 Q 147 Could I have 8156 please?
7 JUDGE FAHERTY: Sorry, do you know a D Murphy, Mr. Monahan?
8 A No.
11:22:07 10 JUDGE FAHERTY: Just it looks like an S but there's a line going through it.
11 It could be a D. Just go back to it for a second. 8717.
12
13 Q 148 MS. FOLEY: Is the entry made in your late father's handwriting, Mr. Monahan,
14 as far as you can identify?
11:22:41 15 A Could you put the whole diary back there. His handwriting looks similar to the
16 rest of the stuff that's there.
17 Q 149 Sorry, Mr. Monahan, I didn't catch what you said?
18 A It looks similar to the rest of the writing that's there on it.
19 Q 150 But you can't assist with the writing?
11:23:04 20 A Whether it's an S or a D or even Murphy looks a bit funny.
21 Q 151 And I believe your father appeared before the Moriarty Tribunal in October 2000
22 with respect to this payment of 25,000 pounds to the Fianna Fail party, would
23 that, would you have discussed that with your father?
24 A No, but I know he did appear in front of the Moriarty Tribunal.
11:23:37 25 Q 152 Was it at that point that you became aware of the payment?
26 A I wasn't even at, when he was there, I wasn't even at the Tribunal when he was
27 in front of the Tribunal, I wasn't even there.
28 Q 153 But you had no idea until the evidence came out in public?
29 A Yes.
11:23:51 30 Q 154 On that day that your father had made that payment?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

27
11:23:54 1 A Yes.
2 Q 155 Prior to his appearance to the Tribunal, it was never discussed?
3 A I didn't know what he was --
4 Q 156 Could I have 8156 please. This is a letter from Noel Smyth & Partners dated
11:24:08 5 12th August 1993 and you will see there on on the second half of the page it
6 refers to a proposed deal with Dun Laoghaire Golf Club. Dun Laoghaire have
7 approximately 70 acres which would be considered prime residential land and the
8 deal with Dun Laoghaire is described as that they are to receive 150 acres of
9 land approximately at Cherrywood which is to be redeveloped into a first class
11:24:31 10 golf course at the cost of the developer. Were you aware of this proposed deal
11 in August 1993?
12 A No.
13 Q 157 Were you ever aware of it since?
14 A Only aware that Cosgroves did a deal on the land, that's all.
11:24:42 15 Q 158 But you are not aware of any involvement with the proposed golf club at
16 Cherrywood Lands?
17 A No.
18 Q 159 The second, the last paragraph on the page there indicates that the sum of
19 500,000 cash would have to be paid to the club on actual hand over. Do you
11:24:59 20 know anything about this proposed payment?
21 A No.
22 Q 160 Do you know where 500,000 pounds cash would come from within the group?
23 A I don't know how you would define the term cash, whether it's money that you
24 have or money you have in your bank account or I think you referred to cash, it
11:25:14 25 means something else.
26 Q 161 I have -- I don't know what the author intended by that term?
27 A Nor do I.
28 Q 162 Now Ms. Gosling has told the Tribunal that your late father met with
29 politicians on a regular basis and I would just like to ask you your
11:25:40 30 understanding of the nature of his relationship or friendship with various
www.pcr.ie Day 659

28
11:25:44 1 politicians based on documentation furnished to the Tribunal which indicates
2 some level of contact. First of all, Mr. Padraig Flynn, your father appears in
3 Mr. Flynn's diaries in 1989 and 1990 and 1991. There seems to have been a
4 record of meetings having taking place, were you aware of any of these
11:26:08 5 meetings?
6 A No.
7 Q 163 Had you ever meet Mr. Flynn?
8 A No.
9 Q 164 Were you at the opening of Tallaght?
11:26:14 10 A Yes.
11 Q 165 Did you not see Mr. Flynn there?
12 A I saw Mr. Haughey.
13 Q 166 But you never had any direct meeting with him. Do you know of the nature of
14 the relationship your father may have had with Mr. Flynn, was it business,
11:26:26 15 personal?
17 Q 167 Could I have 2864 please. This is a letter signed by your father to Mr. Frank
18 Wall of Fianna Fail referring to donations made including a donation to
19 Mr. Dermot Ahern for 3,000 and Mr. Kieran Haughey for Mr. Sean Haughey for a
11:26:56 20 thousand, do you know anything about Mr. Monahan's relationship with Mr. Ahern
21 or Mr. Sean Haughey?
22 A No.
23 Q 168 But you knew he had a relationship with Mr. Charles Haughey, is that correct?
24 A I remember Mr. Haughey opening The Square in Tallaght.
11:27:14 25 Q 169 And was that on foot of a request from your father, would you imagine?
27 Q 170 Do you remember were they friends?
28 A I have no idea, just remember that he was there and he opened it.
29 Q 171 Ms. Mary Harney has also contacted Mr. Monahan for donations, do you know the
11:27:33 30 nature of any relationship between Mr. Monahan and Ms. Harney?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

29
11:27:38 1 A None at all with Ms. Harney.
2 Q 172 Do you know Mr. Brian Lenihan?
3 A Brian lives in Castleknock.
4 Q 173 And would your father have had any relationship or contact with Mr. Lenihan?
11:27:55 5 A I know Brian myself.
6 Q 174 Mr. Lenihan, Junior?
7 A Yes, junior.
8 Q 175 And Mr. Lenihan senior, do you know if your father had any contact?
9 A No idea, I never met Mr. Lenihan, Senior.
11:28:07 10 Q 176 3687, this is a letter from a company called Travac Limited signed by Sean
11 Clafferty returning a cheque for 5,000 pounds in May 1992 and this appears to
12 have been copied to deputy Brian Lenihan, do you know anything about this
13 payment, this returned payment?
14 A No.
11:28:24 15 Q 177 Or any reason why it would have been returned?
16 A No.
17 Q 178 Mr. Albert Reynolds, do you know is he an acquaintance or contact of your
18 father's?
19 A No.
11:28:41 20 Q 179 You never recall him?
21 A No, never.
22 Q 180 Mr. Colm Hilliard?
23 A Never heard of him.
24 Q 181 Mr. Noel Dempsey?
11:28:52 25 A I know of Noel but no.
26 Q 182 Senator Liam Cosgrave?
27 A (shakes head).
28 Q 183 Councillor Colm McGrath?
29 A No.
11:29:02 30 Q 184 Do you know, did you ever meet with Mr. Bill O'Herlihy who worked for Monarch
www.pcr.ie Day 659

30
11:29:17 1 Properties and the Cherrywood Lands?
2 A No.
3 Q 185 Were you aware that he was working for Monarch?
4 A No, until he was here.
11:29:23 5 Q 186 Mr. Frank Dunlop?
6 A No, never met him.
7 Q 187 And Ms. Gosling has given evidence to the Tribunal that when requests for
8 monetary support came from politicians, most of them would have come in
9 addressed to somebody and that person would make a recommendation and in the
11:29:40 10 final stages, Mr. Monahan was the one who said yes or no, would that be your
11 understanding of your father's role in the organisation?
12 A I don't know.
13 Q 188 She also said Mr. Monahan wouldn't personally have to clear every single
14 donation but some of the senior staff would have authority to clear political
11:29:56 15 donations?
16 A Again I wouldn't know what way.
17 Q 189 Do you know who the senior staff would be who would have the authority to
18 authorise political donations?
19 A No.
11:30:05 20 Q 190 Ms. Gosling has also told the Tribunal it is her understanding of the culture
21 that existed within the Monarch Group that a politician would never have been
22 refuse a political donation because it would have been seen as necessary to
23 support financially those politicians who were in turn supporting or dealing
24 with their lands, that would be your understanding also?
11:30:23 25 A I wouldn't understand what the culture was.
26 Q 191 She described it as a necessary evil, political donations were a necessary
27 evil?
28 A That's her description, it's not mine.
29 Q 192 I have no further questions, thank you Mr. Monahan.
11:30:37 30
www.pcr.ie Day 659

31
11:30:37 1 WITNESS CROSS-EXAMINED BY MR SANFEY
4 Q 193 MR. SANFEY: I have a couple of questions, chairman. Mr. Monahan, can you tell
11:30:43 5 us in a bit more detail what you were doing in the ten years prior to 2001?
6 A Basically I was at school and then --
7 Q 194 When did you leave school?
8 A 1988.
9 Q 195 Could you tell us what you did for a living after that?
11:31:01 10 A Basically, I worked in an accountancy office in Dundalk. I worked there for a
11 number of years and then I trained to become a helicopter pilot, which I did
12 and then I had my own businesses, various different types of businesses.
13 Q 196 Can you tell us in rough outline what those businesses were?
14 A I did a cinema magazine, the Big Ticket. I was in leisure business, a thing
11:31:23 15 called Glenhurst, property business, PR Properties, developed my own property.
16 Q 197 Did your father ever have involvement in any of those businesses?
17 A They were things I did myself.
18 Q 198 Were you work working full-time in those businesses?
19 A Yes.
11:31:37 20 Q 199 Did you live at home during that time?
21 A I lived between Dundalk and Dublin, Dundalk is home.
22 Q 200 Who lived in Dundalk may I ask?
23 A The family are in Dundalk, it's home.
24 Q 201 What proportions of your father's time would have been spent between Dundalk
11:31:53 25 and Castleknock?
26 A It varied, as work depended on it. I know initially when he moved in, he was
27 just after having his second triple bypass and basically it was Somerton when
28 he was in Dublin, that's when he first stayed in Dublin for a while.
29 Q 202 Yes. You are a married man, I think?
11:32:12 30 A I am, yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

32
11:32:13 1 Q 203 When did you get married?
2 A In 2000.
3 Q 204 Is that the point at which you moved out of home?
4 A Yes.
11:32:19 5 Q 205 So from 2000, you have been living in your own house?
6 A Yes.
7 Q 206 Right. Can I take it that those businesses that you describe, you worked
8 full-time at those, is that right?
11:32:33 10 Q 207 And just to be entirely clear, did you at any time work for Monarch Properties
11 during the 1990s or up to 2001?
12 A I had a slight involvement, my father was into cars and he did a thing called
13 Irish National Transport, a BES scheme and he wanted me to be involved in. So
14 I became involved in it.
11:32:52 15 Q 208 Would you tell us what that project was about and your involvement in it?
16 A It was to do with vintage cars, my father was into vintage cars, he was a motor
17 mechanic. That's what he trained at and that's what his passion was, cars.
18 Q 209 Was it a business with a view to selling cars or acquiring cars?
19 A He wanted to do a museum for Dublin, that was his idea.
11:33:10 20 Q 210 A car museum?
21 A A car museum.
22 Q 211 Where was this to be?
23 A In Dublin.
24 Q 212 In Dublin. And was that carried through?
11:33:18 25 A The BES scheme was formed, it went through and the people that invested in it
26 got their return on it. The museum didn't materialise, they did have a
27 temporary museum but his vision was having one beside the toll bridge and it
28 didn't materialise.
29 Q 213 It didn't work out?
11:33:35 30 A He had problems with National Roads Authority trying to get access and he
www.pcr.ie Day 659

33
11:33:39 1 wanted to --
2 Q 214 How much of your time did you spend working on this?
3 A It was almost, it was a hobby, I have an interest in cars myself so it was kind
4 of a in a way a hobby.
11:33:51 5 Q 215 It was a shared interest between you and your father?
6 A Yes.
7 Q 216 In general terms, were you aware of what Monarch Properties was doing during
8 that time?
9 A In general terms, yes, you would be aware of it.
11:34:08 10 Q 217 You would have been aware that the company had a major project going on in
11 Cherrywood?
12 A Yes.
13 Q 218 And you would have been aware of Tallaght?
14 A Yes.
11:34:16 15 Q 219 In general outline?
16 A For example, the opening of Nutgrove Shopping Centre, I would have been there
17 and the opening of Navan Shopping Centre. I would have been there but that
18 would be my involvement, of being invited to the openings.
19 Q 220 Was your father somebody who was totally dedicated to Monarch business, would
11:34:37 20 that be a fair description of him?
21 A He just worked 24 hours a day, just non-stop.
22 Q 221 Do you recall having much contact with him during the 1990s in personal terms,
23 like ships that pass in the night?
24 A He was a man that worked very very hard, he just really enjoyed his work and he
11:34:56 25 worked very, very hard to the detriment of his health.
26 Q 222 Right. In 1990, what age were you?
27 A 1990, I was 23. There, thereabouts.
28 Q 223 So you are now --
29 A 40.
11:35:13 30 Q 224 40. During the 1990s, did your father ever ask you your advice in relation to
www.pcr.ie Day 659

34
11:35:18 1 operational decisions to do with Monarch Properties?
2 A No.
3 Q 225 Did he ever confide in you about problems he might have been having with
4 Monarch Properties?
11:35:27 5 A No.
6 Q 226 Did he ever talk generally about the sort of problems that were facing Monarch
7 Properties over the tea table?
8 A No.
9 Q 227 Was that not his way?
11:35:39 10 A That wasn't his way at all, he was his own man, he did his own thing.
11 Q 228 Of the six children of whom you were one, where do you come in that order?
12 A In the middle.
13 Q 229 Would there have been anybody else in the family he would have confided in or
14 anything like that?
11:35:55 15 A No, that wasn't his way.
16 Q 230 That wasn't his way. Did he ever discuss politics or political donations in
17 particular with you?
18 A No, not at all.
19 Q 231 What made you decide to join the Monarch Group in the end?
11:36:11 20 A I know he wanted somebody to develop out when he wasn't there, he wanted
21 somebody to develop out what was there and keep it in control of whatever was
22 left when he wasn't there.
23 Q 232 And what did you see as the advantage to you of getting involved in the Monarch
24 Group?
11:36:35 25 A Obviously I was going to be getting paid for it and getting incentive for
26 whatever I do well.
27 Q 233 Okay. Thank you, Mr. Monarch.
28 A Thank you.
29
11:36:55 30 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Monahan, did your late father ever discuss the Tribunal and the
www.pcr.ie Day 659

35
11:36:56 1 sort of inquiries the Tribunal was making of him an the company before he died
2 A He would have dealt with the, with his replies, whatever replies.
4 CHAIRMAN: Did he ever discuss with you the sort of issues that the Tribunal
11:37:18 5 was investigating?
6 A No.
8 CHAIRMAN: Even at the time you effectively took over the running of the
9 business in 1991, sorry, 2001.
11:37:33 10 A No.
11
12 CHAIRMAN: And at that time and subsequently when your father was still alive,
13 the Tribunal must have been hanging as a bit of cloud over him and the company.
14 A Certainly it was something that he had to deal with.
11:37:51 15
16 CHAIRMAN: And are you saying that during those years from 2000 or 2001, up to
17 the time, he died that there was never any discussion between himself and
18 yourself given that you were effectively taking over the company from him, he
19 never discussed in detail with you the sort of issues which the Tribunal was
11:38:17 20 looking into?
21 A He dealt with the issues whenever the information and requests were --
22
23 CHAIRMAN: No, no --
24 A No, he didn't discuss with me.
11:38:27 25
26 CHAIRMAN: I mean we know what information Monarch provided the Tribunal so --
27 A They provided massive amounts of information to the Tribunal.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: Yes, but were there discussions between yourself and your father as
11:38:42 30 to the issues with which the Tribunal was concerned?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

36
11:38:46 1 A No. basically when a letter came in from the Tribunal, my father dealt with his
2 letter as quick as possible.
4 CHAIRMAN: So, even though you were his heir, so to speak, insofar as the
11:39:01 5 running of the company was involved, and given that he had a great interest in
6 development of the company and its future presumably, he never sat down and
7 discussed in detail with you any concerns he might have or any information he
8 might have in relation to issues with which the Tribunal was concerned.
9 A Well it's clear from what I can see that he co-operated fully with all the
11:39:31 10 Tribunals.
11
12 CHAIRMAN: I am talking about the discussion, any discussions that you had
13 with him in your capacity, I mean you were sort of a dual capacity, you were a
14 son and a member of his family and you were also the person taking over his
11:39:50 15 business. So in that, in those capacities, in either capacity, did he ever
16 discuss in detail with you the sort of issues with which the Tribunal was
17 concerned?
18 A No.
19
21
22 JUDGE FAHERTY: Could I have 8574 and 8576 up on screen. No, 8574. Just this
23 document, Mr. Monahan, you have said that it's your belief that this bill
24 wasn't paid, is that correct?
11:40:45 25 A Yes, that's correct, yes.
26
27 JUDGE FAHERTY: And Mr. Whelan, you have said, you believed him to be a land
28 dealer or land agent, is that correct?
29 A Yes.
11:40:55 30
www.pcr.ie Day 659

37
11:40:55 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: From whom did you get the information that this wasn't paid?
2 A My recollection is it came from Dominic Glennane, that it wasn't paid and
3 certainly Mr. Glennane is next so he can check, you can check it with him.
11:41:11 5 JUDGE FAHERTY: Did you make any inquiries independent of Mr. Glennane?
6 A No.
8 JUDGE FAHERTY: Because this was, seems to be a fee to services in relation to
9 residential consultancy at Cherrywood, isn't that correct
11:41:27 10 A I am just giving you my understanding, I am quite prepared to say that I'm
11 wrong, I am just giving you -- that's my understanding.
12
13 JUDGE FAHERTY: You would agree with what it says that whatever Mr. Whelan and
14 obviously he billed Monarch Properties Limited in 1991?
11:41:41 15 A Certainly that's what it says on it, yes.
16
17 JUDGE FAHERTY: And it would appear to be somehow connected to the Cherrywood
18 Development.
19 A Certainly it appears that way, yes.
11:41:54 20
21 JUDGE FAHERTY: And did you peruse any papers to ascertain whether or not this
22 was ever discussed at board meetings or within the group, I know you say you
23 weren't there at the time but did you ask for any information from
24 Mr. Glennane?
11:42:15 25 A In relation to information, basely all the information that was held by Monarch
26 was submitted to the Tribunal. We sent in over 66 boxes of information. We
27 did request to have the information sent back to us and we were told that it
28 would be copied and sent back to us in due course, but we never received it
29 back.
11:42:36 30
www.pcr.ie Day 659

38
11:42:36 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: And what do you say was shredded on the 26th September 2000?
2 Could I have 8897. This is a document that you discovered to the Tribunal.
3 A Correct, yes.
11:42:50 5 JUDGE FAHERTY: And what do you say was shredded on the 26th September 2000,
6 Mr. Monahan?
7 A Just as I said earlier, the documents were normally held for six years, the
8 documents that were sent to the Tribunal go back from 1991, they were very
9 comprehensive documents, all the Tribunal you can see most of the information
11:43:37 10 that you have is from them, I have no idea what --
11
12 JUDGE FAHERTY: But what timeframe was shredded, this is a document that's
13 dated but what I'm asking you is what timeframe of documents were shredded on
14 the 26th September 2000?
11:43:53 15 A I have no idea what timeframe, what was shredded on it, the only thing I can
16 presume, we would presume is that a lot of drawings are produced when you are
17 dealing with properties and they are the sort of things which are bulky and
18 possibly would have been shredded.
19
11:44:09 20 JUDGE FAHERTY: Well who made the decision to shred the documents?
21 A I have no idea but I presume it would have been Ann Gosling that made the
22 decision on it. She would have been in charge.
23
24 JUDGE FAHERTY: And whose signature is there on the right hand side and it
11:44:24 25 says signed for client, do you know whose signature that is?
26 A It looks like John Sherwood's signature.
27
28 JUDGE FAHERTY: And this is the 26th September 2000. Now there's a letter, we
29 have a letter and you say that documents were sent to the Tribunal that you
11:44:38 30 have since 1991 because we have the late Mr. Monahan's letter to Mr. Lawlor
www.pcr.ie Day 659

39
11:44:45 1 which he said, I think, he was looking for information about a 3,000 cheque
2 that the Monarch Group documents exist from 1991.
3 A Yes.
11:44:56 5 JUDGE FAHERTY: And I am just wondering that that was a letter in 2001, why in
6 2000 if documents exist in 1991, why in 2000 are documents being shredded?
7 A I can only surmise that it would have been drawings or something like that.
9 JUDGE FAHERTY: But you don't know.
11:45:19 10 A I don't know.
11
12 JUDGE FAHERTY: I am asking you now, as managing director of the company, who
13 would have made the decision prior to the 26th September, somebody would have
14 to physically decide what documents within the, if it is the Monarch Group, it
11:45:39 15 is Monarch Properties, it was on the premises in Monarch Properties in Somerton
16 Road in Castleknock. What properties would or who would have made the decision
17 A My feeling would have been that Ann Gosling possibly in conjunction with John
18 Sherwood, I would say that Ann Gosling would have made the decision.
19
11:46:03 20 JUDGE FAHERTY: You refer to drawings, as I understand it, the main company
21 office was in Harcourt Street, was it not?
22 A Basically in Dundalk, in Wilton House and then it moved to Earlsfort Terrace
23 and then Harcourt Street and some of it went along with Dunloe into its
24 headquarters and other stuff went into Castleknock. There was a number of
11:46:25 25 different moves for paperwork, as you understand, it's a lot of paper to be
26 moving.
27
28 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes, but this would appear to, are you saying that the
29 documents that were destroyed on the 26th September related to documents held
11:46:39 30 in Somerton only?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

40
11:46:41 1 A Yes. No, I would, my guess would be it just refers to documents held in
2 Somerton only.
4 JUDGE FAHERTY: As I understand it, we haven't heard from Mr. Sweeney yet, I
11:46:55 5 understand he would have been the technical director of Monarch Group?
6 A Yes.
8 JUDGE FAHERTY: And he would be the person, as I understand from the evidence
9 we have indeed from Mr. Reilly and others, that Mr. Sweeney was the person, if
11:47:05 10 you like, probably within Monarch on the technical aspect of the development of
11 the Cherrywood site, is that correct?
12 A Well I am not exactly sure what Mr. Sweeney's role on it was but certainly he
13 was, I don't know exactly what his qualification was.
14
11:47:24 15 JUDGE FAHERTY: That's my understanding of it. You are only surmising it
16 would appear that Mr. Sweeney, his office was in Harcourt Street as I
17 understand it?
18 A Yes.
19
11:47:33 20 JUDGE FAHERTY: Would it not be more likely that all the technical documents
21 would be -- to be found or most of them, save for whatever the late Mr. Monahan
22 might have had himself, would be found in Harcourt Street?
23 A Any of the stuff that would have been there would have been, if there was
24 drawings in Harcourt Street which -- the offices were sold, if drawings that
11:48:02 25 were there on it, Mr. Sweeney I am sure wouldn't have wanted them. I think in
26 2000, whenever information, whenever Harcourt Street would have closed, it was
27 in 1996 as far as I am aware of, Monarch went into Dunloe so at that stage
28 documents would have gone to Dunloe. Mr. Sweeney, as far as I am aware, was
29 not there at the time or he was exited at that time, and I am sure that any
11:48:26 30 surplus information or drawings or whatever else on it would have been
www.pcr.ie Day 659

41
11:48:30 1 transported and stored in Somerton.
3 JUDGE FAHERTY: I see. And just one other thing, do you know Ms. Gosling has
4 told us that the late Mr. Monahan back in 1986 appeared to be making some
11:48:44 5 provision for, that he wanted a million pounds in cash, do you know anything
6 about that?
7 A Basically Mr. Monahan had two triple by-passes, his latter one was in 1989 and
8 he had another one then in 2001 and he was a man of ill health, he was a
9 diabetic, he was a man coming up at that stage to retirement age, so I'm sure
11:49:11 10 when someone is in their 60s, they are thinking about retirement and not
11 working any more.
12
13 JUDGE FAHERTY: Was it ever discussed, do you know if Mr. Monahan received
14 this money back in 1986?
11:49:21 15 A I have no idea if he received it or not.
16
17 JUDGE FAHERTY: I see. Thank you.
18
19 JUDGE KEYS: Mr. Monahan, could I just ask you, are you the only member of the
11:49:34 20 family who is now involved in the companies run by your father?
21 A I have another brother who is paid by Monarch Properties.
22
23 JUDGE KEYS: Has he a greater involvement in the company than you?
24 A No.
11:49:48 25
26 JUDGE KEYS: Do I take it for all intents and purposes, you were really the
27 heir elect in 2000 when your father became ill?
28 A Well --
29
11:49:58 30 JUDGE KEYS: He was setting you up to be the person to take over?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

42
11:50:01 1 A He wanted somebody to -- yes.
3 JUDGE KEYS: Is it your evidence to the Tribunal they never sat down with you
4 and explained even what the company structure was, what companies he had a
11:50:11 5 shareholding in and what assets those companies had?
6 A I would have an idea of what was involved.
8 JUDGE KEYS: Did he ever sit down with you and go through his portfolio?
9 A No.
11:50:27 10
11 JUDGE KEYS: So therefore you were being set up as the heir elect to a group
12 of companies, to a very successful businessman who had made quite a lot of
13 money and he never explained to you what the company did, secondly what the
14 structure was, thirdly, who the directors were, what jobs they had in hand, or
11:50:46 15 what lands it even owned or what assets?
16 A That's not the way the he operated, he didn't sit down and tell people what
17 they should be doing or what it was about.
18
19 JUDGE KEYS: I understand immediately that, but let us face it, as his health
11:51:03 20 deteriorated, surely he became concerned at this stage, while you are the heir
21 elect, you are now going to have to step into his shoes and take over and run
22 it and despite that you are telling me he never explained to you the structure
23 of the company, the assets it had, who were the directors and so forth?
24 A No, he never sat down and explained to me the whole structure of the company.
11:51:26 25
26 JUDGE KEYS: And do you know what the structures of the company are now?
27 A I do.
28
29 JUDGE KEYS: And when did you find that out?
11:51:32 30 A Since I became employed.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

43
11:51:35 1
2 JUDGE KEYS: And who did you consult with to obtain that information?
3 A Advisers or accountants.
11:51:45 5 JUDGE KEYS: Well, what accountants?
6 A KPMG, Sean Mooney, Pascal & Company.
8 JUDGE KEYS: And tell me, as the Tribunals became interested in your father's
9 affairs, you are saying that he never discussed that with you either?
11
12 JUDGE KEYS: Never marked your card at all?
14
11:52:09 15 JUDGE KEYS: Did he ever discuss how, what problems the company may have and
16 what problems may arise when the Tribunals were inquiring into the business
17 arrangements he had?
18 A No.
19
11:52:31 20 JUDGE KEYS: Do you know did he tell anybody else?
21 A Pardon?
22
23 JUDGE KEYS: Do you know did he tell anybody else or inform anybody else?
24 A I don't know if he informed anybody else.
11:52:40 25
26 JUDGE KEYS: Because somebody had to know because you eventually found out
27 what the structures were, he had to have told somebody to pass on the
28 information so the companies could keep going, is that correct?
29 A Well accountants knew exactly.
11:52:53 30
www.pcr.ie Day 659

44
11:52:53 1 JUDGE KEYS: Well do you know where his assets were when he died, did you know
2 his assets?
3 A Well I wasn't, I am not an executor but certainly I know exactly what all the
4 assets are now.
11:53:04 5
6 JUDGE KEYS: I don't want to enquire into personal matters but I take it as
7 next of kin you would have some interest in it, in the assets he would have
8 had, no? You see you paint a picture as if you know absolutely nothing or
9 close to nothing about his affairs during a time when he was very ill and it
11:53:25 10 look liked like he may not survive and yet despite that, you come in here as if
11 you know nothing about him, any of the business. From 2000 onwards now, I am
12 not talking about 1991, I am talking about from 2000, from the time the
13 Tribunals started to send correspondence to your father making inquiries and
14 this is a time when you are, as I understand it, were going to take over the
11:53:52 15 reins of the company. And you didn't express any interest and ask your father
16 'well listen, if I am going to take over these companies, you will have to tell
17 me more about them?'
18 A That wasn't the way that he operated. He wasn't the type of person who sat
19 down with somebody and told him --
11:54:05 20
21 JUDGE KEYS: Did you ever ask him to sit down?
22 A No, I am an owner driver, I do my own thing.
23
24 JUDGE KEYS: I see, thank you very much.
11:54:15 25
26 MR. RYAN: Excuse me, chairman, may I just make one clarification there. I
27 think Judge Faherty said to Mr. Monahan that Ms. Gosling gave evidence that
28 Mr. Monahan senior wished to raise over a million pounds in 1986, just by way
29 of clarification, Ms. Gosling did not say that directly in evidence, I believe
11:54:32 30 it was put to her.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

45
11:54:33 1
2 JUDGE FAHERTY: I said it arose in the course of Ms. Gosling's evidence and
3 she said I must have been aware of it.
11:54:42 5 MR. RYAN: Very good.
7 JUDGE FAHERTY: I was only trying to ascertain this witness's --
9 MR. RYAN: Just by way of clarification, she didn't give evidence.
11:54:53 10
11 JUDGE FAHERTY: I accept she didn't put it.
12
13 CHAIRMAN: We are going to rise for about 15 minutes, we would like
14 Mr. Monahan to be here in the hearing room when we return.
11:55:11 15
18
19 CHAIRMAN: The Tribunal is not at this time satisfied that Mr. Monahan has
12:13:38 20 provided it with full and frank information as he is legally supposed to do.
21 It appears to the Tribunal that Mr. Monahan has been evasive in many of his
22 replies to counsel and to the Tribunal. And as a matter of probability has
23 far more detailed relevant information than that which he has given so far. If
24 Mr. Monahan would like a further opportunity in the course of this week to give
12:14:06 25 additional evidence to the Tribunal, he will be afforded an opportunity to so
26 do.
27
28 If he does not do so, the Tribunal will in due course critically appraise his
29 evidence and may decide to refer Mr. Monahan to the High Court as provided for
12:14:21 30 in the Tribunals of Inquiry legislation. All right.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

46
12:14:25 1
2 MR. SANFEY: Chairman, I wonder if I could reply briefly to that. I obviously
3 want to consider the position with Mr. Monahan and advise him appropriately but
4 I do know from having spoken to him during the break, he stands over the
12:14:39 5 evidence he gave and says that it is truthful evidence. It may be there is
6 some way on reflection he can be of more assistance to the Tribunal, I will
7 investigate that with him.
9 CHAIRMAN: If he does and if he wants another opportunity to give evidence or
12:14:53 10 to give additional information, then that's something you can raise with the
11 Tribunal's legal team and he will be facilitated in order to give that
12 evidence.
13
14 MR. SANFEY: Very good, chairman.
12:15:09 15
16 MS. DILLON: Mr. Dominic Glennane please.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
www.pcr.ie Day 659

47
12:15:14 1 MR. DOMINIC GLENNANE, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS EXAMINED AS FOLLOWS
2 BY MS. DILLON:
4 CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon, Mr. Glennane.
12:15:55 5 A Good afternoon, chairman.
6 Q 234 MS. DILLON: Good afternoon, Mr. Glennane. You were here for the evidence of
7 Mr. Paul Monahan this morning?
8 A I was, yes.
9 Q 235 And I think that while it's not the case perhaps that you have been here for
12:16:04 10 the entire of the evidence in the Module to date, you have been here for
11 certainly a substantial portion of it?
13 Q 236 I think that throughout the critical period that the Tribunal is investigating,
14 you were the senior financial officer in the Monarch Group?
12:16:18 15 A That's right, yes.
16 Q 237 You were in addition a 20 percent shareholder in the Monarch Group effectively,
18 A Yes, that's right, yes.
19 Q 238 And we will come to look at some of those documents, but if we start with some
12:16:31 20 generalities first, Mr. Glennane, if I can do it that way. You would have been
21 the person, who leaving aside the late Mr. Phillip Monahan, would have had
22 ultimate fiscal or financial responsibility within the Monarch group?
23 A In the main, yes.
24 Q 239 You would have been responsible for signing cheques, is that right?
12:16:49 25 A Well, I didn't sign all the cheques but I was one of the cheque signatories.
26 Q 240 Is that right and in terms of preparing the books of records and making the
27 entries, while some of this work might have been done by other people, you were
28 the person who ultimately had to stand over it all?
29 A I would have been the person that signed off the accounts.
12:17:08 30 Q 241 Is that right?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

48
12:17:08 1 A Yes.
2 Q 242 Now you would also have been a person who worked closely with the late
3 Mr. Phillip Monahan, is that right?
4 A By and large, yes.
12:17:15 5 Q 243 You heard the evidence this morning of Mr. Paul Monahan, I don't want you to
6 comment on that evidence but would you have described the late Mr. Monahan,
7 that's the late Mr. Phillip Monahan as a secretive man?
8 A I would think so, yes.
9 Q 244 And can I ask you --
12:17:33 10 A Fairly secretive.
11 Q 245 Very secretive?
12 A Fairly secretive. I think he told you what he wanted you to know was the long
13 and short of it.
14 Q 246 That was the way he operated?
12:17:44 15 A Exactly.
16 Q 247 Would it also be fair to that the late Mr. Phillip Monahan would have had
17 dealings with individuals that may not have been known to the balance of the
18 people with whom he worked?
19 A Yes, that's true, yes.
12:17:57 20 Q 248 I am going to take you through the documentation in relation to a number of
21 people, Mr. Glennane, but from your experience in dealing with the late
22 Mr. Monahan, was it your, from your knowledge and understanding and having
23 worked so closely with him over the years that he compartmentalised things, if
24 I can put it like that?
12:18:18 25 A So a certain extent I suppose, certainly since the 1990, he was based in a
26 different location than the rest of the Monarch people effectively other than
27 the small team he had working with him, so we might have no contact with him
28 for several days or you might talk to him a few times a day, he was always out
29 looking for new development opportunities and that was his job.
12:18:40 30 Q 249 And did Mr. Monahan do his own thing in relation to the company as it were?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

49
12:18:46 1 A Well to a certain extent I'd say yes but within the legal limits of the sort of
2 compliance and that but he didn't answer to anybody on a daily basis.
3 Q 250 And indeed it would be fair to, Mr. Glennane, that everybody else answered to
4 Mr. Monahan but Mr. Monahan didn't answer to anybody else within the company?
12:19:06 5 A Well we would have, if we had disagreements, we would sort them out and that so
6 I don't think, nobody else or certainly none of the senior people would have
7 necessarily just done what he said to do. You would have no problems arguing
8 with him or debating with him.
9 Q 251 And insofar as Mr. Monahan, when I say Mr. Monahan, I am talking about the late
12:19:29 10 Mr. Phillip Monahan, so far as he is operated bank accounts, his personal bank
11 accounts for example Mr. Glennane, how was that funded?
12 A Well from the company resources presumably, yes.
13 Q 252 Well, you are the financial officer now, you must know if there were drawings
14 from the company to the late Mr. Monahan, isn't that right?
12:19:45 15 A Well, he was paid a monthly salary the same as everybody else, he was paid
16 expenses. And I mean that was the main source of income so far as I was aware.
17 Q 253 Insofar as Mr. Monahan claimed expenses, did he simply indicate a figure or did
18 he have to provide vouching documentation for any expenses?
19 A I think he filled in a sheet, in some case there would have been receipts
12:20:13 20 attached to it, other cases not.
21 Q 254 Did Mr. Monahan get director's loans from the companies?
22 A Well actually he had, I suppose as a result of one of the transactions which
23 you have been referring, there was a large director's loan due to him by the
24 company and it was reduced over the years so there was never a situation where
12:20:39 25 there was a director's loan from the company to him.
26 Q 255 Are you talking about the 1.8 million?
27 A Well yes, yes.
28 Q 256 I will come to deal with that in time, are you saying as a general principle in
29 relation to that transaction, Mr. Glennane, that the company owed that money to
12:20:56 30 Mr. Monahan and as and when Mr. Monahan needed that money, he simply took it
www.pcr.ie Day 659

50
12:21:00 1 because he was entitled to it?
2 A Yes, pretty much so.
3 Q 257 That's insofar as his share of that 1.8 million which was a significant share
4 of a million pounds, is that right?
12:21:09 5 A Yes.
6 Q 258 Mr. Monahan had access to that million pounds and he didn't have to account to
7 anybody else for what he did, is that the position?
8 A He would have had to had to, if he was drawing money from the company, if it
9 was any sort of a substantial sum, obviously it would have been discussed
12:21:24 10 because the company mightn't have the spare cash at the time to pay it for the
11 spare funds available to pay it.
12 Q 259 But the only discussion that would take place Mr. Glennane, and correct me if I
13 am wrong, whether the company had the money to pay Mr. Monahan, not whether
14 Mr. Monahan was entitled to the money and what he was going to do with the
12:21:46 15 money?
16 A I think it was a courtesy, he would probably would have said I need the money
17 to buy something, a deposit, I am buying more cars or whatever.
18 Q 260 But the reasons that Mr. Monahan wanted the money would have been irrelevant to
19 the company that was paying the money, isn't that right?
12:22:05 20 A Well from an accounting point of view.
22 A Yes.
23 Q 262 The only matter that would concern the company whether it was in funds to pay
24 Mr. Monahan the money he wanted?
12:22:09 25 A To an extent, yes, I suppose.
26 Q 263 And can I ask you about the certificate of wast that we have seen this morning
27 at 8897. And this is the shredded document, now do you know anything about
28 this?
29 A No, I don't, no.
12:22:26 30 Q 264 Well let's see if we can work out a few things, a few facts in relation to it.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

51
12:22:32 1 There's 819 kilograms of confidential waste which I work out at being
2 approximately 700 weight, is that right?
3 A If you say so, I don't know.
4 Q 265 So and this is all being destroyed in Somerton?
6 Q 266 Now, what kind of documentation would there have been in Somerton,
7 Mr. Glennane?
8 A Well Somerton over the years would have accumulated its own files obviously and
9 then when Monarch was sold in 1997, all the documentation was split up, some of
12:23:04 10 it -- as indeed the staff were, so and any historical documentation was sent to
11 Somerton, anything to do with accounts or anything like that, any documentation
12 which related to the technical end insofar as the jobs were ongoing or insofar
13 as the companies were acquired by Dunloe wanted them in Dunloe's offices and we
14 were very conscious that you had to keep obviously documents for six years
12:23:36 15 under the Companies Act. So we would, on the other hand, at that stage we were
16 trying to dispose of as much as we can obviously.
17 Q 267 So the technical documentation that, the plans, the engineers, the architects,
18 of current or jobs or jobs that had been sold to Dunloe Ewart, would have gone
19 to Dunloe Ewart?
12:23:58 20 A Or gone to Lafferty Design, who was the chief architect who started his own
21 business at the time.
22 Q 268 But they haven't have gone out to Somerton?
23 A I don't think anything relating to Cherrywood, that's probably the only one
24 that wouldn't have gone or say Drogheda, not only, Dun Laoghaire Town Centre,
12:24:15 25 any recent job but there were a lot of other old drawings, if you like.
26 Q 269 And the historical financial documentation, including the old audit working
27 papers and any of your say working papers, they would have gone out to
28 Somerton, is that right?
29 A For the previous six years, yes.
12:24:34 30 Q 270 And then in addition to that, Somerton would have had its own files anyway, is
www.pcr.ie Day 659

52
3 Q 271 And they would have been the files that were operated by Mr. Monahan?
12:24:44 5 Q 272 So and in, did any event occur in 2000 that precipitated or caused this
6 destruction?
7 A Not that I'm aware of, no.
8 Q 273 Were you aware, for example, you will see from the document on screen that
9 it's, that -- I think the destruction occurs on the 26th September 2000.
11 Q 274 Were you aware that the Tribunal on the 6th June 2000 had written to
13 A I am not sure when I became aware of that, I became aware certainly at some
14 stage, yes.
12:25:19 15 Q 275 1576. And this is the first letter that's sent to Mr. Phillip Monahan at
16 Somerton in Castleknock and I want to draw to your attention that what the
17 Tribunal is asking Mr. Monahan about is whether or not he has made any payments
18 directly or indirectly to any elected representative or public official. Do
19 you see that?
12:25:40 20 A Yes.
21 Q 276 It goes on to say "this request extends to any payments which may have been
22 made or benefits provided to or through Mr. Frank Dunlop or any other
23 intermediary", do you see that?
24 A Yes, I do.
12:25:51 25 Q 277 So Mr. Monahan when he got this letter, as indeed yourself when you first saw
26 it, would have been aware that the Tribunal was inquiring into political
27 payments made by Mr. Monahan directly, including payments made by Mr. Dunlop,
28 is that right?
29 A To Mr. Dunlop.
12:26:07 30 Q 278 Through Mr. Dunlop?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

53
12:26:08 1 A To Mr. Dunlop.
2 Q 279 If you look at the letter Mr Glennane, it says "this request extends to any
3 payments that may have been made or benefits provided to or through
4 Mr. Dunlop?"
6 Q 280 So Mr. Monahan when he saw this letter would have been aware that the Tribunal
7 were inquiring into political payments, including payments that may have been
8 made by Mr. Frank Dunlop, isn't that right?
9 A I assume so, yes.
12:26:31 10 Q 281 Well anybody with an ounce of sense reading that letter would have known that,
11 Mr. Glennane, is that right?
12 A Well I am not quite sure if I agree with your terminology of an ounce of sense,
13 but yes.
14 Q 282 When you read it, Mr. Glennane, did you understand what the Tribunal was
12:26:45 15 inquiring into is this?
16 A Yes, I did, yes.
17 Q 283 And you knew and Mr. Monahan would have known that Mr. Frank Dunlop had been
18 retained by Monarch Group in 1993 in connection with the rezoning of the
19 Cherrywood Lands, isn't that right?
21 Q 284 And that is not a fact that was a secret or unknown within the Monarch Group?
22 A Not at all, no.
23 Q 285 So when you received this letter and Mr. Monahan received this letter, you were
24 aware of two things, one, you had had dealings with Mr. Frank Dunlop, and two,
12:27:15 25 the Tribunal was inquiring into those dealings, isn't that right?
26 A That's right.
27 Q 286 Now, prior to you receiving this letter in April of 2000, Mr. Frank Dunlop had
28 given evidence in public in this Tribunal that was widely reported in the
29 newspapers, do you remember that?
12:27:30 30 A I do, yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

54
12:27:31 1 Q 287 And it would have been clear from anybody reading the newspapers at that time
2 that what Mr. Dunlop had told the Tribunal and which he had written on lists
3 were the names of companies for whom he had conducted business, ie seeking the
4 rezoning of their lands in 1992 and 1993 and lists of politicians who
12:27:51 5 Mr. Dunlop said he had paid in order to secure that rezoning, would you have
6 known that in April of 2000?
7 A I would have been aware of it, I don't remember the exact dates now but I
8 certainly was aware when he came before the Tribunal and his interviews with
9 the Tribunal.
12:28:08 10 Q 288 Would it be fair to say that similarly Mr. Phillip Monahan must also at the
11 time have been aware of that background prior to him receiving the letter of
12 6th June 2000?
13 A I couldn't say that, I don't know what Mr. Monahan was aware of then, I am not
14 sure what his state of health was throughout that period.
12:28:24 15 Q 289 Well, when Mr. Monahan received this letter, did he discuss with you,
16 Mr. Glennane?
17 A I don't think so, no.
18 Q 290 At that time?
19 A No.
12:28:30 20 Q 291 But certainly, in April 2000, it was well known in this country that Mr. Frank
21 Dunlop had provided two important pieces of information to the Tribunal, though
22 nobody knew the detail of them, one was a list of people for whom he had acted,
23 and who had given him money in the course of the Development Plan, and two, he
24 had provided lists of people whom he said he had paid in order to secure that
12:28:53 25 rezoning, isn't that right?
26 A I was aware of it certainly, yes.
27 Q 292 Right, now you also knew at the time that Mr. Dunlop was giving his evidence as
28 did everybody else in Monarch that you, in Monarch, had retained Mr. Dunlop in
29 connection with the Cherrywood Lands, isn't that also right?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

55
12:29:09 1 Q 293 So you knew and you must have suspected that your name or Monarch's name was on
2 some list somewhere prepared by Mr. Dunlop?
3 A Well, I don't know because I mean as far as we are concerned, it was the
4 services of Frank Dunlop & Associates who are a PR company so -- but if he was
12:29:28 5 giving details of all the clients he had over the years, obviously I would have
6 expected our name to appear on it, yes.
7 Q 294 It couldn't have come as a surprise to you that Mr. Dunlop might have put the
8 Monarch's name on a list, is that right?
9 A That's right, no.
12:29:40 10 Q 295 So that when the letter comes of the 6th June 2000, it can't be wholly
11 unexpected within the Monarch Group that such a letter is coming following the
12 public evidence of Mr. Dunlop in April 2000, isn't that right?
13 A Well I don't know, I don't know what you mean the Monarch Group because that
14 is, I had left the Monarch Group.
12:29:58 15 Q 296 But certainly you knew that the Monarch Group had retained Mr. Dunlop in
16 connection with the Cherrywood Lands in 1993, is that right?
18 Q 297 You knew that you had paid substantial sums to Mr. Dunlop in 1993 for his
19 services, isn't that right?
12:30:11 20 A That's right, for fees, yes.
21 Q 298 We will come to look at Mr. Dunlop, Frank Dunlop, shortly Mr. Glennane but you
22 would certainly have been aware as would other people in the Monarch Group of
23 the fact that by April 2000 or the end of Mr. Dunlop's first evidence, there
24 was a real risk or likelihood that Monarch's name appeared on a list of
12:30:31 25 Mr. Dunlop's as an employer of Mr. Dunlop, isn't that right?
26 A Well obviously, yes, there was a --
27 Q 299 Indeed, anybody in the Monarch who had been in the Monarch Group at the time
28 such as Mr. Lynn, or Mr. Reilly or Mr. Sweeney would equally have been aware of
29 the fact that A, Mr. Dunlop was giving very highly quoted public evidence and
12:30:49 30 B, that Mr. Dunlop had previously been retained by Monarch, isn't that right?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

56
12:30:54 1 A Well I can't speak for other people.
2 Q 300 Right. But you certainly were aware of it?
3 A I was certainly aware, yes, that he had given evidence to the Tribunal, yes.
4 Q 301 And you were also aware, without discussing it with Mr. Phillip Monahan, you
12:31:10 5 yourself had made the connection that it was likely that Monarch's name
6 appeared on some of Mr. Dunlop's lists, isn't that right?
7 A As clients of his, yes.
8 Q 302 As a client of his and we will come to look at that?
9 A I certainly would not have thought it would appear as somebody who had given
12:31:22 10 him money to give to politicians, we would never have done that.
11 Q 303 Leaving aside that?
12 A I am not sure of the context of what you are talking about.
13 Q 304 Yes, so that what happens then from Mr. Phillip Monahan's point of view at
14 Somerton is that approximately 700 weight of paper in Somerton is destroyed in
12:31:41 15 September of 2000. Isn't that right?
16 A So it appears, yes.
17 Q 305 Now, looking at it now, Mr. Glennane, in that context and in that sequence, can
18 you think of any reason why someone who has been informed that they are going
19 to be the subject matter of an inquiry by a Tribunal of Inquiry why would such
12:32:04 20 a person elect at that point in time to destroy 819.88 kilograms or 700 weight
21 of newspapers which might, of not newspaper, of paper, which might contain
22 material or relevant information, can you help the Tribunal why that took place
23 in September of 2000?
24 A It's normal practice in a company to have documents shredded every six to 12
12:32:28 25 months if you can, otherwise it just all builds up. I wouldn't have thought
26 it, I mean as far as I can see, all the documentation relating to Mr. Dunlop is
27 included in the brief. It doesn't appear that any documentation, I assume it
28 was waste piper that was destroyed.
29 Q 306 Who was the person who would have carried out that analysis, Mr. Glennane, who
12:32:52 30 would have gone through that documentation before it was shredded to decide
www.pcr.ie Day 659

57
12:32:57 1 whether or not, before it was torn up, whether there was anything in it that
2 might assist the Tribunal in its enquiries?
3 A I don't know. Somebody in Somerton probably.
4 Q 307 Do you think such an exercise was in fact carried out?
12:33:10 5 A Did I think that?
6 Q 308 Yes?
7 A No, I didn't know anything about this shredding documents until I saw it here.
8 Q 309 Do you think it's in any way significant or indeed sinister that such a
9 shredding operation took place within two months of Mr. Monahan being told he
12:33:25 10 was the subject matter of inquiry by this Tribunal?
11 A I wouldn't think so, no.
12 Q 310 Do you think this is a normal reaction of somebody who is being told they are
13 the subject matter of inquiry by the Tribunal to shred 700 weight of documents?
14 A I have no idea what 700 weight of documents is in context but I would have
12:33:48 15 thought it's a normal process to shred documentation on a regular basis.
16 Q 311 10 hundred weight would be half a ton of documents, 700 weight is almost half a
17 ton of documents and I suggest to you, Mr. Glennane, that's a very, very, very
18 great deal of documents, isn't that right?
19 A I said I can't visualise it but yes.
12:34:09 20 Q 312 And can you think of any other precipitating factor that might have led to this
21 shredded exercise being carried out?
22 A No, they might have wanted to clear out space because I know all the
23 documentation was stored in the place where the cars were stored so I think it
24 was very tight for space so I assume that somebody made a decision to dump --
12:34:38 25 Q 313 Who was the person who would have made the decision to dump the documentation?
26 A Mr. Monahan or John Sherwood or Ann Gosling or some combination.
27 Q 314 But it wasn't you anyway because you had left the company?
28 A No.
29 Q 315 Can I ask you Mr. Glennane when you left the company, did you set up another
12:34:54 30 company with Mr. Phillip Reilly?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

58
12:34:56 1 A Not for about two years after that, yes.
2 Q 316 And is that the occupation that you are presently engaged in, with Mr. Reilly
3 and if I understood Mr. Reilly correctly, you are providing a similar type of
4 service that had previously been supplied by Monarch Property Services Limited?
6 Q 317 Is that right?
7 A Yes.
8 Q 318 Would you like to tell the Tribunal about it, in a general way, the services
9 that were provided by Monarch Property Services Limited?
12:35:21 10 A Well the services that were provided which we are continuing to provide were
11 the management, the overall management of shopping centres on behalf of clients
12 and in Monarch days on behalf of ourselves and really it's to do with the
13 running and administration of shopping centres, the collection of rents,
14 collection of service charges and employing security, cleaning staff and the
12:35:50 15 general overall running of the centre.
16 Q 319 And insofar as Monarch Property Services Limited becomes involved in joint
17 venture activities, it became involved in a joint venture activity in Tallaght
18 with GRE?
19 A That's right.
12:36:02 20 Q 320 And then it became involved subsequently in Cabinteely with or Cherrywood with
21 GRE also, is that right?
23 Q 321 I will come to deal with that but there's a number of what I call separate
24 issues I want to deal with before we look at the accounting treatment of the
12:36:15 25 payments, Mr. Glennane, an the first matter I want to ask you about is the late
26 Mr. Liam Lawlor and whether you knew him?
27 A I met him on a few occasions.
28 Q 322 Where did you meet him?
29 A I think I met him certainly in our office on two or three occasions.
12:36:32 30 Q 323 Which office would that be?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

59
12:36:33 1 A In Harcourt Street.
2 Q 324 How many occasions would you have met Mr. Lawlor?
3 A I would say maybe three or four.
4 Q 325 And who would have set up the meetings?
12:36:42 5 A I think he just called in, if I remember rightly.
6 Q 326 Was Mr. Lawlor in the habit of dropping into the offices of Monarch?
7 A I don't know if he was in the habit, certainly he dropped in a few times that I
8 was aware of it.
9 Q 327 Did you ever have scheduled or arranged meetings with Mr. Lawlor?
12:36:57 10 A I think I might have had one or two in connection with Prague, he was very
11 involved if I recall on the Prague venture which we were involved with for
12 sometime.
13 Q 328 Approximately when did the Prague business start, can you remember?
14 A I think it was 1993 I think.
12:37:15 15 Q 329 Yes. And certainly prior to 1993, would you have occasion to meet Mr. Lawlor?
16 A I think I met him in Tallaght on maybe one or two occasions.
17 Q 330 Who introduced you to him?
18 A I think it was either probably -- I think Mr. Monahan probably.
19 Q 331 Were you aware of the fact that Mr. Monahan, as a director of Monarch
12:37:36 20 Properties Limited, provided a guarantee to Woodchester Hamilton Leasing in
21 June of 1988 for the benefit of Mr. Lawlor?
23 Q 332 7594, you will have seen this document in the brief. Were you aware of that
24 guarantee, Mr. Glennane?
12:37:55 25 A I don't think so, but.
26 Q 333 Were you aware of the fact that Advance Proteins Limited was a company that was
27 beneficially owned by the late Mr. Liam Lawlor?
29 Q 334 7798. You will see that this is the leasing arrangements with Mr. Liam Lawlor
12:38:14 30 that is the subject matter of the guarantee by Mr. Phillip Monahan on behalf of
www.pcr.ie Day 659

60
12:38:19 1 Monarch Properties Limited?
2 A That's right, yes, in fact the company who supplied that vehicle is Dublin Road
3 Motors which was a Monarch company.
4 Q 335 Yes, the Monarch -- yes, now were you aware of this arrangement?
12:38:32 5 A That Monarch was guaranteeing it?
6 Q 336 Yes?
7 A Or Phillip Monaghan, no, I don't think so.
8 Q 337 Does it -- in 1988 what was your position in the company?
9 A I was a director, yes.
12:38:43 10 Q 338 Were you the financial director?
11 A I was, yes.
12 Q 339 And if you weren't aware of this transaction, does that mean that Mr. Monahan
13 didn't bring it to your attention?
14 A Presumably, yes.
12:38:55 15 Q 340 As the financial, were you the financial director of Monarch Properties
16 Limited?
17 A I was, yes.
18 Q 341 So you were the person who ultimately, if there was a default by Mr. Liam
19 Lawlor or Advance Proteins Limited, Monarch property were going to have to step
12:39:11 20 into the breach, is that right?
21 A I assume I would have taken back the car.
22 Q 342 So it was a contingent liability?
23 A It would have been a contingent liability.
24 Q 343 You were unaware of the existence of the contingent liability?
12:39:24 25 A So far as you can recall, yes.
26 Q 344 Does that mean Mr. Phillip Monahan kept it a secret from you?
27 A If he didn't inform me about it, I don't know if he kept it a secret.
28 Q 345 Shouldn't he have informed you about it Mr. Glennane?
29 A No disrespect but it wasn't any sort of big transaction in our business so,
12:39:44 30 yes, he should have from an accounting point of view I suppose. I don't know
www.pcr.ie Day 659

61
12:39:49 1 if it was as a contingent liability in the accounts or not.
2 Q 346 Were you the financial director in 1990 of L&C Properties?
3 A Well, I was the financial director of Monarch which owned L&C Properties, yes.
4 Q 347 Were you aware of two payments in October of 1990 to Comex Trading Corporation?
12:40:10 5 A I don't recall if I was aware of them or not.
6 Q 348 1255 please.
7 A I see them there.
8 Q 349 You see the two payments there in October?
9 A Yes.
12:40:29 10 Q 350 Now before we talk about those, I want to show you another document at 1269
11 which is a document that was provided to the Tribunal by Mr. Lawlor and I
12 should explain to you, Mr. Glennane, if fairness to yourself, Mr. Lawlor gave
13 evidence to this Tribunal arising out of a number of invoices that he had
14 produced as a result of which he told the Tribunal that he was in the habit of
12:40:51 15 creating invoices and in creating invoices, he had used a number of names for
16 the purpose of creating invoices and they are listed on that letter of the 1st
17 May 2000 at A to H, do you see that?
18 A Yes, I do.
19 Q 351 Commencing 'Industrial Consultants International' and concluding 'Demographic &
12:41:10 20 Strategic Consultants' and the second name on that is Comex Limited?
21 A I see that.
22 Q 352 In that letter, Mr. Lawlor also told the Tribunal that the entities who may
23 have received such invoices from him included at number C, Monarch Properties?
12:41:25 25 Q 353 Were you aware of that proclivity on the part of Mr. Lawlor?
26 A Sorry?
27 Q 354 Were you aware of the fact that Mr. Lawlor used other company's names in order
28 to generate invoices to receive payment?
29 A No, I don't think so, no.
12:41:42 30 Q 355 Do you understand what Mr. Lawlor was telling the Tribunal he had been in the
www.pcr.ie Day 659

62
12:41:46 1 habit of doing?
2 A Well I assume he was saying that he owned a number of companies and they
3 invoiced --
4 Q 356 No, what Mr. Lawlor was telling the Tribunal was that he used those names for
12:41:57 5 the purposes of creating false invoices for the purposes of generating revenue
6 for himself.
7 A Okay, well --
8 Q 357 Do you understand?
9 A I understand that.
12:42:06 10 Q 358 He is not saying and did not say to the Tribunal that he owned a company called
11 Comex?
12 A Well if it was called Comex Limited, I assume it was a limited company it was
13 owned by somebody.
14 Q 359 At 1255, you will see that in October 1990, two cheques were written to an
12:42:28 15 entity called Comex Trading Corporation in the sum of 28,000 and 28,300?
16 A That's right.
17 Q 360 What can you tell the Tribunal about that transaction or those transactions,
18 Mr. Glennane?
19 A I don't have any memory going back to that particular time, that was the week
12:42:49 20 before the opening of Tallaght Town Centre, everybody was extremely busy
21 including myself, we were concluding three major investment sales, so I don't,
22 I mean there was an awful lot going on at that time. But I have discovered
23 since there were apparently invoices raised for that during the year, the year
24 1990 and as you can see there, it's been posted to a creditor's ledger of L&C
12:43:18 25 Properties Limited.
26 Q 361 And do you have the invoices?
27 A I don't have them, no, but I have a reference to them in the brief.
28 Q 362 Yes, if you just give us the brief page?
29 A I am trying to find it.
12:43:30 30 Q 363 Okay.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

63
12:43:34 1 A Page 3021. You will see about halfway up there's a thing called Strategy Plan
2 and there's two invoices, one dated the 21st March 1990 and one dated the 19th
3 September 1990 and one is for 28,300 and one is for 28,000. It appears there
4 were invoices raised in March and September.
12:44:06 5 Q 364 And those invoices would have been in the name of Comex Trading Corporation?
6 A Yes, so I would believe.
7 Q 365 And that would mean that was a creditor with whom the company was doing
8 business?
9 A So it would appear, yes.
12:44:17 10 Q 366 What can you tell the Tribunal about the corporate structure behind Comex
11 trading corporation?
12 A I have no information on it, no.
13 Q 367 What services did Comex Trading Corporation provide to the company?
14 A Well it's described here as strategy plans so I presume that was the reference
12:44:35 15 on the invoice.
16 Q 368 What strategy plan?
17 A I presume strategy planning.
18 Q 369 Strategy planning or strategic planning?
19 A Yes, either.
12:44:51 20 Q 370 Could you explain then in those circumstances how one of those cheques was
21 lodged to the bank account of Economic Reports Limited which is beneficially
22 owned by Mr. Lawlor?
23 A I have no idea, no.
24 Q 371 If that is the case and it appears to be the case, it means that certainly the
12:45:08 25 cheque for 28,300 pounds made out to Comex Trading Corporation which was paid
26 by L&C Properties Limited was in fact paid to Mr. Lawlor?
27 A Yes, so it would appear certainly.
28 Q 372 And you would accept that that that is the case?
29 A Yes, I would, yes.
12:45:25 30 Q 373 If Mr. Lawlor was in the habit of producing false or fictitious invoices in
www.pcr.ie Day 659

64
12:45:30 1 order to create an apparent indebtedness to provide a cover for the receiving
2 of funds, that is something that could only have been done, Mr. Glennane, I
3 suggest to you with the agreement of somebody in L&C Properties or Monarch
4 Properties, is that right?
12:45:46 5 A I think the invoice would certainly have been passed by somebody, yes.
6 Q 374 Now, who passed the invoice?
7 A I would suggest it was Mr. Sweeney but I wouldn't, either Mr. Sweeney or
8 Mr. Monahan, certainly I didn't pass it.
9 Q 375 You didn't pass the invoice?
12:46:00 10 A No, I don't think so, no.
11 Q 376 And you believe you didn't pass the invoice because you have no memory of or
12 you would have remembered it?
13 A I think I would have remembered it, yes.
14 Q 377 So you say it was either Mr. Sweeney or Mr. Monahan, the late Mr. Monahan and
12:46:17 15 of those --
16 A I would believe so.
17 Q 378 Of those two, Mr. Glennane, who is the more likely candidate to have passed
18 those invoices?
19 A I really couldn't say. I would say quite possibly Mr. Sweeney but I
12:46:32 20 wouldn't --
21 Q 379 If Mr. Sweeney were to tell the Tribunal when he comes here on Thursday that he
22 didn't pass those invoices for payment, would that leave the Tribunal in a
23 position that the only person who could have passed them for payment, seeing as
24 you didn't, was the late Mr. Phillip Monahan must have passed them for payment?
12:46:47 25 A I would suggest so, yes.
26 Q 380 Would it be fair to say that an invoice or debt of that size would have to be
27 passed by a senior member of the organisation?
28 A Yes.
29 Q 381 And does it not also follow from what is now being revealed, Mr. Glennane, in
12:47:05 30 order for those invoices to be paid, the person who was passing the invoice
www.pcr.ie Day 659

65
12:47:09 1 must have known that Mr. Lawlor had generated the invoice for the purpose of
2 securing payment, doesn't that follow?
3 A I would assume so, yes.
4 Q 382 If there's no such entity as Comex Trading Corporation and no such entity ever
12:47:23 5 provided services to Monarch Properties Limited, isn't what's happening here a
6 vehicle for the provision of money to the late Mr. Liam Lawlor?
7 A Well if Mr. Lawlor was the beneficial owner of Comex Trading Corporation, then
8 I presume the money was going to him eventually yes.
9 Q 383 What Mr. Lawlor told the Tribunal was that another individual with whom he was
12:47:48 10 an owner of Comex and in fact the Tribunal has not been able to identify any
11 company called Comex Trading Corporation, right, and at 1256, can I show you
12 where the money ended up. Mr. Glennane, this is the bank account of Economic
13 Reports Limited's current account and on the 26th October of 1990, there is a
14 lodgment of 28,300, do you see that?
12:48:15 15 A I do, yes.
16 Q 384 That appears to equate from the lodgment of the cheque in favour of Comex
17 Trading Corporation.
18 A Yes.
19 Q 385 That was drawn by L&C Properties?
12:48:24 20 A Yes.
21 Q 386 Does that follow?
22 A There seems to be a gap between the two of about ten days, yes.
23 Q 387 It would follow when one takes into account what Mr. Lawlor told the Tribunal
24 about generating false invoices, about the fact that one of the cheques appears
12:48:39 25 to have been lodged to economic reports, that when these cheques were drawn on
26 the 16th of October 1990 by L&C Properties, they were a mechanism for the
27 provision of a payments to Mr. Lawlor, is that right?
28 A Well there were payments there but I can't say if he provided services or not.
29 Q 388 If Comex --
12:49:00 30 A For the payments.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

66
12:49:00 1 Q 389 If Comex trading corporation is a false name --
2 A Yes, certainly if it's a false name.
3 Q 390 As Mr. Lawlor has told the Tribunal it was used falsely by him?
4 A Yes.
12:49:13 5 Q 391 Then this is a mechanism operated by two people, one within Monarch, one within
6 L&C Properties Limited and the other being Mr. Lawlor as a mechanism for
7 funnelling money to Mr. Lawlor, isn't that right?
8 A No, I don't think that's the correct interpretation.
9 Q 392 Well you just tell the Tribunal the correct interpretation?
12:49:35 10 A If Mr. Lawlor had provided services through whatever vehicle, whatever name,
11 and he came in and said I want to get paid and will you make the cheque out to
12 Comex Trading Corporation, it's quite normal for people to tell you to make a
13 cheque out to the name of a company or whatever. And they would have paid
14 that. I don't think there's any, I think if you are drawing the inference
12:49:59 15 there was some sort of collusion between somebody in Monarch and Mr. Lawlor, I
16 think that's a step too far, if you don't mind me saying so.
17 Q 393 What the tribunal has been told, Mr. Glennane, by the late Mr. Liam Lawlor, is
18 that Comex was a name used by him for the purpose of generating false or
19 untrue invoices?
12:50:21 20 A If he said false or untrue, I don't think that was regarded as a false or
21 untrue invoice.
22 Q 394 Are you saying in 1990, L&C Properties felt that -- was of the opinion that the
23 late Mr. Liam Lawlor was a creditor to the tune of 56,300 pounds?
24 A Certainly by October it was, yes.
12:50:36 25 Q 395 Is that right, what services did Mr. Lawlor provide L&C Properties to the tune
26 of 56,300?
27 A I don't know, it wasn't done through me so I can't comment on it.
28 Q 396 But if you are telling the Tribunal, Mr. Glennane, that it wasn't a false
29 invoice and it wasn't a mechanism?
12:50:53 30 A I am not saying whether it's a false invoice or not, I don't know.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

67
12:50:56 1
2 JUDGE FAHERTY: Mr. Glennane, was the company in 1990 in the habit of
3 retaining politicians of which Mr. Lawlor was one and a sitting councillor I
4 think in --
12:51:07 5
6 MS. DILLON: County.
8 JUDGE FAHERTY: County councillor, I beg your pardon, a sitting county
9 councillor to provide services to the company?
12:51:12 10 A No, I wouldn't have thought so, no, but I do believe Mr. Lawlor, I think, he
11 did a lot of work in the early days in Tallaght -- with explaining how to, if
12 you like, deal with the council. We had a very long saga with Dublin
13 Corporation and Dublin County Council. Negotiating agreement with Tallaght and
14 I do believe he advised on that to Mr. Monahan or Mr. Sweeney.
12:51:43 15
16 CHAIRMAN: While he was a councillor?
17 A While he was a councillor, if he was a councillor, yes.
18
19 MS. DILLON: And certainly the designation that's given to payment in the
12:51:51 20 books of L&C Properties at 1267 is strategy planning, is that right?
21 A Yes, yes.
22 Q 397 So whoever makes that entry, Mr. Glennane, is of the view that the services
23 that are being provided, they are not glazing or construction fees?
24 A Obviously that was written on the invoice.
12:52:11 25 Q 398 So the invoice that's being provided for is for strategic or strategy planning?
26 A So it would appear.
27 Q 399 And the invoice is provided to L&C Properties?
28 A That's right.
29 Q 400 And L&C developed the Tallaght Town Centre?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

68
12:52:29 1 Q 401 In conjunction with GRE and that was its only function in or around this time,
2 is that right?
3 A That's right.
4 Q 402 Would you tell the Tribunal what strategy Mr. Lawlor provided for this shopping
12:52:41 5 centre?
6 A I don't know, other than providing general advice on -- I think dealing with
7 the council and dealing with the various local authorities. But it wasn't
8 provided to me. I am just offering an opinion really.
9 Q 403 What was your income in 1990, Mr. Glennane, how much were you being paid?
12:52:57 10 A I don't remember.
11 Q 404 Well do your best now if you can at all, were you being paid 50,000 pounds, do
12 you think?
13 A I am sure I probably was, yes.
14 Q 405 Were you being paid 100,000 pounds?
12:53:11 15 A I wouldn't have thought so.
16 Q 406 In 1990, a sum of 56 thousand pounds, how would that rank generally, was that a
17 very great deal of money?
18 A Well not in the context of Tallaght, which probably cost about 50 or 60
19 million.
12:53:29 20 Q 407 Was it a very great deal of money in 1990, 56,000?
21 A It was in isolation a good amount but not compared with --
22 Q 408 Not compared to what?
23 A Compared with some of the other charges that were made by architects,
24 solicitors, not compared with the context of the total cost of Tallaght which
12:53:52 25 was about 50 to 60 million.
26 Q 409 In total?
27 A Yes.
28 Q 410 Out of which a sum of 56,300 in 1990 is paid to Mr. Liam Lawlor apparently
29 through a company called Comex, is that right?
12:54:07 30 A So it seems, yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

69
12:54:08 1 Q 411 On foot of an invoice or on foot of two invoices?
2 A Yes.
3 Q 412 And you can't tell the Tribunal A who made the arrangement with Mr. Lawlor, is
4 that right?
12:54:17 5 A In my opinion, it was probably Mr. Sweeney.
6 Q 413 Or Mr. Monahan I think you said. You can only speculate as to what Mr. Lawlor
7 would have done for the money, is that right?
8 A Well I think, yes. Yes.
9 Q 414 You didn't record it in the books and accounts of L&C Properties?
12:54:35 10 A Certainly it was recorded in the books of account.
11 Q 415 You didn't record it in the books and account of L&C Properties because you
12 have told the Tribunal you didn't pass the invoices, is that right?
13 A But it was recorded in the books of accounts, yes.
14 Q 416 And there's nothing on the face of the documentation that records the payment
12:54:55 15 to indicate that the late Mr. Liam Lawlor had anything good bad or indifferent,
16 political or otherwise, to do with the payments, is that right?
17 A What do you mean?
18 Q 417 There is nothing on the face of the documentation we have just gone through?
19 A Yes. Only Comex Trading Corporation.
12:55:10 20 Q 418 There's nothing to indicate that the late Mr. Liam Lawlor had anything to do
21 with this payment, good bad or indifferent?
22 A That's right.
23 Q 419 Can I ask you this, if the Tribunal had not already known that Comex Trading
24 was a name used by the late Mr. Liam Lawlor to generate invoices, would you be
12:55:25 25 sitting in this witness-box answering these questions?
26 A Well not about Comex presumably.
27 Q 420 No, isn't that right?
28 A That's right.
29 Q 421 Because there's nothing in the documentation to connect Mr. Lawlor to the Comex
12:55:38 30 payment if the Tribunal had not already made that connection, isn't that right?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

70
12:55:41 1 A So it appears, yes.
2 Q 422 And there was no assistance you could have given the Tribunal to connect
3 Mr. Lawlor to Comex until you were provided with the documentation from the
4 Tribunal, isn't that right?
6 Q 423 And yet you are the senior financial officer and were at that time the senior
7 financial officer within the Monarch Group, is that right?
8 A I was at that time, yes.
9 Q 424 So somebody kept from you the fact that Mr. Lawlor was being paid 56,300 pounds
12:56:08 10 in October of 1990, isn't that right?
11 A Well I don't know that they kept it from me, that, they may well have told me
12 it was Mr. Lawlor.
13 Q 425 Well did they?
14 A I don't recall.
12:56:21 15 Q 426 And if somebody had said to you do you think Mr. Glennane, if somebody had said
16 to you by the way that 56,300, we are paying to Comex, that's really a payment
17 to Mr. Liam Lawlor, do you think that might just have lodged somewhere and you
18 might have remembered it?
19 A I don't know.
12:56:36 20 Q 427 But you didn't connect Comex to Mr. Lawlor until such time as the Tribunal did
21 it, is that right?
22 A Yes, that's right, certainly.
23 Q 428 And but you would accept now having reviewed the documentation that such a
24 payment was in fact a payment to Mr. Lawlor?
12:56:51 25 A Yes, so it would appear.
26 Q 429 And you would tell the Tribunal that the people or the only people that made
27 that arrangement seeing as it wasn't yourself was either Mr. Sweeney or the
28 late Mr. Monahan, is that right?
29 A I would assume that, yes.
12:57:03 30 Q 430 And do you remember ever having a meeting with Mr. Monahan or Mr. Sweeney at
www.pcr.ie Day 659

71
12:57:08 1 which this payment or the mechanism of it was discussed?
2 A No.
3 Q 431 Do you remember ever seeing the invoices that were passed for payment?
4 A I don't remember ever seeing them.
12:57:20 5 Q 432 Do you believe that you passed them?
7 Q 433 Does it follow from that they must have been passed by Mr. Sweeney or
8 Mr. Monahan?
12:57:29 10 Q 434 Why was it done so secretly, Mr. Glennane, can you help?
11 A Sorry, what do you mean secretly.
12 Q 435 Why it was done in such a way the involvement of Mr. Lawlor as the recipient of
13 56,300 in October 1990 is not recorded on the face of any of the documents of
14 L&C Properties?
12:57:51 15 A It might have been recorded on invoices, I don't know if we had the invoices,
16 it might have been on the invoices for all I know.
17 Q 436 Maybe the invoices are in the shredded box that were destroyed in September of
18 2000, Mr. Glennane. Do you think that's where they might be?
19 A I don't, no.
12:58:10 20 Q 437 Because the Tribunal certainly doesn't have them?
21 A Yeah well.
22 Q 438 If we don't have them, Mr. Glennane, can you speculate as to where they might
23 be?
24 A I think they might well have been shredded in 1997 because a lot of the, as
12:58:25 25 much documentation as could be shredded was shredded.
26 Q 439 If not shredded in 1997, then perhaps shredded in 2000?
27 A Well I don't know.
28 Q 440 Yes.
29 A More likely I would have thought in 1997 because we would have shredded all the
12:58:40 30 old invoices.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

72
12:58:41 1 Q 441 Can you think what kind of strategic planning Mr. Lawlor might have been
2 involved in that would have been of benefit to L&C Properties?
3 A Other than I have already said, no, I can't, no.
4 Q 442 I think if I could turn to page 4715 please. In 1993, it would appear
12:59:08 5 Mr. Glennane according to your diary on the 17th November, you have recorded a
6 meeting with Mr. Liam Lawlor at Monarch?
7 A I recorded that there was to be a meeting, yes.
8 Q 443 Do you know anything about that meeting or why it's recorded in your diary?
9 A I think it was in connection with Prague, I think there's actually one the next
12:59:29 10 day or two.
11 Q 444 And indeed at 4717 on the 18th?
12 A It's my believe now that meeting didn't take place on that day.
13 Q 445 Why is that your belief?
14 A Because I have written below it there was a football match that night, Northern
12:59:42 15 Ireland were playing Republic of Ireland which is a football much I recall very
16 well watching in Dundalk.
17 Q 446 The meeting was 4 o'clock, I think. In any event on the 18th November 1993, at
18 4717, you have an entry on the 19th, Liam Lawlor at Cherrywood?
19 A At Monarch, yes.
13:00:03 20 Q 447 I want to draw to your attention, the other page, at the bottom you have three
21 entries, I think it is Eamon somebody, somebody Gillespie and Liam Lawlor and
22 you see you have three Xs beside them?
23 A Yes.
24 Q 448 What do they signify?
13:00:18 25 A They signify I would have had to make contact or do something with them and the
26 X would indicate that I had.
27 Q 449 Would it signify for example that you paid a cheque?
28 A No. It's just a memory jogger.
29 Q 450 And it wouldn't mean that you were paying a cheque to Mr. Lawlor?
13:00:39 30 A No, that entry wouldn't certainly, no.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

73
13:00:42 1 Q 451 And the three figures opposite the three names of 31, 30 and 31 totalling 92,
2 do they have anything to do with those entries?
3 A No.
4 Q 452 What have they to do with?
13:00:53 5 A It looks to me like it was to do with a quarter, I was counting the number of
6 days in some particular quarter.
7 Q 453 That's what that's to do with?
8 A That's what I suggest, I don't know.
9 Q 454 It wouldn't for example suggest you were going to pay 31,000 or 3,1000 pounds
13:01:11 10 to Mr. Lawlor?
12 Q 455 Do you ever pay Mr. Lawlor money?
13 A I think we did sometime after that.
14 Q 456 Did you?
13:01:23 15 A I don't recall ever doing so but --
16 Q 457 Did you ever pay Mrs. Hazel Lawlor money?
17 A I don't recall, I have seen her name appearing all right there in the diaries.
18 Q 458 Did you meet her, Mrs. Lawlor?
13:01:39 20
21 CHAIRMAN: Right, it's gone one o'clock. Two o'clock. Thank you.
22
24
13:01:54 25
26
27
28
29
30
www.pcr.ie Day 659

74
13:59:20 1 THE TRIBUNAL RESUMED AS FOLLOWS:
3 MS. DILLON: Good afternoon, sir. Mr. Glennane please.
14:04:00 5 CONTINUATION OF EXAMINATION OF MR. DOMINIC GLENNANE
6 BY MS. DILLON:
8 Q 459 Good afternoon, Mr. Glennane. Just before lunch, I was asking you about the
9 contacts with Mr. Liam Lawlor and we had looked at two entries in your diary
14:04:30 10 and I think we were about to look at a third at 4730 and you will see there
11 it's an entry for the 22nd of November 1993 and at the bottom, you have to ring
12 Kevin Nelson and then beneath that, Liam Lawlor?
13 A Yes.
14 Q 460 Was that an entry to meet with or to ring Mr. Lawlor?
14:04:50 15 A It was either, certainly his name is on my mind, it wasn't a meeting, it would
16 have been above the line, if it was -- it was either to remember something
17 about, to either ring him or whatever.
18 Q 461 Yes and I think in so much four days later on the 26th November 1993 at 4752,
19 you have an entry in your diary for Hazel Lawlor, isn't that right?
21 Q 462 Now I think I had asked you earlier on whether you had made any such entries,
22 isn't that right, in relation to Hazel Lawlor, did you meet Ms. Lawlor?
23 A No, I didn't, no.
24 Q 463 Did you make a payment to Ms. Lawlor?
14:05:28 25 A I am not sure, there seems to be a record of 3,000 pounds with her name after
26 it but I couldn't find it actually in the cheque payments books that were
27 supplied. There is several accountancy references to it.
28 Q 464 Certainly at 4880, which is an internal Monarch document which deals in the
29 first instance with payments to Mr. Frank Dunlop, isn't that correct?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

75
14:05:57 1 Q 465 And then there's the handwritten notation, Prague strategic which becomes
2 patrol us strategic and then beneath that, there's Hazel Lawlor, 26th November,
3 isn't that right?
4 A The 23rd actually.
14:06:12 5 Q 466 3,000 pounds. Yes. And I think that in the general ledger report at 1201 and
6 can I ask you first of all about this document, about the account reference at
7 the top, general promotion, see that at the very top, if we could increase the
8 top?
9 A Yes, sorry, yes.
14:06:36 10 Q 467 And you see there there's account 73510201. General promotion.
11 A Yes.
12 Q 468 Can you explain that account numbering system to the Tribunal for us please.
13 A Not really I am afraid, there are obviously different account numbers for
14 different accounts but I mean I don't know the source of the numbers or why
14:06:59 15 they, obviously it was to do with the computer system, but obviously it
16 recorded on that was a heading general promotions, yes.
17 Q 469 Well, first of all if we establish, if we can go back to see the full of the
18 document please and if we just look at the company that's making the payment is
19 Monarch Property Services, isn't that right?
21 Q 470 And it's Monarch Property Services that are recording these payments?
22 A That's right.
23 Q 471 And I would suggest to you, Mr. Glennane, that the 735 designation is a
24 designation in connection with Cherrywood?
14:07:30 25 A Well yes, okay, yeah, it appears so, yes.
26 Q 472 Isn't that the position?
27 A I think so, yes.
28 Q 473 So that in fact what is happening here is that all of the payments that are
29 recorded under the account designation 73510201 are payments made by Monarch
14:07:48 30 Property Services Limited but they are being attributed in the books of Monarch
www.pcr.ie Day 659

76
14:07:51 1 to Cherrywood, isn't that right?
2 A That's right, yes, they are not all payments, there's some invoices there and
3 journal entries as well.
4 Q 474 Yes but in so far as this account, the general promotions account is concerned
14:08:02 5 and we will come back to look at that in more detail later but at the moment I
6 am focusing on the designation of the account?
7 A It's called general promotions, yes.
8 Q 475 But it's general promotions attributable to Cherrywood, is that right?
9 A So it seems, yes.
14:08:16 10 Q 476 Because the general promotion attributable to Monarch Property had a
11 designation beginning with 6, isn't that right?
12 A Yes, so I believe, yes.
13 Q 477 So that the position in fact is that the designation of 73510, where that
14 appears in the accounts of Monarch property, those accounts record payments or
14:08:37 15 transactions made in connection with the Cherrywood Lands.
16 A Well that -- that were coded in connection with Cherrywood, yes.
17 Q 478 They were attributed by the person who made the entry as being transactions or
18 payments in connection with the Cherrywood Lands?
19 A They were attributed by the person who made the entry, yes.
14:08:53 20 Q 479 And payments that were attributed to the coding 66801 were payments or
21 transactions in connection with Monarch Property Services Limited?
22 A Yes.
23 Q 480 So that the system that was operated within Monarch Property Services Limited
24 was that when a payment was made by Monarch Properties on behalf of a
14:09:11 25 development, it was attributed by Monarch Property Services Limited to that
26 development in its own books, isn't that right?
27 A So far as they could, yes.
28 Q 481 I beg your pardon?
29 A So far as it could be attributed to a particular development, yes, it would be,
14:09:27 30 yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

77
14:09:27 1 Q 482 So that in relation to the particular payment to Ms. Lawlor of the sum of 3,000
2 pounds, at page 1201, some four entries from the bottom?
3 A Yes.
4 Q 483 There is a reference re H Lawlor, 3,000 pounds?
14:09:43 5 A Yes.
7 A Well there is, it's described here as being a journal entry.
8 Q 485 Yes.
9 A And then there's a reference but below that saying re Prague and there was a
14:09:55 10 credit of 3,000 pounds.
11 Q 486 Yes. So what that appears to suggest on the face of it, Mr. Glennane, subject
12 to any clarification that you may give is that there was an entry in your diary
13 for Hazel Lawlor for the 26th of November 1993?
14 A Yes.
14:10:10 15 Q 487 There is an accounting entry indicating a sum of 3,000 pounds that was paid to
16 Hazel Lawlor and there is a reversal of that entry attributing a credit in
17 connection with Prague, is that correct?
18 A Well that's not recording a payment, that's recording a journal entry.
19 Q 488 A journal entry?
14:10:30 20 A I haven't been able to locate a payment going through the sheets which were
21 provided by the Tribunal.
22 Q 489 Yes but have you --
23 A Obviously, there was some suggestion of the name Hazel Lawlor and 3,000.
24 Q 490 Yes. You will also have seen a lodgment of the 23rd November 1993, the same
14:10:51 25 date as the record of the alleged payment to Hazel Lawlor, to an account of
26 Mrs. Lawlor as in the sum of 3,000 pounds at 1202, you will see there recorded
27 3,000 pounds credit on the 23rd November 1993?
28 A Yeah right.
29 Q 491 And you will also see as you pointed out yourself that the record at 4880, the
14:11:17 30 notation that's made there is of a payment to Hazel Lawlor on the 23rd November
www.pcr.ie Day 659

78
14:11:21 1 1993?
2 A Yes, that's right.
3 Q 492 I would suggest to you, Mr. Glennane, taking all of those documents into
4 account the fact that the actual bank documentation can't be located, doesn't
14:11:32 5 matter very much, that the coincidence of the figures is sufficient in what it
6 probably means and I put it no higher than that, is that there was a payment to
7 Mrs. Lawlor in November of 1993 of 3,000 pounds?
8 A It would appear that way, yes.
9 Q 493 Yes. Now you would have met, according to your diary --
14:11:51 10 A Sorry it just seems to have been recorded as Prague just as a matter of
11 interest.
12 Q 494 Yes. But it would --
13 A I don't know if anything hangs on that but it seems to be recorded as Prague.
14 Q 495 Was it possible that at that time I think you have told the Tribunal before
14:12:07 15 lunch that you were involved with Mr. Lawlor in connection with a development
16 or an enquiry into a development at Prague?
17 A That's right.
18 Q 496 Is it possible that what might have been going on, you were making certain
19 payments, by you I mean Monarch, on behalf of either Mr. Liam Lawlor or
14:12:23 20 Mr. Frank Dunlop to Ambrose Kelly in connection with the development?
21 A Yes, we were paying Ambrose Kelly a monthly amount in connection with Prague,
22 yes.
23 Q 497 Yes, Monarch were, but what I'm asking you is there any possibility that the
24 payment of 3,000 pounds to Hazel Lawlor or indeed the other two payments that
14:12:44 25 are recorded above that under the heading 'Prague strategic' might have been
26 payments made in connection with Prague for and on on behalf of Mr. Frank
27 Dunlop or Mr. Liam Lawlor?
28 A Yes, possible, yes, I presume it's on behalf of Mr. Lawlor, if the cheque was
29 made out to his wife.
14:13:03 30 Q 498 Which is then lodged as we have seen to her account?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

79
14:13:06 1 A To her account, yes.
2 Q 499 Did you meet Mrs. Lawlor on this occasion?
3 A No, I didn't, no.
4 Q 500 Did you ever give her a cheque?
14:13:12 5 A No, I didn't.
6 Q 501 Who would have given her the cheque?
7 A I would assume the cheque was given to Mr. Lawlor.
8 Q 502 By whom?
9 A Either by me or by somebody else.
14:13:22 10 Q 503 And you remember giving the cheque to Mr. Lawlor?
12 Q 504 But you accept from the paperwork that what appears to have happened is that a
13 cheque for 3,000 pounds was paid in November 1993 to Mr. Lawlor through the --
14 through his wife, Ms. Hazel Lawlor?
14:13:42 15 A It would seem so, yes.
16 Q 505 And do you think it's also likely that the other two entries on page 4880 in
17 relation to 'Prague Strategic' in the sum of 4,000 and 3,000 might be in
18 relation to payments made to Prague or into Ambrose Kelly in connection with
19 Prague on behalf of Mr. Lawlor or Mr. Dunlop?
14:14:02 20 A If they were made to Ambrose Kelly, it could have been on behalf of the Prague
21 project.
22 Q 506 And what exactly were the payments on behalf of the Prague project?
23 A Well, the idea in Prague was that Ambrose Kelly had an office in Prague and he
24 had a full-time representative there. At some stage he approached, I think,
14:14:22 25 Mr. Monahan on a sort of consortium if I can call it that, a loose consortium
26 of people was set up to try to, on behalf of -- Ambrose Kelly was trying to get
27 architectural work for his firm, on our behalf I suppose it was to try to get
28 development opportunities in Prague. There was another engineering company
29 involved called, I think, Rotary Engineering who were trying to get mechanical
14:14:52 30 electrical work and I know at some stage Frank Dunlop was involved on the basis
www.pcr.ie Day 659

80
14:14:57 1 that he might be able to get some PR work and the idea was that supposedly all
2 the payments, all the expenses, would be borne by Ambrose Kelly and we would
3 pay a certain amount per month which I think was 6,000.
4 Q 507 Yes, I think at 4754, you see on the 26th November 1993, Mr.--
14:15:18 5 A Yes, 6,000, that's right.
6 Q 508 Mr. Noel Murray is making the November contribution?
7 A That's right.
8 Q 509 And at 4755, the actual cheques is available which is a cheque drawn on Monarch
9 Properties Limited, signed by yourself, is that right?
11 Q 510 And that's then duly debited and dealt with in the bank accounts, isn't that
12 right?
13 A I presume so, yes.
14 Q 511 So if that payment is a payment by Monarch Properties on behalf of its own
14:15:41 15 obligation in connection with the Prague project, it would follow that the
16 entries referred to at 4880 of 4,000 and 3,000 in connection with Prague
17 strategic don't relate to Monarch's monthly payments, is that right?
18 A Well I think they may have been subsequently deducted from the 6,000 payment
19 paid to Ambrose Kelly. I suspect they were, certainly I think our view or my
14:16:11 20 view certainly was that the maximum liability if you like we had was 6,000 per
21 month to Ambrose Kelly, and that he would make, he would make all the payments
22 on behalf of --
23 Q 512 What exactly was Prague Strategic, do you know?
24 A I think it's the same thing and our idea was to try to find development.
14:16:40 25 Q 513 Sorry, can we just stop there. When you say it's the same thing, do you mean
26 it's the same place and location you were paying the 6,000 to?
27 A Well, it's just a heading, I think is Prague, I think if you look at 4763.
28 Q 514 Yes, 4763?
29 A I am looking at it, you will see there's an account there from Prague Strategic
14:17:01 30 Studies.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

81
14:17:02 1 Q 515 Yes and I want to draw to your attention, that Prague Strategic Studies does
2 not record the 6,000 payment in November?
3 A It doesn't.
4 Q 516 That Prague strategic studies is nothing to do with, on the face of your
14:17:14 5 documentation, with the 6,000 that you pay as your November contribution, isn't
6 that right?
7 A So it would appear, yes.
8 Q 517 So if we put up on screen please 4754 together with the existing document at
9 4763, and if you look at the second, the third document entry down, Prague
14:17:46 10 Strategic Studies?
11 A Yes.
12 Q 518 And you will see there recorded there are a number of payments and one invoice
13 I think recorded and some reversal but none of them equate to a sum of 6,000
14 pounds, is that right?
16 Q 519 So that, they do refer to a payment of 4,000 and a payment of 3,000, is that
17 right?
19 Q 520 Right. Now, we can deduce from that, I think, Mr. Glennane, that the 6,000
14:18:14 20 payment in November 1993 is not recorded in the Prague Strategic Studies entry
21 at 4762?
23 Q 521 So it's recorded elsewhere and it probably is recorded under Ambrose Kelly, is
24 that right?
14:18:29 25 A Or professional fees.
26 Q 522 So now having eliminated the fact that Prague Strategic Studies would have
27 anything to do with Monarch making its' own payments, can you assist the
28 Tribunal as to what exactly Prague Strategic Studies was and who were these
29 payments made for.
14:18:45 30 A Well, there was only one Prague project if I can call it that. And I suspect
www.pcr.ie Day 659

82
14:18:52 1 for instance that if this 3,000 was paid to Mr. Lawlor via Hazel Lawlor, it
2 might well be that one of the 3,000s here was 6,000 minus 3,000 on the basis
3 that we had made a direct payment of 3,000. Certainly my knowledge and
4 recollection of Prague was that it was, the eventual agreement was we will pay
14:19:22 5 6,000 per month to Ambrose Kelly and we did that for a few months and then we
6 decided against the project.
7 Q 523 You did that and at 4178 please you will see there the supplier recorded as the
8 Ambrose Kelly Partnership, second entry down?
9 A Yes.
14:19:41 10 Q 524 That I suggest to you records the payments that were made by Monarch Properties
11 in connection with Prague?
12 A That's right.
13 Q 525 Now, so that is one supplier, isn't that right?
14 A Yes, that's right.
14:19:50 15 Q 526 And that is Monarch Properties on foot of its agreement with Ambrose Kelly
16 making it's monthly contribution in relation to the Prague project?
17 A I think only one amount of 6,000 there that, the amount of 7,965.06, there's
18 two and one of 5,000.
19 Q 527 Yes. But they are the payments made by Monarch to Ambrose Kelly in connection
14:20:14 20 with the Prague project, isn't that right?
22 Q 528 Now the second supplier entry is the one at 4763?
23 A That's right.
24 Q 529 Which is Prague Strategic Studies.
26 Q 530 Now, in the first instance, Prague Strategic Studies does not record or relate
27 to the payments made by Monarch itself in connection with its own liability
28 under the Prague project, is that right?
29 A I am not sure about that. I would believe that the two accounts would need to
14:20:45 30 be taken at one effectively, there's only one Prague project in all of that,
www.pcr.ie Day 659

83
14:20:53 1 there wasn't two. There wasn't separate payments being made to anybody and
2 payments to Ambrose Kelly. As far as we were concerned, Ambrose Kelly was
3 supposed to make all the payments, any payments had to be made and we were
4 sharing the cost with him.
14:21:06 5 Q 531 Let's just look at Prague Strategic Studies for the moment, the line Prague
6 Strategic Studies on the screen, you might explain a few things that are going
7 on here if you would, Mr. Glennane. First of all, when one talks about a
8 supplier in the context of this report, are you, were you talking about
9 somebody who provides services?
14:21:33 10 A Yes, presumably so, yes.
11 Q 532 So Prague Strategic Studies is a supplier of services to Monarch Property
12 Services Limited?
13 A Well it's a heading, yes, used obviously, yes.
14 Q 533 When you say it's a heading, let's be precise here now, Mr. Glennane, when you
14:21:48 15 say it's a heading, are you saying that it is something that can be used at
16 will by Monarch to describe?
17 A I am saying obviously there was some document that had Prague Strategic Studies
18 written on the top of it and it was posted or a new account was opened for it.
19 Q 534 A new account was opened for it because Monarch Property Services Limited were
14:22:08 20 going to make payments to or in connection with Prague Strategic Studies, is
21 that right?
22 A Obviously there was a payment made and a new account was opened as a result of
23 that, yes.
24 Q 535 So you see the very first entry is 4,000 and there's a little dash beside it?
14:22:23 25 A Yes.
26 Q 536 What does that dash represent?
27 A The dash represents, I think, that it's the payment.
28 Q 537 Okay. Because if you go back to the second column, it says PMT 5301, does that
29 mean payment and remittance slip 5301?
14:22:43 30 A One is a debit and one is a credit.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

84
14:22:46 1 Q 538 We will move on to the debits and credits, we are still on the first line. And
2 you see it starts off by saying --
3 A One is an invoice and one is a payment.
4 Q 539 Does the word, where something is an invoice, do you usually get the word I N V
14:23:02 5 beside that?
6 A You would normally expect that.
7 Q 540 There's one invoice referred to there and it's five down?
8 A That's right.
9 Q 541 So the first four entries are payments?
14:23:10 10 A No, they are not.
11 Q 542 Okay, what are they?
12 A Sorry, two of them are payments and two of them are some sort of credits.
13 Q 543 Well now Mr. Glennane, you are a fully qualified accountant and have been for
14 many years, what kind of a description is some sort of a credit?
14:23:26 15 A Well one can sells out the other.
16 Q 544 Fine. So what happens then, are you telling the Tribunal that the first thing
17 that happens is that a payment of 4,000 pounds is made?
18 A I am not sure which came first but one of them, yes. The payment for 4,000
19 appears to be the, a payment that was made and then there was some sort of
14:23:47 20 adjustment made that was reducing that to nil. I think one was being offset,
21 there was an invoice. What happened was that the payment on the invoice
22 cancelled out.
23 Q 545 Yes, but you see with respect --
24 A They are not both payments. That's the point I'm making.
14:24:05 25 Q 546 The only invoice that's referred to there -- is an invoice --
26 A The balance is then shown as nil.
27 Q 547 Don't worry about the balance?
28 A You have to worry about the balance.
29 Q 548 When we get to the balance, we will deal with the balance. The only invoice
14:24:18 30 that's recorded there is an invoice dated 30th November 1993 in the sum of
www.pcr.ie Day 659

85
14:24:22 1 10,000 pounds. Isn't that right.
2 A That's the only thing that's described as invoices.
3 Q 549 On the face of it, it records an invoice?
4 A Yes.
14:24:31 5 Q 550 Immediately following that is a payment, isn't that right?
6 A 10,000, yes.
7 Q 551 Of 10,000. So I would suggest to you, not being in possession of your
8 particular knowledge, that in fact the only invoice that's recorded in the
9 document is then paid by the payment in the equal amount, would that seem
14:24:48 10 logical?
11 A Well certainly it looks like it, that invoice and that payment, yes.
13 A Yes.
14 Q 553 So that means that the 10,000 invoice is paid by the 10,000 pound payment, is
14:25:00 15 that right?
16 A It would appear so, yes.
17 Q 554 Now having --
18 A There is actually over a year between them.
19 Q 555 I noticed that. Now, there have been two payments, according to your evidence,
14:25:16 20 before that in order, one of 4,000 and one of 3,000, is that right?
21 A So it would seem.
22 Q 556 Now what happens to those?
23 A What do you mean what happens to them.
24 Q 557 They are offset you say?
14:25:25 25 A I am saying in the books here, they are off offset. They were payments made
26 obviously to somebody.
27 Q 558 Yes. That's the point, isn't it?
28 A I think so, yes. I am assuming it was through the Ambrose Kelly Partnership, I
29 couldn't be sure about that.
14:25:39 30 Q 559 We have already seen your payments to the Ambrose Kelly Partnership are
www.pcr.ie Day 659

86
14:25:43 1 recorded as payments to the Ambrose Kelly Partnership in the books, is that
2 right?
3 A Yes.
4 Q 560 So, I think we can take from that as a matter of logic, Mr. Glennane, that
14:25:51 5 Prague Strategic Studies are not payments to the Ambrose Kelly Partnership,
6 wouldn't that follow?
7 A Not necessarily with all due respects.
8 Q 561 Are you telling the Tribunal that that you would have had two methods of paying
9 the Ambrose Kelly Partnership?
14:26:07 10 A I am saying there could have been a mistake made on foot of the invoice. I am
11 certainly saying that as far as I recall, any payments to do with Prague were
12 made through the Ambrose Kelly Partnership and if we had paid something as
13 direct, then we would have deducted it from the payment to him.
14 Q 562 Well, you made a payment to Mrs. Hazel Lawlor in which you speculate was a
14:26:27 15 payment in connection with Prague, isn't that right?
16 A So it seems.
17 Q 563 You make that payment at the same time as you pay your 6,000 monthly payment to
18 the Ambrose Kelly partnership, isn't that right, because we saw the cheque?
19 A I don't think it was, yes, it was around the same time, yes.
14:26:42 20 Q 564 Well in fact the payment to Mrs. Lawlor is the 23rd of November 1993 and the
21 payment of the cheque is the 26th November 1993?
22 A Yes.
23 Q 565 So it's the same time?
24 A Yes.
14:26:54 25 Q 566 Can I ask you this, Mr. Glennane, do you have any idea who was behind Prague
26 Strategic Studies?
27 A I don't, no.
28 Q 567 Do you think that it is likely, in view of the fact that Mr. Lawlor was
29 involved in the Prague activities, that these might have been a mechanism of
14:27:15 30 funnelling payments to Mr. Lawlor?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

87
14:27:18 1 A I think the payments may have been made to Mr. Lawlor. Certainly he was very
2 involved in the Prague project and I know went to Prague on several occasions.
3 So, I mean he would have been quite entitled to charge presumably for it but I
4 would have thought he would have charged through the Ambrose Kelly Partnership.
14:27:42 5 Q 568 You believe that Prague Strategic Studies is something to do with the Prague
6 enterprise in which Monarch were jointly involved?
7 A Yes.
8 Q 569 You believe that payments were made to some entity called Prague Strategic
9 Studies in connection with the Prague project?
14:28:02 10 A Yes, it would appear so, yes.
11 Q 570 It is unlikely to have been a payment to the Ambrose Kelly Partnership because
12 that is separately recorded as payments to the Ambrose Kelly Partnership?
13 A I am not sure, there could easily have been a mistake made at the time in the
14 accounts or if there were payments made on behalf of Prague, they would have
14:28:24 15 been deducted from payments made to the Ambrose Kelly Partnership.
16 Q 571 You have no idea who or what was Prague Strategic Studies?
17 A No, it looks actually like a wording on an invoice rather than a name, like
18 most of those accounts are actually names of suppliers.
19 Q 572 And certainly there's at least one invoice, isn't that right?
14:28:49 20 A Yes.
21 Q 573 But there doesn't seem to be a copy of that invoice available?
22 A I don't know.
23 Q 574 The other two people who were involved in the development in Prague or a number
24 of people who were involved directly and indirectly with Monarch in connection
14:29:05 25 with this Prague inquiry, one was the Ambrose Kelly Group, is that right?
26 A That's right.
27 Q 575 And they were being paid directly 6,000 a month or were meant to have been paid
28 6,000 a month?
29 A Yes.
14:29:17 30 Q 576 Mr. Frank Dunlop had some peripheral involvement or involvement also, is that
www.pcr.ie Day 659

88
14:29:21 1 right?
2 A That's right.
3 Q 577 Do you know whether any arrangement was made to pay Mr. Dunlop's share of the
4 project for him?
14:29:28 5 A Well, again, if there was any payment made to him, I believe it would have come
6 from the Ambrose Kelly Partnership.
7 Q 578 A payment made by Monarch on behalf of Mr. Dunlop?
8 A No, it would have been included in the 6,000 per month.
9 Q 579 And do you know whether any payment was made by the Monarch Group on behalf of
14:29:45 10 Mr. Lawlor?
11 A On behalf of Mr. Lawlor?
12 Q 580 Yes.
13 A You mean to him?
14 Q 581 No, I mean is it possible that you were paying Mr. Lawlor's share of the
14:29:57 15 activity if Mr. Lawlor had a share?
16 A Paying it to Mr. Lawlor or do you mean paying it to some other third party?
17 Q 582 Paying it to some third party on behalf of Mr. Lawlor?
18 A I am not aware of that.
19 Q 583 Do you think that it's likely this payment to Prague Strategic Studies might
14:30:15 20 have been a payment to Mr. Lawlor?
21 A It's quite possible, yes.
22 Q 584 Just think about that then for a moment, Mr. Glennane. What would have been
23 the necessity of directing payments to Mr. Lawlor through a medium of Prague
24 Strategic Studies?
14:30:29 25 A Well I presume Mr. Lawlor would have requested it.
26 Q 585 And if he requested it, Mr. Glennane, did he request it from you?
27 A Not that I can recall.
28 Q 586 Who is the person that he is likely to have requested that from?
29 A Again, either myself or Mr. Sweeney. Or I think probably either of us, yes.
14:30:49 30 Q 587 Or anybody?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

89
14:30:50 1 A No, or possibly Mr. Monahan I suppose. They are the only people I can think
2 of.
3 Q 588 So, it would have been either Mr. Sweeney, yourself and you don't think it was
4 yourself or Mr. Monahan?
14:31:04 5 A Yes, I would think so, yes.
6 Q 589 Notwithstanding that these transactions appear to be occurring at the same time
7 as Mr. Lawlor is recorded in your diary as meeting you?
8 A Yes.
9 Q 590 Can you tell the Tribunal what you discussed with Mr. Lawlor when you met him
14:31:18 10 on these occasions?
11 A I don't believe I met him more than once on these occasions. I presume we
12 discussed this payment, whatever.
13 Q 591 You presume you would have --
14 A I presume well -- after we discussed it, I presume he came in to collect a
14:31:33 15 cheque if there was a cheques being issued.
16 Q 592 Certainly if there was a payment of to Hazel Lawlor of 3,000 pounds, that was
17 something that would have to be organised with somebody in Monarch by
18 Mr. Lawlor?
19 A That's right.
14:31:44 20 Q 593 And because Hazel Lawlor is recorded in your diary, it's likely you are the
21 person who in fact made the payment or arranged the payment for Hazel Lawlor,
22 is that right?
23 A Well it's certainly likely that I knew something about it when I wrote down the
24 name, yes.
14:31:57 25 Q 594 And is that your writing in your own diary for Hazel Lawlor, is that you, are
26 you the person who made that entry? At 4752?
27 A It is, yes.
28 Q 595 And at 4767 on the 4th of November 1992 or after the 4th of December,
29 Mr. Lawlor is again recorded in your diary and your diary appears to record NN,
14:32:26 30 re, 12 and 3 and number 3 is Mr. Lawlor?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

90
14:32:31 1 A Well, then that's right, yes.
2 Q 596 Was that a note to yourself to talk to Noel Murray about Liam Lawlor?
3 A It would appear so.
4 Q 597 What would you have been talking to Mr. Murray about Mr. Lawlor for?
14:32:41 5 A At that time Mr. Murray went to Prague on a few occasions I think with
6 Mr. Lawlor and Ambrose Kelly.
7 Q 598 Was Mr.-- I beg your pardon, sorry?
8 A And a few other people, sorry, go on.
9 Q 599 Was Mr. Murray the person in Monarch most heavily involved with Prague?
14:32:57 10 A I think Mr. Sweeney was in the sense of directing it but I know Mr. Murray
11 certainly went to Prague on two or three occasions.
12 Q 600 And was Mr. Monahan involved in Prague?
13 A Well he was, yes, in a general way, yes.
14 Q 601 In a general way?
14:33:11 15 A Sorry, he was, yes. He was the one that would have introduced it and --
16 Q 602 And if and when Monarch decided it wasn't going to proceed with Prague, who is
17 the person that would have made that decision?
18 A Well, I certainly had a strong view that we shouldn't so I don't know whether
19 to take the credit for it or not but certainly -- I certainly would have argued
14:33:33 20 very strongly against it.
21 Q 603 Good. Well who made the decision?
22 A Well, I mean the decision was made between myself and Mr. Monahan presumably
23 and Mr. Sweeney.
24 Q 604 And you agreed not to proceed with Prague?
26 Q 605 And I think on the 8th of December 1993 at 4793, your diary again records an
27 entry Liam Lawlor at Monarch, do you see that?
28 A I do, yes.
29 Q 606 And again, on the 14th of December 1993, at 4383, sorry, 4838, your diary again
14:34:22 30 records an entry E.S./Liam Lawlor?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

91
2 Q 607 The E.S. I presume is Eddie Sweeney?
3 A Yes.
4 Q 608 Does that mean you had a meeting with Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Lawlor?
14:34:36 5 A It would appear so.
6 Q 609 What would that have been about?
7 A I presume about Prague.
8 Q 610 Between the 17th November 1993 and the 15th December 1993, Mr. Glennane, there
9 are seven entries in your diaries relating to Mr. Liam Lawlor?
14:34:50 10 A Yes.
11 Q 611 It appears in that period, at least one payment was made being a sum of 3,000
12 to Hazel Lawlor, isn't that right?
13 A That's right.
14 Q 612 The furthest you can put the situation to the Tribunal is that the meetings
14:35:03 15 were about Prague and the 3,000 pound payment might have been in connection
16 with Prague, is that right?
17 A Well I would say it was in connection with Prague, yes.
18 Q 613 And do you remember it and do you remember it being in connection with Prague?
14:35:19 20 Q 614 Can I ask you whether any other payments might have been routed to Mr. Lawlor
21 indirectly as it were?
22 A Not as far as I am aware or I was aware, no.
23 Q 615 You weren't aware of the Comex payment, isn't that right?
24 A Well, I don't know that I was aware of it or not at the time.
14:35:43 25 Q 616 And now you think that the Prague Strategic Studies might have been a mechanism
26 whereby payments were routed to Mr. Lawlor?
27 A I think payments were made to Mr. Lawlor rather than routed, it's not a
28 terminology we use for paying somebody, routing payments.
29 Q 617 If you weren't routing the payments in a particular way, why wasn't the Comex
14:36:06 30 payment made out to Liam Lawlor?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

92
14:36:08 1 A I presume because Mr. Lawlor wanted it paid through Comex.
2 Q 618 And I suggest to you because Monarch were prepared to facilitate Mr. Lawlor?
3 A It's normal with any professional if somebody does work for you and they come
4 in with an invoice, will you pay the company or will you pay whoever, you
14:36:29 5 wouldn't necessarily query it as long as you knew it was due.
6 Q 619 What did you --
7 A I wouldn't describe it as routing.
8 Q 620 All right.
9 A They were payments made to a company, you would normally assume that it goes to
14:36:40 10 the company. All our cheques were crossed as a matter of course.
11 Q 621 But certainly insofar as Comex is concerned, you know the following: The
12 payments made out to Comex Trading Corporation ended up in the bank account of
13 Economic Reports Limited, a different company, isn't that right?
14:36:59 15 Q 622 Mr. Liam Lawlor was the beneficial owner of Economic Reports Limited and I
16 think that is the position. The Tribunal has been unable to trace any company
17 called Comex Trading Corporation?
18 A Yes.
19 Q 623 And if no such company existed, Mr. Glennane, then it was a company that was
14:37:19 20 fabricated or made up by somebody?
21 A I presume yes.
22 Q 624 For the purpose of preparing an invoice?
23 A That's right.
24 Q 625 And for the purposes of getting money from Monarch?
14:37:28 25 A I don't know whether that was the only purpose of the company but presumably,
26 yes.
27 Q 626 It would be the purpose of presenting the invoice to Monarch, wouldn't it?
28 A Presumably, yes, yes.
29 Q 627 What did you know about Mr. Lawlor in 1990 and 1993?
14:37:46 30 A I knew he was a TD and he was, I don't know -- I don't know if he was a
www.pcr.ie Day 659

93
14:37:52 1 councillor or not.
2 Q 628 He was a councillor up to June of 1991?
3 A Yeah.
4 Q 629 You knew that?
14:37:56 5 A I probably did, yes.
6 Q 630 Do you know whether or not Mr. Lawlor held consultancies?
7 A Well, certainly he did in the Prague context, he was with us but other than
8 that, no, I wouldn't have known.
9 Q 631 Would there have been any difficulty in writing a cheque for 56,300 to Mr. Liam
14:38:21 10 Lawlor?
11 A Not if there was a proper invoice produced, no, and he had provided services.
12 Q 632 And does it follow from that that Mr. Liam Lawlor couldn't provide a proper
13 invoice for services rendered?
14 A Well, I can't speculate what Mr. Lawlor could or couldn't do.
14:38:42 15 Q 633 Because what you do know happened or didn't happen is more to the point. Is it
16 that Mr. Lawlor didn't provide an invoice for 56,300?
17 A So it would seem, yes.
18 Q 634 Can I show you a check at 4221 please which is a cheque dated 26th May 1993 and
19 can you confirm for us first of all that's your signature at the bottom of the
14:39:03 20 cheque?
21 A That's right.
22 Q 635 This is a cheque made out for 10,000 pounds to Mr. Frank Dunlop?
24 Q 636 And on the reverse of the cheque, there is a apparently Mr. Dunlop's, there is
14:39:14 25 a signature Frank Dunlop.
26 A That's right.
27 Q 637 Now Mr. Dunlop has denied that that is his signature?
28 A So I gathered, yes.
29 Q 638 And --
14:39:24 30 A I was here for that evidence, yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

94
14:39:26 1 Q 639 Were you here for that evidence?
2 A I was, yes.
3 Q 640 And Mr. Dunlop made a number of suggestions as to speculations on his part as
4 to how this cheque might have ended up with Mr. Lawlor.
14:39:36 5 A Yes.
6 Q 641 You will have seen the recent statement from Mr. Patrick Murphy that was
7 furnished to the Tribunal, have you seen that?
8 A No, I haven't.
9 Q 642 Can I show you first of all that on the back of the cheque, the word Cleary's
14:39:50 10 appears?
11 A That's right, I saw it.
12 Q 643 And can I then show you 8913 and this is a second cheque which is made out by
13 Monarch Properties Limited in the sum of 2,500 pounds dated 5th January 1995 to
14 L Lawlor, do you see that?
14:40:08 15 A Yes.
16 Q 644 That cheque is signed by you, is that right?
17 A That's right.
18 Q 645 And there's an entry on the reverse of the cheque, P Murphy, lounge bar,
19 Inchicore?
14:40:17 20 A Yes, I can see that.
21 Q 646 The Tribunal made certain inquiries of Mr. Patrick Murphy and Mr. Patrick
22 Murphy has provided a statement to the Tribunal, page 8915.
23
24 MR. SANFEY: Chairman we haven't seen this statement, we weren't aware it
14:40:32 25 existed.
26
27 MS. DILLON: I think the statement was received on the 26th June and it was
28 circulated this morning.
29
14:40:37 30 CHAIRMAN: They don't have it, Ms. Dillon. Could they be given a copy?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

95
14:40:50 1
2 MS. DILLON: Absolutely.
4 MS. DILLON: 8915, I will just print a copy of 8915. We are printing a copy
14:41:08 5 of that, in the meantime I want to draw to your attention, those two cheques
6 were provided to Mr. Murphy who previously traded in Inchicore as Cleary's Bar
7 and Mr. Murphy has provided previous evidence, I think, to the Tribunal of
8 cashing cheques for Mr. Lawlor. Now he says that he cannot specifically recall
9 cashing the two cheques in question but he has no doubt that he did cash them
14:41:34 10 and he says the cheque for 10,000 pounds made payable to Frank Dunlop was
11 signed Clearys on the back of the cheque by my wife Catherine. I am certain of
12 the signature of Frank Dunlop is in similar handwriting to that of Mr. Liam
13 Lawlor. Mr. Murphy will be coming to the Tribunal to give evidence about this,
14 Mr. Glennane and what he will tell the Tribunal apparently is the signature
14:41:56 15 'Frank Dunlop' on the back of the cheque for 10,000 pounds is the signature
16 made by Mr. Liam Lawlor. He then goes on to explain Mr. Lawlor often presented
17 cheques in the living quarters over Cleary's and sometimes I would give him
18 cash. On other occasions I would have cheques written against this amount at
19 Mr. Lawlor's direction. Normally he would ring to see if I was at home and
14:42:20 20 sometimes he would ask me to hold back a certain amount of cash from my daily
21 lodgment. In or around 1993, my weekly turnover was in the region of 17,000
22 pounds and I was not troubled about cashing cheques. I felt obligated to
23 assist Mr. Lawlor as I was grazing cattle on his land. I also recall cashing a
24 monthly cheque in the sum of IR 1,000 pounds drawn on an account in Prague
14:42:42 25 which I believe was called Flymo. Now if Mr. Murphy and Mrs. Murphy are
26 correct in what they are going to tell the Tribunal, it would appear to
27 confirm, if we could have page 4221 please, that the signature on the back of
28 the cheque for 10,000 pounds is not that of Mr. Dunlop but rather is that of
29 the late Mr. Liam Lawlor and which was cashed by him in Cleary's pub by
14:43:08 30 Mr. Patrick Murphy, after he received the cheque.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

96
14:43:13 1
2 Mr. Dunlop has told the Tribunal he did not give that cheque to Mr. Lawlor.
3 A Yes.
4 Q 647 Can you assist the Tribunal as to how Mr. Lawlor might have come into
14:43:24 5 possession of that cheque?
6 A Not really, no. No. Certainly we wouldn't have given it to him. As I said
7 already, you can see all our cheques were crossed '& Co'. So that would be a
8 surprise that he was able to cash it but however that's the name on the bank.
9 Normally when a cheque is crossed it can only be used to lodge.
14:43:59 10 Q 648 And could somebody in Monarch Properties have asked you for that cheque made
11 out to Frank Dunlop & Associates and given it to Mr. Lawlor?
12 A I don't believe so, no.
13 Q 649 Who asked you for the cheque?
14 A I have no idea, it was probably just drawn in the normal way.
14:44:15 15 Q 650 There's no --
16 A I wouldn't have instructed that a cheque be drawn, I would have signed it. I
17 mean there were cheques drawn all the time for signature.
18 Q 651 Well, we will come to look at payments to Mr. Dunlop, Mr. Glennane and I think
19 you will be familiar with the fact that certainly for the first two payments to
14:44:34 20 Mr. Dunlop of 15 and 10, there were no invoices, is that right?
21 A Until later on.
22 Q 652 We will come to look at whether they were in fact retrospective invoices or not
23 but you would agree, I think, notwithstanding what is stated to be the Monarch
24 policy but certainly insofar as Mr. Dunlop was concerned, a cheque for 15,000
14:44:53 25 and a cheque for 10 now, were drawn without the benefit of any invoices, is
26 that right?
28 Q 653 Now was there an invoice for this cheque?
29 A I don't think so, I don't recall.
14:45:05 30 Q 654 Okay.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

97
14:45:06 1 A There was an invoice of over 12,100 which would have been normally 10,000 plus
2 VAT, I don't know whether that relates in the same --
3 Q 655 That invoice wasn't paid and I think you are referring to an invoice in April
4 1993.
14:45:22 5 A Whatever it was, yes.
6 Q 656 But insofar as this payment is concerned, Mr. Glennane, have you found any
7 invoice from Mr. Dunlop in connection with this payment?
8 A Not specifically, no, but there were invoices from Mr. Dunlop mainly drawn
9 towards the end of 1993 which actually exceeded the amount paid to him.
14:45:45 10 Q 657 And there was an invoice in April --
11 A Actually that was a journal entry put through reversing that.
12 Q 658 There is an invoice from Mr. Dunlop which purports to be dated 10th April 1993
13 in the sum of 12,100 pounds?
14 A That's right.
14:46:02 15 Q 659 But there's no payment for 12,100 pounds?
16 A Not specifically not, no.
17 Q 660 So, it would appear insofar as this cheque is concerned, Mr. Glennane, the
18 furthest you can assist is that you signed it?
19 A That's right.
14:46:17 20 Q 661 There doesn't appear to have been an invoice attached to it, is that right?
21 A No, but I assume there would have been a remittance advise attached to it.
22 Q 662 Well if there is, I don't think the Tribunal has it. Right, though it has
23 other remittance advices in relation to other cheques?
24 A It was certainly the normal practice on any creditor's cheque to send a
14:46:42 25 remittance advice with the cheque so that person receiving it would know what
26 they were getting paid for.
27 Q 663 And you will have seen where in the statements provided to the Tribunal the
28 Monarch position in relation to the making of payments has been clearly and
29 unambiguously stated to have been that payments were normally only made on foot
14:47:02 30 of invoices, is that right?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

98
14:47:03 1 A That's right, normally, yes.
2 Q 664 But certainly insofar as Mr. Dunlop is concerned, the first two payments and
3 now this cheque did not have attached to them any invoice, is that right?
4 A ...
14:47:16 5 Q 665 That would mean, would it not, Mr. Glennane, the payments to Mr. Dunlop were
6 treated otherwise than those normally treated by Monarch Properties, is that
7 right?
8 A In a general way, yes.
9 Q 666 Why was that?
14:47:28 10 A Well I -- I assume because they were, they were drawn before the proper
11 documentation was furnished. The first receipts had been drawn a day or two
12 after he was appointed so I assume that was some form of retainer or payment in
13 advance.
14 Q 667 And this cheque that you are looking at is dated 26th May 1993, isn't that is
14:47:57 15 right?
17 Q 668 And I think Mr. Dunlop says he was appointed around March of 1993 and certainly
18 the first payments are in March, isn't that right?
14:48:05 20 Q 669 So by May of 1993, can you think of any reason why Monarch would be paying out
21 10,000 pounds to Mr. Dunlop without an invoice?
22 A Only if they were waiting or expecting the invoice to come in after afterwards.
23 Q 670 Or if they weren't paying Mr. Dunlop at all and they were paying somebody else?
24 A No, that's certainly paid to Frank Dunlop & Associates, it was crossed and we
14:48:32 25 would always rely on the protection of the bank, as I said all our cheques were
26 crossed.
27 Q 671 You may not have been aware of Mr. Lawlor's arrangement with Mr. Murphy whereby
28 Mr. Murphy would cash cheques of quite significant amounts of money for
29 Mr. Lawlor?
14:48:47 30 A I certainly wasn't, no.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

99
14:48:48 1 Q 672 But you wouldn't, while you wouldn't necessarily have been aware of that
2 arrangement that Mr. Lawlor had with Mr. Murphy, somebody else in Monarch might
3 have been aware of it?
4 A I wouldn't think so, no.
14:49:01 5 Q 673 If Mr. Dunlop --
6 A I am absolutely sure.
7 Q 674 You know that in the documentation that's been provided to the Tribunal,
8 there's no surrounding documentation in connection with this cheque, there's no
9 letter for example sending it to Mr. Dunlop?
14:49:15 10 A Yes.
11 Q 675 There's to remittance advice.
12 A Well I presume there was one drawn at the time, yes.
13 Q 676 There's nothing surrounding this document except the copy cheque, isn't that
14 right?
14:49:28 15 A So it seems, yes, but I am absolutely sure that that cheque was not made out
16 to Frank Dunlop & Associates and deliberately given to Mr. Lawlor. As I said,
17 we would always rely on the fact that the cheques are crossed and I don't know
18 how Mr. Murphy was able to cash it and lodge it presumably into his own
19 account, that's between him and the bank.
14:49:59 20 Q 677 Who did you have give the cheque to?
21 A I don't know.
22 Q 678 Could you have given it to Mr. Phillip Monahan?
23 A Unlikely, I would have thought.
24 Q 679 If he asked you for a cheque for 10,000 pounds to Frank Dunlop & Associates,
14:50:12 25 would you have given it to him?
26 A We possibly would have, yes.
27 Q 680 Was there anybody else in Monarch you would have given a cheque to in similar
28 circumstances other than Mr. Phillip Monahan?
29 A I mean we would have normally posted out cheques or if people offered to come
14:50:28 30 and collect them, they would be left in reception.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

100
14:50:32 1 Q 681 Was there anybody else in Monarch that you would have written a cheque for on
2 request in such circumstances other than Mr. Phillip Monahan?
3 A Well I think if Mr. Sweeney was dealing with Mr. Dunlop, I understood he was,
4 he might have done it for him.
14:50:49 5 Q 682 If Mr. Sweeney had asked you to make out a cheque for 10,000 pounds to
6 Mr. Dunlop without any invoice, you would have done so?
8 Q 683 And do you say then that this is between, if this cheques was given by somebody
9 in Monarch to Mr. Liam Lawlor, then it rests between Mr. Eddie Sweeney and the
14:51:06 10 late Mr. Phillip Monahan as to who would have done that?
12 Q 684 Can I show you a payment in July 1994 I think to A & L Lawlor at 5279 you will
13 see there. A & L Lawlor, 3,000 and this has been identified in correspondence
14 to the Tribunal as a payment to Mr. Liam Lawlor.
14:51:42 15 A If you say so, yes.
16 Q 685 Do you know anything about that payment?
17 A I don't think so, no, I don't recall it.
18 Q 686 And can I show you the 5th of January 1995 at 5522, which is an extract from
19 the cheque payments book and again you will see halfway down the page, L
14:52:04 20 Lawlor, 2,500 pounds?
21 A Yes, I see that, yes.
22 Q 687 And you will have seen the cheque at 5523 which is also a cheque that's cashed
23 by Mr. Murphy at the lounge bar in Inchicore for Mr. Lawlor.
24 A That's right.
14:52:19 25 Q 688 And I draw to your attention again notwithstanding the fact that as you say
26 it's crossed, the cheque is apparently cashed by Mr. Lawlor with Mr. Murphy in
27 Inchicore?
29 Q 689 So it would appear Mr. Lawlor had that facility?
14:52:34 30 A Yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

101
14:52:34 1 Q 690 And the question is whether anybody else in Monarch knew whether Mr. Lawlor had
2 that facility?
3 A I wouldn't any so, I don't think so. Certainly I didn't know.
4 Q 691 And at 6050 on the 15th of August 1996, there is a cheque for 1,000 pounds for
14:52:50 5 a golf classic paid to Mr. Lawlor.
7 Q 692 Can I suggest to you now, Mr. Glennane, that the documentation in relation to
8 the late Mr. Liam Lawlor appears to disclose the following: That through a
9 medium called Comex Trading Corporation, a sum of 56,300 pounds was paid to
14:53:11 10 Mr. Lawlor in 1990.
11 A Yes.
12 Q 693 And can I ask you this: That payment was in October of 1990, isn't that right?
13 A Yes, it was.
14 Q 694 When did The Square in Tallaght open?
14:53:23 15 A It opened the 23rd October.
16 Q 695 Do you think --
17 A 1990.
18 Q 696 Do you think those two events are connected? That the payment to Mr. Lawlor of
19 56,300 was in some way connected to the opening of Tallaght?
14:53:38 20 A I would think if he had carried out work in the previous few years, the obvious
21 time to get paid was when the job was just about finished.
22 Q 697 There is then a payment of 3,000 pounds apparently to Hazel Lawlor?
24 Q 698 There's a payment of 2,500 pounds to Mr. Liam Lawlor?
26 Q 699 A payment of 1,000 pounds to Mr. Liam Lawlor, is that right?
27 A Yes.
28 Q 700 A payment of 3,000 pounds to A & L Lawlor which is accepted to be a payment to
29 Mr. Liam Lawlor, isn't that right?
14:54:09 30 A Yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

102
14:54:09 1 Q 701 And there's also a payment of 10,000 pounds which is addressed to Mr. Frank
2 Dunlop but the proceeds of which are apparently received by Mr. Lawlor, is that
3 right?
4 A Well, so it appears, yes.
14:54:21 5 Q 702 That would mean that the total amount paid to Mr. Lawlor directly and
6 indirectly was 75,800 pounds by Monarch Properties?
7 A If your figures are right but I am absolutely sure the 10,000 cheque addressed
8 to Frank Dunlop & Associates was not meant for Mr. Lawlor.
9 Q 703 And if the 20,000 pounds that was attributed to Prague Strategic Studies was
14:54:49 10 also paid to Mr. Lawlor, that would mean 95,800 pounds was directed to
11 Mr. Lawlor, isn't that right?
12 A If your figures add up, I haven't added them up.
13 Q 704 It isn't very difficult to add them. I am quite happy that they are accurate?
14 A I am sure they are, yes.
14:55:09 15 Q 705 And insofar as the 10,000 pounds cheque is concerned, what you say is that the
16 cheque was not made out to Mr. Lawlor but you accept that he received the
17 benefit of the cheque?
19 Q 706 And would it be fair to say that the person in Monarch Properties who had the
14:55:28 20 relationship with Mr. Lawlor, whatever it was, that I suppose culminated in
21 these payments but that that was the late Mr. Phillip Monahan?
22 A Certainly he knew him from old, yes.
23 Q 707 And he was the one with whom Mr. Lawlor had his dealings?
24 A Well, he may have had dealings with Mr. Sweeney but certainly with Mr. Monahan,
14:55:51 25 he lived beside him as well as, as far as I know.
26 Q 708 And if payments of the order of 95,000 pounds were made to the late Mr. Liam
27 Lawlor, either through Comex or through any other vehicle, they were payments,
28 I suggest to you, that could only have been authorised at the highest level in
29 Monarch.
14:56:09 30 A Well, they are each individuals one but yeah, it was authorised by the same
www.pcr.ie Day 659

103
14:56:16 1 person or different people at different times, yes.
2 Q 709 It's your position they weren't authorised by you, they made the payments
3 insofar as you wrote the cheques but you didn't authorise the payments?
14:56:26 5 Q 710 And according to you, you are one of the two top people in Monarch, if it
6 wasn't you it could only have been either Mr. Eddie Sweeney or the late
8 A That's right, I think that's actually three people.
9 Q 711 Of those three people, the person who had the longest standing relationship
14:56:43 10 with the late Mr. Liam Lawlor was Mr. Monahan?
12 Q 712 Was Mr. Monahan in the habit of routing funds indirectly to people, can you
13 tell us?
14 A No, not as far as I know.
14:56:56 15 Q 713 But if Mr. Monahan authorised the Comex payment to Mr. Lawlor, he would have
16 known that Comex was a front for Mr. Lawlor, isn't that right?
17 A Well, presumably. Presumably he would have, yes.
18 Q 714 Because no such company Comex exists or existed in 1990?
19 A Well, I mean we didn't -- we don't we don't ask to see the certificate of
14:57:22 20 incorporation of every company that you are dealing with.
21 Q 715 Because you know who you are actually dealing with, who is the person behind
22 it?
23 A Exactly.
24 Q 716 And the face behind Comex was Mr. Liam Lawlor?
14:57:30 25 A Yes, so it appears, yes.
26 Q 717 So, that whoever authorised the Comex payment in Monarch and it wasn't you
27 though you effected the payment, that person had to know that Comex was a front
28 for Mr. Liam Lawlor?
29 A Yes, sorry I am not sure that I effected the payment but however, I don't know
14:57:47 30 if I signed the cheques for not but I prefer to admit I may well have signed
www.pcr.ie Day 659

104
14:57:54 1 them, I don't know. They must have known it was Mr. Lawlor, yes, that was
2 behind Comex.
3 Q 718 And that would mean that whoever that person was, they had no problem with
4 making payments indirectly, isn't that right?
14:58:06 5 A Well, I think your term indirectly is a bit of a misnomer.
6 Q 719 Oh really. Well let's just analyse that for a minute, Mr Glennane, and let's
7 talk realities here. Mr. Liam Lawlor was a serving politician in 1990, he was
8 a member of the Dail, he was a member of Dublin County Council, he was well
9 known. Do you agree with all of that?
14:58:25 10 A Yes, absolutely.
11 Q 720 Mr. Phillip Monahan was a very wealthy individual who had headed up a big
12 development company, do you agree with that?
13 A Yes.
14 Q 721 Comex Trading Corporation did not exist as a legal entity or otherwise. And
14:58:40 15 you may take that from me?
16 A Okay I take it now, yeah.
17 Q 722 Now, if Mr. Lawlor was providing services to Monarch Properties and those
18 services were above board and there was nothing hidden or untoward or improper,
19 then I suggest to you that Mr. Lawlor would have furnished an invoice to
14:59:01 20 Mr. Monahan in Mr. Lawlor's own name?
21 A Not necessarily, it might have suited him. It very often suits people to
22 trade through a company rather than as an individual.
23 Q 723 To trade through a company that doesn't exist?
24 A Not one that doesn't exist.
14:59:13 25 Q 724 Because Mr. Lawlor had available to him companies with which he was involved
26 that did exist such as Economic Reports.
27 A Right, well.
28 Q 725 And he elected not to use those, isn't that right?
14:59:25 30 Q 726 So what I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Glennane, when one takes those circumstances
www.pcr.ie Day 659

105
14:59:30 1 into account and those series of facts into account, it follows logically that
2 what was going on in the Comex payment was a secret hidden payment to
3 Mr. Lawlor that would withstand scrutiny?
4 A I don't --
14:59:48 5 Q 727 Let's say the auditor decided pick up on the payment to Comex Trading
6 Corporation?
7 A Yes.
8 Q 728 And there are two invoices from Comex Trading Corporation with an address in
9 Clerkinwell in England, let's say for example?
15:00:00 10 A I don't know where the address is.
11 Q 729 Let's just say?
12 A Sorry.
13 Q 730 On the face of it it likes like a bona fide invoice, and there's nothing on it
14 to indicate it's a payment of 56,300 to Mr. Lawlor, the auditor is not going to
15:00:22 15 look behind the invoice?
16 A In general, no.
18 A No.
19 Q 732 So what is being kept secret here is the fact that the 56,300 is going to
15:00:27 20 Mr. Lawlor, isn't that right?
21 A Well, yes, well yes, it depends whether it referred on the invoice to Mr.
22 Lawlor or not. I don't know that.
23 Q 733 Let's assume for the moment it didn't?
24 A Assuming that it didn't.
15:00:43 25 Q 734 What is being kept secret from the auditors and everybody else is that the
26 payment of 56,300 is in fact a payment to a then sitting politician, isn't that
27 right?
28 A Yeah, I am not sure of being a politician precluded people from providing
29 consultancy services.
15:01:03 30 Q 735 I am not suggesting that it didn't?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

106
15:01:05 1 A You are suggesting.
2 Q 736 I am not, I am saying what's being kept secret by using this mechanism is that
3 the payment in in fact a payment to Mr. Liam Lawlor?
4 A Well, a payment for his benefit.
15:01:17 5 Q 737 If the face of the invoice does not disclose that it's a payment to Mr. Liam
6 Lawlor or that Mr. Liam Lawlor is involved in it, the auditor will not pick up
7 that in fact it's a payment to Mr. Lawlor, is that right?
8 A That's right, yes, but as a corollary of that, I don't think the auditor would
9 have had any difficulty if it was a payment to Mr. Lawlor, if there's an
15:01:48 10 invoice made by Lawlor Consultancy Services ... it wouldn't have concerned the
11 auditors.
12 Q 738 Of course that would mean for that to have happened, Mr. Glennane, there would
13 have to be an invoice from Mr. Lawlor but that didn't happen because the
14 invoice was from Comex?
15:02:05 15 A I know that but I don't think it was any, I don't -- it's a bit academic, if
16 you don't mind me saying so, the argument we are having, but I don't think it
17 was of any concern of the auditors whether a payment was to made to Mr. Lawlor
18 or anybody else.
19 Q 739 I am obviously not making myself clear. What I'm trying to establish from you,
15:02:21 20 Mr. Glennane, is if the auditor had picked up on the payment of 56,300 in
21 October 1990 and checked the invoice in the name of Comex Trading Corporation,
22 there was nothing on that invoice to indicate to the auditor the payment was a
23 payment to Mr. Lawlor, do you understand that question?
24 A I do, yes.
15:02:41 25 Q 740 If you would answer it now please?
26 A Sorry.
27 Q 741 The question is if there is nothing on the face of the invoice from Comex to
28 show that the recipient of the money is in fact Mr. Lawlor, even if the auditor
29 were to pick up the invoice, that doesn't help him in establishing who the
15:02:56 30 recipient is, isn't that right?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

107
15:02:58 1 A Well it doesn't tell it was Mr. Lawlor, if that's the point you are making.
2 Q 742 Yes, the point is that the mechanism that is utilised in the Comex payment is a
3 mechanism that hides Mr. Lawlor's involvement, isn't that right?
4 A It hides it, it doesn't disclose it.
15:03:17 5 Q 743 What's the difference in doesn't disclose and hide?
6 A Well if you get an invoice in the morning from a McCarrick Woods for instance,
7 you are not assuming that it's disclosing who the partners are on that firm or
8 whatever.
9 Q 744 And in the normal course, would L&C Properties have had a list of approved
15:03:37 10 suppliers?
11 A No.
12 Q 745 Didn't have it and did Monarch Property Services have a list of approved
13 suppliers?
14 A No.
15:03:46 15 Q 746 So that each supplier's invoice came in and was treated accordingly, is that
16 right?
17 A Yes, I presume it was passed by somebody, yes.
18 Q 747 Did, if I can ask you to deal with the bonus payments that were made first of
19 all briefly in relation to Mr. Sweeney's statement in his affidavit, that at
15:04:09 20 paragraph 8056, that in 1986 it was agreed to pay a sum of 100,000 pounds
21 notionally. It's in paragraph 10, and on the following page at 8057 for which
22 he would receive a cash sum of 50,000 pounds in a tax efficient manner with a
23 balance of 50,000 pounds being paid to Mr. Monahan as consideration a tranche
24 of his existing shareholding equivalent to 15 percent of the issued share
15:04:42 25 capital. Now, you can correct me if I am wrong, but it would appear from a
26 review of the subsequent Affidavits and documents in the proceedings between
27 Monarch and Mr. Sweeney, that it was not disputed that a sum of 100,000 pounds
28 was to be paid to Mr. Sweeney and that 50,000 pounds of it was to be paid as a
29 cash sum, is that right?
15:05:03 30 A I think again when you are referring to cash, it doesn't necessarily mean in
www.pcr.ie Day 659

108
15:05:13 1 cash as in pounds notes, it means by cheque or by consideration.
2 Q 748 Do you know how that 50,000 pounds was paid in fact?
3 A No, I don't know if it was paid or not and it's described as being a notional
4 payment which I am not quite sure what a notional payment is.
15:05:28 5 Q 749 It was agreed an ex gratia payment of 100,000 pounds would be notionally paid
6 to him for which he would receive 50,000 pounds in a tax efficient manner. Do
7 you know whether that sum of money was in fact paid to a sister of
8 Mr. Sweeney's?
9 A I don't know.
15:05:44 10 Q 750 You don't know?
11 A No.
12 Q 751 Were you involved in making that payment?
13 A I don't think so, no, I have certainly no recollection of it.
14 Q 752 And insofar as the second payment is concerned at 8053, this is the
15:06:01 15 disbursement of the 8058, sorry, the disbursement of the sum of 1.8 million,
16 you were involved in this transaction, isn't that right, Mr. Glennane?
17 A Yes, I was, yes.
18 Q 753 And because I think you were to receive a share of that in the amount of
19 450,000 pounds, is that right?
21 Q 754 And did you take that yourself through some corporate structure?
22 A Through a company call Aspentree Company.
23 Q 755 And insofar as Mr. Monahan was to receive a share from this transaction, what
24 was Mr. Monahan's share to be?
15:06:42 25 A It says 65 percent there, I think that's wrong, it should have been probably
26 like 55 percent. I gather, I think 10 percent was paid to a Circinus Limited
27 which is owned by the late Tom Monahan and Ann Gosling.
28 Q 756 Out of the 1.8 million, approximately what would have been Mr. Monahan's share?
29 A I suppose about a million, a bit over half of it.
15:07:13 30 Q 757 Yes. And how was that money paid to Mr. Monahan?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

109
15:07:17 1 A Well, what happened at the time was that all that money was, if you like, went
2 round in a circle and was all loaned back to the company by the various people
3 and the various companies involved. And it was then paid out in instalments
4 later on.
15:07:38 5 Q 758 So effectively what was happening was it was admitted that money, people were
6 to receive money, money was being taken through various corporate structures,
7 the corporate structures then lent the money back and as and when the
8 individuals involved needed money, namely Mr. Monahan, Mr. Sweeney,
9 Mr. Glennane, Ms. Gosling and Mr. Tom Monahan, they made demands of the company
15:08:05 10 and repayments were made, is that right?
11 A I would say more as of when the company could afford it rather than less that
12 they made demands.
13 Q 759 The effect of it Mr. Glennane was that the company was indebted to each of the
14 individuals in the amount of the monies they had lent?
16 Q 760 And therefore the company was indebted to Mr. Monahan in the sum of one million
17 pounds approximately?
19 Q 761 And that money was made available to Mr. Monahan on request from Mr. Monahan
15:08:34 20 provided the company was in a position to pay it?
21 A I would think so.
22 Q 762 Is that a fair way of putting it?
23 A I think it was probably more adjusted every year through inter-company accounts
24 for directors loan accounts we spoke about earlier.
15:08:49 25 Q 763 Is it fair to that this money became available initially in 1991?
26 A No, I think probably a small amount.
27 Q 764 Sorry?
28 A I think just a small amount became available in 1991, do you mean about the
29 money of Mr. Monahan?
15:09:05 30 Q 765 Let's talk about the 1.8 million that's available for disbursements. When does
www.pcr.ie Day 659

110
15:09:10 1 that come into Pallarang?
2 A It came in at that time.
3 Q 766 What's that time?
4 A Whenever this thing was -- I think January 1992, if that was the --
15:09:22 5 Q 767 In 1991, late 1991, early 1992?
6 A Yes.
7 Q 768 So that the money comes in, the 1.8 million, and is disbursed and is lent back
8 and then taken back by the various individuals as and when they need it?
9 A Taken back over the years, not necessarily as and when they needed it.
15:09:41 10 Q 769 And where are the reconciliation or the accounting of those payments, where is
11 that kept, Mr. Glennane?
12 A It would have been kept with the rest of the Monarch accounts.
13 Q 770 Would that documentation have been kept in Somerton?
14 A Well not before 1997.
15:10:01 15 Q 771 And before 1997, where would it have been kept?
16 A It would have been kept in Monarch House in Harcourt Street.
17 Q 772 And thereafter it would have gone to Somerton?
18 A Any documentation that was left then would have been, yes. Each of those
19 companies would have done accounts on an annual basis.
15:10:25 20 Q 773 But all of these companies would have had as their assets was the money that
21 was owed to them by the Monarch Group?
22 A That's right, but they would all have done audited accounts on an annual basis
23 so each party, if you like, would have known how much was still due back to
24 them or whatever.
15:10:45 25 Q 774 Yes. And in July of 1992, Mr. Phillip Monahan wrote to Mr. Martin Baker of GRE
26 Properties a letter seeking extra additional costs in relation to Tallaght
27 including 3781. Are you familiar with this letter, Mr. Glennane?
28 A Well, I have seen it in the brief.
29 Q 775 And prior to seeing it in the brief, were you aware of its existence?
15:11:18 30 A I am sure I saw it at the time, yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

111
15:11:21 1 Q 776 And would you have assisted in putting together that letter?
2 A I might have, yes.
3 Q 777 Because that letter --
4 A Probably did, yes.
15:11:29 5 Q 778 Because that letter is all about financial matters, isn't it?
6 A Well a lot of it is, yes.
7 Q 779 Because the main purpose of the letter is seeking extra payments from GRE,
8 isn't that right?
15:11:41 10 Q 780 And I want to draw to your attention what's said under paragraph 5 of
11 additional marketing costs and Mr. Monahan says "To ensure the success of the
12 joint venture, key additional marketing costs were incurred. These costs which
13 were supervised directly by Mr. Monahan were critical to ensuring the tax
14 status and appropriate tenant profile for the Tallaght town centre." Do you
15:12:03 15 see that?
16 A I do, yes.
17 Q 781 Now I suggest to you that what Mr. Monahan is saying there is that marketing
18 costs were incurred for two things, one was ensuring the tax status of Tallaght
19 and the second is ensuring an appropriate tenant profile, do you agree with
15:12:24 20 that?
21 A Yes.
22 Q 782 The other thing that Mr. Monahan is saying is that he directly supervised those
23 costs.
24 A I don't know what that means but I presume that means he negotiated, certainly
15:12:39 25 with the tenants, yes.
26 Q 783 Well we are talking about two things. I think we will agree, tax status and
27 tenant profile?
28 A Yes.
29 Q 784 And he is saying, what the letter says is key additional marketing costs were
15:12:50 30 incurred, what does that mean?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

112
15:12:52 1 A It means that there were, there were key, there were additional marketing costs
2 that were key, particularly the tenant profile business, there were key to
3 getting in the tenants.
4 Q 785 What does the word incurred mean, Mr. Glennane?
15:13:07 5 A It means incur, means expenses, I suppose, expenses.
6 Q 786 Doesn't that mean that to ensure the success of the joint venture, key
7 additional marketing costs were incurred, the company incurred extra expenses?
8 A That's right.
9 Q 787 Money was spent.
11 Q 788 Isn't that what it means?
12 A Yes.
13 Q 789 And those costs were supervised directly by Mr. Monahan, isn't that what it
14 means?
15:13:35 15 A That's what that said, yes.
16 Q 790 And those costs, as spent by Mr. Monahan, were critical to ensuring A the tax
17 status of Tallaght and B the tenant profile of Tallaght, isn't that what that
18 means?
19 A Yes.
15:13:49 20 Q 791 So what Mr. Monahan is saying there is 'I incurred extra costs in order to
21 ensure the tax status and tenant profile of Tallaght Town Centre and I
22 supervised those costs myself'?
23 A I think he means the company incurred them and not him.
24 Q 792 Where does it say there that the key additional market costs were incurred by
15:14:12 25 the company?
26 A It doesn't say they were incurred --
27 Q 793 What it does say is that Mr. Monahan personally supervised the costs, isn't
28 that right?
29 A That's what it says.
15:14:21 30 Q 794 Well are you suggesting that Mr. Monahan when he wrote this letter was
www.pcr.ie Day 659

113
15:14:25 1 incorrect?
2 A No, I am saying there were additional marketing costs incurred and that him
3 saying they were supervised directly by him is just really puffing up the
4 situation to be honest with you, saying he had some, he had huge personal input
15:14:45 5 into it.
6 Q 795 Because he goes on to say "The Square was included in a designated area in the
7 1989 Finance Act.?"
8 A That's right.
9 Q 796 That has nothing whatever to do with tenant profile, is that right?
15:15:00 10 A No, except it's an incentive obviously to get the tenants in.
11 Q 797 In the first paragraph Mr. Monahan says he "over saw costs in relation to two
12 matters, tax status and tenant profile", he goes on to talk about The Square
13 being included as a designated area in the 1989 Finance Act and I suggest to
14 you that can only relate to tax status.
15:15:27 15 A Sorry, I didn't ...
17 A Sorry, yes.
18 Q 799 He then says "Significant professional fees were incurred in this area,
19 particularly in relation to obtaining the tax status of Tallaght.?"
15:15:40 20 A Yes.
21 Q 800 That sentence, I suggest to you, means Mr. Monahan was saying that fees were
22 incurred in order to ensure the tax designation of Tallaght and that is
23 separate from the appropriate tenant profile?
24 A That's right.
15:15:53 25 Q 801 What fees were spent in obtaining the tax designation in Tallaght?
26 A Well there were, I know we certainly organised local pressure groups to bring
27 pressure to have it designated. We also --
28 Q 802 How much did that cost you?
29 A I don't know. Not a lot but --
15:16:19 30 Q 803 Would it have cost you 2,000?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

114
15:16:21 1 A I know it is somewhere in the documents I saw a reference to, it was organised
2 by a man called Liam McParland who used to work for us.
3 Q 804 5,000?
4 A 5,000, that's described as expenses I think and there was also, I think, we
15:16:37 5 prepared accountants' reports to demonstrate I think the, that the benefits of
6 tax designation and --
7 Q 805 How much did that cost?
8 A I have no idea. I think the main cost of these figures is really the tenant
9 profile, if I can put it that way. That's described there.
15:17:03 10 Q 806 When you talk about the cost of the tenant profile, what are you talking about?
11 A You are talking about payments being paid to anchor tenants to induce them to
12 come into the scheme. It's quite common in the business, unfortunately.
13 Q 807 So how do you differentiate ...
14 A What you actually do is pay a capital contribution and really what you are
15:17:33 15 doing is paying for their fitting out costs.
16 Q 808 You are saying the majority of the payments to which Mr. Monahan refers in this
17 letter relate to that as opposed to tax designation?
18 A Certainly in my opinion.
19 Q 809 Where's the break down between the two?
15:17:49 20 A I don't have any break down for the first one but I certainly know we paid
21 Dunnes Stores something like a million pounds to go into Tallaght and we also
22 paid another company called Pricewise 250,000 to go into Tallaght.
23 Q 810 That's 1.25 million?
24 A Yes.
15:18:04 25 Q 811 Mr. Monahan says that all that is spent under this heading is 850,000 pounds?
26 A That seems like an understatement then.
27 Q 812 Yes. There's no reconciliation, if I understand you correctly Mr. Glennane,
28 and no break down of this sum of 850,000 pounds?
29 A Not that I'm aware of, I am aware of the two figures I am after giving you,
15:18:29 30 which came to 1.25 million.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

115
15:18:31 1 Q 813 But they are certainly greater than the sum of 850,000 pounds?
2 A Yes.
3 Q 814 And insofar as these payments are directly supervised by Mr. Monahan, do you
4 agree that what that means, Mr. Monahan appears to be the one who is in charge
15:18:46 5 of these payments?
6 A He certainly would have carried out the negotiations with --
15:18:50 10 JUDGE FAHERTY: Could I just clarify something, Ms. Dillon, sorry to interrupt
11 you, the reference to 850, this is Mr. Monahan writing to GRE, the joint
12 venture?
13
14 MS. DILLON: Correct.
15:19:01 15
16 JUDGE FAHERTY: Is this letter purporting to look to GRE for their
17 contribution?
18
19 MS. DILLON: Yes, for additional money. This letter seeks the additional
15:19:11 20 money and becomes the subject of correspondence.
21
22 JUDGE FAHERTY: Do I take it then that Mr. Monahan, there's a letter on file
23 that Mr. Monahan is seeking from GRE 850, that would have been 50 percent of
24 the contribution to these significant costs?
15:19:26 25
26 MS. DILLON: I don't, I can't answer that at the moment, it's not clear to me
27 that that in fact is what's being paid.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: Was it a 50/50 venture?
15:19:34 30
www.pcr.ie Day 659

116
15:19:34 1 MS. DILLON: It was 50/50 venture on some but not all of the -- some costs had
2 to be borne completely by GRE.
4 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes, but how does Mr. Glennane know whether or not the sort of
15:19:43 5 costs here being sought by Mr. Monahan would have been in the realm of the
6 50/50 costs. Do you see what I'm saying, Mr. Glennane?
7 A I don't actually know the answer to that.
9 JUDGE FAHERTY: Because there could be two things here
15:20:01 10 A I know what you are saying, the 1.7 million or the 850, that's what you are
11 asking, I really don't know.
12
13 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes, very well, we don't know yet
14 A I don't know, yeah, no.
15:20:10 15
16 MR. SANFEY: Chairman, I wonder could I just voice general concern, this is a
17 letter written to GRE by Mr. Monahan in relation to the square in Tallaght, it
18 seems to me to have peripheral if any relevance at all to Cherrywood and I am
19 wondering could we have some indication where this is going. Obviously
15:20:30 20 Mr. Glennane will have prepared his evidence on the basis he was going to
21 answer questions about Cherrywood rather than The Square.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: Well, it's to presumably assist the Tribunal in understanding the
24 basis on which accounts were maintained in relation to Cherrywood. The
15:20:55 25 Tallaght Town Centre project pre-dated it by, it was in or around the same
26 time, although it was a couple of years ahead of it but to that extent, it
27 might assist the Tribunal in understanding the basis on which items were
28 charged in relation to the Cherrywood operation. That's my understanding
29 unless Ms. Dillon has a ...
15:21:26 30
www.pcr.ie Day 659

117
15:21:26 1 MS. DILLON: It will also assist the Tribunal in looking at the Tallaght
2 Development and also the Cherrywood Development and also seeking to establish
3 the funds that were available to Mr. Monahan for whatever, any activity that
4 Mr. Monahan wished to involve himself in. Because it is important for the
15:21:52 5 Tribunal to understand the culture that existed in Monarch in order to fully
6 understand the nature of the payments that we will be coming on to quite
7 shortly I hope, to deal with, Mr. Glennane, including political payments. In
8 other words one must look at the entire of the transactions that were involved
9 in Monarch and how they dealt with them because one of the key elements in
15:22:17 10 looking at the payments that were made in 1991 and 1992, the political payments
11 were the attempts that were made by Monarch Properties to seek recovery of
12 those payments from their joint venture partner notwithstanding that they were
13 political payments. So all of the relationship between GRE and Monarch is
14 important and I am focusing in on this because this appears to be, and I am
15:22:37 15 subject to correction, Mr. Monahan saying I have spent 850,000 pounds under my
16 direct supervision in order to achieve two things, tax designation in Tallaght
17 and appropriate tenant profile and the response to this from GRE is saying they
18 paid a million pounds outside of the joint venture agreement and again that
19 would be a fund and where it was would be of interest to the Tribunal.
15:23:03 20
21 CHAIRMAN: Also this is July 1992, which is smack in the middle of the
22 Cherrywood. Also the documentation to which the witness is being referred is
23 in the brief so presumably he would have seen it. If he has a particular
24 difficulties about aspects of it, obviously you can say that.
15:23:26 25
26 MR. SANFEY: Chairman, it is in the brief certainly and as you are aware, the
27 brief is extremely large and I am slightly concerned that Mr. Glennane should
28 be, I can see how this is relevant to background, I am just a little bit
29 concerned that the focus be on Cherrywood rather than Tallaght though I accept
15:23:42 30 the totality of the relationship with GRE may be relevant.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

118
15:23:46 1
2 But also Chairman, we are looking at page 7 of a lengthy letter. I wonder if
3 Mr. Glennane would like to see the letter to refresh his memory. It's written
4 on Monarch Properties notepaper. There seems to be some issue about whether
15:24:04 5 Mr. Monarch was talking about funding the expenses himself or Monarch. It
6 seems clear to us that the context of the letter...
8 MS. DILLON: Could I suggest if the witness has a difficulty, Mr. Glennane
9 will be back in the morning, I am prepared to leave this now and let
15:24:17 10 Mr. Glennane overnight look at the correspondence and also the reply from GRE
11 in relation to this and I can pick it up tomorrow morning and move on now
12 without having concluded that matter to allow him, if that's agreeable.
13
14 MR. SANFEY: Very good, chairman.
15:24:30 15
16 CHAIRMAN: Yes.
17
18 MS. DILLON: Thank you, Mr. Glennane, I will come back to deal with that in
19 the morning, if that's all right?
15:24:42 20 A If you wish.
21 Q 815 Now can I ask you just very briefly, were you aware of any proposal to swap a
22 portion of the Cherrywood lands with any golf club?
23 A I was aware there was some discussions with both, I think, Dun Laoghaire and
24 Killiney.
15:24:59 25 Q 816 Who conducted those discussions on behalf of Monarch Properties?
26 A I think Mr. Monahan.
27 Q 817 Did Mr. Monahan deal with all of those himself?
28 A So far as I know, yes.
29 Q 818 You will have seen in the brief and again if you haven't, we can leave it over
15:25:17 30 until tomorrow a letter at 8516 dated 12th August 1993 in which it is referred
www.pcr.ie Day 659

119
15:25:25 1 to and I'm looking at the second last paragraph, all costs of Dun Laoghaire
2 corporation will be the responsibility of the developer and in addition the sum
3 of 500,000 pounds cash would have to be paid to the club on the actual hand
4 over. Were you aware of this correspondence?
15:25:45 5 A I think it says on the top, I think draft letter actually, if I read it
6 correctly.
7 Q 819 Yes?
8 A I don't recall, it seems to be a letter from Noel Smyth to somebody.
9 Q 820 It's only a draft letter but what is being set out is a proposed agreement
15:25:58 10 which never in fact happened?
11 A No, I don't think it was --
12 Q 821 But what I'm drawing to your attention, were you aware of the fact that the
13 proposed agreement provided for a sum of half a million cash to be paid in the
14 event the agreement proceeded?
15:26:10 15 A No, I mean -- no, again I think that reference to 500,000 pounds cash doesn't
16 mean cash, it means a payment.
17 Q 822 And if I could show you 8717, sorry before I leave that, if I could have 8155
18 please. This is a copy letter to Mr. Monahan of the 12th August 1993 relating
19 to the document we have just looked at and in the first sentence he says "I am
15:26:48 20 enclosing a copy letter that I have now sent with your package to an unnamed
21 person who is not part of this" so it would seem certainly the draft letter was
22 sent to Mr. Monahan?
23 A Yes, I think so.
24 Q 823 And were you aware of any of this, Mr. Glennane?
15:27:05 25 A I don't think I was aware of this letter but I was certainly aware, I thought
26 it was a few years later on about discussions with Dun Laoghaire Golf Club. I
27 think it was after we acquired the Galvin land, I don't see how we could have
28 given 150 acres of the existing -- the first lot of land for a golf course. It
29 wouldn't make any sense to me to be honest with you.
15:27:35 30 Q 824 At 8717, which is an extract from Mr. Phillip Monahan's diary which relates to
www.pcr.ie Day 659

120
15:27:41 1 the payment to Mr. Charles Haughey. But what I want to draw to your attention
2 halfway down is a reference P N and it appears either S or D or G Murphy,
3 100,000 pounds cash. And that's on the 6th February 1991.
4 A Yes.
15:28:01 5 Q 825 Now first of all --
6 A I read that as being it was each I must say rather than cash.
7 Q 826 You read that and what significance do you attach to the 100,000 before that
8 word?
9 A Well if it was each it would be some sort of joint venture he was talking to
15:28:20 10 somebody about, each would put up 100,000.
11 Q 827 If we could just increase PM, S Murphy 100,000, that line. I suggest to you
12 that it's cash?
13 A It may be cash.
14 Q 828 Can you assist the Tribunal as to why Mr. Monahan would have been looking for
15:28:47 15 100,000 cash or giving 100,000 cash or dealing in 100,000 pounds cash in any
16 way in February of 1991?
17 A No.
18
19 CHAIRMAN: Do you know who Mr. Murphy is?
15:29:02 20 A I don't think so.
21
22 CHAIRMAN: S Murphy?
23 A S or D Murphy.
24
15:29:08 25 CHAIRMAN: Do you know any?
26 A I know a number of Murphys, quite a common name.
27
28 CHAIRMAN: Somebody with whom Mr. Monahan might have been dealing at the time?
29 A No. It could have been to do with a car, I could only hazard a guess to that.
15:29:30 30
www.pcr.ie Day 659

121
15:29:30 1 MS. DILLON: Did you know Mr. Jack Whelan?
2 A Did I, yes.
3 Q 829 And did you know that Mr. Whelan carried out certain work apparently for and on
4 behalf of Monarch Properties?
6 Q 830 Can you tell the Tribunal first of all what work Mr. Whelan carried out?
7 A He was an ex-managing partner of Murphy Buckley & Keogh, the agents that we had
8 used on the dock shopping centre, when I joined the company first. I think he
9 provided advice to Mr. Monahan and indeed to Monarch, he was involved I suppose
15:30:08 10 for three or four years and he was also involved in Prague and he was, I
11 suppose, a land dealer or one of these people that was seeking out deals.
12 Q 831 Who is the Murphy in Murphy Buckley Keogh?
13 A I think it was a man called Tom Murphy, I think.
14 Q 832 Tom Murphy?
15:30:31 15 A I think that certainly went out of business a long time ago. It's nothing to
16 do with the last Mr.--
17 Q 833 And Mr. Whelan's function or the services he provided was the finding of land,
18 is that right?
19 A Well finding of land and general advice I suppose.
15:30:48 20 Q 834 Who did he give those advices to?
21 A Well to Mr. Monahan, I certainly met him on a number of occasions. He was a
22 good property person, put it that way. He seemed to have known everybody in
23 the property business.
24 Q 835 And did Mr. Monahan not know everybody in the property business?
15:31:11 25 A Well he might or mightn't but sometimes people, Jack Whelan was the sort of man
26 probably would have socialised a lot more with people in the property business
27 than Mr. Monahan did.
28 Q 836 And you will have seen in the brief at 8574, Mr. Glennane, a fee note that was
29 put in by Whelan Land Use Specialists?
15:31:34 30 A Yes.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

122
15:31:34 1 Q 837 Which is dated April 1991 and recorded received April 1992 although it may all
2 have occurred in April 1992 but what I want to draw to your attention is the
3 subject matter of the invoice, which is services in relation to residential
4 consultancy at Cherrywood.
15:31:53 5 A Yes.
6 Q 838 What does that mean?
7 A I presume it means he was trying to charge a fee for giving consultancy advise
8 on the residential land at Cherrywood.
9 Q 839 And where are those advices recorded?
15:32:06 10 A I don't know. I don't have any record of them.
11 Q 840 Did you ever see any such written advices from Mr. Whelan?
12 A They don't have to be written advice to get advice but no.
13 Q 841 Well in 1991 or 1992, there would have to be fairly substantial advices to
14 generate a fee of 150,000 pounds, would you agree with that?
15:32:27 15 A I would, yes.
16 Q 842 And they would want to relate to a very significant portion of land, isn't that
17 right?
18 A Well, it does tend to relate to value, yes.
19 Q 843 And that invoice when it comes in is recorded as being circulated to
15:32:44 20 Mr. Monahan and yourself?
21 A I do.
22 Q 844 It's not being circulated to Mr. Sweeney or to anybody else?
23 A Yes.
24 Q 845 So the two people within the company who are deemed to have an interest in this
15:32:54 25 invoice are Mr. Phillip Monahan and Mr. Dominic Glennane, is that right?
27 Q 846 What do you know about the advices that were given or the services provided by
28 Mr. Whelan in connection with Cherrywood?
29 A Certainly, I know he spent a lot of time out at Somerton with Phil and I am
15:33:14 30 sure he was probably advising him on potential buyers of the land and things
www.pcr.ie Day 659

123
15:33:18 1 like that.
2 Q 847 Did Mr. Whelan deal directly with Mr. Monahan?
3 A Yes.
4 Q 848 And would this have been circulated to you, Mr. Glennane, because you are the
15:33:28 5 financial controller and because it's an invoice?
6 A Presumably, yes.
7 Q 849 And presumably when you received this and you saw the amount of it and you had
8 recovered your breath from the size of it, you went and you spoke to
9 Mr. Monahan about it?
15:33:44 10 A I am sure I did.
11 Q 850 Can you outline to the Tribunal that discussion you had with Mr. Monahan about
12 this invoice and what it was in connection with?
13 A No, I don't remember having a specific conversation about that invoice. But I
14 know that the invoice was never paid.
15:34:02 15 Q 851 That may be, Mr. Glennane, but certainly Mr. Whelan was of the opinion he had
16 done 150,000 pounds worth of work in connection with the residential
17 consultancy at Cherrywood and was moved to put in an invoice for that amount?
18 A So it seems.
19 Q 852 And in the schedule of Cherrywood costs at 3916 which are costs between May
15:34:29 20 1992 and January of 1993 --
21 A Yes.
22 Q 853 -- included in that approximately a third of the way down is Whelan land,
23 150,000, is that right?
24 A That's right.
15:34:39 25 Q 854 So this is a record of invoices that have been received, is that right?
26 A Yes.
27 Q 855 Whose handwriting is that in, that document, do you know?
28 A I think it was a man called Ken Lawless I think he was an accountant at the
29 time.
15:34:52 30 Q 856 Was he an in-house accountant?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

124
15:34:58 1 A Yes he was.
2 Q 857 And this is single biggest expense recorded on this document in connection with
3 Cherrywood, is that right?
4 A Yes.
15:35:06 5 Q 858 So I suggest to you in the overall figure there is 244,539, do you see that,
6 on the total, do you see that?
7 A Yes.
8 Q 859 And therefore the biggest single item on that is Whelan Land Specialists at
9 150,000?
15:35:22 10 A Yes.
11 Q 860 I suggest to you arising from that it must have been at some discussion, this
12 invoice and what had been done to it?
13 A My honest opinion was that the invoice was probably a try on at the time and
14 certainly it wasn't paid, it accrued in the accounts and then written back.
15:35:42 15 Q 861 It was never paid?
16 A No.
17 Q 862 But it was certainly sent by Mr. Whelan, isn't that right?
18 A Absolutely.
19 Q 863 And the person with whom Mr. Whelan dealt was Mr. Monahan?
21 Q 864 Were you able to get any information from Mr. Monahan what Mr. Whelan had been
22 doing in connection with Cherrywood?
23 A No, other than giving general advice.
24 Q 865 To the tune of 150,000 pounds?
15:36:09 25 A I said it wasn't paid so it was a grossly overcharged.
26 Q 866 And at 5040, Mr. Glennane, can I show you a separate amount and this is an
27 internal --5040 -- this is an internal Monarch document which is dealing with a
28 1994 document dealing with balances with GRE and amounts due. Do you see that?
29 A Yes.
15:36:36 30 Q 867 And you will see third from the end Jack Whelan introducing Dwyer Nolan,
www.pcr.ie Day 659

125
15:36:42 1 121,000.
2 A Yes.
3 Q 868 That would suggest a figure of 100,000 plus 21,000 pounds VAT?
4 A Yes.
15:36:49 5 Q 869 That would suggest a separate invoice because the subject matter of this claim
6 is introducing Dwyer Nolan, isn't that right?
7 A That's right.
8 Q 870 Whereas the earlier claim had been for residential consultancy at Cherrywood?
9 A That's right.
15:37:03 10 Q 871 This would appear to be a separate matter and what this document is suggesting,
11 is that that is is being bought from GRE, is that right?
12 A I am not sure if that was ever said to GRE, having read through the brief and
13 documents in the brief, I can't find any record what was sent to GRE. I know
14 the sheet behind it was a smaller figure on it. So I don't think that they
15:37:26 15 were ever sent to GRE but certainly Mr. Whelan had had negotiations with Dwyer
16 Nolan the land and had got an offer from them to buy it.
17 Q 872 What I would suggest was an invoice from Mr. Whelan in the sum of 100,000 plus
18 21,000 for VAT?
19 A Well I don't remember ever seeing an invoice for it.
15:37:52 20 Q 873 Where did the figure of 121,000 come from?
21 A I presume he put in some sort of estimate.
22 Q 874 Who would have put it in at some sort of estimate?
23 A I don't know, whoever prepared this document would know the source.
24 Q 875 Well did it come from you?
15:38:06 25 A No, I don't think so.
26 Q 876 Could it have come from Mr. Sweeney?
27 A Well it could have, yes, or a combination of the accounts department and him.
28 Q 877 Could it have come from Mr. Monahan?
15:38:21 30 Q 878 And in June of 1994, when information was being provided to GRE in relation to
www.pcr.ie Day 659

126
15:38:34 1 future or upcoming costs at 5180, in June of 1994?
2 A Yes.
3 Q 879 You will have seen this in the brief where there's a reference to Mr. Lynn,
4 staff bonus 100,000 similar to J Whelan, which I would suggest is Jack Whelan
15:38:47 5 and what's being predicted here are future costs that will be incurred under
6 the heading zoning costs at Cherrywood, is that right?
7 A Yes.
8 Q 880 So what is being set out here is lobbying and entertaining at 10,000 and then
9 success bonus to certain people and Mr. Lynn's is being equated to Mr. Whelan?
15:39:04 10 A Yes.
11 Q 881 Now what had Mr. Whelan to do with lobbying or zoning in Cherrywood?
12 A I don't know that he had anything to do with it. All them we are dealing with,
13 Dwyer Nolan and all the rest. This is a letter written to GRE and the fact of
14 the matter is we were always trying to claim extra money off GRE and often
15:39:27 15 there was a constant exchange of correspondence between ourselves and GRE on
16 figures.
17 Q 882 And Mr. Whelan was involved in Prague, is that right?
19 Q 883 And he was involved with Mr. Lawlor in connection with Prague, is that right?
15:39:45 20 A He was involved with Ambrose Kelly and whoever else was in Prague, yes.
21 Q 884 And he ultimately instituted proceedings apparently against Monarch Properties
22 for fees due to him?
24 Q 885 And were those proceedings settled?
15:39:58 25 A As far as I know.
26 Q 886 Do you know how much money Mr. Whelan was paid?
27 A I was a feeling it was the order of 10 or 20,000.
28 Q 887 Do you know, Mr. Glennane?
29 A I don't.
15:40:08 30 Q 888 Were you involved in the settlement?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

127
15:40:09 1 A I was, yes.
2 Q 889 And can you tell the Tribunal how much Mr. Whelan got?
3 A To the best of my recollection, it was between 10 and 20,000.
4 Q 890 Would it be fair to describe Mr. Whelan's function as being one that reported
15:40:25 5 directly to Mr. Phillip Monahan?
6 A He certain had a lot of contact with him, yes.
7 Q 891 Who else did he have contact with?
8 A Myself and Mr. Sweeney.
9 Q 892 Just in relation to yourself, what did he have contact with you about?
15:40:38 10 A About various properties.
11 Q 893 What properties would they have been?
12 A I think probably on Cherrywood, all the properties that we had.
13 Q 894 Did he advise on all of --
14 A I remember him negotiating a letting of a shop in Dundalk for us. There was a
15:41:01 15 period of two or three years where he was fairly involved with the company.
16 Q 895 And was it --
17 A And would have known most of the property that we were dealing with.
18 Q 896 And was Mr. Whelan paid other monies?
19 A Yes, for a period he was paid, I think, 300 pounds per week and he was also
15:41:22 20 paid 3,000 in, if you -- if you actually like to look up 3764, you see it
21 there.
22 Q 897 This is Whelan Land Specialists.
23 A You will see ... it is reversed there, having paid him 3,000 we end up with a
24 credit for 147,000.
15:41:50 25 Q 898 That's arising from the invoice for 150,000 plus VAT?
26 A Yes.
27 Q 899 So you paid him 3,000 off that effectively.
28 A No not off that, we paid him 3,000.
29 Q 900 On the documents you credit it off that, is that right?
15:41:57 30 A Off his account, yes. If you look at 4896 it's a Monarch Services Trial
www.pcr.ie Day 659

128
15:42:12 1 Balance, you see half way down there is a credit note -- a credit balance for
2 147,000. 150 minus the three. So the point I am making the 150 was charged
3 in, I think it was 1991 but actually credited back in 1993.
4 Q 901 It was never paid?
15:42:26 5 A Exactly.
6 Q 902 But the point about it is, is that it was charged?
7 A It was attempting to be charged, yes.
8 Q 903 But you refused to pay Mr. Whelan, is that right?
9 A We refused to pay 150.
15:42:39 10 Q 904 You didn't refuse to pay Mr. Lawlor?
11 A It was an awful lot less than 150,000.
12 Q 905 Oh I see, is it the amount?
13 A No, Mr. Whelan provided services, we ended up probably paying him 20 or 30,000.
14 Q 906 Mr. Whelan provided services for which he charged 150,000 pounds out of which
15:42:58 15 you paid 3,000 pounds?
16 A I don't think the 3,000 relates to the 150,000.
17 Q 907 If you look at 3764?
18 A It's on the same account because that was his account.
19 Q 908 There's only one invoice, is that right?
15:43:14 20 A There seems to be two, 1,000 and 2,000.
21 Q 909 Are they invoices?
22 A I am not sure actually.
23 Q 910 I suggest to you they are payments, is that right? They are not invoices?
24 A Yes, sorry.
15:43:34 25 Q 911 So there's only one invoice?
26 A The 150.
27 Q 912 That's right. Off which a sum of 3,000 is paid in two portions, two in one?
28 A Well, I don't think the two in one related to the 150.
29 Q 913 What did they relate to then, Mr. Glennane, if they didn't relate to the 150?
15:43:51 30 A He was certainly providing services and working with us for a period of two or
www.pcr.ie Day 659

129
15:43:55 1 three years. As I said to you, we also paid him a number of payments of, I
2 think, 300 pounds per week at one stage and I mean eventually when I think he
3 stopped doing any work for the company, he then came back and claimed, he
4 claimed a fee relative to the Dwyer Nolan and we refuted it and then we settled
15:44:26 5 it for some small amount.
6 Q 914 Was it the normal practice in Monarch to pay a success fee or a bonus?
7 A It was normal to pay a bonus at Christmas to the staff if we could afford it,
8 yes.
9 Q 915 If we look at the bonus at 5180 that's being discussed or being indicated in
15:44:44 10 1994, this is what GRE are being told by Monarch, these are the staff or
11 success bonuses that might have to be paid or these are the zoning costs that
12 will be incurred, is that right?
14 Q 916 And the figure for Mr. Lynn is 100,000 pounds, Mr. Reilly and Mr. Lafferty and
15:45:02 15 then others and we have already seen in relation to the 1.8 million, there's a
16 disbursement among let's say the top echelon in Monarch, isn't that right?
17 A Well, I wouldn't say the top echelon.
18 Q 917 Who is higher than yourself, Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Monahan?
19 A No there wasn't, no I think there people higher than Tom, God rest him, and Ann
15:45:22 20 Gosling.
21 Q 918 Were there also a purchase of a house for Mr. Lynn?
22 A There was a purchase of I think a house by Cherrywood Properties Limited but it
23 was actually purchased originally by Richard Lynn and for some reason
24 Mr. Monahan didn't want him to own the house or whatever so I think the company
15:45:42 25 purchased it and I think either rented it to him or certainly he lived in it.
26 Q 919 Mmm. At 2753 please.
27 A Sorry, just to go back to the GRE, I think I think it's quite clear from GRE's
28 letter they refuted those items.
29 Q 920 And that, I suggest to you, that's not the point at all?
15:46:06 30 A It is the point. 8764, you will see there that it's refuted by them, they say
www.pcr.ie Day 659

130
15:46:14 1 it's an internal matter for Monarch.
2 Q 921 And we will be coming to deal with all of those in detail, Mr. Glennane, but
3 the important point about it is Monarch were prepared to say that's what zoning
4 would cost?
15:46:37 5 A We were prepared to make a claim for GRE for that sort of money.
6 Q 922 Yes because I think you said a little while ago to the Tribunal members that
7 GRE often made claims -- that Monarch often made claims to GRE?
9 Q 923 That were in excess of what they really wanted to get?
11 Q 924 And was that the habitual practice in Monarch?
12 A It's the position with GRE, they were an institution, they always wanted to
13 know, preferably a year in advance what their commitments were going to be and
14 naturally when you are trying to provide commitments to somebody, you tend to
15:47:09 15 overstate it rather than understate it. That document 5180 is dated the 20th
16 June 1994 which is I think after the, after all of the zoning votes as I recall
17 it.
18 Q 925 I don't think that's precisely accurate but we will be looking at that
19 tomorrow. If we look at Mr. Lynn's house and what, in fact, was said in your
15:47:33 20 disclosure letter to Century Holdings Limited, this is the Cherrywood
21 Properties Limited disclosure letter at 2753 and in looking at the specific
22 disclosures, it's recorded that the assets of the company include a property
23 provided for in the balance sheet, 13 Millstead, Blanchardstown, "It was bought
24 personally by Richard Lynn and acquired from him by the company. The subject
15:47:56 25 is subject to loan and charge payable to the ICC involving monthly repayments
26 of capital and interest by standing order from the company's bank account.
27 Richard Lynn resides in the property and claims equitable ownership on the
28 property on the basis of an alleged agreement with P Monaghan. His property is
29 taken subject to such residence and claim of entitlement by Mr. Lynn if any in
15:48:16 30 respect of and all the furniture is of the property of Mr. Lynn." Do you see
www.pcr.ie Day 659

131
15:48:20 1 that?
2 A Yes.
3 Q 926 That suggests there was an arrangement made between Mr. Monahan and Mr. Lynn in
4 the first instance, is that right?
15:48:27 5 A I think the arrangement was made about moving into that house, yes.
6 Q 927 If this is an accurate disclosure, what appears to have occurred is the
7 property was bought by Mr. Lynn and subsequently purchased by Cherrywood
8 Properties?
15:48:42 10 Q 928 And then Mr. Lynn was allowed to reside the property report, the repayments
11 were made to the ICC by Cherrywood Properties, is that right?
12 A That's right.
13 Q 929 And Mr. Lynn apparently claimed equitable ownership on the company on the basis
14 of an agreement with Mr. Monahan?
15:48:59 15 A That's what it records.
16 Q 930 That would suggest Mr. Lynn had made a separate arrangement with Mr. Monahan?
17 A I don't think it was any arrangement, what it means that there was a dispute
18 between him and Mr. Monahan about the property.
19 Q 931 Are you saying Mr. Monahan's position was he had never agreed that Mr. Lynn
15:49:17 20 would continue to have an interest in the property?
21 A Yes, that's what it reads to me, would be my understanding of it, yes. It was
22 a matter of some friction, I think, between Mr. Lynn and Mr. Monahan.
23 Q 932 And what ultimately happened?
24 A Well, I understand Mr. Lynn bought the property after some time, some time
15:49:41 25 after this.
26 Q 933 Was Mr. Lynn paid a success fee in connection with the zoning of Cherrywood?
27 A No. Not that I am aware of, no.
28 Q 934 He was not paid a success fee?
29 A Not that I can recall, no.
15:49:58 30 Q 935 At 7813 please. This is a letter of February 1994 and you will remember,
www.pcr.ie Day 659

132
15:50:09 1 Mr. Glennane, that the critical zoning was the 11th November 1993?
2 A Yes.
3 Q 936 And Mr. Martin Baker is talking about the bonus arrangement for Mr. Lynn and he
4 says "As you know, we agreed we should pay a bonus of 15,000 to Richard as and
15:50:26 5 when he achieved a successful rezoning on the above land. I understand from
6 Anthony Caplin that while we paid the relevant invoice for our 50 percent of
7 this figure, to date Richard Lynn has only received 3,000 pounds. As we paid
8 our 7,500 pounds on the 23rd December last, I should be grateful for your
9 comments on why this bonus has not been paid." Would that suggest that there
15:50:46 10 was an agreement about a bonus payment to Mr. Lynn?
11 A It would appear to suggest that, yes.
12 Q 937 And it would appear from a document that is dated the 1st September 1993 at
13 4347 that GRE agreed, it's noted in handwriting at the bottom of that document,
14 "R Lynn, 15,000" and the total of that amount comes to 70,500 pounds and by
15:51:16 15 letter of the 28th September 1993 at 4392, GRE confirm at paragraph 4 under the
16 heading Monarch Project Management Fee "As per your appendix A attached to your
17 letter of the 22nd September but with the addition of a success fee for R Lynn
18 of 15,000 pounds, this will now give a total of 70,500" and it's noted as
19 billed and paid." And that 70,500 was apparently paid so that would suggest
15:51:47 20 it was agreed that Mr. Lynn would receive a 15,000 pounds success fee, half of
21 which was to be funded by GRE and which, in fact, their half was paid in
22 December 1993, is that right?
23 A That's right.
24 Q 938 So were you aware of that arrangement, Mr. Glennane?
15:52:02 25 A I am sure I was. I am sure I would have seen copies of all this correspondence
26 but I don't think there's any commitment on our part to pay half of it, to pay
27 7,500 but obviously we convinced GRE to pay 7,500.
28 Q 939 Would that not have been on the basis that GRE might have been under the
29 misapprehension you were going to pay the other 7,500?
15:52:32 30 A Yes, that's correct.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

133
15:52:33 1 Q 940 But you weren't going to pay the other 7,500.
2 A I certainly don't think we did anyway.
3 Q 941 And would that have been standard practice in Monarch?
4 A What would be standard practice?
15:52:42 5 Q 942 That kind of carry on, where you tell GRE that the fee is 15,000, and Mr Lynn
6 is going to get 15,000, they pay 7,500 and you keep the other 7,500 for
7 Monarch?
8 A We would have sorted it out with Mr. Lynn amicably.
9 Q 943 How did you sort this out with Mr. Lynn?
15:52:58 10 A My recollection is at the time Mr. Lynn was spending a lot of time studying law
11 and was missing from the office for long periods. I felt we had covered our
12 share, if you like, by paying his fees in Blackhall Place and continuing to pay
13 his salary while he was out of the office.
14 Q 944 Did you agree that with Mr. Lynn?
15:53:23 15 A I think so, yes.
16 Q 945 And did you make that agreement with Mr. Lynn?
17 A I think so, yes, probably, when you say make that agreement, he accepted it, I
18 think. I'm not necessarily saying he was happy about it but he accepted it.
19 Q 946 When you came to make a claim against GRE in connection with Mr. Dunlop's fees,
15:53:42 20 did the same apply?
21 A In what sense?
22 Q 947 That you had paid out money to Mr. Dunlop in advance of putting in any invoices
23 to GRE and then when you got paid by GRE, you kept the money?
24 A If we paid it out, yes, we kept the money, of course, yes.
15:53:56 25 Q 948 Would you have seen, for example, any difficulty with creating an invoice with
26 Mr. Dunlop, let's say for a success fee, for the sole purpose of recovering
27 money from GRE even though you weren't going to pay a success fee to
28 Mr. Dunlop?
29 A My understanding was Mr. Dunlop was paid a success fee.
15:54:19 30 Q 949 Leaving that aside for a moment. That wasn't what I asked you.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

134
15:54:20 1 A I don't think we would have artificially generated an invoice from somebody if
2 that's what you are suggesting.
3 Q 950 You would never have artificially generated an invoice?
15:54:31 5 Q 951 When you say you wouldn't have artificially have generated an invoice, are you
6 saying you wouldn't have prepared an invoice purporting to come from a third
7 party?
8 A Certainly not.
9 Q 952 But you would have had no difficulty in creating a Monarch invoice which would
15:54:44 10 have included, for example, 15,000 pounds success fee to Richard Lynn, being
11 paid half of that and either keeping it or not paying the other half to
12 Mr. Lynn?
13 A Well --
15:54:57 15 A Well I think we'd certainly have paid the half to him that we got from GRE.
16 Q 954 According to the letter from GRE you hadn't, if I am understanding the letter
17 correctly?
18 A In February 1994.
19 Q 955 Yes, in 7813, the letter in February. They said they had paid 7,500 on the
15:55:16 20 23rd December 1993 and their information was that by February 1994, he had only
21 got 3,000?
22 A That's what they are saying, yes.
23 Q 956 So would that not suggest to you even though Monarch had been paid the 50
24 percent due to Mr. Lynn in December of 1993, they had only paid Mr. Lynn 3,000
15:55:32 25 pounds?
26 A That's what it's saying, yes.
27 Q 957 Would that mean that Monarch would have kept the other 4,500 pounds?
28 A Certainly until February, yes.
29 Q 958 And after that February, did you pay Mr. Lynn?
15:55:44 30 A I don't know.
www.pcr.ie Day 659

135
15:55:45 1 Q 959 Who was the person in Monarch who was responsible for policing the invoices?
2 A What do you mean policing the invoices?
3 Q 960 Well, making sure that all the invoices were in order and everything was ready
4 and could be forwarded on to GRE?
15:56:02 5 A It was a combination of the accounts department and Mr. Lynn and Mr. Sweeney.
6 Q 961 And would it be fair to that insofar as third party costs were concerned, GRE
7 would not pay unless they got an invoice with back-up documentation?
8 A That's right.
9 Q 962 And when it came say, for example, to political donations or matters such as
15:56:29 10 that sort, GRE, if there wasn't an invoice or back-up documentation, were
11 likely to balk or refuse to pay?
12 A I would think yes.
13 Q 963 And would it have been well known within Monarch that in order to receive
14 payments from GRE, it was necessary that back-up documentation, including
15:56:39 15 invoices, be available?
16 A If possible, yes.
17 Q 964 When was the first time that you met Mr. Dunlop?
18 A I think I remember meeting him with Mr. Monahan in Noel Smyth's office some
19 years ago in connection with Blanchardstown actually.
15:57:00 20 Q 965 And what were you meeting Mr. Dunlop about Blanchardstown for?
21 A Well Mr. Monahan was very keen to get involved in Blanchardstown with Green
22 Property Company and Mr. Dunlop I think knew or was friends with John Corcoran
23 who was the MD of Green Properties and I think we had a meeting with him and he
24 said that he would speak to John Corcoran and see could we get together with
15:57:31 25 him.
26 Q 966 And did that happen?
27 A No, I don't think so, no. I think there was bad feeling, certainly on John
28 Corcoran's part, I think, towards Mr. Monahan so ...
29 Q 967 And was Mr. Dunlop brought in to try and ease the passage between Mr. Corcoran
15:57:53 30 and Mr. Monahan?
www.pcr.ie Day 659

136
15:57:54 1 A If I remember rightly the meeting was arranged by Noel Smyth on the basis that
2 Mr. Dunlop knew, I think he lived beside Mr. Corcoran.
3 Q 968 Was it Mr. Monahan who brought Mr. Dunlop into the equation?
4 A Which equation, sorry?
15:58:10 5 Q 969 Into that meeting?
6 A No, I think it was Noel Smyth.
7 Q 970 It was Noel Smyth?
8 A I think so, the meeting took place at his office.
9 Q 971 According to your diary it look place at his office but I'm asking who brought
15:58:22 10 Mr. Dunlop to the meeting?
11 A I remember myself and Mr. Monahan meeting him, just the three of us, the
12 meeting was, I think, arranged by Noel Smyth.
13 Q 972 And when Mr. Dunlop was retained by Monarch Properties and when the Tribunal
14 first wrote to Monarch Properties asking the Monarch Properties to provide all
15:58:43 15 the information in connection with Mr. Dunlop's retention and how much money
16 had been paid, what figure did Monarch come up with, can you remember?
17 A I think 52 and a half thousand.
18 Q 973 Can you indicate from what source Monarch Property obtained their information
19 that the amount that it paid to Mr. Dunlop was 52,500 pounds?
15:59:04 20 A I think they went through all the cheques payments sheets and tried to make a
21 list of them. And apparently missed three payments, as I understand it.
22 Q 974 Who actually carried out the exercise, can you remember?
23 A I certainly did part of it with one of my assistants.
24 Q 975 And what payments did you miss?
15:59:24 25 A We missed I think the first two, the 15 and 10. And some other one after that.
26 Q 976 Did you also miss the 10,000 pounds that ultimately Mr. Lawlor received?
27 A I am not sure which one I missed now, I will have it here in a second for you.
28 Q 977 Take your time.
29 A I don't seem to have it, sorry. But I, we were 52, I think maybe seven and a
16:00:21 30 half we missed, if I remember correctly. There were two payments of 7 and a
www.pcr.ie Day 659

137
16:00:28 1 half.
2 Q 978 And you missed one of those?
4 Q 979 I propose to start to take you through the payments to Mr. Dunlop, I don't know
16:00:35 5 whether --
7 CHAIRMAN: Well it might be a good time to break now this evening.
9 MS. DILLON: I don't mind.
16:00:40 10
11 CHAIRMAN: We will break until half ten tomorrow.
12
13 MS. DILLON: Yes.
14
16 WEDNESDAY, 28TH JUNE 2006 AT 10.30 A.M.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
www.pcr.ie Day 659

1
2 28TH JUNE, 2006, AT 10:30 A.M.:
10:36:11 5
8 MS. DILLON: Good morning, Sir. Mr. Glennane, please.
10:36:18 10 CONTINUATION OF QUESTIONING OF MR. DOMINIC GLENNANE AS FOLLOWS:
11
12
13
14 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Mr. Glennane.
10:36:38 15 A. Good morning, Chairman.
16
17 MS. DILLON: Good morning, Mr. Glennane
18 A. Good morning.
19 Q. 1 I propose to start by taking you through the invoices and the payments to Mr.
10:36:47 20 Dunlop?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 2 If I could have 4051, please and what I propose to do, just so that you're
23 clear about it, I propose first of all to deal separately with the payments by
24 Monarch to Mr. Dunlop?
10:37:01 25 A. Right.
26 Q. 3 And then I propose to deal with Monarch's attempts to seek recovery of those
27 payments from GRE?
28 A. Okay, yeah. That's fine.
29 Q. 4 Fine. So if we look first of all at 4051.?
10:37:12 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
2
10:37:13 1 Q. 5 And this is a remittance advice dated the 11th of March 1993. Seeking or
2 enclosing a cheque in the sum of 15,000 pounds for Mr. Frank Dunlop?
4 Q. 6 Now, do you accept that there's no invoice in relation to that?
10:37:28 5 A. Yes, I do, yeah, at that stage, yes.
6 Q. 7 Yes. And do you say then that there is a later invoice that covers this?
7 A. Well not specifically that amount but there are later invoices.
8 Q. 8 And you are aware that the Tribunal has been told that any payments would have
9 been supported by invoice or other documentation?
10:37:47 10 A. I think I said actually most payments.
11 Q. 9 Okay. But not all payments?
12 A. Not all payments, no.
13 Q. 10 Right.?
14 A. Sorry, they were supported afterwards but at the time if you didn't have an
10:38:00 15 invoice and you wanted to pay somebody you'd pay them but the accounts
16 department would then look for the invoice afterwards.
17 Q. 11 And can you identify please for the Tribunal the invoice that was sought
18 afterwards in connection with this payment of 15,000 pounds on the 11th of
19 March 1993?
10:38:14 20 A. I don't think there was one sought for that particular amount. There is a
21 reference later on to Pat Caslin who was our financial controller not looking
22 for invoices.
23 Q. 12 Yes. But there is there is no correspondence passing between Monarch
24 Properties and Mr. Dunlop seeking invoices in connection with this payment,
26 A. That's right.
27 Q. 13 I think that the reference to which you make, and we'll come on to it, refers
28 to Mr. Caslin seeking back up invoices to support a claim to GRE?
29 A. No, I think at some stage there is a reference to, they are saying that there
10:38:45 30 was a balance on his account of 42,000 or something.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
3
10:38:48 1 Q. 14 Yes?
2 A. And we needed invoices.
3 Q. 15 Yes. And I think that that was in connection with an invoice that had been
4 furnished to GRE?
10:38:59 5 A. I'm not sure actually.
6 Q. 16 Yes. At 4390. We'll just be clear about it, Mr. Glennane. I think the
7 matter to which you refer is contained there beside the reference No. 2068
8 Frank Dunlop on page 4390. Do you see that?
9 A. Yes, yes.
10:39:16 10 Q. 17 And you will note what's being discussed there is invoice 2068?
11 A. That's right.
12 Q. 18 And invoice 2068 was a claim by Monarch Properties against GRE in respect of a
13 payment against Mr. Dunlop?
14 A. Yes.
10:39:28 15 Q. 19 In fact what's being discussed there is looking for backup for an invoice that
16 had been provided to GRE?
17 A. That's right.
18 Q. 20 In connection with Mr. Dunlop's payments, isn't that right?
10:39:38 20 Q. 21 And what this document notes is that as of the 27th of September 1993 that
21 there was only one invoice for 12,100 pounds although payments of 42,500 had
22 been made?
10:39:53 25 A. That's right.
26 Q. 23 So that when you suggested earlier on that that documentation which is
27 presently on screen at page 4390 might have had something to do with 4091 I
28 suggest that you are probably mistaken?
29 A. I presume that payment is included in the 42,500.
10:40:09 30 Q. 24 Yes. But what steps were taken to seek the invoices?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
4
10:40:12 1 A. Well that's, that appears to be the first step other than the one for 12,100.
2 Q. 25 Are you aware of any other step that was taken to seek an invoice in connection
3 with the --
4 A. Not up to then, no.
10:40:24 5 Q. 26 At 4051, please, which is the first payment to Mr. Dunlop, you accept that was
6 a payment that was made without invoice?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 27 And without any supporting documentation?
9 A. I don't know but there may be some sort of memo with it, I don't know.
10:40:37 10 Q. 28 Are you aware of the existence of any such document?
11 A. I'm not, no, but obviously somebody requested that a cheque be drawn.
12 Q. 29 Yes. Were you privy to the agreement between Monarch and Mr. Dunlop?
13 A. Not at that stage, no.
14 Q. 30 Who entered into the agreement between Monarch and Mr. Dunlop?
10:40:58 15 A. I think Mr. Sweeney probably.
16 Q. 31 Right. Did you subsequently have communication with Mr. Dunlop yourself?
17 A. I had some communication.
18 Q. 32 Right. And I think that took place later?
19 A. In '95 I think yes, yeah.
10:41:11 20 Q. 33 Were you aware of the fact that prior to the introduction of Mr. Dunlop that
21 another PR firm, in fact two other PR firms, had been retained by Monarch
22 Properties.
23 A. Yes, yes.
24 Q. 34 And that Mr. Bill O'Herlihy had been retained up to May of 1992?
26 Q. 35 And he traded as, I think, Public Relations of Ireland, isn't that right?
27 A. PRI.
28 Q. 36 And I think independently of that you also retained Pembroke PR Limited?
29 A. Yes, they were our general PR company.
10:41:42 30 Q. 37 Yes. I wanted to ask you about that. Throughout Mr. Dunlop's tenure with

www.pcr.ie Day 660
5
10:41:47 1 Monarch you continued to retain Pembroke PR Limited, isn't that right?
2 A. Monarch did, yes.
3 Q. 38 Yes, Monarch did. Can you explain to the Tribunal the necessity for two
4 public relations firms?
10:41:59 5 A. Well I think Pembroke PR were, had been our PR company for a few years before
6 that but it wasn't unusual to bring in a second firm or an advertising agency.
7 Q. 39 Uh-huh?
8 A. We have done that in openings like The Square and Nutgrove and other things
9 like that.
10:42:17 10 Q. 40 And you would bring in somebody with specialist experience?
11 A. Specialist knowledge.
12 Q. 41 What specialist experience or specialist knowledge did Mr. Dunlop have?
13 A. Well I assumed that he had in -- in relation to Cherrywood. I mean, I didn't
14 bring him in so I can't say what was his thought at the time. I assume it was
10:42:37 15 thought he had some, he had some contribution to make to this general, to the
16 Cherrywood.
17 Q. 42 The problem that existed since May of 1992 in connection with Cherrywood was
18 the zoning, isn't that right? And the density on the residential density isn't
19 that right?
10:42:54 20 A. Yes, well I don't know, yeah, yes.
21 Q. 43 Mr. Dunlop was brought in to assist in rectifying what Monarch perceived to be
22 a problem?
23 A. Well I'm not sure. You're saying it was a problem.
24 Q. 44 You're not saying it was?
10:43:07 25 A. An unsatisfactory conclusion.
26 Q. 45 You approved payments of 85,000 to Mr. Dunlop, isn't that right?
27 A. I approved?
28 Q. 46 Yeah?
29 A. I don't know.
10:43:15 30 Q. 47 Well you signed the cheques?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
6
10:43:16 1 A. Well I did, I authorised them, yes.
2 Q. 48 Okay. You are the chief financial controller of the company?
3 A. Yes.
10:43:24 5 A. Yes, I am.
6 Q. 50 And you have a responsibility to the shareholders including yourself and to the
7 auditors, isn't that right?
8 A. Well I don't have responsibility to the auditors but yes I have responsibility
9 for the company.
10:43:36 10 Q. 51 And I presume in that position, you would know why somebody was being retained
11 and somebody was being paid such significant amounts of money?
12 A. Well I would know that they were doing some work in a general sort of a way.
13 There was a lot of consultants employed in various projects over the years.
14 Q. 52 Uh-huh?
10:43:55 15 A. You wouldn't necessarily know exactly what they were all doing.
16 Q. 53 You would have known that you had a public relations firm and as you have
17 already told the Tribunal Mr. Dunlop would have been brought in because of some
18 added value or added expertise that he was bringing to the situation?
19 A. The same with Mr. O'Herlihy, yes.
10:44:13 20 Q. 54 Would you like to outline to the Tribunal what was the belief in Monarch that
21 Mr. Dunlop could bring? What special expertise did Mr. Dunlop have?
22 A. Well I presume he had -- he knew his way around the political system, if that's
23 the right way to put it. That's the only -- I don't remember a decision being
24 taken by any group of people to employ him. My recollection is that I was
10:44:34 25 actually -- I think Mr. Monahan arranged for him to meet Eddie Sweeney. And I
26 presume it was felt he could make some contribution.
27 Q. 55 And do you know who recommended to Mr. Monahan that Mr. Dunlop should be
28 retained?
29 A. I don't, no.
10:44:52 30 Q. 56 Do you know whether the Late Mr. Liam Lawlor had any input into recommending

www.pcr.ie Day 660
7
10:44:56 1 that Mr. Dunlop's services be retained?
2 A. I don't know that, no.
3 Q. 57 What special expertise could Mr. Dunlop have brought to increasing the density
4 or assisting in the rezoning of the Monarch Lands at Cherrywood?
10:45:07 5 A. Well I assume he would have -- he would have known other councillors and had
6 some, would have known the best way to put forward the case. That's what any
7 PR firm is doing.
8 Q. 58 And what was the other PR firm doing that you had retained?
9 A. Well they were just general. They weren't doing anything probably in
10:45:32 10 Cherrywood. They were a general PR retainer, which you have all of the time.
11 Q. 59 Yes?
12 A. If you wanted something put into the papers you rang them. Or if there was
13 adverse stories about you you rang them or they were actually a buffer between
14 journalists and ourselves. If journalists -- instead of ringing you they'd
10:45:46 15 ring the PR firm.
16 Q. 60 So may the Tribunal take it then Monarch in deciding to retain Mr. Dunlop were
17 satisfied in the first instance that their then existing public relations
18 company didn't have the special expertise needed to assist them in the rezoning
19 and density changes in the Cherrywood Lands?
10:46:03 20 A. Yeah, I think would with think so, yes.
21 Q. 61 And equally, Monarch were satisfied either through Mr. Monahan or Mr. Sweeney
22 that Mr. Frank Dunlop did have that expertise?
23 A. Yeah, obviously, yes. Yes, he had some expertise relevant.
24 Q. 62 If we could have page 4133. Sorry. Sorry. Could I have 4062, please.
10:46:32 25
26 This is the second payment Mr. Glennane, that was made to Mr. Dunlop. In the
27 sum of 10,000 pounds on the 12th of March 1993.
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 63 And you agree that there's no invoice in connection with that payment?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
8
10:46:46 1 Q. 64 Right so there are two payments totalling 25,000 pounds that are paid to Mr.
2 Dunlop without any invoice?
3 A. Well I'm not sure of that invoice that flashed up there a minute ago.
4 Q. 65 I'm coming to that next. It's not an invoice in connection with either of
10:46:59 5 these payments?
6 A. Okay. Well if you say so, yeah.
7 Q. 66 It's not if I say so. Are you aware from the documentation that Monarch has
8 supplied to the Tribunal whether there in fact exists an invoice --
9 A. No, I'm not, no.
10:47:11 10 Q. 67 That would mean that that's the second payment that was made to Mr. Dunlop
11 without the benefit of an invoice?
13 Q. 68 There is -- so that by the 12th of March '93 Mr. Dunlop has been paid 25,000
14 pounds?
10:47:25 15 A. That's right, yes, yeah.
16 Q. 69 And know the 10th of April 1993 there is an invoice from Mr. Dunlop. At 4133.
17 Now, this invoice is not in fact paid, isn't that the position?
18 A. Well it seems to say on it that it's paid the 1st of June but ...
19 Q. 70 The 1st of June 1993. There's no payment, isn't that right?
10:47:51 20 A. Yes, yeah.
21 Q. 71 Mr. Glennane?
22 A. Yeah.
23 Q. 72 To Mr. Dunlop dated the 1st of June 1993 that's been provided to the Tribunal,
26 Q. 73 And this is a document you will see, and I'll come to deal with it again
27 later, but it is a document that is certified by Mr. Pat Caslin?
28 A. Yeah.
29 Q. 74 To GRE as being a true copy of the original?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
9
10:48:15 1 Q. 75 And it's stamped paid 1st of June 1993. And it's sent to GRE in support of a
2 claim for payment of Mr. Dunlop's invoices isn't that right?
3 A. So I believe, yeah.
4 Q. 76 But there is in fact no evidence that the invoice was in fact paid by Monarch
10:48:30 5 Properties, isn't that right?
6 A. Well not in that specific sum.
7 Q. 77 There is no evidence that a payment of 12,100 pounds was paid by Monarch
8 Properties Limited to Mr. Dunlop. Isn't that the position?
9 A. Yeah, in that specific sum, yes.
10:48:46 10 Q. 78 Yes. And I'll come back to deal with that when I come to deal with the GRE
11 matter. The third payment that was made to Mr. Dunlop was on foot of an
12 invoice dated 19th of May 1993 apparently. 4204. Now, this is an invoice in
13 the sum of 15,000 pounds.
14 A. Yes.
10:49:11 15 Q. 79 And I draw to your attention that the invoice is marked paid with thanks for
16 VAT purposes only. Do you see that?
17 A. Yeah, I do, yes.
18 Q. 80 Is that the invoice that would issue after receipt of payment?
19 A. Well it looks like it says paid with thanks, presumably it had been paid.
10:49:32 20 Q. 81 So this is a retrospective invoice, if I can put it like that, Mr. Glennane?
21 A. Yes. It says somebody's written on it paid 19th of May.
22 Q. 82 Yes?
23 A. And 17th of September.
24 Q. 83 And we'll come to those payments in a moment. That's a note made by Mr.
10:49:50 25 Dunlop on the document. What I'm drawing your attention to are the words
26 "paid with thanks for VAT purposes only?"
27 A. Yeah.
28 Q. 84 And I'm suggesting to you that this was an invoice that was raised after the
29 payments had been made?
10:50:02 30 A. That's right, yeah. Well that was normal procedure. Normally people would

www.pcr.ie Day 660
10
10:50:14 1 say this is not a VAT invoice it's a request for payment. They tried to avoid
2 issuing that VAT invoice until after they are paid.
3 Q. 85 And would you agree that Monarch that Monarch had not discovered any other
4 invoice in connection this payment other than the invoice at page 4204?
10:50:24 5 A. Yes, as far as I know, yes.
6 Q. 86 If that is correct, it follows does it not, Mr. Glennane , that this is a third
7 payment that's made to Mr. Dunlop without the benefit of any invoice?
8 A. Sorry, which payment are you talking about?
9 Q. 87 The one that's on screen. At 4204. The one for 15,000 pounds?
10:50:42 10 A. I don't know if that relates to the first payment of the 15,000 in March.
11 Q. 88 Are you suggesting that this invoice dated the 19th of May 1993 relates to a
12 payment made by Monarch Properties in March of 1993?
13 A. It could have presumably, yes.
14 Q. 89 Well I suggest to you that you are completely incorrect because you will see at
10:51:06 15 page 4277 a cheque in the sum of 7,500 pounds on the 1st of the 7th '93. Do
16 you see that?
17 A. I do, yes.
18 Q. 90 And do you see also a second remittance slip at 4366? Dated the 17th of the
19 9th '93 in the sum of 7,500 pounds?
21 Q. 91 And do you see behind that at 4367. A cheque for 7,500 pounds to Mr. Dunlop
22 signed by yourself?
23 A. Yes, I do, yeah.
24 Q. 92 And bearing in mind both of those dates. If you go back to the invoice at
10:51:49 25 4204. And I draw to your attention Mr. Dunlop's note at the top paid "19th of
26 the 5th, 17th of the 9th" do you see that?
27 A. I do, yes.
28 Q. 93 And what apparently is the position and what I understand you through your
29 solicitors have agreed. Is that this invoice -- or sorry, this sum of 15,000
10:52:13 30 pounds was paid in two payments, each of 7,500 pounds?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
11
10:52:19 1 A. Yeah.
3 A. Well I don't understand then why it would say on the 19th of May 'paid with
4 thanks' if it hadn't been paid.
10:52:27 5 Q. 95 The logical explanation for it is that the invoice did not issue on the 19th of
6 May, '93, Mr. Glennane, as you well know. It's an invoice issued only after
7 Mr. Dunlop had been paid the 15,000 pounds?
8 A. Oh, I see.
9 Q. 96 Isn't that the logical answer?
10:52:44 10 A. It's an answer, yes.
11 Q. 97 Well what is --
12 A. A logical answer, yes.
13 Q. 98 Would you like to suggest any other answer Mr. Glennane?
14 A. No, no. But I'd -- go on anyway, yeah.
10:52:55 15 Q. 99 That then would be the third payment to Mr. Dunlop without the benefit of any
16 invoice, isn't that the position?
17 A. Sorry, which payment are you talking about?
18 Q. 100 The one of 15,000 pounds that's paid by way of two cheques of 7,500 pounds
19 each?
10:53:09 20 A. There was one paid on the 26th of May for 10,000 pounds as well.
21 Q. 101 We're going to come to that?
22 A. That's before July.
23 Q. 102 This invoice, Mr. Glennane, as you well know, is dated the 19th of May 1993.?
24 A. Yes.
10:53:23 25 Q. 103 And the payments that are made in connection with that invoice are the payment
26 of the 1st of the 7th '93. At 4277.
27
28 And the payment of the 17th of the 9th '93 at 4366.
29
10:53:48 30 Do you see that?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
12
10:53:49 1 A. Yes, I do, yeah. Yes.
2 Q. 104 And they are the two payments that are made that deal with the invoice that is
3 dated the 19th of May 1993. Isn't that right?
4 A. Well I -- it's only right because you're telling me so. I don't know if it's
10:54:04 5 right or not or according to Mr. Dunlop's annotation that's what we paid.
6 Q. 105 Can I -- on the 14th of September 1993. At 4364, Mr. Glennane. You have an
7 entry in your diary for Mr. Dunlop. Do you see that?
8 A. Sorry, ...
9 Q. 106 Do you see the 14th of September 1993 E S re Cherrywood Dunlop?
11 Q. 107 Now, did you have a meeting with Mr. Dunlop on the 14th of September 1993?
12 A. I don't recall if I had or not. It doesn't sound like I had. It sounds more
13 like I had a meeting with Mr. Sweeney about Mr. Dunlop.
14 Q. 108 And isn't it likely and I suggest to you that that meeting might have been
10:55:04 15 about Mr. Dunlop's fees?
16 A. It might have been, yes.
17 Q. 109 Because on the 17th of September 1993, at 4366., a cheque is requisitioned in
18 the sum of 17, 500 pounds, isn't that right?
19 A. Yes.
10:55:22 20 Q. 110 That cheque at 4367 is signed by you?
22 Q. 111 And that cheque is attributed by Mr. Dunlop and Mr. Dunlop's auditors as being
23 half the payment in connection with the 15,000 pounds on the invoice of the
24 19th of May 1993?
10:55:41 25 A. Right, yes. Well that's, yeah, that's up to him to do that, yes.
26 Q. 112 Yes. Now, according to your solicitors, if I could have page 8581.
27
28 Just so that there is no ambiguity about this, Mr. Glennane. At 8581. And
29 you will remember that yesterday we looked initially at the payments that
10:56:03 30 Monarch admitted to making to Mr. Dunlop. And the amount that Monarch

www.pcr.ie Day 660
13
10:56:07 1 admitted to making was 52,500 pounds, isn't that right?
3 Q. 113 You will recollect that when this Module opened it was indicated from the
4 Tribunal's enquiries that the Tribunal believed the documentation showed that
10:56:19 5 Mr. Dunlop had been paid at least 85,000 pounds, isn't that right?
7 Q. 114 And this letter of the, at 8581, of the 30th of May 2006 states as follows.
8 We refer to previous correspondence and in particular our client's previous
9 indications with respect to payments made to Mr. Frank Dunlop. It appears
10:56:39 10 from a further perusal of the information it has now received from the Tribunal
11 that it should correct the total amount it believes was paid to Mr. Dunlop as
12 it would appear that same amounts to 85,000 pounds broken down as per the
13 attached sheet and our client would be grateful if you would bring this matter
14 to the attention of the Tribunal and hope that this clarifies this particular
10:56:57 15 matter?
16 A. That's right.
17 Q. 115 And at 8582.
18
19 A schedule is provided to the Tribunal.
21 Q. 116 Including two payments of the 1st of the 7th '93, 7,500 and the 17th of the 9th
22 '93, 7,500 pounds?
24 Q. 117 Right. Now, and that amount comes to 85,000 pounds?
26 Q. 118 Is it the position then that when the first inquiry was made or when you were
27 preparing the information for the Tribunal that the documentation you looked at
28 showed only 52,500 pounds?
29 A. Yeah, yes, yeah, obviously, yes, yeah.
10:57:37 30 Q. 119 Yes. But you would now accept that the full amount of the payments is 85,000

www.pcr.ie Day 660
14
10:57:41 1 pounds?
2 A. Yes, that's right. I prepared this document that's on the screen.
3 Q. 120 Yes. And you prepared the earlier document of 52,500 pounds?
4 A. Well, I certainly assisted in it, yes, but, yeah.
10:57:52 5 Q. 121 So how did you get it so terribly wrong, Mr. Glennane?
6 A. Well obviously the cheques payments sheet that had the 15 and the 10 on it
7 wasn't looked at or wasn't seen or wasn't available. Two of the payments were
8 on the one sheet. And it appears that one of the 7,500's got missed.
9 Q. 122 So the first payment that you missed were the two payments for which there's no
10:58:17 10 invoices?
11 A. That's right, yeah, yeah.
12 Q. 123 Totalling 25,000 pounds?
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. 124 And then you missed one of the payments of 7,500 pounds, isn't that right?
16 Q. 125 And what is your explanation to the Tribunal for that?
17 A. Well, the list at the time was prepared from the cheques payments sheets but
18 myself and another colleague, we went through all of the cheque payments sheets
19 that we could find listing all of the payments. Not just to Mr. Dunlop but
10:58:44 20 all of the -- any other sort of relevant payments that we were being asked
21 about.
22 Q. 126 Uh-huh?
23 A. And obviously that sheet was missed. Certainly, there was no intention to
24 under state what Mr. Dunlop was paid or anything like that.
10:59:03 25 Q. 127 And there was no intention, is that what you are saying?
27 Q. 128 Not to disclose the fact that there were no invoices or records --
28 A. There were invoices eventually. If you look through his account you will see
29 invoices.
10:59:15 30 Q. 129 You didn't listen to the question Mr. Glennane?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
15
10:59:17 1 A. I did, yes.
2 Q. 130 Was it an attempt to hide the fact that the first two payments to Mr. Dunlop
3 were not supported by invoices?
4 A. No, it certainly was not no.
10:59:27 5 Q. 131 So far the payments to Mr. Dunlop by September 1993 amount to 40,000 pounds,
6 isn't that right?
7 A. I think actually 50.
8 Q. 132 I think of the three payments we've looked at so far. The first payment was
9 15,000. The second payment was ten?
10:59:45 10 A. Yeah, well you're excluding the one on the 26th of May for some reason.
11 Q. 133 No, I'm coming to deal with that payment next?
12 A. All right.
13 Q. 134 I'm just saying insofar as we've dealt with these payments now?
14 A. Okay, 40,000.
10:59:58 15 Q. 135 It's 40,000. The next apparent payment to Mr. Dunlop is on the 26th of May
16 1993. At 4219. Isn't that right?
18 Q. 136 And at 4221. This cheque is again signed by you, Mr. Glennane, isn't that
19 right?
21 Q. 137 In the sum of 10,000 pounds?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 138 And this is the payment to Mr. Dunlop, apparently, that ends up in the hands of
24 Mr. Liam Lawlor?
11:00:31 25 A. Yes, so it appears, yes.
26 Q. 139 And we looked at the documentation surrounding that yesterday. And I think
27 subject to any correction that you appeared to accept that by virtue of what is
28 set out in the statement of Mr. and Mrs. Murphy. That the proceeds of this
29 cheque went to the benefit of Mr. Lawlor?
11:00:50 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
16
11:00:51 1 Q. 140 But you're not in a position to understand or give any explanation as to how
2 that might have occurred?
3 A. It certainly wasn't given to Mr. Lawlor by Monarch. I'm absolutely 100
4 percent sure of that.
11:01:04 5 Q. 141 Well do you know whether the late Mr. Monahan might have given it to
6 Mr. Lawlor?
7 A. I don't believe he did.
8 Q. 142 Did you ever discuss this with Mr. Monahan?
9 A. Sorry, discuss what?
11:01:13 10 Q. 143 This cheque?
11 A. No, I didn't, no.
12 Q. 144 This payment?
13 A. No, I didn't.
14 Q. 145 So how do you know whether Mr. Monahan might or might not have given it to
11:01:22 15 Mr. Lawlor?
16 A. There is absolutely no reason in the world why he would have. If you wanted
17 to give a cheque for 10,000 to Mr. Lawlor he'd have just given it out and given
18 it to him.
19 Q. 146 He didn't do that in the context of the Comex cheque.
11:01:36 20 A. That's presumably because Mr. Lawlor would have asked for it.
21 Q. 147 What do you presume that Mr. Lawlor would have asked for the Comex cheque.
22 What evidence have you that Mr. Lawlor would have asked for the Comex cheque?
23 A. Well I don't think anybody else other than him knew about Comex, from what
24 you're talking about so.
11:01:52 25 Q. 148 Certainly somebody in Monarch knew about Comex, I thought we agreed that
26 yesterday?
27 A. Sorry, they knew about it from Mr. Lawlor presumably.
28 Q. 149 Yes. But that person wasn't you?
29 A. No, no.
11:02:03 30 Q. 150 So that person was somebody else. And I think you told the Tribunal it was

www.pcr.ie Day 660
17
11:02:06 1 either Mr. Monahan or Mr. Sweeney?
2 A. Yeah, I would think so, yes.
3 Q. 151 And if Mr. Sweeney were to deny it was him that leaves Mr. Monahan?
4 A. It would seem so, yes.
11:02:17 5 Q. 152 And here again can I ask, other than your personal opinion of what the late
6 Mr. Monahan might or might not have done, can you offer the Tribunal any reason
7 as to why this cheque might have been made out to Mr. Dunlop but might have
8 been given to Mr. Lawlor?
9 A. Can I offer any?
11:02:33 10 Q. 153 Yeah?
11 A. Why or why not sorry?
12 Q. 154 Other than why it is your view that Mr. Monahan wouldn't have given this
13 cheque?
14 A. I believe if he would have asked anybody or he would know that if you gave a
11:02:44 15 crossed cheque to somebody that it has to end up in that person's account.
16 Certainly that was my view then and now.
17 Q. 155 Do you see the signature at the bottom of the --. Sorry. 4219, please.
18 The signature at the bottom of the remittance advice?
19 A. I do, yeah. The initial, yes.
11:03:03 20 Q. 156 Do you know whose initial that is?
21 A. I think it might be somebody, somebody in the account's department, I'm not
22 sure now. It's not mine anyway but it's whoever made out the remittance
23 advice.
24 Q. 157 So by this stage, according to the --
11:03:19 25 A. Normal. It would have been the same signature as on the ones before that.
26 Q. 158 So at this stage by the 26th of May 1993. The total amount paid to Mr. Dunlop
27 is 50,000 pounds, is that right?
28 A. Sorry, by what stage?
29 Q. 159 By with when this payment was made?
11:03:35 30 A. This is the third payment that was paid before the two seven and a halves.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
18
11:03:40 1 Q. 160 The two seven and a halves are paid apparently on foot of an invoice that
2 purports to be dated 19th of May 1993?
3 A. But they were paid in July and September.
4 Q. 161 Very good. By September 1993 Mr. Dunlop had been paid 50,000 pounds?
6 Q. 162 And there is one invoice?
7 A. Um, yes.
8 Q. 163 That is paid, isn't that right?
9 A. Yes.
11:04:00 10 Q. 164 The invoice dated the 19th of May 1993, isn't that right?
11 A. Yes, yes.
12 Q. 165 Would -- from your knowledge of the way that Monarch conducted its business,
13 would you regard it as unusual that so much money would have been paid out in
14 the name of Mr. Dunlop without supporting invoices?
11:04:23 15 A. Well if the payment was requested by somebody, it would always be the aim to
16 have invoices. Because when -- whatever you were doing a creditor's
17 reconciliation, what would have ended up then would have been apparently an
18 overpayment. So it wasn't unusual. When a creditor's reconciliation was
19 being done it would show that there was -- that there were invoices missing or
11:04:54 20 short or short and that they would always be looked for.
21 Q. 166 Yes?
22 A. It's all shown on his account in the creditor's ledger if you want to look at
23 that.
24 Q. 167 Yes, we'll come to the creditor's ledger in a moment. Whether it was unusual
11:05:07 25 to pay out to make payments of this order and this size without the benefit of
26 a supporting invoice?
27 A. It was -- it was slightly unusual but not completely unusual.
28 Q. 168 And I think there's an invoice dated the 2nd --
29 A. We had a habit of making round sum payments to, say, professional people which
11:05:30 30 meant that it made it more difficult really to reconcile then afterwards. We

www.pcr.ie Day 660
19
11:05:35 1 did the same with our solicitors, we did the same with architects and people
2 like that.
3 Q. 169 And in making these round sum payments, was it intended that there would
4 ultimately be a balancing or a reconciliation?
11:05:48 5 A. That's exactly it, yes.
6 Q. 170 And the endeavour for which Mr. Dunlop was hired was the Cherrywood Lands,
7 isn't that right?
8 A. Yes, as far as I know, yes.
9 Q. 171 And you would have known, as would have everybody in the accounting department
11:06:00 10 of Monarch, that in order to claim back 50% of the fees paid to Mr. Dunlop
11 you'd have to have invoices for GRE?
13 Q. 172 Because I think you agreed yesterday that GRE would not pay third party
14 invoices unless they were supported?
11:06:16 15 A. Third party costs unless they were supported by invoices.
18 Q. 174 And the next invoice is dated the 2nd of November 1993. At 4633. Now, this
19 invoice, Mr. Glennane, is 15,000 pounds. And there's no element of VAT, isn't
11:06:38 20 that right?
22 Q. 175 Why would that be?
23 A. I don't know you'd have to -- it seems to say it refers to the provision of
24 media communications training. I presume that that training is VAT exempt, I
11:06:51 25 don't know.
26 Q. 176 What media and communications training did Mr. Dunlop provide to Mr. Monarch?
27 A. I don't know, I'm not aware of any that he did.
28 Q. 177 And isn't that the point?
29 A. Yeah well, well, the point is that the onus is on the person raising an invoice
11:07:08 30 to charge VAT or not.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
20
11:07:09 1 Q. 178 And there's no onus on the person receiving the invoice who has previously
2 received VAT inclusive invoices to conduct any query where its VAT exempt?
3 A. Well not if the person making it has listed there something which is apparently
4 regarded as VAT exempt.
11:07:30 5 Q. 179 Because in the recent correspondence from your solicitors they have described
6 this sum as VAT inclusive?
7 A. That's wrong obviously, yes.
8 Q. 180 That's wrong?
9 A. Yeah.
11:07:39 10 Q. 181 That's the invoice now that you prepared at 8582. You told the Tribunal a few
11 moments ago that you prepared this schedule?
12 A. The schedule, yes.
13 Q. 182 And you note at the top "all amounts are VAT inclusive?"
14 A. Well they are VAT inclusive, yes.
11:07:54 15 Q. 183 And include in that is a sum of 15,000 pounds on the 2nd of November 1993.
16 And if I could have on screen 4633 beside 8582.?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 184 Now, Mr. Glennane, which is it? VAT inclusive or VAT exempt?
19 A. Sorry. It includes -- it included VAT but the VAT was nil.
11:08:24 20 Q. 185 Oh, I see. I see?
21 A. I don't see any contradiction.
22 Q. 186 So where do you indicate on your schedule to the Tribunal that the payment of
23 the 2nd of November 1993 is zero rated for VAT?
24 A. Well, we haven't indicated anything about the VAT other than that they were VAT
11:08:45 25 inclusive.
26 Q. 187 I see?
27 A. That that was the total payments made.
28 Q. 188 Included VAT?
29 A. Yeah, yeah, included VAT, yeah, where appropriate, yeah.
11:08:55 30 Q. 189 Sorry where appropriate?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
21
11:08:57 1 A. Well obviously if his invoice is nil then it includes nil VAT.
2 Q. 190 It's not nil. It's exempt.
3 A. Yes, well it's the same thing as far as I'm concerned.
4 Q. 191 Was this invoice ever accrued in the books as a creditor?
11:09:17 5 A. Yes, it was posted to the books, yes.
6 Q. 192 No, no, I didn't ask you that. I asked you was it accrued in the books as a
7 creditor. I don't know.
9 Q. 193 Right. Why not?
11:09:30 10 A. Well because you would only accrue a creditor at the end of the year. And if
11 this is November '93 whatever, the year would have been May '93 to 30th of
12 April '94. So it's, it falls within the year.
13 Q. 194 Are you saying that this was accrued in the books of -- was accrued as a
14 creditor?
11:09:55 15 A. No, I'm saying it wasn't accrued as a creditor as far as I know.
16 Q. 195 Were the others accrued as creditors, the other payments?
17 A. Of the 30th of April? I don't know.
18 Q. 196 Was this treated as a Cherrywood cost?
19 A. This 15,000?
11:10:13 20 Q. 197 Yes?
21 A. Yes, as far as I know, yes.
22 Q. 198 Yeah. And you don't know what Mr. Dunlop did for this particular money?
23 A. No, well no other than whatever else he was doing for all of the money.
24 Q. 199 Right?
11:10:28 25 A. But nothing specifically different.
26 Q. 200 You signed the cheque at 4634. So by this stage the cheque, I just want to
27 point out to you is dated the same date as the invoice?
29 Q. 201 And the -- by this stage Mr. Dunlop has been paid 65,000 pounds?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
22
11:10:55 1 Q. 202 And I'd suggest to you, Mr. Glennane, that what's happening here is this is a
2 payment effectively of 15,000 pounds cashed to Mr. Dunlop?
3 A. The cheque, at that stage.
4 Q. 203 It's a cheque that's going to be written up in the books of Monarch. What in
11:11:27 5 fact is happening by virtue of the invoice that is produced is you know when
6 you receive this invoice it's a straight payment of 15,000 pounds that there's
7 no VAT element, isn't that right?
8 A. Yes, so it seems, yes.
9 Q. 204 Let's just look at the two invoices to see if we can distinguish any difference
11:11:44 10 between the earlier payment, at 4204, please. And can we have 4633.
11 Together, please. 4633 and 4204. This is the same service provider to
12 Monarch; isn't that right?
13 A. Um, the one on the left actually has no name on it. Assuming it's Frank
14 Dunlop's.
11:12:19 15 Q. 205 Well do you want to actually go through with page 4204 whether that relates to
16 Mr. Dunlop or not Mr. Glennane?
17 A. Well it actually was never posted to our accounts.
18 Q. 206 The?
19 A. The one on the left.
11:12:33 20 Q. 207 Which page No, 4204?
21 A. Yes, 4204, yes.
22 Q. 208 Was never posted to your accounts?
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. 209 But looking at that invoice and looking at the second invoice, which is dated
11:12:45 25 the 2nd of November 1993. They are both invoices from Mr. Frank Dunlop; is
26 that right?
27 A. Well so it seems. Looking at it now, I'd have to question if we ever got that
28 invoice on the left, the document.
29 Q. 210 The one page 4204?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
23
11:13:02 1 Q. 211 You don't know whether you ever got that?
2 A. I don't know, no. It certainly doesn't appear in any records. It hasn't
3 been signed by anybody. You see the one on the right is signed yes,
4 Mr. Sweeney.
11:13:14 5 Q. 212 Yes. That's a copy from build Dunlop. The page at 4204 is provided to the
6 Tribunal by Mr. Dunlop?
7 A. Yes, that's what I said. I have my doubts if we ever got that document.
8 Q. 213 Right. Well so --
9 A. I have no record of it.
11:13:29 10 Q. 214 But you did get a document, I think, just look at the earlier invoice. Of
11 4133. So if we have 4133 and we have 4633 together.?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 215 Now, this is an invoice that you accept was -- the invoice at 4133. You
14 accept was not in fact paid?
11:14:04 15 A. Sorry? 4133.
17 A. Well it was posted to our account.
18 Q. 217 No, no, do you understand the word "paid" Mr. Glennane?
19 A. I do. I understand when you pay things and then you get invoices you are
11:14:17 20 automatically paying, you are getting invoiced for payments you've already made
21 if that's the case. There was no cheque ever drawn for 12,100 to Frank Dunlop
22 & Associates.
23 Q. 218 Now, what I want to draw to your attention here are Monarch retained Frank
24 Dunlop isn't that right to carry out a job in connection with Cherrywood?
26 Q. 219 Okay. You have two invoices that are received by Monarch from Mr. Dunlop.
27 The first is an agreed fee re public affairs strategy and its implementations,
28 10,000 plus VAT 12,100?
29 A. Yes.
11:14:52 30 Q. 220 You have a second invoice for the provision of media and communications

www.pcr.ie Day 660
24
11:14:56 1 training of 15,000 pounds that's VAT exempt?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 221 Now, is it normal practice that the one supplier would be invoicing you on some
4 occasions inclusive of VAT and on other occasions VAT exempt?
11:15:08 5 A. I presume it could be, yes, if they were carrying out different activities.
6 Q. 222 Well would you give me an example of another supplier of services to Monarch
7 who on some occasions claimed VAT and on other occasions did not claim VAT for
8 the same services.
9 A. I can't think of any offhand but.
11:15:25 10
11 JUDGE FAHERTY: Mr. Glennane can I just ask you. On that point you said
12 earlier that it could be training that Mr. Dunlop was affording Monarch. That
13 invoice is dated the 2nd of November 1993.
14 A. Yes.
11:15:36 15
16 JUDGE FAHERTY: Which is nine days short of the confirmation vote?
17 A. Yes.
18
19 JUDGE FAHERTY: If that were the case would it not be more likely that the
11:15:45 20 April invoice had, had Mr. Dunlop been retained for training, surely the
21 training was coming, if that were the case, very late in the day. The
22 confirmation vote --
23 A. Yes. Well if it had been for training. Presuming it is.
24
11:16:03 25 JUDGE FAHERTY: Assuming.
26 A. With Retrospect there would have been work training carried out or whatever but
27 I don't think there was that.
28
29 JUDGE FAHERTY: Mr. Dunlop I don't think has ever suggested that he ever
11:16:13 30 carried out any training

www.pcr.ie Day 660
25
11:16:13 1 A. I'm not aware of any training that he did.
3 JUDGE FAHERTY: So that really doesn't seem to have been the case. To your
4 knowledge?
11:16:19 5 A. No.
7 JUDGE FAHERTY: You don't recall
8 A. No, I don't recall. But the point I'm trying to make is that the onus is on
9 the person issuing an invoice to charge VAT or not to charge VAT.
11:16:31 10
11 MS. DILLON: The effect of the payment on the 2nd of November 1993 in the
12 hands of Mr. Dunlop was to give him 15,000 pounds for which there was no VAT
13 liability. And therefore, in his hands could effectively be treated as cash,
14 isn't that right
11:16:48 15 A. I don't know why you say it could be treated as cash. It is the same as any
16 other receipt.
17 Q. 223 Uh-huh?
18 A. I mean, I don't know how you'd treat a cheque for 15,000 as cash. But I
19 didn't.
11:17:00 20 Q. 224 You cash it, Mr. Glennane, and you don't put it through your books?
21 A. Well ...
22 Q. 225 That's how you do it?
23 A. Okay. Thanks for telling me.
24 Q. 226 Right?
11:17:08 25 A. But I'm in the aware of that. That's ...
26 Q. 227 We'll come to look at the Monarch cash payments in a few moments and that might
27 assist you. For the moment just looking at the two mechanisms of payment that
28 are dealt with by Monarch in relation to Mr. Dunlop. On the 2nd of November
29 1993 for whatever reason Monarch are complicit in issuing a cheque to Mr.
11:17:28 30 Dunlop for 15,000 pounds which has zero VAT element in it. Isn't that the

www.pcr.ie Day 660
26
11:17:34 1 position?
2 A. They issued a cheque. I wouldn't use the word complicit.
3 Q. 228 You I issued the cheque, Mr. Glennane?
4 A. Yeah, well I signed it anyway, yes.
11:17:41 5 Q. 229 Well you're happy that you signed it?
6 A. Yeah, I think I did -- I don't know if I saw the cheque or not.
7 Q. 230 There's the cheque. 4634.?
8 A. Yeah well ... yes, that's certainly my signature, yes.
9 Q. 231 And you give a cheque to Mr. Dunlop in the sum of 15,000 pounds where you have
11:18:02 10 previously paid him VAT. And on this cheque you're not paying him any VAT,
11 isn't that the position?
12 A. So it seems, yes, yeah.
13 Q. 232 Notwithstanding that Mr. Dunlop is doing the same job for Monarch. Isn't that
14 right? He's only hired do one thing?
11:18:16 15 A. Well he's hired to do general PR work, which covers a multitude.
16 Q. 233 Yes. And what Mr. Dunlop is facing into is a vote in Dublin County Council on
17 the 11th of November 1993. Isn't that right?
18 A. Well if you say so.
19 Q. 234 No, no, now, Mr. Glennane?
11:18:32 20 A. Well I believe that now, yes.
21 Q. 235 Isn't the 11th of November 1993 the critical date for the zoning in density
22 changes on Monarch?
23 A. It was one of the dates apparently, yes.
24 Q. 236 And the previous May 1992, the density on the Monarch lands had been reduced to
11:18:50 25 one house per acre?
26 A. That's right.
29 Q. 238 And in November 1993 the job facing Monarch and its PR man, Mr. Dunlop, was to
11:19:01 30 change that position in Dublin County Council, isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
27
11:19:05 1 A. Um, that's right, yes.
2 Q. 239 And that was Mr. Dunlop's job?
3 A. Well it was part of his job, yes, yeah.
4 Q. 240 What was the rest of his job?
11:19:13 5 A. Well it was to create the circumstances I suppose where people would look
6 favourably on it and in general highlight the good points and that.
7 Q. 241 To who?
8 A. I presume to councillors and that.
9 Q. 242 Right?
11:19:25 10 A. And I don't know who else, yes.
11 Q. 243 Who else was going to make a decision?
12 A. Advisors to councillors or whoever else.
13 Q. 244 Who else? Who were the people, Mr. Glennane, who were going to make a decision
14 about the Cherrywood lands on the 11th of November 1993?
11:19:40 15 A. I assume the councillors.
16 Q. 245 Right. And on the 2nd of November 1993 Monarch wrote a cheque with no VAT
17 element to Mr. Dunlop in the sum of 15,000 pounds, isn't that right?
18 A. Yeah, well on the basis that it was VAT exempt apparently, yes. I don't know
19 which came first on the day, the cheque or the invoice.
11:20:01 20 Q. 246 But what is clear is that the invoice --
21 A. What's clear is that Monarch paid 15,000 to Mr. Dunlop on the 2nd of November.
22 Q. 247 On the 2nd of November 1993?
23 A. Put it through its books in the normal way. So if the inference that you're
24 drawing is that Monarch gave 15,000 in some under hand method to Mr. Dunlop to
11:20:21 25 distribute to councillors, it's totally untrue.
26 Q. 248 You say that was not a payment of 15,000 pounds to Mr. Dunlop for the purpose
27 of making payments to councillors or to anybody else?
29 Q. 249 And can you afford any explanation to the Tribunal as to why Monarch would have
11:20:38 30 had no difficulty with Mr. Dunlop providing invoices, some of which are VAT

www.pcr.ie Day 660
28
11:20:43 1 inclusive. And this one, at page 4633, which is VAT rated at zero?
2 A. Yeah, yes, yeah. As I said to you, the onus is on the party raising the
3 invoice to charge VAT or not.
4 Q. 250 Do you accept that the effect of making the cheque out on foot of such an
11:21:02 5 invoice could have been to give Mr. Dunlop 15,000 pounds in cash, if he had
6 cashed the cheque?
7 A. Well it could have been.
8 Q. 251 Uh-huh?
9 A. But the same thing could have happened to any other cheque. Apparently he did
11:21:15 10 cash or somebody cashed the one for 10,000 so.
11 Q. 252 If the cheques were inclusive of VAT that would create an obligation on the
12 recipient to account for the VAT, isn't that right?
13 A. Well I assume. There's an obligation to account for all of your invoices,
14 that include VAT are or not.
11:21:30 15 Q. 253 And there is an obligation to account for all payments out that are being
16 attributed as an expense, isn't that right?
18 Q. 254 So that for each payment or deduction or debit that's attributed to cash, one
19 would expect to find back up, is that right?
11:21:48 20 A. In the normal course, yeah.
21 Q. 255 In the normal course. Insofar as this payment is concerned, the reality of
22 the matter is on the 2nd of November 1993 a cheque with no VAT element was made
23 out by Monarch to Mr. Dunlop?
24 A. Yes, so it seems, yes.
11:22:02 25 Q. 256 And you say that had no connection as far as you believe in the upcoming
26 meeting of Dublin County Council on the 11th of November 1993?
27 A. Certainly it had no connection in terms of giving him money to give anybody.
28 Q. 257 Was there any other --
29 A. He may well have used it as a good time to look for a cheque.
11:22:20 30 Q. 258 A cheque with no VAT?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
29
11:22:22 1 A. No, with or without VAT.
2 Q. 259 Was there any other invoice that Mr. Dunlop provided to Monarch that was VAT
3 exempt?
4 A. Not as far as I know, no.
11:22:32 5 Q. 260 Do you think any, attach any significance to the fact that the only zero rated
6 invoice of Mr. Dunlop's is the one dated the 2nd of November 1993?
7 A. Well unless there was some significance in Mr. Dunlop's mind. But certainly
8 there was no significance from Monarch's.
9 Q. 261 When you say there was no significance in Monarch's. Do you mean there was no
11:22:52 10 significance in your mind or are you speaking on behalf of Mr. Sweeney, Mr.
11 Lynn and the late Mr. Monahan?
12 A. Well, I don't think Mr. Lynn or Mr. Monahan might have known anything about it.
13 Mr. Sweeney okayed the invoice. I don't think he'd have been concerned
14 whether it included VAT or not. In the normal course you'd expect if there
11:23:10 15 was VAT it would be 18,000 or something, it would be 15 plus VAT.
16 Q. 262 Now, in December of 1993 a number of invoices were raised by Mr. Dunlop; isn't
17 that right?
19 Q. 263 And we'll go through them briefly. Because they relate, I suggest to you,
11:23:28 20 primarily to seeking to recoup money from GRE?
21 A. Well obviously we at that stage were A, keen to recoup the money from GRE and
22 B, keen to sort out his account.
23 Q. 264 Sort out Mr. Dunlop's account?
24 A. Yes.
11:23:42 25 Q. 265 If we just look at the invoices in any event. If we could have 4768 and 4722
26 together, please. Now, these invoices are both dated the 6th of September --
27 December 1993. That's after the successful vote on the 11th of November. I
28 just want to draw to your attention. They are all VAT inclusive isn't that
29 right, they include VAT?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
30
11:24:21 1 Q. 266 And yet they are both for different amounts?
2 A. That's right, they both have the same number for some reason or other.
3 Q. 267 They have both the same invoice number?
11:24:26 5 Q. 268 But they are for different amounts?
7 Q. 269 We'll come back to look at those in more detail when they come to look at the
8 ...
9 A. It suggests to me the one on the right was superseded by the one on the left or
11:24:39 10 ...
11 Q. 270 And there was also a success fee invoice of the 14th of December 1993. 4839.
12
14 Q. 271 And I'll come back to deal with that in a minute.
11:24:55 15
16 On the 21st of December 1993. You have an entry in your diary. At 4875, for
17 Mr. Dunlop.
18 A. That's right.
19 Q. 272 What was that about?
11:25:05 20 A. Well I know from the records we gave him a cheque for 15,000 that day. So it
21 may have been to give him the cheque.
22 Q. 273 Do you remember I asked you yesterday whether that tick beside somebody's name
23 at the bottom of your diary meant that you had issued or paid a cheque to
24 somebody and you said no?
11:25:23 25 A. No, it meant that it was on my mind. I might not have met him, sorry. I was
26 looking at the wrong part of the diary. What it meant was that he was in my
27 mind so it may have been that I was, I had been requested to get a cheque for
28 him.
29 Q. 274 And it would appear that on the 21st of December --
11:25:39 30 A. That's not a meeting, no.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
31
11:25:41 1 Q. 275 Of December. At 4865 a payment of 15,000 pounds on account was made to Mr.
2 Dunlop?
11:25:50 5 A. Yeah.
6 Q. 277 Bringing the total at this stage to 80, 000 pounds that has been paid to Mr.
7 Dunlop?
9 Q. 278 Now, there isn't an invoice for that 15,000 pounds, isn't that right?
11:26:01 10 A. Not a specific invoice, no.
11 Q. 279 There had been the earlier December invoices?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 280 Which hadn't been paid and this is described on the remittance advice as a
14 payment on account?
16 Q. 281 And at 4868. It appears that you signed the cheque?
19 A. Yeah.
11:26:18 20 Q. 283 So that would suggest that when you made the entry in your diary of the 21st of
21 December 1993 it was probably in connection with making a cheque out or getting
22 a payment to Mr. Dunlop of 15,000 pounds?
24 Q. 284 Right. Do you know whether that 15,000 pounds was zero rated for VAT or VAT
11:26:37 25 inclusive or what the situation with it was?
26 A. Well it was just a payment on account.
27 Q. 285 It was just a payment on account?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 286 And the balancing exercise that was carried out in connection with that payment
11:26:48 30 happened in May of '94, isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
32
2 Q. 287 And at 8729. There is a fax to you?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 288 Mr. Glennane, from a Mr. Philip Connolly from Frank Dunlop's office looking
11:27:07 5 forward to an early payment and enclosing, at 8730. A copy of one of the 6th
6 of December 1993 invoices?
8 Q. 289 And that invoice totals 22,296?
11:27:22 10 Q. 290 And it acknowledges at the side that 15,000 pounds has been paid.
12 Q. 291 And that 15,000 pounds I suggest was your payment in December of 1993?
13 A. Yes, that's right, I would think so, yeah.
14 Q. 292 And that left a balance, according to Mr. Dunlop's records of 7,296.94
11:27:38 15 outstanding?
17 Q. 293 And I think on -- that wasn't paid at that time, is that right?
18 A. That's right, no.
19 Q. 294 I think that was subsequently paid --
11:27:52 20 A. I think it was only actually 5,000 of it was paid sometime in '95.
21 Q. 295 In August of '95?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 296 It would appear in January of 1995 that you again have entries in your diary
24 for Mr. Dunlop; isn't that right?
11:28:06 25 A. I don't know. If you show it to me I ...
26 Q. 297 5539?
27 A. Yes, his name is in it, yeah.
28 Q. 298 And you see immediately beneath that the name O'Shea, Walsh, Rory O' Connor and
29 then FD, I think?
11:28:23 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
33
11:28:24 1 Q. 299 Is that Mr. Dunlop?
2 A. No, it's not, no. O'Shea Walsh, I'm not sure what they were actually.
3 Q. 300 And why would Mr.--
4 A. Builders. They were builders.
11:28:33 5 Q. 301 Right. And why would Mr. Dunlop be in your diary in January 1999?
6 A. I presume he might have rung looking for his cheque or something. There was
7 obviously something in my mind. I suspect to do with the cheque but I don't
8 know.
9 Q. 302 In Mr. Noel Murray's diary for 27th of January 1995 at 5540.?
11:28:57 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 303 There is an entry Frank Dunlop (DG) I presume the DG is yourself?
12 A. Yeah, I assume that, yes.
13 Q. 304 And did you meet Mr. Dunlop?
14 A. I don't recall.
11:29:09 15 Q. 305 Because Mr. Dunlop has in his diary for the same date, 27th of January 1995 at
16 7929, has an entry, Dominic, Monarch?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 306 Now, that would suggest, Mr. Glennane, that you are the Dominic?
11:29:26 20 Q. 307 According to Mr. Murray's diary. He's meeting Mr. Frank Dunlop and he
21 includes you in the meeting?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 308 And according to Mr. Dunlop's diary he's having a meeting at Monarch with
24 Dominic?
11:29:38 25 A. So it would suggest, yes.
26 Q. 309 So it would suggest very strongly on 27th of January 1995 you met with Mr.
27 Dunlop?
28 A. Yes, it appears so, yes.
11:29:48 30 A. I would assume he was still looking for his cheque for the balance of his

www.pcr.ie Day 660
34
11:29:53 1 account.
2 Q. 311 Do you know?
3 A. No, I don't know, no.
4 Q. 312 Right?
11:29:57 5 A. I don't remember having any other meeting with him. I don't remember that
6 meeting. But I don't remember, any other reason why I would have been meeting
7 him.
8 Q. 313 And on the 30th of January. At 5542. Mr. Noel Murray has an entry in his
9 diary DG phone Frank Dunlop?
11:30:15 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 314 Do you know what that was about?
12 A. No. I think analysing it now looking at it all, I would, I would believe that
13 I probably passed the meeting on to Noel Murray. Sort of passing the book, as
14 it were. And he may have met him and he probably arranged with him that I
11:30:38 15 would ring him about his cheque. But that's pure, that's not supposition but
16 it's, it's the most likely explanation of it, of those entries.
17 Q. 315 And on the 23rd of March 1995 at 5563. Your diary apparently records a
18 meeting with Mr. Dunlop at Monarch. Do you see that?
19 A. Yes.
11:30:58 20 Q. 316 Ten o'clock, Frank Dunlop at Monarch. And Mr. Murray's diary at 5564, has an
21 entry for ten o'clock, Frank Dunlop see Norma DG which I assume is yourself
22 Dominic Glennane; isn't that right?
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. 317 And Mr. Dunlop's diary. At 5562. Records Dominic Glennane, Monarch?
11:31:20 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 318 So now that's another meeting in 1995 between yourself and Mr. Dunlop that's
27 recorded in three separate diaries; isn't that right?
11:31:30 30 A. I'd imagine again it was about his accounts but I ....

www.pcr.ie Day 660
35
11:31:34 1 Q. 320 Do you know?
2 A. I don't, no. I can't think of any other reason for it.
3 Q. 321 Yes?
4 A. And again reading it, it would appear to me as if Noel Murray met him and that
11:31:47 5 I didn't meet him but ...
6 Q. 322 Oh, sorry. How are you deducing from those documents, Mr. Glennane, that you
7 didn't meet Mr. Dunlop?
8 A. Obviously Mr. Dunlop expected to meet me.
9 Q. 323 And you expected to meet him because you've recorded him in your diary; isn't
11:32:00 10 that right?
11 A. Yes. If you turn back to ...
12 Q. 324 At 5563?
13 A. If you turn back to the entry in Noel Murray's ...
14 Q. 325 Let's deal with the diary entry in your diary?
11:32:08 15 A. There was a meeting arranged by somebody.
16 Q. 326 That was for Frank Dunlop in Monarch?
17 A. Yeah.
18 Q. 327 And you have Mr. Dunlop in your diary and Mr Dunlop has Dominic Glennane in his
19 diary?
11:32:18 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 328 So, certainly in so far as there is an independent record at that point in time
22 both of you expect to meet each other at that stage, on the 23rd of March?
24 Q. 329 Mr. Murray's diary at 5564 records Frank Dunlop and then in brackets DG?
11:32:34 25 A. Yeah.
26 Q. 330 Which would suggest, Mr. Glennane, that Mr. Murray was expecting to have a
27 meeting with both yourself and Mr. Dunlop?
28 A. Well I'm not sure. You'd better ask Mr. Murray. It looks to me like he was
29 meeting him on my behalf, if I can put it that way.
11:32:50 30 Q. 331 Why would he, why would you have been delegating Mr. Murray to meet Mr. Dunlop?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
36
11:32:56 1 A. I presume -- I presume as a stalling device really over his cheque at that
2 stage. I can only guess now. I don't remember any other reason for meeting
3 him or if I did meet him.
4 Q. 332 And you have an entry in your diary at April. At 5579 for a Frank Dunlop
11:33:15 5 cheque?
6 A. Yeah. That's right, yes.
7 Q. 333 In April of '95?
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. 334 But the Tribunal hasn't been furnished with any cheque made out to Mr. Dunlop
11:33:25 10 in April of 1995?
11 A. There wasn't one, no.
12 Q. 335 Right. So can you explain the significance of that entry?
13 A. It was probably just to remind me that I was due to send him a cheque.
14 Q. 336 Because you also have an entry in your diary for the following week in April
11:33:42 15 for 5583, for Frank Dunlop again?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 337 Do you see that at the bottom?
18 A. Yes, yeah.
19 Q. 338 Right. So in January, February, March, and April you have a number of entries
11:33:52 20 in your diary and in Mr. Murray's diary and indeed Mr. Dunlop's diary for
21 meetings or contact between yourself and Mr. Dunlop?
23 Q. 339 And you don't really know what it's about, Mr. Glennane, is that right?
24 A. Well I think it was about the balance of his accounts but ...
11:34:08 25 Q. 340 Do you know what it's about?
26 A. I'm pretty sure it was about the balance of his accounts, yes.
27 Q. 341 And --
28 A. Which was eventually made on the 13th of August.
29 Q. 342 It's actually paid on the 1st of August?
11:34:21 30 A. All right, the 13th I have down here.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
37
11:34:23 1 Q. 343 The records that you provided may be incorrect. 5689?
2 A. Yeah, may have been drawn.
3 Q. 344 On the 1st of August?
4 A. Yeah.
11:34:35 5 Q. 345 And that's a cheque in the sum of 5,000 pounds to Mr. Dunlop?
7 Q. 346 But according to the documentation that Mr. Dunlop had furnished to you in May
8 of 1994. The balance outstanding according to him was 7,296.94?
11:34:51 10 Q. 347 So he is now being paid 5,000 pounds leaving a shortfall, is that right?
11 A. So it appears, yes, yeah.
12 Q. 348 And that shortfall was eventually written out in the books of Monarch?
14 Q. 349 It was written off. Isn't that right? I think at 5825. That 2,296.64,
11:35:15 15 that's one-third of a way down the page?
17 Q. 350 WO, does that mean written off?
18 A. Written off, yes, sorry.
11:35:24 20 A. Yeah.
21 Q. 352 So that you -- out of the balance that was owed to Mr. Dunlop, according to
22 what Mr. Dunlop was looking for, you paid him 5,000 pounds in 19 -- in August
23 1995 and you wrote off the balance of 2,296.00?
11:35:39 25 Q. 353 Now, if we just look at the creditor's listing for Mr. Dunlop. At 7433,
26 please.
27
28 Let me just try and work-out this document, if we can at all. Mr. Glennane,
29 because the Tribunal would be anxious that you could assist it as best you can
11:35:58 30 in relation to this.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
38
11:35:59 1
2 If we could highlight supplier Frank Dunlop & Company, please.
4 Q. 354 And this is a 31st of May 1995 document; isn't that right?
6 Q. 355 And this is the creditor's account between Frank Dunlop and Monarch?
8 Q. 356 And the first matters that are listed, the first six matters that are listed
9 are payments, isn't that right?
11 Q. 357 So the first is the payment of 15,000 pounds?
13 Q. 358 And the 10,000 pounds that were paid in March of 1993?
11:36:36 15 Q. 359 And then there is the 10,000 pounds that disappears to Mr. Lawlor, isn't that
16 right? The third payment?
18 Q. 360 Then there are the two payments of 7,500 pounds which take out the invoice of
19 the 19th of May 1993, isn't that right?
11:36:52 20 A. Yes, that's right, yeah.
21 Q. 361 And then there is the December on account payment of 15,000 pounds?
23 Q. 362 So then we come to look at the invoices?
11:37:03 25 Q. 363 Now, just to be clear about this, if we can. PMT means payment and invoice
26 INV in the second column means?
27 A. Invoice.
29 A. Yeah.
11:37:15 30 Q. 365 Now, the invoices that are set against those payments?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
39
11:37:19 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 366 Invoice 9320 is an invoice for 12,100 pounds?
4 Q. 367 That's not in fact ever actually paid, isn't that right? A sum of 12,100?
11:37:32 5 A. Sorry it's included in the account, yeah. It's not specifically paid. And
6 that's why that account is the way it is.
7 Q. 368 Okay. Well let's do the following then if we can, Mr. Glennane. Why don't
8 we add up all of the invoices, the four invoices that are listed there?
9 A. I don't need to. I mean, it is self-explanatory there.
11:37:49 10 Q. 369 Fine. If we add up the four invoice that are recorded there. There is an
11 invoice of the 10th of April '93 in the sum of 12,100?
13 Q. 370 There is an invoice of the 14th of December '93 in the sum of 60,500?
11:38:04 15 Q. 371 There is an invoice of the 14th December '93 in the sum of 31,371.94?
17 Q. 372 And invoice on the 6th of December '93 in the sum of 22, 296.94?
19 Q. 373 And they aggregate £126,268.88, isn't that right?
11:38:26 20 A. I haven't added them if you say so, yeah.
21 Q. 374 That means the invoices that Mr. Dunlop raised that are recorded in the this
22 document?
23 A. That's right, in this document, yes.
24 Q. 375 In this document?
11:38:36 25 A. Yeah.
26 Q. 376 Amount to 126,000?
27 A. Right, yes, yeah.
28 Q. 377 And the payments that are made according to Monarch against those invoices are
29 payments totalling 80,000 pounds, isn't that right?
11:38:49 30 A. Yes, yeah, if -- yeah.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
40
11:38:51 1 Q. 378 It's equal to. 65. Sorry, I beg your pardon?
2 A. Sorry?
3 Q. 379 65,000?
4 A. 60,000.
11:39:03 5 Q. 380 65,000 payments recorded, isn't that right?
6 A. I don't know. 65 or 75. Sorry, I haven't added them.
7 Q. 381 15, 10, 10, 15 and 15?
8 A. 65, yes.
9 Q. 382 65,000?
11:39:20 10 A. Yeah.
11 Q. 383 Now, where on that do you record the invoice in November of '93?
12 A. Well if you turn to page 4055 you'll see it.
13 Q. 384 Yeah. 4055, please.?
14 A. I see it says account there Frank Dunlop & Company, yeah.
11:39:42 15 Q. 385 Uh-huh?
16 A. Because if you look at the last two entries they're both the 2nd of November.
17 One is the invoice and one is the payment. Because they are the exact same
18 they cancel out. That's the point I was trying to make to you earlier on.
19 Q. 386 Uh-huh?
11:39:55 20 A. This balance is only carried because there's unallocated payments against
21 unallocated invoices.
22 Q. 387 If we go back to the document at 7374, Mr. Glennane?
23 A. It's the extended there, you'll see it is naught.
24 Q. 388 The total amount of the invoices that are recorded from Mr. Dunlop amount to
11:40:16 25 126,268 --
26 A. No, this 15,000 is recorded as well.
27 Q. 389 Yes. No, that's an adjustment?
28 A. No it's an invoice 15,000.
29 Q. 390 No at 57392 -- 972?
11:40:31 30 A. If you look at the sheet I suggested, 4055.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
41
11:40:38 1 Q. 391 7343, please.
2 A. If you look at 4055 first, I suggest.
3 Q. 392 7343 please, thank you. We'll just deal with the first document first,
4 Mr. Glennane?
11:40:44 5 A. Well because on the document which I have referred to, the 15,000 invoice and
6 the 15,000 payment were for the same amount on the same date, they haven't been
7 carried forward to this sheet.
8 Q. 393 They cancelled each other?
9 A. Exactly, yeah.
11:41:00 10 Q. 394 So they are not carried forward on to this document?
12 Q. 395 So on this document what you have got are payments of 65,000 against invoices
13 of 126, 268; isn't that right?
14 A. Well if your figures are right, yes.
11:41:15 15 Q. 396 And that leaves a net deficit or an under payment to Mr. Dunlop, according to
16 this record; isn't that right?
17 A. Yes, of 60,000, yes.
18 Q. 397 Of 60,000?
19 A. Odd, yeah.
11:41:27 20 Q. 398 Yeah. Now, what happened to that?
21 A. Well as you can see there there's an adjustment.
22 Q. 399 Uh-huh?
23 A. Of 53, 972.24.
24 Q. 400 And how was that figure selected?
11:41:37 25 A. Because at that stage the balance had been agreed with him at 7296.
26 Q. 401 Did you tell Mr. Dunlop that according to your records you owed him -- you owed
27 him 61,268?
28 A. I'm sure we did, uh-huh.
29 Q. 402 So what you did was your records showed that you were indebted to Mr. Dunlop in
11:41:57 30 the sum --

www.pcr.ie Day 660
42
11:41:58 1 A. No, no, there were invoices -- our records. I mean, our records didn't show.
2 That was the balance on the account.
3 Q. 403 Yes?
4 A. But we obviously then established the balance on the account with him.
11:42:09 5 Q. 404 No, you, Mr. Dunlop was asked, is that right, how much Monarch owed him?
6 A. I'm not sure if he was or not but however.
7 Q. 405 And he came back in May of '94 saying a sum of 7,296.64, isn't that right?
9 Q. 406 And that is the figure that is at the bottom of that column as the figure that
11:42:29 10 is being owed to Mr. Dunlop?
12 Q. 407 So you have written off or adjusted 53,972 pounds?
14 Q. 408 But your own records with Mr. Dunlop show that you owed him 61,000?
11:42:41 15 A. Well, if you want to take that interpretation. That was the balance on the
16 account, yes.
17 Q. 409 The balance of?
18 A. The invoices had been over posted.
19 Q. 410 They had been over posted. How do you mean they had been over posted?
11:42:54 20 A. Well I mean it's too many -- as I said to you already it looks to me that that
21 31 was actually a substitution for the 22 but they both seem to have been
22 posted.
23 Q. 411 So we're --
24 A. I'm saying earlier at a time you get a statement from your creditor, you
11:43:13 25 reconcile the statement and you reconcile your own books with that statement.
26 Q. 412 And did you get a statement from Mr. Dunlop?
27 A. Other than the one showing the 15,000, I would regard that as a statement, the
28 document 8730.
29 Q. 413 That's the fax from Mr. Dunlop in May of '94?
11:43:30 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
43
11:43:30 1 Q. 414 According to Mr. Dunlop's records he says you owe him 7,296.64 and you make an
2 adjustment so your books reflect that matter?
3 A. Exactly, yes.
4 Q. 415 So up to the time Mr. Dunlop came back to you in May 1994. Your books showed
11:43:44 5 that Mr. Dunlop -- that the full figure that should have been paid to Mr.
6 Dunlop was 126,268 and that he had been paid 65,000 pounds of that; is that
7 correct?
8 A. No, no, that's not right.
9 Q. 416 That's not right?
11:43:55 10 A. Once again, if I can ask to have that sheet put up. 4055.
11 Q. 417 It may be simply that I'm just not understanding the point that you are making?
12 A. The point I am making is that there was a payment -- again if I could have that
13 sheet shown up. Is that too much to ask?
14
11:44:10 15 JUDGE FAHERTY: 4055?
16 A. 4055. If you highlight Frank Dunlop account, that one there. You see on the
17 last two items the 2nd of November invoice 15,000. The 2nd of November payment
18 50,000 and that's extended out then as nil. The rest of the figures carry
19 forward on the statement that you had a few minutes ago.
11:44:35 20 Q. 418 Yes, but what year end is that can I ask you?
21 A. It's not any year end.
22 Q. 419 What's the date at the top of the document?
23 A. It says as of 30th of November '93.
24 Q. 420 And as of the 30th of November '93?
11:44:48 25 A. Yeah.
26 Q. 421 As of the 30th November '93, does that document accurately record all of the
27 invoices that Mr. Dunlop had furnished up to that point in time?
28 A. It would certainly record all of the one that were posted, yeah.
29 Q. 422 That were posted?
11:45:00 30 A. The 12,100 and the 15.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
44
11:45:03 1 Q. 423 And then one moves onto the next document dated 31st of May '95; isn't that
2 right?
3 A. Yes. All of the same figures are carried forward except those two 15's because
4 they have been netted off.
11:45:16 5 Q. 424 That's the one for which there was a zero VAT?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 425 That one has been eliminated?
8 A. Not eliminated. It's been paid and the computer has offset one against the
9 other.
11:45:28 10 Q. 426 And when one comes to look at the document at 7343. Then what one is looking
11 at here are invoices that have now been received by Monarch for Mr. Dunlop and
12 the record of payments that have been made by Monarch to Mr. Dunlop?
13 A. Yes. And they don't match. That's why they're carried forward.
14 Q. 427 Yes. That's why you make the inquiry of Mr. Dunlop as to what he says he's
11:45:47 15 owed?
16 A. Well I'm not sure if we made the inquiry or if the inquiry came from him, yes.
17 Q. 428 And that shows a substantial difference in your books as to what you believe
18 Mr. Dunlop was owed and what Mr. Dunlop believe he was owed. Is that right?
19 A. Well I don't think we believed he was owed anything at that stage other than
11:46:06 20 what was left on that invoice. Certainly it was -- mistakes had been made in
21 the accounts department. There's a reconciliation on 7340 if you want to look
22 at it.
23 Q. 429 What mistakes were made in the accounts department?
24 A. Well too many invoices were posted.
11:46:24 25 Q. 430 Was there an --
26 A. Because Of the system of making payments on account, round sum payments on
27 account, which would then -- normally you would end up with a balancing figure.
28 Q. 431 Uh-huh?
29 A. Due to the supplier or the creditor.
11:46:41 30 Q. 432 Is it possible that what happened here was you looked for invoices from Mr.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
45
11:46:44 1 Dunlop in December 1993 to back a claim you were making against GRE in respect
2 of money you had already paid to Mr. Dunlop. And you posted those to this?
3 A. Well there would be no connection between backing them and looking for them
4 from GRE and posting them. They would have just gone into the accounts
11:47:05 5 department system and they would have been posted.
6 Q. 433 The success fee invoice, Mr. Glennane?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 434 For 60,500 pounds?
9 A. Yes.
11:47:12 10 Q. 435 That's generated for the first time in December 1993?
12 Q. 436 What's done with that?
13 A. Well it's posted to our account and it's also -- sorry our books. And it was
14 certified as an invoice and sent to GRE.
11:47:27 15 Q. 437 And what else was certified as an invoice and sent to GRE?
16 A. There's a list of them here somewhere. I can't quite lay my hand on it but
17 there is a reference there of a cheque from GRE of 52,000.
18 Q. 438 And it deals with four invoices?
19 A. 52,030, that's 4815.
11:48:06 20 Q. 439 But that's the end result, isn't that right?
22 Q. 440 Let's step it back from that, Mr. Glennane, to December of '93?
23 A. Okay.
24 Q. 441 And let's go back and look at the invoices. And let's look at 4772 for
11:48:18 25 example?
26 A. Yeah.
27 Q. 442 That's an invoice from Mr. Dunlop in the sum of 32,371. And it is certified
28 to be a true copy, isn't that right?
11:48:33 30 Q. 443 And at 4773. There's a further certificate from Mr. Sweeney?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
46
11:48:39 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 444 And that is certifying to Monarch -- by Monarch Properties to GRE that this
3 money is due to Mr. Dunlop; isn't that right?
4 A. That's the same document, yes. Yes, because the invoice, yes ...
11:48:56 5 Q. 445 Sorry, I beg your pardon. How --
6 A. Well, sorry, could you put the last back up again.
7 Q. 446 Certainly. 4772, please and 4773 together.?
8 A. Yeah, that's Mr. Sweeney certifying that invoice.
9 Q. 447 Uh-huh. And what's happening there, I suggest to you, is that that invoice is
11:49:24 10 being sent to GRE to back up a claim for third party costs in connection with
11 Mr. Dunlop?
12 A. That's right, yes, yeah.
13 Q. 448 And if we look at 4839. And 4846 together, please. That again --
14 A. Yes, that's it, yeah, same thing.
11:49:57 15 Q. 449 That's the invoice for 60,500?
17 Q. 450 We saw on the creditor's listing dated 14th of December. It's being
18 forwarded, certified by Mr. Sweeney and it's being forwarded to GRE seeking to
19 recover the 50,000 pounds?
21 Q. 451 Because apparently, according to the documentation --
22 A. Half the 50,000.
23 Q. 452 Half the 50,000. GRE and Monarch had agreed a success fee for Mr. Dunlop?
11:50:24 25 Q. 453 Did you ever pay it?
26 A. Well it's included in all of those payments we made to him. The 85,000.
27 Q. 454 Okay.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: Okay. Ms. Dillon, we might just stop there for ten minutes.
11:50:35 30

www.pcr.ie Day 660
47
11:50:35 1 MS. DILLON: May it please you, Sir.
11:50:45 5
12:11:56 10 MS. DILLON: Mr. Glennane, please.
11
12
13 Q. 455 Mr. Glennane, if I can take you to deal with the dealings between Monarch and
14 GRE in connection with the payments to Mr. Frank Dunlop and the first invoice
12:12:21 15 in time is 4819.
16
17 And this is an invoice dated the 29th of June 1993 and the person involved is
18 Frank Dunlop & Company and the amount that's being sought is half of 25,000
19 pounds; isn't that right?
21 Q. 456 Now, the -- this is in June of 1993?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 457 And there's no back up invoice from Mr. Dunlop with this invoice; isn't that
24 right?
12:12:54 25 A. So it would seem, yes.
26 Q. 458 And it would have been the agreement, as I understand it, between GRE and
27 Monarch in connection with third party costs, that back up invoices would be
28 required?
29 A. Well in most cases yes, certainly, yes.
12:13:08 30 Q. 459 And third party invoices would be payments made by Monarch on behalf of GRE and

www.pcr.ie Day 660
48
12:13:15 1 Monarch in connection with Cherrywood insofar as the matters we're looking at
2 are concerned.
4 Q. 460 Now, I think that GRE wrote in connection with that invoice. At 4822. And
12:13:36 5 they said insofar as invoice 2064 is concerned that at their meeting in May he
6 agreed the appointment of Frank Dunlop and this was on the basis of 4,000
7 pounds per month with no success fee. I find it difficult to understand an
8 invoice for 25,000 pounds which would imply over six months work when Mr.
9 Dunlop was only appointed in May.
12:13:58 10 A. Right
11 Q. 461 Now, if I could just pause there for a second. GRE appeared to be under the
12 misapprehension or the belief that Mr. Dunlop was to be paid 4,000 pounds per
13 month?
12:14:10 15 Q. 462 There was no agreement, as I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong,
16 between Monarch and Mr. Dunlop that he be paid 4,000 pounds per month. Is
17 that correct?
18 A. Well insofar as I know now, I can't remember from the time it appears to me
19 that there was agreement, yeah, that he be paid 4,000 per month.
12:14:32 20
21 MR SANFEY: Chairman, I think the evidence to date has been that Mr. Sweeney
22 is the one who negotiated with Mr. Dunlop. Mr. Sweeney hasn't yet given
23 evidence.
24
12:14:40 25 I don't understand it to be Monarch's evidence that there was no agreement with
26 Mr. Dunlop in relation to what he was to be paid.
27
28 MS. DILLON: I think Mr. Dunlop has told the Tribunal and denied that there
29 was any agreement with Monarch that he would be paid 4,000 pounds per month.
12:14:56 30

www.pcr.ie Day 660
49
12:14:56 1 And I understand Mr. Dunlop's evidence to the Tribunal in relation to his
2 payment to have been that he agreed lump sums or sought lump sums but he that
3 he had no agreement for a monetary retainer.
12:15:07 5 CHAIRMAN: I think these issues are going to have be to be probed with all of
6 the Monarch witnesses.
8 MS. DILLON: Indeed.
12:15:14 10 MR SANFEY: Indeed but I just don't want it to be put to this witness that
11 Monarch accept that there was no arrangement for 4,000 pounds per month when I
12 understand the evidence to be that it was Mr. Sweeney who did any negotiations
13 with Mr. Dunlop. Mr. Sweeney hasn't yet given evidence.
14
12:15:30 15 CHAIRMAN: That's fine.
16
18
19 MS. DILLON: In any event, the document records insofar as invoice 2064 was
12:15:36 20 concerned that certainly according to GRE Mr. Dunlop was to be paid 4,000
21 pounds per month with no success fee
22 A. That's right.
23 Q. 463 They are querying how 25,000 pounds could have been accrued by June; isn't that
24 right?
12:15:48 25 A. That's right.
26 Q. 464 I think that following receipt of that letter at 4553. In reference to
27 invoice 2064 Frank Dunlop, the Monarch note notes that it's not agreed and I
28 presume that means not agreed with GRE?
29 A. Yes.
12:16:07 30 Q. 465 And MB, that's Martin Baker, says he agreed 4,000 pounds from May. Eddie

www.pcr.ie Day 660
50
12:16:14 1 Sweeney replied that he would be willing to cancel the invoice and invoice
2 monthly?
3 A. Yeah.
4 Q. 466 And then if we go to the bottom of the page where it says 2064, Frank Dunlop 50
12:16:24 5 percent by May to August at 4,000 pounds per month 9,680. Do you see that?
6 A. Yes, I do, yes.
7 Q. 467 So what appears to be suggested there is that they were going to re invoice
8 Monarch -- they were going to reinvoice GRE in connection with Mr. Dunlop?
12:16:44 10 Q. 468 And at 4825. On the 13th of July 1993. And the last paragraph. Your item
11 No. 4 invoice 2064. I am prepared to cancel 2064 and re issue invoice 2068 at
12 4,000 pounds per month for April, May, June and July if you feel you should pay
13 only on a monthly basis?
14 A. Uh-huh.
12:17:10 15 Q. 469 And it goes on to say please note that Frank Dunlop & Associates were engaged
16 from April and requested part of their payment to be up front before they would
17 take on the assignment. That is the reason for the payment by us of 25,000
18 pounds to date?
12:17:23 20 Q. 470 And then invoice 2068 is issued to Guardian at 4827. And effectively, what
21 has happened here is invoice 2064 is cancelled and invoice 2068 is issued and
22 it's claiming 4,000 pounds per month April, May, June and July and seeking half
23 of that amount from GRE?
24 A. That's right, yes. Obviously in the first case we tried to claim 50% of the
12:17:54 25 25,000 that we had paid up front.
26 Q. 471 And GRE weren't having any of that, isn't that fair to say?
27 A. That's right, absolutely, yes.
28 Q. 472 They say they agreed 4,000 pounds per month and Mr. Dunlop had only been
29 employed from a certain date?
12:18:07 30 A. Yeah.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
51
12:18:08 1 Q. 473 And they weren't going to pay. And Mr. Sweeney?
2 A. Accepted that position.
3 Q. 474 Accepted that position and re issued an invoice in the sum of 9,680 -- that's
4 invoice 2068?
6 Q. 475 And Mr. Sweeney's letter is July 1993 and in September of 1993, at 4390, this
7 document notes that the following invoices had been passed to Mr. Beng for
8 payment by Mr. Baker; isn't that correct?
12:18:41 10 Q. 476 And there is a list of invoices that had been passed for payment. In the
11 centre is 2068 Frank Dunlop 9,680?
13 Q. 477 At the top is headed 'issues outstanding before payment will be made'. Do you
14 see that?
12:18:55 15 A. Yes, yeah.
16 Q. 478 And under that heading there is "copy of Dunlop's invoice. We only have one
17 invoice for 12,100 pounds even though we have made payments of 42,500. Eddie
18 must get invoices?"
19 A. That's right.
12:19:09 20 Q. 479 And you have been referring to this document earlier on this morning, isn't
21 that right, Mr. Glennane?
23 Q. 480 Now what, this document appears to suggest, if it's correct, that by the 27th
24 of September 1993 the only invoice Monarch had in its possession was the April
12:19:29 25 invoice for 12,100 pounds?
26 A. So it would seem, yes.
27 Q. 481 Which invoice was never in fact paid in the sum of 12,100 pounds; isn't that
28 right?
29 A. In that sum, yes.
12:19:35 30 Q. 482 Right. Now, and they had paid out or Monarch had paid out 42,500 pounds. So

www.pcr.ie Day 660
52
12:19:42 1 they need to get invoices in order to shore up their claim against GRE; isn't
2 that right? They have to back up the claim?
3 A. They have to back up on invoices, yes, even though GRE were only going to pay
4 on the basis of 4,000 pounds.
12:19:57 5 Q. 483 They still wanted invoices?
6 A. Exactly.
7 Q. 484 The issues outstanding before payment will be made was what was required was a
8 copy of Mr. Dunlop's invoice?
9 A. Yeah.
12:20:05 10 Q. 485 And there's also an invoice 2094 which dealt with the later payment to Mr.
11 Dunlop and the position was the same for that; isn't that right?
13 Q. 486 So that would mean, would it not, that if you had had an agreement with Mr.
14 Dunlop for an agreed payment of 4,000 pounds per month; isn't that right?
12:20:23 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 487 If you had had -- you would be seeking an invoice from Mr. Dunlop showing an
17 invoice for 4,000 pounds per month?
18 A. Yes, yes.
19 Q. 488 Is there any such invoice from Mr. Dunlop?
12:20:38 20 A. For 4,000 per month?
21 Q. 489 Uh-huh?
22 A. No, not as far as I can recall.
23 Q. 490 How can that be, Mr. Glennane?
24 A. I mean, obviously the payments were made, if you like, the fact that the 25,000
12:20:56 25 was paid in advance or as a retainer, effectively it would cover the first six
26 months of -- obviously then I don't know what date this document is obviously.
27 Obviously we started looking for invoices off him after that, after this.
28 Q. 491 Is it your position, Mr. Glennane, that what was agreed with Mr. Dunlop was a
29 retainer of 4,000 pounds per month.
12:21:25 30 A. Yeah, as far as I know, yes. All of the correspondence points to that.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
53
12:21:29 1 Q. 492 The correspondence with GRE?
2 A. Yes, exactly, yes, yeah. Discussions with them, yeah.
3 Q. 493 But insofar as your agreement with Mr. Dunlop is concerned, do any of the
4 invoices from Mr. Dunlop to Monarch record or refer to a payment of 4,000
12:21:45 5 pounds per month?
6 A. I don't recall any of them, I don't recall any of them.
7 Q. 494 And how could that be, Mr. Glennane, if you are correct in telling the Tribunal
8 that the agreement with Mr. Dunlop was for 4,000 pounds per month?
9 A. Well maybe Mr. Dunlop misinterpreted the agreement or something about ...
12:22:08 10 Q. 495 And assuming that Mr. Dunlop misinterpreted the agreement on receipt of the
11 invoices from Mr. Dunlop did Monarch take any step to alert Mr. Dunlop to the
12 mistake that he had made?
13 A. I think apparently not. Just looking for more invoices, yes.
14 Q. 496 And did Monarch ever seek an invoice from Mr. Dunlop in the amount of 4,000 per
12:22:28 15 month?
16 A. Not so far as I can see.
17 Q. 497 Now, I think in September of 1993, at page 4817.
18
19 This is a letter from GRE to Mr. Sweeney.
12:22:50 20
21 CHAIRMAN: Sorry, Ms. Dillon. That last document is a document from GRE.
22
23 MS. DILLON: The document at --.
24
12:22:58 25 CHAIRMAN: To Monarch.
26
27 MS. DILLON: At 439 --
28 A. Yes.
29
12:23:02 30 MS. DILLON: Sorry. 43 --.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
54
12:23:06 1
2 CHAIRMAN: It was dealing with queries raised by ...
3 A. GRE, yes.
12:23:10 5 MS. DILLON: 4390. Is this the document, Sir? .
7 CHAIRMAN: Yes.
9 MS. DILLON: That document is an internal memorandum from Eddie Sweeney to
12:23:20 10 Mr. Glennane
11 A. It's actually from Pat Caslin to Eddie Sweeney.
12 Q. 498 And it's cc'd to Mr. Glennane. It schedules the invoices. If one reads
13 across the top it gives you the invoice number. The heading under which the
14 document is claimed, the amount and the issues outstanding before payment will
12:23:35 15 be made. And what that document suggests and I think Mr. Glennane agrees,
16 that by the 27th of September 1993 Ms -- they only had in Monarch one invoice
17 from Mr. Dunlop in the sum of 12,100 pounds.
18
19 CHAIRMAN: But they weren't purporting -- at least they didn't appear to be
12:23:57 20 seeking invoices of 4,000 from Mr. Dunlop.
21
22 MS DILLON: That is what Mr. Glennane has just told you, Sir. There is
23 nothing to indicate that they sought invoices in the sum of 4,000 pounds per
24 month from Mr. Dunlop but that it is also his understanding that the
12:24:11 25 arrangement between Monarch and Mr. Dunlop was for 4,000 pounds per month, if I
26 understand Mr. Glennane correctly. Is that?
28
29 CHAIRMAN: But would it have mattered to, I'm just wondering from an
12:24:27 30 accounting point of view. Would it have mattered to Monarch whether they were

www.pcr.ie Day 660
55
12:24:28 1 getting invoices for 4,000 a month or for larger sums so long as the total
2 didn't exceed?
3 A. No, the only reason would have been really to submit them to GRE, that would
4 have been the only reason why we'd have required invoices showing that short of
12:24:47 5 figure. Because ...
7 CHAIRMAN: But what you'd have been submitting to GRE, not necessarily
8 invoices for 4,000 a month, but invoices to equal the total of the claim?
9 A. Exactly, yes, yes.
12:25:04 10
12 A. But we issued our own invoices showing 4,000 per month.
13
14 CHAIRMAN: Okay.
12:25:13 15
16 MS. DILLON: But what was required from Mr. Dunlop was an invoice or invoices
17 to back up the amount that Monarch were claiming from GRE?
18 A. Um, yes, sorry, yes, yeah.
19 Q. 499 And if -- sorry?
12:25:38 20 A. Original invoice from him, yes.
21 Q. 500 And according to what Monarch had agreed with GRE, that was for 4,000 pounds
22 per month?
24 Q. 501 Yes?
12:25:49 25 A. But we did submit Mr. Dunlop's invoices to GRE in December. They didn't show
26 4,000 per month but they were accepted by GRE and paid.
27 Q. 502 The invoices that were paid by GRE were invoices, there were four invoices that
28 were paid; isn't that right?
12:26:32 30 Q. 503 So if we -- the first invoice was invoice No. 2068. And that is at 4827.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
56
2 A. That's right, sorry, yes.
3 Q. 504 The second invoice that was paid was 2111. At 4828. Isn't that right?
12:27:01 5 Q. 505 The third invoice that was paid was 2186.?
6 A. 2179 actually I think.
7 Q. 506 2186. Isn't that right?
8 A. Sorry.
9 Q. 507 2186. I'll just find 2186 for you. Yes, is 4832. Is that right?
11 Q. 508 And the last one is 2179?
13 Q. 509 And 2179 is the invoice at 4829.?
12:27:38 15 Q. 510 Now, they were the invoices from Monarch to GRE in connection with Mr. Dunlop;
18 Q. 511 Now, they are paid, and the only payment from GRE in connection with Mr. Dunlop
19 is made in January of '94, at 4815.?
12:27:58 20 A. That's actually December actually, yes.
21 Q. 512 Yes. It's received on the 5th of January. It's stamped "received" on the
22 5th of January; isn't that right?
23 A. I --
24 Q. 513 By 57?
12:28:09 25 A. The letter is. The funds had been received before that.
26 Q. 514 Yes. The cheque is a cheque in the sum of 52,030 pounds; isn't that right?
28 Q. 515 And the letter says "we have pleasure in enclosing cheque in the sum of 52,030
29 pounds in payment of invoice number 2011, 2068, 2186 and 2179, in respect of
12:28:31 30 attached copy invoices".

www.pcr.ie Day 660
57
12:28:33 1
2 And they are the invoices we have just seen; isn't that right?
4 Q. 516 Now, each of those invoices with the exception of the one for 50,000 pounds are
12:28:44 5 in respect of a claim for 4,000 pounds per month; isn't that right?
7 Q. 517 Okay. Now, GRE were not happy to pay; isn't that right? Until it was backed
8 by documentation from Mr. Dunlop?
12:28:56 10 Q. 518 Okay. So, now, if we look at the documentation that was supplied by Monarch
11 in support of this claim. And at 4848. Mr. Pat Caslin sends to GRE
12 certified copies of the invoices of Frank Dunlop as requested in your fax?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 519 Okay. The first invoice is dated the 10th of April 1993. At 4133.
12:29:32 15 A. Right.
16 Q. 520 Now, firstly, does this document say anything about 4,000 pounds per month?
17 A. No, it doesn't, no.
18 Q. 521 And that document contains a certificate on the face of it, certified to be a
19 true copy of the original; isn't that right?
21 Q. 522 And Mr. Pat Caslin's signature comes above it?
23 Q. 523 And with that document goes a certificate from Mr. Eddie Sweeney at 4142,
24 please. And if we leave the two on screen together.
12:30:03 25
26 Now, Mr. Sweeney in his payment certificate certifies that the amount of the
27 quotation is 4,000 a month?
12:30:28 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
58
12:30:28 1 Q. 525 Right. And he includes -- he refers to the invoice in the sum of 10,000
2 pounds plus VAT. And that it's dated the 10th of April, '93. So Mr. Sweeney
3 is certifying the first invoice from Mr. Dunlop?
12:30:39 5 Q. 526 But it is Mr. Sweeney who it telling GRE that the amount of the quotation is
6 4,000 pounds per month?
8 Q. 527 Because there is nothing on the face of Mr. Dunlop's document to indicate any
9 such agreement; isn't that right?
11 Q. 528 The second invoice from Mr. Dunlop that's forwarded to GRE is at 4772. And is
12 dated the 6th of December. And is in the sum of 25,000 pounds plus VAT plus
13 expenses?
12:31:07 15 Q. 529 And that is certified by Mr. Sweeney. At 4773. Isn't that right?
17 Q. 530 And that is forwarded to GRE?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 531 And Mr. Sweeney's certificate refers to 4K per month; isn't that right?
21 Q. 532 And Mr. Dunlop's document does not refer to any monthly retainer; isn't that
22 right?
24 Q. 533 And the third invoice for Mr. Dunlop that's forwarded is at 4839. And is a
12:31:40 25 success fee of 50,000 vis-a-vis public affairs strategy and its implementation
26 totalling 60,500 pounds?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 534 And that is certified by Mr. Eddie Sweeney at 4846. At being a claim for
29 50,000 pounds?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
59
12:32:04 1 Q. 535 So the three certificates and the three invoices that are sent by Monarch to
2 GRE in connection with Mr. Dunlop are an invoice for 12,100, an invoice for
3 32,371.94 and an invoice for 60,500; is that right?
12:32:30 5 Q. 536 What is being sought from GRE is 50% of that sum; is that right?
6 A. No, what we sought was the invoice at 50% of the invoices. We had sent them.
7 Q. 537 Yes. No, no. Sorry?
8 A. That's right. This is back up to that documentation.
9 Q. 538 Yes. To support the claim that you had made?
11 Q. 539 So you have sent invoices, four invoices, that refer to, with the exception of
12 one for 50,000 pounds, 4,000 per month to GRE; isn't that right?
14 Q. 540 And you don't have invoices to that effect from Mr. Dunlop?
12:33:03 15 A. That's right.
16 Q. 541 But you have other invoices for round sum payments and you have copied those
17 certified them and forwarded those to GRE?
19 Q. 542 And GRE, on foot of those make the payment of 52,030; isn't that right?
21 Q. 543 Now, who was the person that dealt with GRE in relation to Mr. Dunlop?
22 A. Well it was Mr. Sweeney I'd say, supported by the cash department.
23 Q. 544 Yes. Would you accept that certainly insofar as Mr. Dunlop provided invoices
24 to GRE, there seems to be no reference to any agreement to 4,000 pounds per
12:33:46 25 month?
26 A. I don't think he supplied any invoices to GRE.
27 Q. 545 Sorry, I beg your pardon. Insofar as he supplied invoices to Monarch
28 Properties there's no references to 4,000 pounds per month?
29 A. That's right.
12:33:57 30 Q. 546 And in the documentation up to December 1993. There is no claim for a success

www.pcr.ie Day 660
60
12:34:02 1 fee from Mr. Dunlop; isn't that right?
3 Q. 547 There's no documentation and no payment from Monarch to Mr. Dunlop prior to the
4 end of December 1993 that reflects payment by Monarch of a success fee; isn't
6 A. Not specifically, yes.
7 Q. 548 Well, sorry. If you say it's contained in some document generally would you
8 just indicate the document?
9 A. It was 80, 000 paid to him at that stage.
12:34:32 10 Q. 549 I beg your pardon?
11 A. Sorry, there was 80,000 pounds had been paid to him at that stage.
12 Q. 550 Be that as it may, Mr. Glennane. What we're talking about now is the
13 existence or otherwise of a document within Monarch prior to December 1993 that
14 passed between Monarch and Mr. Dunlop indicating an agreement about a success
12:34:53 15 fee?
16 A. No, other than the invoice from myself, yes.
17 Q. 551 That is the invoice from Mr. Dunlop?
19 Q. 552 And are you saying that that invoice for the success fee was paid by Monarch?
12:35:04 20 A. Well I'm saying it was paid or it was paid in part of, I presume, of the
21 80,000.
22 Q. 553 Which part?
23 A. Well any -- in different dribs and drags.
24 Q. 554 Would you identify the payment that you say that Mr. Monarch paid to Mr. Dunlop
12:35:20 25 in connection with the success fee?
26 A. Not specifically. I think we paid him 50,000 pounds in December on the 21st
27 of December.
28 Q. 555 Which was a payment on account in respect of an invoice for a greater amount
29 dated, I think, the 14th of December; isn't that right?
12:35:37 30 A. That was a payment on account, yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
61
12:35:38 1 Q. 556 But it wasn't a payment on account of the success fee, Mr. Glennane?
2 A. Well I don't know that.
3 Q. 557 Well let's go back and look at that then. Because you made your position
4 clear in relation to that prior to lunch. But if there is any ambiguity we
12:35:51 5 can go back over it again. Can I show you while we're doing that 4832, which
6 is Mr. Dunlop's invoice about the success fee?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 558 I just want to draw to your attention there the notation, "this is not an
9 invoice for VAT purposes. A VAT invoice will issue on receipt of payment" do
12:36:10 10 you see that?
11 A. I do, yes.
12 Q. 559 Would that indicate to you as an accountant that by 10th December 1993 Mr.
13 Dunlop had not been paid his success fee?
14 A. No, it wouldn't. No, no.
12:36:21 15 Q. 560 It wouldn't indicate that?
16 A. No.
17 Q. 561 Would it indicate to you as an accountant that he had in fact been paid his
18 success fee?
19 A. No, it wouldn't have anything to do with Mr. Dunlop. What it indicated was
12:36:31 20 that we didn't want to have to account for the VAT until we got paid.
21 Q. 562 Until you got paid?
22 A. Yeah, it's the sort of notation that you would get on solicitors invoices and
23 all sort of professional invoices saying this is not an invoice for VAT
24 purposes.
12:36:47 25 Q. 563 4839, which is Mr. Dunlop's claim for the success fee. Where do you say Mr.
26 Dunlop was paid this?
27 A. Sorry. I know he was paid a total of 85,000.
28 Q. 564 Do you know whether or not to your own knowledge, any part of the payment of
29 80,000 pounds was in connection with the success fee?
12:37:07 30 A. Well I assume in the heel of the hunt ....

www.pcr.ie Day 660
62
12:37:11 1 Q. 565 Do you know of your own knowledge, whether any part of the payments made to
2 Monarch related to the success fee?
3 A. No, I can't specifically identify a cheque for 30,250 or for 60,500.
4 Q. 566 So if there wasn't any such payment, what exactly was going on, Mr. Glennane?
12:37:41 5 A. I don't know what you mean what was going on.
6 Q. 567 Well if there was no, if there was no pavement to Mr. Dunlop in connection with
7 the success fee but you were sending the invoice on to GRE and seeking payment
8 on foot of it, what exactly is going on?
9 A. Well the arrangement with GRE obviously that they were happy that he be paid
12:38:00 10 4,000 per month and that he be paid -- and that he be paid a success fee, which
11 came in sometime after the start, if you like. And that we were reflecting
12 that to GRE and we were assuming, we were trying to pay Mr. Dunlop on much the
13 same, on much the same basis. I think you'd have to ask Mr. Sweeney what fee
14 he negotiated with Mr. Dunlop. To the best of my knowledge, it was 4,000 per
12:38:29 15 month.
16 Q. 568 Yes. And the 15,000 pounds payment that you referred to, I think, in
17 December; isn't that right?
19 Q. 569 Yes. That in fact was a payment in respect of a separate invoice. 9558.
12:38:43 20 7030, please. We went through this this morning, Mr. Glennane.?
21 A. If it was a payment on account.
22 Q. 570 Yes. The payment on account was that --
23 A. No, no, the payment on account of the general account. That invoice was
24 posted. At the end of it Mr. Dunlop is advocating 15,000 against that
12:39:05 25 invoice.
26 Q. 571 The payment in December. What date in December was the payment made? The
27 payment on account is 4865.?
28 A. The 21st of December I think.
29 Q. 572 Is the requisition; isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
63
12:39:26 1 Q. 573 Which is after I think you have an entry in your diary of the same date?
3 Q. 574 Isn't that the position? And are you saying that that was a payment on account
4 in connection with the invoices of the 6th of December and the invoice for the
12:39:39 5 success fee?
6 A. No, well I'm saying it was -- a payment on account of his general account.
7 Q. 575 Of his general account?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 576 Including a success fee?
12:39:50 10 A. Exactly, yes, yeah.
11 Q. 577 And where is the documentation to indicate that when you were paying that
12 15,000 pounds to Mr. Dunlop that it included or was part of a success fee?
13 A. There's no specific documentation. It's just ...
14 Q. 578 So I'll ask you again Mr. Glennane, to explain to the Tribunal. What
12:40:08 15 precisely was going on with all of these invoices and all of this negotiation
16 and dealing on the one hand with GRE and on the other hand with Mr. Dunlop?
17 A. Well, I mean, there was -- the position with GRE is quite clear. That they
18 approved and were happy to pay for 4,000 per month.
19 Q. 579 Yes?
12:40:28 20 A. Plus the success fee. And what Monarch was paying Mr. Dunlop was the agreed
21 rate we seem to have under paid him, if anything.
22 Q. 580 You seem to have under paid Mr. Dunlop?
23 A. If we use the GRE figures we have there, yes.
24 Q. 581 You were looking for more from GRE than you'd paid Mr. Dunlop; isn't that
12:40:56 25 right?
26 A. Well we were looking for more, I don't know if we knew at that stage what the
27 final account would be with Mr. Dunlop. I was saying, what happened there
28 with -- GRE were the sort of people that wanted to close off their books on the
29 31st of December and they wanted to make sure that all of the payments were
12:41:18 30 made in that year.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
64
12:41:20 1 Q. 582 If we just --
2 A. They actually made out a request, very unusual, in my experience, to please
3 lodge the cheque as soon as possible. Nobody's ever written to me nor I've
4 never written to anybody asking them to lodge the cheque as soon as possible.
12:41:34 5 Q. 583 Did you pay Mr. Dunlop any money out of that cheque?
6 A. Yeah, well the 15,000, yes.
7 Q. 584 That was paid in December?
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. 585 That you -- and you got the cheque from GRE in January.
12:41:46 10 A. I'm not sure when we got the cheque. I have a feeling it went into our
11 account, before, before Christmas.
12 Q. 586 Can I just summarise a few matters for you, Mr. Glennane, to give you an
13 opportunity to comment on them.
14
12:41:58 15 When the Tribunal first contacted Monarch Properties about the payments to Mr.
16 Dunlop. The figure you came up with was 52,500 pounds?
17 A. That's right.
18 Q. 587 That figure's wrong?
19 A. So it seems, yes. It is wrong, yes.
12:42:10 20 Q. 588 You had available to you the documentation that enabled you to check to see
21 what payments had in fact been made to Mr. Dunlop but you omitted the first two
22 payments that had been made to Mr. Dunlop that had been not supported by
23 invoices?
24 A. No, no, it's nothing to do with invoices. I'm not sure we had. We mustn't
12:42:31 25 have had available to us the documentation of March '93 or we would have
26 recorded those two payments.
27 Q. 589 But you weren't able to advise the Tribunal of the correct position; isn't that
28 right?
29 A. At that time, yes, at that time, no.
12:42:45 30 Q. 590 The Tribunal then conducts its inquiries and establishes what appears to be the

www.pcr.ie Day 660
65
12:42:50 1 correct amount that's paid to Mr. Dunlop; isn't that right?
2 A. Based on the information supplied by Monarch.
3 Q. 591 Yes. And the position appears to be, and correct me if I am wrong, that
4 contrary to what is stated to be the Monarch position about payments in
12:43:06 5 general, Mr. Dunlop's payments are unusual in that payments are made to Mr.
6 Dunlop unsupported by invoices from Mr. Dunlop; is that right?
7 A. At the time of payment, yes.
8 Q. 592 And you contend now to the Tribunal that you had a monthly retainer agreement
9 with Mr. Dunlop, which is denied by Mr. Dunlop?
12:43:26 10 A. Sorry, that's my understanding of the position.
11 Q. 593 From whom did you get that understanding from?
12 A. Mr. Sweeney.
13 Q. 594 And did he tell you that he had agreed 4,000 pounds per month with Mr. Dunlop?
14 A. I can't recall the exact wording, but, I mean, from the time but that's my --
12:43:42 15 looking back now at it years later all the evidence I see supports that, that
16 that was the arrangement. But he'll have to speak for himself.
17 Q. 595 Yes. Insofar as the 15,000 pounds paid without any VAT to Mr. Dunlop is
18 concerned. That figure is netted off in the books of Monarch almost
19 immediately; isn't that right?
12:44:02 20 A. It's not netted off. I mean, it's automatically done by the computer.
21 Q. 596 Yes?
22 A. I don't understand how it works but because the invoice and the payment
23 coincide.
24 Q. 597 Yes?
12:44:13 25 A. For the same amount they are netted off.
26 Q. 598 And they don't carry?
27 A. In the other cases all the payments because there is no exact invoices are
28 carried forward.
29 Q. 599 So what happens is --
12:44:25 30 A. That is quite a normal procedure and the accounts were reconciled then

www.pcr.ie Day 660
66
12:44:29 1 certainly every year or more often than every year before the end of the year.
3 JUDGE FAHERTY: Mr. Glennane, sorry, Ms. Dillon. Just on that. That invoice
4 that's paid. And you say it was paid on the day it was received?
12:44:51 5 A. Yes.
7 JUDGE FAHERTY: And that's fair enough. Ms. Dillon referred us shortly,
8 while shortly, to Mr. Caslin having sent certified copies of invoices to GRE?
9 A. Yes.
12:44:56 10
11 JUDGE FAHERTY: And these are certified copies, as I understand it, of Mr.
12 Dunlop's invoices
14
12:45:03 15 JUDGE FAHERTY: One dated 10th of April and one dated 6th of December and then
16 the success fee one
18
19 JUDGE FAHERTY: And she did mention, I'm not sure the reference number of what
12:45:17 20 of Mr. Caslin's letter is but was the certified copy of the 2nd of November
21 '93 invoice sent to GRE?
23
24 JUDGE FAHERTY: And why not?
12:45:27 25 A. Well I think the invoices sent to GRE I think actually came to more than the
26 amount that we were claiming so there was no need, if you like, to put in more
27 invoices.
28
29 JUDGE FAHERTY: But Mr. Glennane it seems from the correspondence and indeed
12:45:43 30 the internal documentation of Monarch that GRE were particularly sticky. That

www.pcr.ie Day 660
67
12:45:49 1 every piece of paper that Monarch had that could support a claim should be
2 sent. Why not? Because that one came -- that was the second in time if you
3 like. If you take the 10th of April. The next one sent is the 6th of
4 December but an invoice for 15,000 pounds was sought and indeed paid by Monarch
12:46:07 5 on the 2nd of November. Yet that payment that you have presumably on your
6 books is not certified by Mr. Sweeney nor sent to the personnel in GRE and I'm
7 asking why that could be since you actually have that, as I understand the
8 evidence, actual document in your possession by December. I'm just asking him
9 why ...
12:46:32 10 A. Sorry, I don't know. Maybe if we could show the invoice.
11
12 JUDGE FAHERTY: 4633, I think.
13 A. Certified by Mr. Sweeney, yes. I mean, I can't explain why that particular
14 one wasn't sent and the one for say the 25 or the 32 was sent. I think we
12:46:52 15 were trying to substantiate that the amount we were claiming from GRE, which
16 was the 4,000 per month, was the success fee, that we had invoices for more,
17 for more than that from Mr. Dunlop.
18
19 JUDGE FAHERTY: I mean, looking at it there. and I know Ms. Dillon has put
12:47:10 20 questions to you, Mr. Glennane, that GRE might query why there was no VAT on
21 it?
22 A. I don't think they would have, no, because the invoices we sent them were for
23 fees and we added on the VAT to it.
24
12:47:23 25 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes.
26 A. So it wouldn't have been, our VAT inputs wouldn't have been any concern of
27 theirs.
28
29 JUDGE FAHERTY: For some reason the decision was made when Monarch were
12:47:33 30 looking for back up and obviously had to because of the letters that they were

www.pcr.ie Day 660
68
12:47:36 1 getting from GRE. For some reason a decision must have been taken not to
2 include this particular document as back up for the monies you had paid Mr.
3 Dunlop by December 1993?
4 A. Well it wasn't just monies we had paid. We also had back up for monies we
12:47:54 5 intended to pay in the future. There was a claim for payment. Yes, as I
6 said, we ended up with too many invoices from Mr. Dunlop. So we ended up
7 crediting them later on.
9 MS. DILLON: And insofar as that invoice is concerned and the payment was made
12:48:10 10 on the same day, you say that what happened was the computer netted them off
11 and therefore they weren't carried forward because they cancelled each other
12 out ?
13 A. Exactly, yes.
14 Q. 600 So when one came to look at the creditor's listing for Mr. Dunlop in '95 that
12:48:26 15 invoice and payment does not appear; isn't that right?
16 A. Well it doesn't appear in the creditor's listing, yes.
19 Q. 602 Because they have already cancelled each other out?
12:48:36 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 603 And they haven't been carried forward?
23 Q. 604 It just disappears off the books?
24 A. No, it's doesn't disappear. It's recorded in the books as an invoice. All
12:48:45 25 invoices are recorded in the books. The reason for doing a creditors
26 reconciliation is to ensure that you have documents to reconcile the balance
27 you are showing you owe any particular creditor with an independent
28 verification which would also be verified by the auditors. It would look
29 peculiar in any situation if you appear to have overpaid somebody. So the
12:49:10 30 auditors and ourselves would be concerned about any account that was actually

www.pcr.ie Day 660
69
12:49:14 1 in debit. It would obviously suggest that there were invoices missing.
2 Q. 605 So the significant features then about this payment of 15,000 pounds in
3 November of 1993 is the invoice and the cheque are dated the same day; is that
4 right?
6 Q. 606 The payment is made on the date it's demanded; isn't that right?
7 A. Well I'm not sure which came first, as I said to you already.
8 Q. 607 All right. It is never sent to GRE. And it's never claimed back in that
9 format from GRE?
12:49:44 10 A. Not in that format, no.
11 Q. 608 It doesn't appear to be subsumed into any later invoice from Mr. Dunlop; isn't
12 that right?
13 A. Sorry?
14 Q. 609 It doesn't seem to be included in any later invoices, in the December invoices
12:49:56 15 from Mr. Dunlop; isn't that right?
16 A. Of this 15,000?
17 Q. 610 Yeah?
18 A. It wouldn't be if it had been paid.
19 Q. 611 And reimbursement of this payment does not appear to have been sought by
12:50:09 20 Monarch from GRE on foot of this invoice; isn't that right?
21 A. On foot of this specific invoice, yes, yes.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 613 Right. Now, why wouldn't you have relied upon that invoice and sought 50% of
12:50:22 25 it from GRE?
26 A. Because as I said, there were more than enough invoices had come in from him,
27 if you like, to use up the total figure that we had agreed with them.
28 Q. 614 Why didn't you send a letter to GRE on the 3rd of November and look for your
29 7,500 back?
12:50:43 30 A. Because we were in communication with them, say, on a monthly basis. We

www.pcr.ie Day 660
70
12:50:47 1 didn't submit a letter every day saying we paid this invoice yesterday or
2 tomorrow.
3 Q. 615 You waited until December?
12:50:55 5 Q. 616 And you waited until Mr. Dunlop had furnished a number of other invoices which
6 you did send on to GRE, isn't that right?
8 Q. 617 But you never sent on this one?
9 A. Apparently not. But I don't -- there's no reason why this wasn't sent.
12:51:11 10 Q. 618 There could be a very good reason why it wasn't sent on in that that could be a
11 provision of cash to Mr. Dunlop to deal with the difficulty on the 11th of
12 November 1993 that Monarch had in Dublin County Council?
13 A. No, it certainly was not. It couldn't have been.
14 Q. 619 Couldn't have been?
12:51:26 15 A. No.
16 Q. 620 Why do you say that?
17 A. Because it was paid by cheque.
18 Q. 621 No VAT?
19 A. No -- whether there's VAT or not doesn't matter.
12:51:36 20 Q. 622 How can you say that when Mr. Dunlop is a vatable individual?
21 A. Well that activity, if that activity doesn't attract VAT. I don't know what
22 motivation Mr. Dunlop had in raising that invoice on that day but I do know it
23 was just treated as a normal invoice in Monarch's books and when it went
24 through it was paid by cheque. It certainly wasn't paid in cash or anything
12:51:57 25 like that. It was quite clear that it was paid by cheque. It went through
26 the books and was available for scrutiny by the auditors and by everybody else
27 and it was included in the creditors reconciliation.
28 Q. 623 But it was never claimed back from GRE; isn't that right?
29 A. Well the amount we claimed back from GRE was the agreed amount. We had more
12:52:29 30 than enough invoices, invoices in that letter. I think obviously that letter

www.pcr.ie Day 660
71
12:52:33 1 was written in a bit of a hurry in December to try to get the cheque from them
2 before Christmas. Because, again, they would have been certainly saying we
3 need to sort this out before Christmas or before the 31st of December, which
4 were their end of year.
12:52:49 5 Q. 624 Uh-huh.
6 A. So I think it was probably a matter of make sure we have enough invoices to
7 cover the amount we're claiming.
8 Q. 625 Would you explain to the Tribunal the circumstances of the allocation of
9 payments against certain accounts in the books of Monarch, and Monarch
12:53:09 10 Properties Services Limited?
11 A. Sorry in, what sense?
12 Q. 626 If, for example, Monarch Properties Services Limited pays 1,000 pounds on
13 behalf of Cherrywood Limited or on behalf of the Cherrywood Development what
14 happens?
12:53:22 15 A. It's coded then as a Cherrywood payment.
16 Q. 627 What's the code for a Cherrywood payment?
17 A. I don't know offhand.
18 Q. 628 Were they the 735 codes?
19 A. So it appears, yes. Or they were allocated against Cherrywood, yes.
12:53:37 20 Q. 629 Can I show you an analysis that has been carried out by the Tribunal.
21
22 At 8199. And see if you can assist in making sense of what happened.
23
24 If we can turn this document around. Let me show you before we come to
12:53:53 25 consider that document. 3241.
26
27 This is a schedule of political payments, according to Monarch Properties,
28 totalling 23,450 pounds, which is made in May and June of 1991. And this
29 documentation has been furnished to the Tribunal. And I think you assisted in
12:54:12 30 preparing these schedules?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
72
2 Q. 630 Now, the Tribunal analysed how these payments were treated in the books of
3 Monarch Properties Services Limited, Mr. Glennane, and prepared a document that
4 you've been furnished with., at 8199, and we might get you a hard copy of
12:54:33 5 8199.
6 A. I got this last night.
7 Q. 631 You got this last night. And if we just look first of all at the, under the
8 heading "original and change". To the left-hand side of the document. If we
9 just increase that first of all. So that we can possibly read that. And if
12:54:56 10 we look under the heading "original". We see 66802201. Do you see that?
11 A. Yes, yes.
12 Q. 632 Now, you can explain this, if I'm incorrect. But in its simplest form. What
13 that is, is a posting in the books of MPSL indicating the account to which the
14 payment is charged. Is that right?
12:55:17 15 A. Yeah. So it appears so, yes.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 634 And that posting of 66802201 is a Monarch Properties Services Limited posting?
12:55:30 20 Q. 635 Okay. That is then changed to an account with the number 7351021?
21 A. Right, yes.
23 A. Yes, so it would seem, yes. If this document is correct. I'm not disputing
24 it.
12:55:44 25 Q. 637 Yes. I mean, we'll come to look at the actual document?
26 A. It's not my document.
27 Q. 638 The underlying documents are probably your documents?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 639 The 7351021 accounts are Cherrywood accounts; isn't that right?
12:55:58 30 A. In Monarch services, yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
73
12:56:00 1 Q. 640 In Monarch Properties Services Limited?
2 A. I think so, yeah, sorry.
3 Q. 641 So what happens, leaving aside accountancy terms for the moment. Just so we
4 all understand what's going on. A cheque for in this case let's say 5,000
12:56:13 5 pounds is written to the late Mr. Tom Hand?
6 A. Right, yes.
7 Q. 642 That cheque is written on the 30th of May 1991. And it's initially attributed
8 in the books of Monarch to Monarch Properties Services Limited; is that right?
9 A. I'm not sure about that but however I won't dispute it however.
12:56:39 10 Q. 643 If we look at 3988.
11
12 Now, this you will be familiar with, Mr. Glennane, because this is one of your
13 own documents. And I want you to look at the second half of that page. And
14 you will see it's headed account 66802201 promotions. Do you see that?
12:57:01 15 A. I do, yes.
16 Q. 644 And do you see coming down that the third entry is 5,000 pounds T Hand's FG?
18 Q. 645 Are you you satisfied now that initially the payment of 5,000 pounds to Mr. Tom
19 Hand in May of 1991 is posted to account number 66802201?
21 Q. 646 The total amount of the payments. If we just look at the payments immediately
22 beneath that of 1,000, 500, 300, 300 and 1,000. Do you see all of those
23 political payments?
24 A. I do, yes.
12:57:33 25 Q. 647 And they total 8,1000; isn't that right?
27 Q. 648 And if we go to 3989.
28
29 And we look at the bottom of the first documents. And it -- no, the first
12:57:51 30 part - the top part of the document, please. And I want to draw to your

www.pcr.ie Day 660
74
12:57:57 1 attention "transferred to -- the last entry" transferred to Cherrywood
2 promotion 8,100 pounds"
4 Q. 649 And then I want to draw to your attention, 3990.
12:58:09 5
6 Which is headed at the bottom of the page "account 73510201 General Promotion
7 Cherrywood". Do you see that? General promotion
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 650 And you see at the very bottom 'transfer 15,350 promotion and 8,100
12:58:29 10 sponsorship', do you see that?
12 Q. 651 And the total is 23,450?
14 Q. 652 Now, what is happening there, Mr. Glennane, as I understand it, subject to any
12:58:40 15 correction that you're making, is that when the cheque for 5,000 pounds
16 political donation is written to Mr. Tom Hand, it is initially put into an
17 account called promotions?
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. 653 In MPSL; is that right?
12:58:59 20 A. Yes, so, yes.
21 Q. 654 It is then transferred in April of 1992 into an account called 'General
22 Promotions Cherrywood; isn't that right?
24 Q. 655 And that means, as I understand it, that it was considered in MPSL that the
12:59:11 25 payment of 5,000 pounds to Mr. Hand was an expense in connection with
26 Cherrywood. Is that right?
27 A. I don't think -- not an expense, no.
28 Q. 656 Okay. Well what is it?
29 A. Well the fact is it's the opposite of an expense. Because it was then carried
12:59:27 30 forward as a work in progress. If that stayed in the first account it would

www.pcr.ie Day 660
75
12:59:31 1 have been written off as an expense.
2 Q. 657 Well leaving aside the Cherrywood stock and what ultimately happened with that.
3 And we'll come to deal with that, Mr. Glennane?
4 A. Yes well --
12:59:41 5 Q. 658 We're dealing first of all in what's happening in the books at the time?
6 A. Yeah, if it had been left in promotions it would have been written off as a
7 Monarch expense, a reference there to Christmas party and things.
8 Q. 659 Yes?
9 A. Which were regarded as normal expenses.
12:59:58 10 Q. 660 Can you write off political contributions?
11 A. Not as far as I know, no. Sorry, not for tax purposes. I don't think you can
12 write them off for ...
13 Q. 661 Can you write them off as an expense?
14 A. Well not for tax purposes.
13:00:11 15 Q. 662 How should political contributions be treated?
16 A. You mean? You mean for tax purposes?.
17 Q. 663 No. I'm talking about in the books and accounts of a company.?
18 A. Well if, if they were being written off they should be written off as an
19 expense that's not allowable for tax. They either call them donations or
13:00:34 20 promotions or ...
21 Q. 664 Well let's start with the word "donations". What's listed in the schedule
22 you've provided to the Tribunal in May of 1991. At 3241.
23
24 There is a schedule of political donations totalling 23,450 pounds; isn't that
13:00:53 25 right?
27 Q. 665 Now, can you indicate to the Tribunal the account within Monarch Properties
28 Services Limited headed political donations?
29 A. Into --
13:01:04 30 Q. 666 Into which these donations were posted?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
76
13:01:07 1 A. There wasn't one obviously.
2 Q. 667 Well, why wasn't there one?
3 A. Because it wouldn't be a normal heading in your books. And this was probably
4 I think probably the first time we had ever made political donations other than
13:01:21 5 very occasional ones.
6 Q. 668 Well certainly --
7 A. But it wouldn't be regarded as just a normal heading so ...
9 CHAIRMAN: Ms. Dillon it's after one o'clock.
13:01:31 10
12
13 CHAIRMAN: So we'll stop until two o'clock.
14
13:01:35 15
16
17
19
21
22
23
24
14:06:41 25 MS. DILLON: Mr. Glennane, please.
26
27
28 CHAIRMAN: Now Mr. Glennane.
29
14:07:01 30 MS. DILLON: I think before lunch, if I could have page 8191, Mr. Glennane

www.pcr.ie Day 660
77
2 Q. 669 And I think you had some concern as to the accuracy of the document?
3 A. No, I'm just pointing out it was your document, yes.
4 Q. 670 Yes. And the document as we saw was based upon the documents supplied by
14:07:26 5 Monarch Properties; isn't that right?
6 A. Yes, certainly, yeah.
7 Q. 671 And are you prepared to accept now that based on Monarch Properties documents
8 that each of those payments was initially recorded in an account of MPSL and
9 then subsequently transferred in April 1992 to an account of Cherrywood
14:07:46 10 Properties?
11 A. In Monarch Services, yes.
12 Q. 672 Monarch services?
13 A. Accounts, yeah.
14 Q. 673 So that everybody understands what was happening. In Monarch Properties
14:07:56 15 Services Limited was a company that had funds; isn't that right?
16 A. Sorry, it wasn't funds. It was generally a holding company where everything
17 was channelled through.
18 Q. 674 Yes?
19 A. From various companies in the group, if you like, an umbrella company, to put
14:08:12 20 it that way.
21 Q. 675 And it would make payments on behalf of certain companies?
22 A. Exactly, yes.
23 Q. 676 And it made payments on behalf of Cherrywood Properties Limited?
24 A. In some cases, yes.
14:08:21 25 Q. 677 And it made payments on behalf of other companies?
26 A. Exactly, yes.
27 Q. 678 And when it wrote a cheque it would allocate that cheque against an account
28 within Monarch Properties Services Limited?
14:08:32 30 Q. 679 Would that be a fair way of describing it in its simplest?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
78
14:08:36 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 680 What initially happened with the schedule of payments that were made to
3 politicians in May and June of 1991 is those payments were initially allocated
4 against Monarch Properties Services Limited?
14:08:52 5 A. Well they were allocated against promotions yeah, apparently, yeah.
6 Q. 681 Within Monarch Properties Services Limited; isn't that right?
8 Q. 682 And in April of 1992 they were transferred?
9 A. Yeah, an internal transfer.
14:09:00 10 Q. 683 An internal transfer from general promotions and sponsorship in Monarch
11 Properties Services limited and they were transferred to Cherrywood promotions;
14 Q. 684 So that effectively, whilst initially they had been regarded as being a cost of
14:09:17 15 Monarch Properties Services Limited. In April 1992 they were being regarded
16 as a cost of Cherrywood?
17 A. Well they were being regarded as some concerns to do with Cherrywood, yes.
18 Q. 685 Well let's just see --
19 A. I think in fairness, I think the original coding would have been done by
14:09:35 20 somebody fairly Junior. And I don't think they placed great emphasis on the
21 coding of them. It was certainly felt presumably at the end of the year that
22 they should be carried forward and they should be carried forward under the
23 heading of general promotions and allocated as Cherrywood, yes.
24 Q. 686 So that the expenses which are regarded as political expenses which total
14:09:58 25 23,450 pounds were initially coded or charged or allocated to Monarch
26 Properties Services Limited Sponsorship and Promotion, but in April 1992 were
27 transferred into Cherrywood general promotions?
28 A. Well, yes, but it's wrong terminology to say that they were regarded as
29 political expenses.
14:10:22 30 Q. 687 They weren't political expenses?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
79
14:10:24 1 A. No, they were political donations.
2 Q. 688 Okay. We'll start again?
3 A. But they were transferred from the Monarch -- in other words if they hadn't
4 been transferred they would have been written off that year in Monarch services
14:10:37 5 Limited under the heading promotion.
6 Q. 689 Yeah, but they would have been written off; isn't that right?
8 Q. 690 Through the P&L?
9 A. Yeah.
14:10:45 10 Q. 691 They would have been deducted as an expense and the tax added back?
11 A. Well, presumably, that was up to the auditors.
12 Q. 692 If that happened?
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. 693 But that didn't happen; isn't that right?
14:10:57 15 A. No.
16 Q. 694 Because they were charged in April 1992 to Cherrywood?
17 A. Well, they were allocated to Cherrywood.
18 Q. 695 Okay. Were they allocated to Cherrywood as a cost of Cherrywood?
19 A. As stock in Cherrywood, yes. So something, as I said, to do with Cherrywood,
14:11:13 20 yes.
21 Q. 696 Okay. What had they to do with Cherrywood?
22 A. Well, I mean, I suppose the short answer to it is that they had to be allocated
23 somewhere. At the time there was a lot of payments going through relating to
24 Cherrywood and that was probably a convenient home for them, it was the most
14:11:31 25 likely thing, the most likely place that they would have been allocated to.
26 Plus we would have analysed anything showing Cherrywood and tried to recover
27 50% of it from GRE.
28 Q. 697 They were already allocated when they were made to promotions and sponsorship
29 in Monarch Properties Services Limited; isn't that right?
14:11:54 30 A. Well they were, yeah, they were allocated as something that was a Monarch

www.pcr.ie Day 660
80
14:12:00 1 expense to be written off.
2 Q. 698 They could have stayed in Monarch Properties Services Limited and been dealt
3 with through the profit and loss; isn't that right?
14:12:09 5 Q. 699 And they could have been written down as an expense and then added back, isn't
6 that right, because it wasn't a deductible expense?
8 Q. 700 That didn't happen?
9 A. No, that's right, yes.
14:12:19 10 Q. 701 So now it's not an expense of Monarch Properties Services Limited; isn't that
11 right?
12 A. It's carried forward. To be decided on at some future date.
13 Q. 702 But it's carried forward as Cherrywood stock?
14 A. They were actually written off in Monarch Services at the end of the day.
14:12:36 15 Q. 703 In 1996?
16 A. Exactly, yeah. I think it's fair to say that.
17 Q. 704 Yes. That's what the documentation shows?
19 Q. 705 But in 1992?
14:12:48 20 A. So they were sort of, if you like, in a holding situation throughout the years
21 '92, '93, '94 and '95.
22 Q. 706 We'll come to look at the auditors treatment and what the audit working papers
23 look at but for the moment let's just look at what happened when the cheques
24 were written. When the cheques were written they were initially allocated as
14:13:06 25 a cost to MPSL, Monarch Properties Services Limited?
26 A. Well when you say they weren't necessarily allocated at the same day the cheque
27 was written. They would have been allocated maybe six or eight weeks later.
28 Q. 707 Six or eight weeks after the payment was made they were allocated to Monarch
29 Properties Services Limited either sponsorship or promotion?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
81
14:13:33 1 Q. 708 In April of 1992 they were transferred out of Monarch Properties Services
2 Limited Promotion and Sponsorship and transferred into Cherrywood General
3 Promotions?
6 A. I would assume in consultation with the auditors or --
7 Q. 710 In consultation with the?
8 A. With the auditors.
9 Q. 711 Is there any documentation to indicate it was in consultation with the
14:13:50 10 auditors?
11 A. There's certainly documentation indicating that the auditors, there is a
12 document explaining the treatment of them prepared by the auditors.
13 Q. 712 That's the 1995 and 1996 documents?
14 A. 7378. It explains it all actually very well, if I may say so.
14:14:08 15 Q. 713 Uh-huh. And when this was transferred on the 30th of April 1992 to Cherrywood
16 Promotion. Who made that decision?
17 A. I would assume it was made by the financial controller in consultation with the
18 auditors.
19 Q. 714 Who was the financial controller?
14:14:21 20 A. At that stage it was a man called Pat Caslin.
21 Q. 715 Who was the person with ultimate responsibility for this?
22 A. Oh, me, yes.
23 Q. 716 So would you've proved this transfer?
14:14:31 25 Q. 717 So that in April 1992 was it the position that it was considered within the
26 Monarch Group that these expenses or costs or cheques that had been written
27 were attributable to Cherrywood as opposed to being attributable to Monarch
28 Properties Services Limited?
14:14:47 30 Q. 718 Okay. How did the political payments of 23,450 pounds become considered to be

www.pcr.ie Day 660
82
14:14:58 1 attributable to Cherrywood?
2 A. Well, I assume at the time Cherrywood was the only development that we had on.
3 Q. 719 Is that the position?
4 A. Well, I think so. Active. I mean, we were still involved in Tallaght. We
14:15:15 5 were still involved in Ongar and Somerton were a bit later on I think, we had
6 several small developments. But sure the main sort of light was shining, if
7 you like, on Cherrywood.
8 Q. 720 They could have been left in Monarch Properties Services Limited?
9 A. They could have been and written off, yes.
14:15:33 10 Q. 721 But they weren't?
11 A. No.
12 Q. 722 So somebody made a decision to treat these expenses or costs or cheques that
13 had been written as an expense or a cost or, as you say yourself, something to
14 do with Cherrywood isn't that right?
16 Q. 723 Who was that person?
17 A. I have already said, in my opinion, it was either Pat Caslin in consultation
18 with the auditors or myself. I'm not disowning it in any way.
19 Q. 724 And you would have approved of this, Mr. Glennane?
14:15:58 20 A. Absolutely, yes.
21 Q. 725 So what had the payments that were made in May and June of 1991 to politicians
22 to do with the Cherrywood development?
23 A. They were obviously the contributions which had been sought for the elections
24 in that year and they were, the decision was made, the most likely, the correct
14:16:19 25 place, job to put them against really was Cherrywood. It was the most active
26 job that was on at the time.
27 Q. 726 Are you saying it was a convenient place to put them?
28 A. Exactly, yes.
29 Q. 727 How was it more convenient to put them against Cherrywood than against Monarch
14:16:35 30 Properties Services Limited?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
83
14:16:36 1 A. Because we didn't presumably want to write them off and be -- if they were put
2 in Cherrywood there would be a prospect of recovering 50% of them from GRE.
3 Q. 728 Why would you have wanted to leave them in Monarch Properties Services Limited?
4 A. Sorry?
14:16:53 5 Q. 729 If you had left them there what would have happened to them?
6 A. They would have just got written off.
7 Q. 730 Because they weren't tax deductible. And if you claim them as an expense --
8 A. It will show a higher revenue deficiency.
9 Q. 731 But you would have added back the tax; isn't that right?
11 Q. 732 And that would have been the end of them; isn't that right?
12 A. Exactly, yeah.
13 Q. 733 They would have been finished then forever and more?
14 A. Well unless the Tribunal would be looking at them again presumably.
14:17:21 15 Q. 734 Yes?
16 A. But in the normal course, yes.
17 Q. 735 Yes. That's what would have happened if they had been treated as a political
18 donation and deducted as an expense, the tax would have been calculated on them
19 and the tax would have been added back and that would have been the end of them
14:17:34 20 in the following year when the following year's accounts were done in Monarch
21 Property Services Limited, isn't that right?
22 A. In the normal course, yes.
23 Q. 736 In April 1992 the normal course didn't prevail; isn't that right?
24 A. In what sense do you mean?
14:17:47 25 Q. 737 Because you didn't write them out of Monarch Properties Services Limited, you
26 transferred them to Cherrywood?
27 A. Well, yeah, we transferred them, yeah, to, yeah.
28 Q. 738 And in transferring them to Cherrywood you are saying and I think what --
29 correct me if I'm not quoting you correctly, because they had something to do
14:18:05 30 with Cherrywood?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
84
14:18:06 1 A. I would think so, yeah.
2 Q. 739 Now, what was the something that they had to do with Cherrywood?
3 A. Well I presume we believed that the reason that they were sought was because
4 the council would have known that we were involved in Cherrywood and would have
14:18:21 5 presumably believed that we'd be looking for some support off them at some
6 stage.
7 Q. 740 So are you --
8 A. That's the basis that they were sought on. That would be my interpretation of
9 it.
14:18:31 10 Q. 741 That's your?
11 A. Interpretation of it.
12 Q. 742 Sorry, just to be clear on it. Your interpretation is that the councillors
13 would have sought these payments because they knew you were involved in
14 Cherrywood?
14:18:41 15 A. Yeah, presumably or involved in development, yes.
16 Q. 743 And you would be looking for their support?
17 A. Asking for their support.
18 Q. 744 In connection with Cherrywood?
19 A. Yes, yes, yes.
14:18:51 20 Q. 745 On that basis and based on that understanding or belief within Monarch, these
21 political donations were attributed to Cherrywood?
23 Q. 746 And they were attributed to Cherrywood as a cost; is that right?
24 A. Well, when I say a cost. They were -- they were -- they were carried forward
14:19:08 25 as stock. If you carried forward something as stock you don't regard it as a
26 cost until it is eventually charged in.
27 Q. 747 Yes. And if you could just explain that whole concept of the stock, the build
28 up of the stock, Mr. Glennane?
29 A. Well, there's the heading 'stock and work in progress', which is really the
14:19:28 30 same thing. In a normal company stock is still something that you still have

www.pcr.ie Day 660
85
14:19:34 1 at the end of the year.
2 Q. 748 Uh-huh?
3 A. And which you are going to deal with next year. So it's not written off in a
4 property company it's, if you still had -- say your land was shown as stock.
14:19:48 5 Q. 749 MPSL wouldn't have been showing the Cherrywood Land as its stock; isn't that
6 right?
7 A. Not the Cherrywood, no.
8 Q. 750 Because it didn't own the Cherrywood Land; isn't that right?
9 A. That's right.
14:19:57 10 Q. 751 So when it's talking about Cherrywood stock it's talking about when Monarch
11 Properties Services Limited is talking about a build up of Cherrywood stock
12 it's talking about a build up of money it has paid out on behalf of Cherrywood?
13 A. Which is allocated against Cherrywood.
14 Q. 752 Against Cherrywood stock. So what is being created in Monarch Properties
14:20:18 15 Services Limited is an asset called Cherrywood stock which ultimately will be
16 bought by Cherrywood when it comes into funds?
17 A. Not necessarily, no. It's just being carried forward as a, the last part
18 doesn't necessarily follow. It's being carried forward as an asset.
19 Q. 753 Yes?
14:20:35 20 A. Rather than written off.
21 Q. 754 Yes. So what happens is that Monarch Properties Services Limited makes
22 payments on behalf of Cherrywood and it accumulates --
23 A. Makes payments, yes.
24 Q. 755 Which it attributes in its books to being payments on behalf of Cherrywood; is
14:20:50 25 that right?
26 A. Well, which are the best allocation of them is against Cherrywood.
27 Q. 756 The factual position on Monarch's records is all of these expenses are
28 attributed to the 73 reference; isn't that right?
29 A. All of these costs, yes.
14:21:05 30 Q. 757 All of these costs are attributed to the 73 reference?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
86
14:21:08 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 758 The 73 reference is the reference for Cherrywood in Monarch Properties Services
3 Limited?
4 A. Yes.
14:21:15 5 Q. 759 So the build up of the Cherrywood stock happens when Monarch Properties
6 Services Limited, in the first instance, makes a payment which it attributes to
7 Cherrywood?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 760 That's the first thing that happens; isn't that right?
14:21:28 10 A. Well attributes at the end of the year.
11 Q. 761 At the end of the year. Cherrywood can't pay that or doesn't pay that; isn't
12 that right?
13 A. Well it could have paid it if it had been asked.
14 Q. 762 But it's not paid no. The situation is that it's not paid?
14:21:42 15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. 763 Over the years that debt builds up and it's called stock in its simplest terms;
18 A. It's not a debt. It's built up as stock, yes.
19 Q. 764 It's money that is paid out by Monarch Properties Services Limited for and on
14:21:58 20 behalf of Cherrywood Properties Limited; is that right?
22 Q. 765 And what is, in its simplest terms and it may not be a proper accountancy term
23 Mr. Glennane, what's happening is that Cherrywood Properties Limited owes a
24 large amount of money to Monarch Properties Services Limited and Monarch
14:22:15 25 Properties Services Limited carries a large debt which is due to it by
26 Cherrywood Properties Limited which ultimately it will sell to Cherrywood
27 Properties Limited?
28 A. No, I don't think that's right.
29 Q. 766 You don't think that's right. Do you want to explain then the concept of
14:22:30 30 Cherrywood stock?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
87
14:22:30 1 A. Yeah. The only accounts where it's reflected is Monarch services Limited.
2 Q. 767 Uh-huh?
3 A. It's not reflected in the Cherrywood accounts at all.
4 Q. 768 Yes, I didn't suggest it was.
14:22:45 5 A. You did. You said it was reflected as a debt in Cherrywood.
6 Q. 769 I beg your pardon. Other than that?
7 A. No, it was carried forward as stock/work in progress in Monarch Services.
8 Q. 770 And what is contained within that figure are costs that have been paid by
9 Monarch Properties Services Limited?
11 Q. 771 And included within the figure of costs that have been paid on behalf of
12 Cherrywood Properties Limited are the political expenses?
13 A. They are political donations. Yes.
14 Q. 772 And included also were other matters such as Mr. Frank Dunlop's fees?
14:23:18 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 773 And architects' fees?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 774 And matters such as that sort?
19 A. Yeah.
14:23:23 20 Q. 775 But one element?
21 A. I'm not sure if they were charged or whether they were charged indirectly to
22 Cherrywood. Yes, they could be carried forward as work in progress.
23 Q. 776 An accumulation of costs going on?
24 A. Yes.
14:23:36 25 Q. 777 Included in the accumulation of costs are political contributions?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 778 And the political contributions that are made in later years, in 1992 and some
28 of the political contributions that are made in 1993, are also attributed to
29 Cherrywood; isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
88
14:23:51 1 Q. 779 So that there is a process ongoing effectively in Monarch whereby when certain
2 political expenses are paid, they are being attributed as payments, if I use
3 your phraseology, in connection with Cherrywood?
4 A. Well, that's the most likely place to put them at the time. I mean, it
14:24:12 5 changed later on, a lot of them were put through Dun Laoghaire or Dun Laoghaire
6 Town Centre or something like that. Previously they would have been put
7 through as, I say, Tallaght. So Cherrywood was the main kid on the block, if
8 I can put it that way.
9 Q. 780 And the decision is made to attribute these expenses to Cherrywood because of
14:24:33 10 the knowledge or belief or understanding in Monarch that these monies are being
11 sought from Monarch by the councillors or the politicians because they know
12 that you are going to be developing in Cherrywood and because you will be
13 seeking their assistance in connection with Cherrywood, if I understand you
14 correctly?
14:24:50 15 A. Well it's a huge -- because the decision would have been made in the accounts
16 department in Monarch rather than made by, I don't think Mr. Monahan would have
17 known anything about it, accounting treatment or indeed Mr. Sweeney.
18 Q. 781 But the accounts --
19 A. The people from the accounts department, they were looking for a home for
14:25:06 20 these. You had two alternatives; either write them off as an expense that
21 year.
22 Q. 782 Uh-huh?
23 A. Or carry them forward. And so a decision was made to carry them forward.
24 Q. 783 That decision that was made to carry them forward was made in April 1992?
14:25:23 25 A. It would appear so, yes, that was the end of the year, yes.
26 Q. 784 When they were transferred into Cherrywood?
27 A. Yes, well, whenever they were transferred in, yes.
28 Q. 785 I think that was April. And I think then attempts were made to recover those
29 funds from GRE; is that right?
14:25:40 30 A. I think so, yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
89
14:25:43 1 Q. 786 And I think that in March of 1992 I think Mr. Richard Lynn wrote at 8767 to GRE
2 Properties and he enclosed in the second sentence a complete statement in
3 cashflow in relation to the draft Development Plans submission as requested by
4 Brian Gillies. Do you see that?
14:26:11 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 787 And the cashflow projection is at page 8769. Now, I want to draw to your
7 attention, you'll be familiar with this document, Mr. Glennane?
8 A. I've seen it before, yes.
9 Q. 788 I want to draw to your attention two headings. One is the second last
14:26:30 10 heading which is called Strategy Consultancy Fees?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 789 And then the one ahead of it, Community Contributions and Courtesy Personnel,
13 that's three in fact?
14 A. Right.
14:26:40 15 Q. 790 Now, the document is divided into paid and there is -- divided into -- there
16 are payments that have been made up to the 31st of January '92 which is
17 underneath the column entitled total in the centre of the page; isn't that
18 right?
14:26:55 20 Q. 791 And then there are projections?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. 792 For March, April, May and June?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 793 With a projected total. And there is a projected total for strategy
14:27:13 25 consultancy fees of 75,000 being three payments of 25,000; isn't that right?
27 Q. 794 But there's no actual cost in incurred under the heading of Strategy
28 Consultancy Fees at this stage; isn't that right?
29 A. On that sheet, yes.
14:27:19 30 Q. 795 Isn't that the position?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
90
14:27:20 1 A. Yes, on that, yes.
2 Q. 796 Now, that letter is sent on the 16th of March 1992. And on the 27th of April
3 1992, at 2736. There is a second version of that document. And it contains
4 a notation at the bottom. Now, the document is dated the 27th of April 1992.
14:27:40 5 And it says "Richard, I can't find the 25,000 in respect of Strategy
6 Consultancy Fees. Can you be specific and then increase 'Consultants Courtesy
7 Personnel' as follows. March '92, 5,000 and April '92, 5,000".
9 So it would appear that somebody was looking for a Strategy Consultancy Fee of
14:28:01 10 25,000; isn't that right?
11 A. Well I don't know what -- it says I can't find it. This is a projection I
12 think. I mean, you wouldn't -- I don't know how you wouldn't be able to
13 find -- it wouldn't be an invoice or anything it was just a projection.
14 Q. 797 If it was in costs paid to date you'd expect to find it wouldn't you?
14:28:24 15 A. Sorry?
16 Q. 798 If it had been in costs paid to date, the first half of the document?
17 A. If it had been paid, yes.
18 Q. 799 In fact there's nothing under the heading of Strategy Consultancy Fees paid to
19 date; isn't that right.
21 Q. 800 Who is the Richard to whom this query is being addressed?
22 A. I presume it's Richard Lynn.
23 Q. 801 And do you know who is the person making the query?
24 A. It's obviously somebody in our accounts department, I think, maybe a man called
14:28:51 25 Ken Lawless, I wouldn't be a hundred percent sure of that.
26 Q. 802 On the 28th of April 1992, on the following day, at 3992?
27 A. Yeah?
28 Q. 803 Under the heading "Strategy Consultancy Fees" a sum of 22,150 pounds has been
29 allocated?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
91
14:29:09 1 Q. 804 Under April 1992?
2 A. Yeah.
4 A. Yeah.
14:29:13 5 Q. 806 So this is under the heading of money that is paid; isn't that right?
6 A. Has been paid, yes.
7 Q. 807 Has been paid. As opposed to the projection?
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. 808 So now the document is saying by April 1992, 22,150 pounds was paid under the
14:29:28 10 heading 'Strategy Consultancy Fees'?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 809 Okay. And this is the first time the sum of 22,150 pounds arises; isn't that
13 right?
14 A. So it seems, yes.
14:29:37 15 Q. 810 And the total amount that is deemed to have been paid to date is the sum of
16 382,424 pounds; isn't that right?
18 Q. 811 And included in that sum is the sum of 22,150 pounds for strategy consultancy?
14:29:52 20 Q. 812 Now, if I could have 3991, please. Now, this is a document between Monarch ,
21 an account with GRE Properties Limited entitled Third Parties Costs. I draw
22 to your attention first that the total expenditure is 382,424 pounds?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 813 And included therefore in that figure is 22,150 pounds for strategy
14:30:18 25 consultancy?
28 A. Yeah.
29 Q. 815 And what is being sought here is 50% of that figure from GRE?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
92
14:30:25 1 Q. 816 Less a payment of 71,463 pounds?
3 Q. 817 Which is lodged to the bank account of Monarch at 7364 on 26th of February '92?
4 A. Sorry which figure?
14:30:40 5 Q. 818 Sorry, 7346.?
6 A. Sorry, I'm lost.
7 Q. 819 Sorry. You see that there was an amount paid by GRE on account?
8 A. 71453, yes.
9 Q. 820 Yes, and that's lodged to the bank account?
14:30:55 10 A. Yes, yes. It says -- sorry, yes.
11 Q. 821 It says 26th of February GRE?
12 A. Woodchester Bank heading was confusing me. It's GRE, yes.
13 Q. 822 So if we go back to -- 3991. What this document is saying effectively is that
14 there is due to Monarch between Monarch and GRE a sum of 382,424. Included
14:31:19 15 within that is a figure of 22,150 for strategy consultancy; is that right?
17 Q. 823 And that half of that is due by GRE and they have already paid 71,463?
18 A. Well not half of it, yeah, well of the total, yes.
19 Q. 824 Of the total of 382,424 , half of that is being sought from GRE?
14:31:41 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 825 Less a sum of 71,463 already paid?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 826 The calculation of the sum of 22,150 is at 8579.
24
14:31:53 25 This is the strategy consultancy fee back up; isn't that right?
26 A. Yes, yes.
27 Q. 827 So that in calculating the sum of 22,150 pounds under the heading of strategy
28 consultancy, what's being added together are various political donations made
29 by Monarch Properties in May and June of 1991?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
93
14:32:17 1 Q. 828 The total amount that in fact had been paid by Monarch Properties in May or
2 June of 1991 was a figure of 23,450 pounds. We saw that on the original
3 document?
4 A. Yeah.
14:32:31 5 Q. 829 Isn't that right? And now what's being claimed under the heading of strategy
6 consultancy is 22,150; isn't that right?
8 Q. 830 Now, on the 28th of April 1992, at 3668.
14:32:45 10 Again, under the heading Cherrywood Village, because this document I should
11 have pointed out to you, is a document that is headed Cherrywood Village.
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. 831 And I draw your attention again to the Strategy Consultancy Fees of 22,150 ?
14 A. Yes, yeah.
14:33:05 15 Q. 832 And there is a note at the bottom of the document "next Thursday cheque for
16 everything except rings" do you see that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 833 It's handwritten at the bottom?
19 A. I do, yeah.
14:33:19 20 Q. 834 Everything except rings refers to the items on the list that have an asterisk
21 or a circle beside them?
23 Q. 835 One of the items that is circled is the strategy consultancy fees of 22,150 ?
24 A. Yes.
14:33:33 25 Q. 836 And I suggest that means that GRE had agreed to pay everything except the fees
26 that are marked with a black asterisk including the strategy consultancy?
27 A. About eight or ten different items.
28 Q. 837 There's a number of items?
29 A. Yes.
14:33:45 30 Q. 838 And the total amount of the items in dispute is 103,271 but the total amount

www.pcr.ie Day 660
94
14:33:53 1 being sought by Monarch was 382,424?
2 A. Yeah well, I don't think it's a correct thing to say that they were in dispute
3 but they may have needed more information or something.
4 Q. 839 Right. Well included in that figure, included in that list as one looks at
14:34:10 5 it, Mr. Glennane, is a list of matters that are, that have asterisks or little
6 black ticks beside them?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 840 It starts with MPSL Ledger accounts; Sundry ; administration; stationary,
9 valuations; materials; Pembroke PR; Audio Services; RSI, weekend promotions;
14:34:33 10 payments; then petty cash; wages; courtesy personnel and strategy consultancy
11 fees. Isn't that right?
13 Q. 841 And in May of '92, at 3666. Mr. Noel Murray sends a memo to Mr. Philip
14 Monahan which is cc'd to yourself and Mr. Eddie Sweeney; isn't that right?
16 Q. 842 And he records that he met Brian Gillies in Monarch House on Tuesday 7th of May
17 and went through the schedule of costs incurred to the 30th of April '92.
18 That's the schedule we've just been looking at?
19 A. Yes.
14:35:07 20 Q. 843 He says he attaches a list of the queries raised by Brian?
21 A. Yeah.
22 Q. 844 And I go down to the next paragraph, "I can also advise that Brian is quite
23 adamant that GRE will not contribute towards the strategic consultancy fee
24 element of the cash flow projections?
14:35:22 25 A. Right.
26 Q. 845 So they're not going to pay it, according to this document?
27 A. According to Brian Gillies, yes.
28 Q. 846 They are baulking at paying the 22,150 ?
29 A. Yes.
14:35:32 30 Q. 847 The 22,150 is comprised we know of political contributions paid by Monarch in

www.pcr.ie Day 660
95
14:35:39 1 May and June of 1991?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 848 The list of queries raised by Brian Gillies are at 3667. And this list
4 reflects those marks that had been made by way of an asterisk or a circle in
14:35:51 5 the projected cost list; isn't that right?
7 Q. 849 And the last two on that list are courtesy personnel and strategy consultancy
8 fees?
9 A. Yes.
14:36:00 10 Q. 850 Isn't that right?
12 Q. 851 Now, on the 8th of May 1992. At 8445. Mr. Ken Lawless sends to GRE
13 Properties copies of the March and April invoices and sets out that the sum due
14 to Monarch amounts to 146,473 pounds?
14:36:35 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 852 And he encloses with that a schedule of third party cost. At 8846. And he
17 sets out the total expenditure to February as 311, 642?
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. 853 There's additional expenditure in March '92. Schedule one. There's
14:36:49 20 expenditure in April '92. Schedule two. And there's expenditure in
21 March/April '92, schedule three. And the figure for schedule 1, is £8,801
22 schedule 2, £61,981 and schedule 3 £53,448. Is that right?
24 Q. 854 The total comes to £435,872?
14:37:09 25 A. Yeah.
26 Q. 855 He's looking for 50% of that from GRE less credit for the 71,000 pounds; isn't
27 that right?
28 A. That's right.
29 Q. 856 And the total he's looking for is £146,473?
14:37:22 30 A. That's right.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
96
14:37:23 1 Q. 857 Attached to that document at page 3998, is another copy of the schedule of
2 costs entitled Cherrywood Village and at the top of it it has one, two and
3 three. Do you see that?
4 A. Yes.
14:37:41 5 Q. 858 At the bottom, I want to draw to your attention, at the bottom of the column
6 headed one the figure is 8,801, do you see that?
7 A. Sorry, where is that.
8 Q. 859 Under the words "Cherrywood Village?"
9 A. Yeah.
14:37:54 10 Q. 860 Do you see handwritten at the top one and a circle?
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. 861 If you follow that to the very bottom and the total?
13 A. Oh, yes, 8101, yes.
14 Q. 862 That was total referred to in schedule one in Mr. Lawless' document at page
14:38:09 15 8846; isn't that right?
16 A. Yeah.
17 Q. 863 If you look at column two, 61,981; isn't that right?
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. 864 And that was attributed to schedule two in Mr. Lawless' document at 8846?
14:38:20 20 A. Yeah.
21 Q. 865 Under column three, 53,447 and that was the amount attributed to schedule three
22 under Mr. Lawless' document at 8846?
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. 866 Right. Included in column two is a sum of 22,150 pounds for strategy
14:38:38 25 consultancy fees?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 867 So, notwithstanding GRE saying that they weren't going to pay them; isn't that
28 right?
29 A. Yeah.
14:38:44 30 Q. 868 Monarch come again in May of 1992 with this document including the strategy

www.pcr.ie Day 660
97
14:38:51 1 consultancy fees; isn't that right?
3 Q. 869 So it would appear that by the 14th of the 6th 1992 Monarch are still
4 maintaining that they are entitled to be paid half these costs?
14:39:02 5 A. Yes, I think so, yes.
6 Q. 870 And can you explain to the Tribunal how it was that political donations
7 totalling 22,150 pounds came to be described as strategy consultancy fees?
8 A. I don't know, no. It's quite clear from one of the earlier documents that GRE
9 knew what they were.
14:39:24 10 Q. 871 That's not my question.?
11 A. No, well, I mean. Maybe GRE asked us to call them that or something, I don't
12 know.
13 Q. 872 Well insofar as GRE are concerned, they are adamant, according to Mr. Noel
14 Murray, that they will not contribute towards the strategic consultancy
14:39:44 15 element?
16 A. Mr. Gillies, was.
17 Q. 873 Yes?
18 A. He wouldn't have carried much authority as far as we were concerned in GRE.
19 Q. 874 Right. But leaving that aside for the moment. Someone has designated
14:39:53 20 £22,150 of political donations that are made in May and June of 1991 by
21 Monarch Properties Services Limited as strategy consultancy fees?
23 Q. 875 First of all, is that right?
24 A. Sorry, yeah, it is right, yes.
14:40:11 25 Q. 876 And then can I ask you. Is that a correct way to describe them?
26 A. Well, it's as good a way as any I suppose, if I'm being honest about it.
27 Q. 877 How can a political donation be described as a fee?
28 A. Well, it doesn't be described as a fee obviously, yes.
29 Q. 878 And what strategic consultancy was involved in the sum of 22,150 pounds paid
14:40:35 30 to local councillors and politicians in May and June of 1991?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
98
14:40:40 1 A. I don't know -- there was no consultancy fee, no. It was obviously a
2 convenient heading more than anything else.
3 Q. 879 And who came up with the convenient heading?
4 A. I don't know.
14:40:52 5 Q. 880 How could this --
6 A. Maybe GRE. I'm not saying that it was.
7 Q. 881 This document, I suggest to you, Mr. Glennane, as you well know, is a document
8 generated by Monarch Properties Services Limited; isn't that right?
9 A. Absolutely.
14:41:06 10 Q. 882 And the creation of this document is created for the purpose of advising GRE of
11 the expenses that have been incurred by Monarch Properties Services Limited in
12 connection with Cherrywood Village; isn't that right?
14 Q. 883 And so is the document headed that. That is for the purpose of retaining
14:41:21 15 repayment; isn't that right?
16 A. That's right.
17 Q. 884 And I would suggest to you that if you accept that, it follows that somebody
18 within Monarch decided to describe strategy consultancy fees as an appropriate
19 way to describe 22,150 pounds worth of political donations; isn't that right?
14:41:36 20 A. Well, it's a convenient way or whatever, yes.
21 Q. 885 All right. Well, who was the person who was able to conveniently describe
22 political donations in that way?
23 A. I don't know.
24 Q. 886 Well can you think of any reason as to why somebody would do that?
14:41:49 25 A. Well, I mean, I don't know. Again, as I said, unless it was bounced off GRE
26 first and they wanted it described as that. If you go back to one of those
27 documents that you had earlier. There was certainly no attempt to conceal it
28 from GRE.
29 Q. 887 I beg your pardon?
14:42:08 30 A. If you go back to one of the documents that you had earlier. There was no

www.pcr.ie Day 660
99
14:42:12 1 attempt to conceal it from GRE. You had a document earlier with a list of
2 political parties after them.
3 Q. 888 I'm not worried about GRE?
4 A. This document is solely prepared for GRE.
14:42:24 5 Q. 889 What I'm asking you about?
6 A. You have to be worried about GRE. It was solely prepared for the purposes of
7 seeking reimbursement from GRE.
8 Q. 890 Somebody decided to describe 22,150 pounds worth of political donations as
9 strategy consultancy fees, doesn't that follow?
14:42:43 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 891 Now, I want you to explain to the Tribunal A you who believe that person to be
12 and what the reason for doing that was?
13 A. Well A, I don't know.
14 Q. 892 Well was it you?
14:42:55 15 A. I don't think so. But I don't recall doing it. I -- I could speculate if
16 you want me to on who might have done it, I don't know if you want me to. It
17 certainly appears that it was a document prepared in consultation with GRE.
18 There was certainly no attempt to conceal what they were. And perhaps
19 somebody in GRE said this will look better coming to our people if it's
14:43:22 20 described as that, but that's mere speculation.
21 Q. 893 Can that really be so, Mr. Glennane, if one looks at the very first version of
22 this document entitled Cherrywood Projections at 8769 before it ever goes to
23 GRE. You will see there a designation 'strategy consultancy fees', do you see
24 that?
14:43:43 25 A. I do, yes.
26 Q. 894 And this is before it's ever sent off on the first instance to GRE; isn't that
27 right? Because you see there is nothing included as having been spent under
28 the heading; isn't that right?
14:43:55 30 Q. 895 So it's unlikely in those circumstances to have been a designation requested by

www.pcr.ie Day 660
100
14:44:01 1 GRE; isn't that right?
2 A. Well, I don't think that necessarily follows. I'm sure there was
3 communication on the phone and we were saying we wanted to try to recover half
4 of these costs and the GRE personnel may well have said put them in there.
14:44:17 5 Q. 896 Are you sure --
6 A. Political contribution. It might not be acceptable to somebody in GRE.
7 Q. 897 Is that speculation on your part?
8 A. It is, yes.
9 Q. 898 Are you aware of any such conversation, Mr. Glennane?
14:44:29 10 A. Not specifically, no but there was certainly constant communication with GRE.
11 Q. 899 Certainly insofar as the documents in the first version is created within
12 Monarch, the document at 8769 has already a Designation Strategy Consultancy
13 Fees and records nothing having been paid under that heading to the 31st of
14 January '92; isn't that right?
14:44:50 15 A. That's right.
16 Q. 900 And then when one comes to look at a later version which is the 14th of June
17 '92 at 3998. You see that, and we've seen it already?
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. 901 The sum of 22,150 which you agree is the list of political donations made by
14:45:07 20 Monarch in May and June of '91?
21 A. Can I see the list again, please?
22 Q. 902 Certainly. 3122?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 903 Now, it's not the full list of the payments that were actually ...
14:45:31 25 A. I think it's worth emphasising that there is no attempt to conceal what that
26 is. It says if FG, FF, FF. So it's obvious that it was discussed with
27 somebody. It wasn't just sent out of the blue saying this is a whole list of
28 names or initials. So it wouldn't have been sent just out of the blue.
29 Q. 904 Two things have happened by June of 1992. At 3998. Somebody has decided
14:46:02 30 that strategy consultancy means political payments of the order of 21,500

www.pcr.ie Day 660
101
14:46:07 1 pounds?
3 Q. 905 And somebody has located them as having been paid by April '92; isn't that
4 right?
6 Q. 906 In fact those payments had been made in May and June of '91; isn't that right?
7 A. So I believe, yes.
8 Q. 907 In the very first version of this document there is no record of them having
9 been allocated as having been paid before May and June of '91; isn't that
14:46:31 10 right? Sorry, before April of '92; isn't that right?
11 A. That's right.
12 Q. 908 So somebody made a second decision to include them; isn't that right?
14 Q. 909 No, who did that?
14:46:41 15 A. Um, whoever prepared that document, which may have been either Ken Lawless or
16 Mr. Lynn or certainly it wouldn't have been done in isolation. So it was
17 probably a combination of people.
18 Q. 910 And did anything happen around this time in May or June of 1992, that would
19 have caused somebody to include the sum of 22,150 pounds as being part of
14:47:08 20 strategy consultancy fees?
21 A. No, well my belief is that it would probably have been discussed. They said
22 we'd like to recoup half of these costs. And we were asked to designate it
23 this way by GRE because certainly if you look back to that list just on
24 initials there's no way that would have been sent sort of cold to somebody. It
14:47:34 25 wouldn't mean anything.
26 Q. 911 On the 27th of April 1992. At 3736. And I just want to draw to your
27 attention, Mr. Glennane, it might help, the date at the bottom of this
28 document, which is the 22nd of April?
29 A. '92.
14:47:49 30 Q. 912 ' 92. You see under the heading 'strategy consultancy fees' nothing has been

www.pcr.ie Day 660
102
14:47:55 1 entered?
3 Q. 913 There is a query to Richard Lynn about where is the 25,000?
4 A. Yeah.
14:48:00 5 Q. 914 On the following day 28th of April 1992. At 3992?
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. 915 The 22,150 is allocated to 'strategy consultancy fees' for the first time;
8 isn't that right?
9 A. I see that yeah.
14:48:13 10 Q. 916 Did that allocation have anything to do with the transfer of the fees out of
11 Monarch Properties Services Limited into the Cherrywood General Promotion
12 Account which occurred at the same time?
14 Q. 917 So you say that these matters are not related?
14:48:28 15 A. No, I wouldn't think so, no.
16 Q. 918 When the calculation of the list of 22,150 was done, would somebody have had
17 to go back to the books and records of Monarch to find out where those payments
18 were?
19 A. I assume so, yes, yeah.
14:48:42 20 Q. 919 And when they went back. If we could have 3987. And if you look at really
21 the first half of that page. Political donations; Isn't that right?
23 Q. 920 And in April of '92. If somebody went looking for the back up of that list
24 they would have realised that where those payments had been posted was not to
14:49:07 25 Cherrywood but to Monarch Properties Services Limited; isn't that right?
26 A. Possibly, yes.
27 Q. 921 Well that's where they're posted; isn't it?
28 A. Can't see the heading on it. I don't know if that's a trial balance or what
29 it is. Sorry, General Ledger Report.
14:49:24 30 Q. 922 If you look at 3928?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
103
14:49:27 1 A. That would normally be done well after the end of the year.
2 Q. 923 If you look at -- I'm just looking at the allocation now, Mr. Glennane. If we
3 look at 3986. At the bottom of that page. You will see that the very last
4 matter is sponsorship 66801201?
6 Q. 924 If we look at the following page, 3987. You will see that all of those
7 political payments are attributed to that account within MPSL; isn't that
8 right?
14:50:00 10 Q. 925 And that account is not a Cherrywood account; isn't that right?
11 A. Yeah, that's right, yes.
12 Q. 926 It's a 6682101; isn't that right?
13 A. That's what we have on this, yes.
14 Q. 927 And the political donations on that page amount to 15,350 pounds. And if we
14:50:17 15 go to 3988. At the very bottom of the first half of the document. I draw to
16 your attention 30 April '92 transfer to Cherrywood promotion 15,350 pounds.?
17 A. I see that, yeah.
18 Q. 928 Now, two things are happening simultaneously in Monarch. One is, a claim is
19 being made for 21,250 pounds 'strategy consultancy fees', which are comprised
14:50:52 20 of political donations; isn't that right?
22 Q. 929 And those political donations are up to April 1992 recorded as being posted not
23 to Cherrywood but to Monarch Properties Services Limited; isn't that right?
14:50:57 25 Q. 930 And in April of 1992 they are taken out of Monarch Properties Services Limited?
26 A. Sorry, not necessarily in April. They are taken out of the end of the year,
27 which could be most likely after April.
28 Q. 931 Do you see transaction date?
29 A. Well.
14:51:14 30 Q. 932 At the top of the document. TRX date?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
104
14:51:17 1 A. Yeah.
2 Q. 933 And go down to the very bottom what's?
3 A. 12, '92.
4 Q. 934 What does it say. It says the 30th of April '92?
14:51:25 5 A. That was the end of the year, yes.
6 Q. 935 So the transfer is taking place at the 30th of April '92; isn't that right?
7 A. Yes, but that's the end of the year, yeah.
8 Q. 936 Yes. But what is happening is that these political expenses are being cut out
9 of the promotions account in Monarch Properties Services Limited and are being
14:51:42 10 transferred over to the Cherrywood Promotion Account; isn't that right?
12 Q. 937 And this is happening at the same time as somebody has decided to allocate
13 these costs as being Strategy Consultancy Fees; isn't that right?
14 A. No, I'm saying that I would believe that that entry there was probably made
14:52:02 15 sometime well after April '92.
16 Q. 938 Notwithstanding that it's dated April' 29?
17 A. No, because the end of the year was April. So the accounts were never signed
18 off until the following January. So sometime between April and January that
19 entry would have been made.
14:52:20 20 Q. 939 And if you look at the second half of that list. Sorry, if we could have the
21 full page back?
22 A. Yeah.
23 Q. 940 And you see account 66802201 promotions. Do you see that account?
14:52:32 25 Q. 941 And that is the promotions account in Monarch Properties Services Limited?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 942 And do you see four payments T Hand, FG, J. Fahy FF, JD, JH, SH, OH. Do you
28 see that?
29 A. I do, yeah.
14:52:46 30 Q. 943 They are all political payments aren't they?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
105
14:52:49 1 A. I don't know about the JD and JH, they don't have any political party named
2 after them. So I don't know. But certainly the T Hand's and the J Fahy are.
3 Q. 944 And OH. Would that be Owen Hammond?
4 A. I don't know, I have no idea.
14:53:07 5 Q. 945 You've no idea no, but they total 8,100 pounds those payments; isn't that
6 right?
7 A. I think so, yes, yeah.
8 Q. 946 And if you move to the next page. 3989. And at the bottom of the first
9 entry you see transfer to Cherrywood Promotions 8,100 pounds?
11 Q. 947 So two things have happened. The political payments that have been made by
12 Monarch Properties Services Limited are being carved or taken out of the
13 general promotions and sponsorship account of Monarch Properties Services
14 Limited and being placed into a Cherrywood account; isn't that right?
16 Q. 948 And they total 23,450; isn't that right?
17 A. Well I don't know. I believe, yes.
18 Q. 949 Well if we look at 3990. And this account at the bottom of the page is
19 account 73510201. And the 73 accounts were Cherrywood accounts; isn't that
14:54:08 20 right?
21 A. Um, yes, well, yes.
22 Q. 950 And that's the general promotion account?
24 Q. 951 And at the very bottom of that transfer 15,350 promotion and 8,100, 23,450
14:54:23 25 pounds do you see that?
27 Q. 952 So that is the other side of the transaction. We saw it coming out of the
28 Monarch Properties Services Limited two accounts and it's now coming into the
29 Cherrywood account, isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
106
14:54:34 1 Q. 953 And that figure of 23,450 is the same list of political donations provided to
2 the Tribunal by you at 3241. Do you see that?
3 A. Provided by Monarch, yes.
4 Q. 954 Yes. And I think you helped prepare that list?
14:54:53 5 A. I helped prepare, it, yes.
6 Q. 955 That list totals 23,450 pounds?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 956 The amount that had been attributed to Strategy Consultancy Fees was a sum of
9 21,500 pounds; isn't that right?
14:55:10 10 A. I thought it was 22,150 or something but maybe I'm wrong.
11 Q. 957 Maybe you're correct.?
12 A. There was --
13 Q. 958 22,150?
14:55:19 15 Q. 959 And I think at 3996.?
16 A. There appears to be a difference of about 1,300, Ms. Dillon.
17 Q. 960 Well there's slightly more than that but certainly at the first instance. On
18 the document dated the 8th of June 1992. If you follow the strategy
19 consultancy fees across, the 22,150, you will see beside it just slightly
14:55:42 20 above it in handwritten plus 2,700. Do you see that?
21 A. Sorry, where is that again?
22 Q. 961 If you could increase the portion dealing with the bottom third of the
23 document, please. Yes. And if you just look at the handwritten notation at
24 the side. Do you see that?
14:55:59 25 A. Sorry, plus 2,700. I see that.
27 A. Yeah.
28 Q. 963 And that is the difference, Mr. Glennane, between the 22,150 and the 23,450?
29 A. No, I wouldn't think that's the difference.
14:56:14 30 Q. 964 You don't think that.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
107
14:56:15 1 A. If you subtract 22 from 23 you don't get 2,700.
2 Q. 965 Sorry, I beg your pardon. It's the difference, sorry, I think between the.
3 It should be 24,850; is that right?
4 A. I am not counting but it is certainly not 23,000.
14:56:36 5 Q. 966 24, 850 it should be, Mr.-- and on the following version of the document on the
6 14th of June, at 3998. Do you see there is added in a figure of 3,000 pounds
7 under the heading strategy consultancy fees?
9 Q. 967 Do you know what that relates to?
14:57:04 10 A. Interim lay or something.
11 Q. 968 1700 not 2,700. I'll come back to that. Do you see the figure of 3,000?
12 A. I do, yes.
13 Q. 969 Do you know what that relates to?
14 A. No, it's interim at the top, I'm not quite sure what that means.
14:57:22 15 Q. 970 Okay. Can I show you 7380, please. And do you see the first entry across is
16 a cheque made out to cash?
17 A. Cherrywood, yes.
18 Q. 971 And it's attributable to Cherrywood?
19 A. Yes, yeah.
14:57:40 20 Q. 972 And you see at 7381. It's deducted. Do you see that? From the account of?
21 A. I do, yeah.
22 Q. 973 From the account of Monarch Properties Services Limited?
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. 974 And the cheque at 8544 I think is signed by yourself. Is that right?
26 Q. 975 And it's made out to cash?
28 Q. 976 And that appears to be at 3707. The second item on this list headed cash
29 3,000 pounds and strategy beside it?
14:58:19 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
108
14:58:19 1 Q. 977 And I suggest that explains how it's now being included in the list at 3998.
2 So the first figure is 22,150 is made up of the list of political payments.
3 And the second sum of 3,000 pounds is a cash payment that's made on foot of a
4 cheque signed by you in May of 1992. Now, can you assist the Tribunal as to
14:58:48 5 what that cash payment was about?
6 A. No, I can't, no. Not at this stage, no.
7 Q. 978 Well what we do know is that the 22,150 is comprised of political payments;
8 isn't that right?
9 A. Political contributions, yes.
14:59:02 10 Q. 979 Political contributions?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 980 So it would follow, would it not, that the payment of 3,000 pounds is equally
13 paid to a politician?
14 A. Not necessarily. I don't know that I would reach that conclusion.
14:59:13 15 Q. 981 Let's just analyse that for a little bit so. We know for a fact that the
16 22,150 is comprised solely and absolutely of political contribution; isn't
17 that right?
18 A. There's a figure put in April '92 apparently, yes.
19 Q. 982 But we know that it's political contributions; isn't that right?
21 Q. 983 That it has no other matter or payment included in it other than political
22 contributions?
23 A. From that list, yes.
24 Q. 984 And therefore, we know that somebody in Monarch decided that political
14:59:45 25 contributions should be described as strategy consultancy fees although we do
26 not know who that person is; isn't that right?
27 A. Or somebody within GRE.
28 Q. 985 Or somebody in GRE?
29 A. Yeah.
14:59:56 30 Q. 986 Although you agree that the document was created by Monarch?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
109
15:00:00 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 987 It would follow from that, I suggest, that a payment of 3,000 pounds must
3 similarly be a political contribution which is now being described as strategy
4 consultancy fees. Would you agree with that?
15:00:11 5 A. Not necessarily, no. I mean, strategy consultancy fees could cover a
6 multitude. I mean, it's, I don't see any necessary connection really between
7 the two.
8 Q. 988 Uh-huh. Do you know what was happening with the planning in May of 1992? The
9 planning and the zoning of Cherrywood in May of 1992?
15:00:34 10 A. Yes, yes.
11 Q. 989 What was happening?
12 A. Well there was a meeting at some stage in May or towards the end of May to --
13 Q. 990 You know that on the 4th of May 1992. 7144, please. A motion seeking the
14 rezoning of these lands was received by Dublin County Council?
15:00:53 15 A. Well, I didn't know that, but, yes. It seems ...
16 Q. 991 Do you think these matters, these two matters might in some way be connected?
17 A. No.
18 Q. 992 But you have no idea what the 3,000 pounds was paid for?
19 A. No, no.
15:01:11 20 Q. 993 Who decided to allocate the word "strategy" to the 3,000 pounds?
21 A. I don't know.
22 Q. 994 Was it you?
23 A. No, it certainly wasn't, I don't think, no.
24 Q. 995 Do you know where the sum of 3,000 pounds was attributed in the books of
15:01:28 25 Monarch Properties Services Limited?
26 A. Well I would have assumed if Cherrywood is written after it, it went into this
27 promotions account we were talking about earlier.
28 Q. 996 It went into 7382?
29 A. Yeah.
15:01:41 30 Q. 997 7382, please. You will see there account 73571 promotion open days. Now,

www.pcr.ie Day 660
110
15:01:50 1 the 73 means that's a Cherrywood account; isn't that right?
3 Q. 998 But this is another Cherrywood account. And some four items down between
4 postage and telephone. You have cash cheque, isn't that right, 3,000 pounds?
6 Q. 999 So this is being attributed as being a payment in connection with or associated
7 with Cherrywood; isn't that right?
9 Q. 1000 And it is further being attributed as being a strategic payment; isn't that
15:02:18 10 right?
11 A. Well not necessarily by the same person, yes.
12 Q. 1001 But it is being so attributed?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 1002 Right. And it finally finds its association in strategy consultancy fees at
15:02:30 15 3998. Because --
17 Q. 1003 They are described in association with the 22,150 as strategy consultancy?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 1004 And can you assist the Tribunal at all as to how that 3,000 pounds could either
15:02:48 20 have been a strategic payment or a consultancy payment or a political payment?
21 A. No, could you go back to the cheque payments sheets, please.
22 Q. 1005 I can. The actual cheque?
23 A. No, the actual cheque payments sheet where somebody has written Cherrywood.
24 Q. 1006 73 --
15:03:11 25 A. In the margin.
26 Q. 1007 Sorry the cheque payments book?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 1008 Sorry. 7380.?
29 A. Yes.
15:03:19 30 Q. 1009 And if you could increase the second or third line of that please.?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
111
15:03:25 1 A. I'm just trying to figure who that handwriting is. Because the rest of the
2 transactions would have followed from that. I don't know whose writing that
3 is or who wrote "Cherrywood" there.
4 Q. 1010 Well certainly somebody --
15:03:44 5 A. Somebody wrote Cherrywood. As I said, the rest of the transactions would
6 have. When somebody came to post it they would have posted it to the
7 Cherrywood account.
8 Q. 1011 And if somebody?
9 A. If somebody included in that other list, not necessarily the same person,
15:03:59 10 that's the point I'm making.
11 Q. 1012 At 3707. Someone has written the word "strategy" beside the cash of 3,000;
14 Q. 1013 And then it appears -- it appears in the --
15:04:14 15 A. The sheets.
16 Q. 1014 In the sheets, yeah. At 3998 isn't that right?
17 A. That's what I'm saying. I think the rest of it flowed from that entry on the
18 cheques payments sheet.
19 Q. 1015 That because it's being attributed to Cherrywood?
15:04:27 20 A. Exactly, yes.
21 Q. 1016 So why would that be so? Why couldn't it have gone into Cherrywood supplies,
22 for example? Why would simply attributing it to Cherrywood mean that it would
23 end up as a strategy consultancy payment?
24 A. I don't know. I'm just saying if it went into promotions I don't know why.
15:04:46 25 Obviously if it was described as cash it would be difficult for somebody to
26 ascertain afterwards what it was for.
27
28 CHAIRMAN: Sorry, Ms. Dillon.
29
15:04:53 30 MS. DILLON: Sorry, Sir.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
112
15:04:54 1
3 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Glennane, you signed the cheque for 3,000?
4 A. That's right.
15:04:59 5
6 CHAIRMAN: And a cheque made payable to cash would have been an unusual
7 feature, I take it?
8 A. Well not that unusual, no, no.
15:05:06 10 CHAIRMAN: For that size of?
11 A. No, no. No. I mean, there was -- I mean, you'd often -- certainly there are
12 several reasons why you draw cheques for cash.
13
14 CHAIRMAN: But presumably if you were signing it you'd have asked?
15:05:24 15 A. I'd have known at the time I think, yes.
16
17 CHAIRMAN: Yes. So would that have been an unusually large sum to write for
18 cash?
19 A. No, no, no. I wouldn't think so, no.
15:05:48 20
21 CHAIRMAN: Well, I mean, do you -- was it something that you did every day?
22 A. Certainly not every day, no. Once a month or once every three or four months
23 or whatever.
24
15:05:48 25 CHAIRMAN: So you must know -- you must have some idea as to what it was used
26 for?
27 A. I'm saying generally they were cheques drawn for cash by Mr. Monahan to buy
28 cars. I'm not a hundred percent sure if it was to buy his own cars. He was
29 in the habit of buying old cars. I can't remember that particular one at that
15:06:13 30 time, it was 13 years ago.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
113
15:06:15 1
2 CHAIRMAN: But presumably the person who allocated it to "strategy" and to
3 "Cherrywood" would have provided you with similar information if it wasn't your
4 decision to record it under those headings?
15:06:29 5 A. Well, no. As I said, somebody, and I don't know whose writing it is, has
6 written in "Cherrywood" after it.
8 CHAIRMAN: Yes. Having asked you to sign the cheque?
9 A. No, sorry, that was written after the cheque was signed it was written on it.
15:06:42 10
11 CHAIRMAN: So --
12 A. I don't know if it's the same handwriting even as the actual entry.
13
14 CHAIRMAN: And it goes into -- it goes into a --
15:06:53 15 A. It could be a month, two months, three months later somebody is going into,
16 analysing these things, looking for a home for it.
17
18 CHAIRMAN: It's allocated to a capital which includes, as I can, it appears to
19 me, 100 percent of political payments. It doesn't include any other type of
15:07:13 20 payment?
21 A. Well, just one, this.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: Yes. But the strategy payments only include -- it's a term which
24 appears only to refer to payments to politicians.
15:07:27 25 A. Well, on that particular list, yes, that's right, yes.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: Yes. So can we take it then that as a matter of probability,
28 because you say you can't be certain, as a matter of probability that the
29 3,000, given that it was given this similar designation, was also intended for
15:07:51 30 politicians?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
114
15:07:52 1 A. I wouldn't, no. I wouldn't reach that conclusion, myself, no.
3 CHAIRMAN: But I don't understand why you can -- why on the one hand you say
4 you really haven't a clue what was written
15:08:05 5 A. No.
7 CHAIRMAN: You don't know who designated it. But yet you seem quite firm
8 when it's proposed that it be treated by the Tribunal on the balance of
9 probability as being the same as all of the other payments under that
15:08:19 10 designation. You seem quite firm to reject that as being the reasonable
11 proposition.
12 A. Well I think it's -- I think that in my memory there was never any attempt to
13 draw money for cash to give to politicians. I don't recall any -- that ever
14 occurring. And to me what's happened here is somebody has written a cheque
15:08:44 15 for cash. Somebody else at some stage, possibly later, has written
16 "Cherrywood" against it.
17
18 CHAIRMAN: Well you you wrote the cheque for cash?
19 A. I didn't, no.
15:08:55 20
21 CHAIRMAN: Well you signed the cheque?
22 A. I signed the cheque, yes.
23
24 CHAIRMAN: Well, is it your proposal then to the Tribunal. Is it your
15:09:03 25 proposal then that we should assume that when all of the other payments
26 designated under this particular designation are payments to politicians.
27 This should be definitely decided by the Tribunal as not being such a payment?
28 A. Well --.
29
15:09:21 30 CHAIRMAN: You seem quite firm.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
115
15:09:22 1 A. Well in my opinion it's not. I think there's a huge quantum leap to make to
2 assume that.
4 CHAIRMAN: But you can't give us any idea as to what it might have been used
15:09:34 5 for?
6 A. Well it could have been. It was quite common for Mr. Monahan to come in and
7 draw cash if he was going off to buy an old car or draw cash.
9 CHAIRMAN: But it would hardly go into this particular designation
15:09:47 10 A. I'm just saying somebody wrote Cherrywood after it.
11
13 A. And it followed from that trail somebody else coming in would have, it would
14 have got posted to the general promotions account. And somebody, not
15:10:03 15 necessarily the same person, they would have gone through the cheques payments
16 sheets and said there is something for Cherrywood so add it on to this.
17
18 CHAIRMAN: Presumably when you signed the cheque, the payee is cash is there
19 A. Yeah.
15:10:16 20
21 CHAIRMAN: And do you recognise the writing of?
22 A. Show it again there.
23
24 CHAIRMAN: Put it back up again, please.
15:10:23 25
26 MS. DILLON: 4544. .
27
28 CHAIRMAN: There's a fair bit of handwriting there to, that should I think if
29 you're ...
15:10:39 30 A. If it was up to me, probably a man called Pat Cooney.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
116
15:10:45 1
2 CHAIRMAN: Sorry?
3 A. It was probably a chap called Pat Cooney.
15:10:57 5 CHAIRMAN: And what was his?
6 A. He worked in the cash department.
8 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Monahan presumably ...
9 A. Can I see the cheque payments again?
15:10:58 10
12
13 CHAIRMAN: Sorry?
14 A. I wanted to check -- these cheques were written on sort of carbon and the
15:11:19 15 actual payment was made at the same time. I just wanted to make sure it was
16 the same handwriting, you know.
17
18 CHAIRMAN: If it was a case of Mr. Monahan looking for this amount of money to
19 buy a car, is it likely that he would have been have gone to somebody, a
15:11:34 20 relatively junior person to get a cheque made out to cash?
21 A. Oh, yes.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: Or is it more likely that he would go to somebody in a more Senior
24 position?
15:11:42 25 A. He'd have gone to the person who had the cheque book.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: And do you know from your -- because you were head of this
28 department in effect?
29 A. Yeah.
15:11:50 30

www.pcr.ie Day 660
117
15:11:50 1 CHAIRMAN: Was it the practice if Mr. Monahan made such a request, would there
2 normally be a fairly accurate designation of the reason for the cheque made out
3 by whatever staff member?
4 A. No, if he came in and said I want a cheque for cash, we'd make it out for cash.
15:12:13 5
6 CHAIRMAN: But would -- would he not designate or give the person a
7 designation for the payment?
8 A. Not necessarily, maybe he might, maybe he mightn't. He might just well say to
9 them or whatever.
15:12:31 10
11 CHAIRMAN: So does that mean within the accounts in Monarch you would have
12 cheques made payment to cash. Without any designation because Mr. Monahan
13 wouldn't have provided the staff member?
14 A. Certainly, that could happen, did happen, yes.
15:12:49 15
16 CHAIRMAN: And did they remain blank then?
17 A. No, they were made out to cash.
18
19 CHAIRMAN: Yes but do they remain blank or are they assigned to some activity.
15:12:59 20 As in this case it was assigned to Cherrywood?
21 A. Yes, I think it was, yes.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: So --
24 A. I mean, they would have been assigned to some, something like Cherrywood or
15:13:09 25 sundries or something. I think it's a different handwriting there than
26 Cherrywood. So somebody else assigned it to Cherrywood at a different time
27 than when the cheque was drawn. In my opinion anyway.
28
15:13:28 30

www.pcr.ie Day 660
118
15:13:28 1 MR SANFEY: Before Ms. Dillon resumes, there was a document put up on the
2 screen a moment ago. We didn't catch the number but it had the cheque for
3 3,000 allocated among a number of different, what appeared to be entertainment
4 expenses under the heading promotion. I wonder if Ms. Dillon could locate
15:13:43 5 that. I want to have a look at it again.
7 MS. DILLON: 7382. Is that the document?
9 MR SANFEY: Perhaps the bottom portion could be increased. It's just it
15:14:01 10 struck us that there were a number of matters referred to there which seemed to
11 relate to a typical sort of promotion type of activities. Classic hits, wine,
12 chocolates, privilege.
13
14 CHAIRMAN: Yes. They are all, much smaller sums. But this doesn't -- this
15:14:25 15 is just dealt with as a cash cheque.
16
17 MR SANFEY: I was just wondering whether it might assist Mr. Glennane in any
18 way.
19 A. No, I don't think so, no.
15:14:40 20
23
24 MS. DILLON: Mr. Glennane, on the 6th of July 1992. At 3997. If we could
15:14:59 25 increase the bottom third of that and this again is headed Cherrywood Village.
26 A. Right.
27 Q. 1017 Isn't that right? Again, if we look at strategy consultancy fees?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 1018 There's a figure of 22,150 . Then the 3,000, which is the cheque made out to
15:15:16 30 cash?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
119
15:15:17 1 A. Right.
2 Q. 1019 And then it has increased to 27,850; isn't that right?
4 Q. 1020 So that there is an additional 2,700 pounds?
6 Q. 1021 So that the total amount now claimed for strategy consultancy fees is 27,850?
8 Q. 1022 I think that the documentation shows that GRE were unhappy to pay this strategy
9 consultancy fees; isn't that right?
15:15:52 10 A. They were. They were certainly unhappy originally about the 22,150.
11 Q. 1023 And certainly as of June 16th '92. At 8841?
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. 1024 There was a meeting between Mr. Beng, Mr. Murray and Mr. Lynn?
14 A. All right.
15:16:09 15 Q. 1025 And on the following page at 8842. Dealing with the second schedule of April
16 1992. The strategy consultancy fees of 22,150 and courtesy personnel
17 invoices had not been forwarded. And the total was reduced to 34,381; isn't
18 that right.
15:16:40 20 Q. 1026 Now, that refers back to 3998. We'd looked at this schedule earlier. And
21 under the column headed April 1992. You will see that the total is 61,981;
23 A. Yes, I think so, yeah.
24 Q. 1027 61,981. And it appears that deducted from that figure by GRE was the sum of
15:16:59 25 22,150 and 5,000 because no invoices had been forwarded; isn't that right?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 1028 And it was also agreed at that meeting at 8843, in the centre, it was agreed
28 that RML, that's Mr. Lynn, would re cast the schedules and show only the
29 amounts which had been agreed and the outstanding invoices would feature in an
15:17:22 30 additional schedule?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
120
15:17:23 1 A. Right.
3 A. Yeah.
4 Q. 1030 So what appears to have been agreed between GRE was in relation to the items
15:17:30 5 that they were in dispute with Monarch is that Mr. Lynn was going to prepare a
6 schedule showing what had been agreed and what was in dispute?
7 A. Yes, that would be probably be right, yes.
8 Q. 1031 And it appears he did so because in July of '92 at 3770, at the third
9 paragraph. He encloses a schedule No. 8 in the sum of 99,858 and he says
15:17:54 10 subject to variations which will emerge from your computer sheet the sum
11 outstanding by GRE properties to Monarch Properties amounts to 206,681 and he
12 asks him to agree the figures in schedule eight; isn't that right? In the next
13 paragraph?
14 A. Sorry, yes, yeah.
15:18:11 15 Q. 1032 And the schedule that's enclosed with that is at 8777. And that refers to
16 schedules one through to eight; isn't that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 1033 And schedule eight comes to 99,858. Isn't that right?
19 A. Yeah.
15:18:29 20 Q. 1034 According to this. And the total due from GRE, as per Mr. Lynn's letter is
21 recorded as 206,681 pounds?
23 Q. 1035 And the schedules that are attached are at 8778 and the continuation of that,
24 at 8779. And if we could increase the bottom half of schedule eight, please.
15:19:02 25 The bottom half of the page. Now, the second last column. To go just back
26 to the full so that we can see. The top of the page the second last column is
27 schedule eight; isn't that right?
28 A. Sorry, yes.
29 Q. 1036 And schedule eight according to Mr. Lynn's letter, was the schedule he was
15:19:20 30 asking them to agree and it totalled 99,858. And they were the matters in

www.pcr.ie Day 660
121
15:19:26 1 dispute. Isn't that right?
2 A. Yes, yes.
3 Q. 1037 And if we go down to the bottom half of schedule eight please at 8779. And
4 you see first of all the total is 99,858?
15:19:37 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 1038 And included under the heading of strategy consultancy fees is a sum of 27,850?
8 Q. 1039 So what is happening here is Mr. Lynn has included under this heading the same
9 fees that have already been disputed by GRE; isn't that right?
15:19:56 10 A. Yes, yes, yeah.
11 Q. 1040 And that figure of 27,850 is the 22,150 of political donations?
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. 1041 Plus the cheque for 3,000?
14 A. Yeah.
15:20:07 15 Q. 1042 Plus the difference of 2,700; isn't that right?
17 Q. 1043 And GRE are seeking to recover these; isn't that right?
18 A. Sorry?
19 Q. 1044 Sorry. Monarch are seeking to recover these from GRE, 50% of them?
21 Q. 1045 On the 27th of July '92. At 3789. Mr. Eddie Sweeney wrote to Mr. Martin
22 Baker, under the heading 'costs'. He notes that Mr. Baker has approved
23 payments of 149,898 and are presently checking further invoices per schedule
24 eight which amounts to 99,858 and not 56,784 as mentioned in yours?
15:20:52 25 A. Right, yes.
26 Q. 1046 That figure of 99,858 is the total of schedule eight; isn't that right?
28 Q. 1047 Include in the that is the figure of 27,850 for strategy consultancy fees?
15:21:05 30 Q. 1048 Include in the that figure of 27,850, is a figure of 22,150 political

www.pcr.ie Day 660
122
15:21:10 1 donations and a 3,000 pounds cheque to cash; isn't that right?
2 A. Yes, yeah.
3 Q. 1049 Now, the --
4 A. Sorry. Just on that. I mean, obviously, we provided details to GRE at the
15:21:35 5 time of that 3,000.
6 Q. 1050 Yes. And GRE subsequently agree the figure of 149,898. At 3827.?
7 A. Sorry, they approved the figure 149, yes.
8 Q. 1051 But that doesn't include the figure of 99,858.?
9 A. Well.
15:21:50 10 Q. 1052 They include the other figure; isn't that right.
11 A. Sorry, I can't see where you're going.
12 Q. 1053 I'm sorry. It's?
13 A. It's quite hard to follow all of this.
14 Q. 1054 If you see the heading Cabinteely at 3827 and you see paragraph 12,
15:22:03 15 sub-paragraph 1?
16 A. Yes, 50% is due to GRE, yes.
17 Q. 1055 Yes?
18 A. Checking further invoices submitted and confirm that in principle they accept
19 they will be responsible for 50% of these costs but are not willing to make any
15:22:21 20 payments until such time as the majority of the matters in respect of Tallaght
21 have been settled.
22 Q. 1056 Yes, I think the situation was with GRE was that they agreed that they would
23 pay figures but that it was subject to production of invoices?
24 A. Well, it makes reference there to Tallaght, checking the further invoices
15:22:41 25 submitted so ....
26 Q. 1057 Yes but the 149,898 is agreed; isn't that right?
28 Q. 1058 But the other figure that had been included in the letter has not yet been
29 agreed, the figure of 99,858; isn't that right?
15:22:56 30 A. Well I'm not sure if paragraph two is referring to that or not, I don't know.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
123
15:23:01 1 It says that in principle they accept they would be responsible. I don't know
2 if that refers to the 99,000 or not.
3 Q. 1059 But that could include the 99,858. It could include it?
4 A. Presumably, yes. That's the point I'm making, yes.
15:23:22 5 Q. 1060 But I think --
6 A. The point I was making though. Obviously that 3,000 has something to do with
7 Cherrywood. But that was, that was demonstrated to GRE, it was something to
8 do with Cherrywood. And I don't think GRE would have been involved in any
9 elicit payments or anything like that.
15:23:44 10 Q. 1061 And certainly by October of 1992 at 3837. Mr. Eddie Sweeney is seeking
11 recoupment. 3837, please.
12
13 At item No. 2. Of third party outlay from September '89 to June of 1992. A
14 sum of 556,288; isn't that right?
15:24:14 15 A. Yes, that is correct, yes.
16 Q. 1062 And that figure, at 8785, is the total on the first schedule. Do you see the
17 bottom of that page? If we could increase the bottom of that, please?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 1063 Do you see the figure of 556,287?
15:24:37 20 A. I do, yes.
21 Q. 1064 And if you move back up to strategy consultancy fees you see the figure?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 1065 It's still included?
24 A. Yes.
15:24:44 25 Q. 1066 So when Mr. Sweeney writes in October of 1992 he's looking for 556,288 and in a
26 letter of the 6th of October from Richard Lynn at 8783. In the second last
27 paragraph he is also seeking acceptance of the end figure on the attached
28 document?
29 A. Yes.
15:25:11 30 Q. 1067 And the attached document is 8784. And this again includes the schedule of

www.pcr.ie Day 660
124
15:25:20 1 99,858?
2 A. Right.
3 Q. 1068 So there are two strands of correspondence going on with GRE. One with Mr.
4 Lynn and one with Mr. Sweeney and both of them are seeking to recover the same
15:25:31 5 figure of strategy consultancy fees but I'm not suggesting they were seeking to
6 recover it on the double?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 1069 Do you know what I mean?
9 A. Mr. Beng was the accountant in GRE.
15:25:42 10 Q. 1070 Yes. So that Mr. Sweeney appears to be dealing with Mr. Baker?
12 Q. 1071 And Mr. Lynn appears to be dealing with Mr. Beng?
14 Q. 1072 They are both seeking to recover the figure including the strategy consultancy
15:25:54 15 fees of 27,850; isn't that right?
17 Q. 1073 So by this date, which is October 1992, Monarch are still maintaining that they
18 are entitled to be repaid half of those fees; isn't that right?
15:26:09 20 Q. 1074 I think that Monarch confirmed -- sorry, GRE confirmed, at 8345. That they
21 had agreed 556,288 which was the figure put forward, isn't that right, by
22 Mr. Sweeney in his letter?
23 A. Right, yes.
24 Q. 1075 Right. If we just look at --
15:26:45 25 A. It included the 90, did it.
26 Q. 1076 It includes the 90, yes. At 3837?
27 A. Yeah.
28 Q. 1077 Do you see the second item, No. 2, is third party outlay 556,288? Do you see
29 that figure?
15:27:05 30 A. No, sorry, where is it.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
125
15:27:05 1 Q. 1078 Item No. 2?
2 A. Oh, yes, yeah.
3 Q. 1079 And if you see then what GRE say in appendix one, at 3845. Under the heading
4 'agreed fee', 556,288?
15:27:16 5 A. Right, yes, yeah.
6 Q. 1080 And they are going to pay that 50/50?
7 A. Right.
8 Q. 1081 And they further say at 3850.?
9 A. Yeah.
15:27:28 10 Q. 1082 Do you see the heading 'third party costs'?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 1083 GRE confirmed that they would be responsible for 50% of 556,288?
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. 1084 This is subject to confirmation from GRE that the invoices are properly payable
15:27:41 15 and in this respect I would refer to the recent correspondence between Monarch
16 and G Beng?
17 A. Right.
18 Q. 1085 And secondly, they confirm that they would pay 50% of future third parties
19 costs amounting to 18,500 on the receipt of proper invoices?
15:27:55 20 A. Right, yes.
21 Q. 1086 They are saying two things. One is, we will pay half of the 556,288 if there
22 are proper invoices; isn't that right?
23 A. No, they're saying that the invoices are properly payable. So it would
24 suggest that they got invoices at this stage.
15:28:13 25 Q. 1087 It says this is subject to confirmation from GRE that the invoices are properly
26 payable; isn't that right?
27 A. They're not looking for invoices. They have invoices presumably.
28 Q. 1088 And they are also saying in item No. 2 that they'll only pay future third party
29 costs up to a limit of 18,500?
15:28:30 30 A. Unless they got proper invoices, yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
126
15:28:32 1 Q. 1089 That would be 50%. So in other words the most they will pay is 18,500 pounds?
2 A. That was putting a maximum figure on it, yes.
3 Q. 1090 So they're putting a ceiling on third party costs?
15:28:44 5 Q. 1091 And invoices then raised. At 3955. In the sum of 550,978; isn't that right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 1092 Which includes all those costs. But that invoice is not paid. Isn't that
8 right? There's never a payment of 550,978?
9 A. Oh, well they might have requested those at 261 I think.
15:29:12 10 Q. 1093 That figure. But included in that figure is the 27,000; isn't that right?
11 A. Included in which figure now?
12 Q. 1094 In the 550,978?
13 A. Yes, yes.
14 Q. 1095 That includes?
15:29:26 15 A. The 29 or whatever it is.
16 Q. 1096 Yes. That includes the figure of 27,850; isn't that right?
17 A. Well I think so, yes.
18 Q. 1097 Well if we look at?
19 A. I'm finding it very hard to keep up with you, however.
15:29:38 20 Q. 1098 Sorry. At 8785 if we just finish this point. I don't want to mislead you in
21 any way?
22 A. No.
23 Q. 1099 If we could increase the bottom half of 8785. What we want to look at are the
24 totals. You see that there are two totals. And 550977. Do you see that?
26 Q. 1100 The first total is the total of schedule five and eight. And what's deducted
27 is a sum of 5,310 giving a final total; isn't that right?
28 A. Right.
29 Q. 1101 Included in both figures is 27,850?
15:30:14 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
127
15:30:14 1 Q. 1102 For strategy consultancy fees?
3 Q. 1103 In the invoice that is put in, following these negotiations, at 3955.?
4 A. Yes, that's the 550, yes.
15:30:30 5 Q. 1104 Therefore, included in the figure of 55,978 is the figure of 27,850?
7 Q. 1105 And that figure includes political donations of at least 21,500?
11 Q. 1107 And what is being sought from Guardian by Monarch is 50% of that; isn't that
12 right?
14 Q. 1108 Do you know whether that was in fact paid?
15:30:55 15 A. No, I was hoping that you were going to tell me, to be honest, because I don't.
16 I presume it was but I don't know.
17 Q. 1109 In a schedule of outstanding costs which I think is dated approximately um...?
18 A. There's two figures on that. 216 and 45 and I don't know what they refer to.
19 They add up to the 261,678. I don't know if they were two different payments
15:31:20 20 made at different times. I don't know really.
21 Q. 1110 But what is clear from this documentation, is it not, Mr. Glennane , that
22 throughout 1992 that Monarch were seeking to recover from GRE a number of third
23 party costs?
15:31:34 25 Q. 1111 Included in that third party costs were costs described as strategic
26 consultancy fees or strategy consultancy fees; isn't that right?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 1112 The substantial portion of that strategy consultancy fees are comprised of
29 political donations which were made in May and June of 1991?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
128
15:31:54 1 Q. 1113 You don't know who described them as strategy consultancy fees?
2 A. No, I don't, no.
3 Q. 1114 But you would agree that that's not a correct description?
4 A. Well it's -- yeah, it's certainly not. It's certainly -- they weren't fees,
15:32:12 5 yes.
6 Q. 1115 Yes. And we saw yesterday, Mr. Glennane, when we looked at the description
7 that was applied to the payments that were made to the late Mr. Liam Lawlor
8 through Comex that they were described as strategy plan or strategy planning?
9 A. Right, yes.
15:32:29 10 Q. 1116 Isn't that right?
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. 1117 And they were described in the books of L&C Properties as strategy planning?
13 A. Based on his invoice, yes.
14 Q. 1118 Which the Tribunal has never seen?
15:32:39 15 A. No, no.
16 Q. 1119 But leave that aside?
17 A. Obviously.
18 Q. 1120 The description that is given?
19 A. Yeah.
15:32:43 20 Q. 1121 Is strategy plan?
21 A. Yeah.
22 Q. 1122 And the description that is given in this case is strategy consultancy fees?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 1123 In 1992; isn't that right?
26 Q. 1124 Can you conceive of any reason as to why somebody would be minded to describe a
27 genuine political donation as a strategy consultancy fee?
28 A. Not particularly, no, no. Unless you wanted to make the leap to say that it
29 was a strategy, to make political contributions when asked.
15:33:18 30 Q. 1125 Pardon?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
129
15:33:20 1 A. Unless, as I say. They wanted -- you wanted to make the leap to say that it
2 could be believed to make strategy, political contributions. If somebody said
3 is that a good strategy you'd probably have said yes. Strategies was a word
4 that was thrown around an awful lot in those days. And obviously, GRE were
15:33:46 5 quite happy with that description.
6 Q. 1126 We'll leave GRE out of it for the moment.?
7 A. This is all based on GRE.
8 Q. 1127 Well did you seek to --
9 A. This is all between ourselves and GRE.
15:33:58 10 Q. 1128 Did you seek to recover the 56,000 paid to Mr. Lawlor from GRE?
11 A. I don't think so, no. I don't think so.
12 Q. 1129 Yet that is described as strategy plan; isn't that right?
14 Q. 1130 And we don't know who decided to describe it in that fashion also; isn't that
15:34:17 15 right?
16 A. Well I know from reading the ledger that all the persons posting that would
17 have just taken the description off the invoice. So it was obviously on the
18 invoice.
19 Q. 1131 That the invoice from Comex was in connection with strategy plan?
15:34:33 20 A. Yes, that wording was on the invoice obviously, yes. Yes, obviously.
21 Q. 1132 And when it comes time to describe the 21,500 political payments that are made
22 in May and June of 1991. It's described -- it is decided to describe them as
23 strategy consultancy fees?
15:34:56 25 Q. 1133 Now, whatever else they are, Mr. Glennane, they're not fees; isn't that right?
27 Q. 1134 They might be a strategic payment but they certainly can't be fees; isn't that
28 right?
15:35:09 30 Q. 1135 As you've said yourself it might be strategic to think?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
130
15:35:14 1 A. In their term, yes.
2 Q. 1136 It might have been in Cherrywood's best interest to pay the money; isn't that
3 right?
4 A. If they were asked for it, yes.
15:35:21 5 Q. 1137 And is it your belief that only when Monarch were asked that Monarch paid?
6 A. Yes, that's my belief, yes.
7 Q. 1138 Can you think of any other reason as to why one would describe political
8 payments as strategy consultancy?
9 A. No, no.
15:35:41 10 Q. 1139 So it would appear from the books and records of Monarch that in 1992 a number
11 of things happened to the political payments made in '91, they were transferred
12 from Monarch Properties services limited and attributed to Cherrywood isn't
13 that right?
14 A. Sorry, they were transferred internally in Monarch Properties services, yes.
15:36:00 15 Q. 1140 Because you --
16 A. They weren't transferred from Monarch Properties.
17 Q. 1141 As you said yourself because they had an association with Cherrywood?
19 Q. 1142 Following on that, they are then described as strategy consultancy fees in
15:36:13 20 internal working documents within Monarch; isn't that right?
21 A. With GRE.
22 Q. 1143 Which are then sent to GRE?
23 A. That's right, yeah. Are purely -- are purely produced for the sake of dealing
24 with GRE.
15:36:26 25 Q. 1144 But seeing as you didn't produce them, did you, you didn't decide to call them
26 strategy consultancy fees; isn't that right?
27 A. No, I don't think so, no.
28 Q. 1145 And what would have been the difficulty with calling them political donations
29 and asking GRE to pay half of them?
15:36:43 30 A. Well as I said a while ago, it would be my opinion that somebody discussed it

www.pcr.ie Day 660
131
15:36:49 1 with GRE and they didn't want them described as that. But it's quite clear
2 that they knew what they were. And it's also quite clear that --
4 CHAIRMAN: But isn't it unlikely that GRE ...
15:37:00 5 A. Sorry.
8 CHAIRMAN: Gave them that designation, because they then objected to paying
9 them?
15:37:06 10 A. Well they objected to paying the amounts. But they knew what they were and
11 that, yes. I mean, it's -- I'm not -- I'm not clear on and I was hoping that
12 if -- if they did pay this 27 or not, I'm not clear on that.
13
14 CHAIRMAN: Well possibly they may have at the end of the day. They certainly
15:37:29 15 had a payment about paying them.
16 A. Mr. Gillies.
17
18 CHAIRMAN: Yeah, for a long time. So it's unlikely that they would have
19 suggested this designation and then having so suggested it then turned around
15:37:41 20 and said we're still objecting to paying for it.
21 A. Well, we are dealing with different people at different times, you know. So
22 one of them may have suggested it and somebody mightn't.
23
24 CHAIRMAN: But isn't it --
15:37:53 25 A. It ended up that Mr. Baker, the MD ...
26
27 CHAIRMAN: But isn't it improbable that whoever in GRE having decided, were
28 asked that they should have been called such and such would then turn around
29 and say no, we still have a problem about paying them. Isn't that unlikely?
15:38:12 30 A. Well ...

www.pcr.ie Day 660
132
15:38:12 1
2 CHAIRMAN: If you had chosen ...
3 A. If you knew the personnel involved, no.
15:38:16 5 CHAIRMAN: If they had chosen it?
6 A. It might have been discussed with them and said they'd agreed.
8 CHAIRMAN: Wouldn't you then expect them to pay it or not to raise any
9 difficulty about paying it?
15:38:30 10 A. Well, I don't know. Again, you're dealing with different individuals at
11 different times:
12
13 MS. DILLON: Can I ask you about --
14 A. Sorry, a point I think should be made. That at all times this 3,000 was
15:38:43 15 included in these so they were. It was certainly scrutinised closely by GRE,
16 as you can see, there's five or six different references to these figures so
17 ....
18
19 MS. DILLON: Can we have a look maybe and it might help if we look at what
15:39:01 20 happened to the payments to Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Bruton and how they were dealt
21 with?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 1146 I think the position is that in -- there was a General Election in November
24 1992; isn't that right?
15:39:11 25 A. If you say so, yes.
26 Q. 1147 And a payment was made to Mr. John Bruton. 3905. Now this is payment by
27 Monarch Properties Limited of 2,500 pounds?
29 Q. 1148 And there's a payment to Mr. Albert Reynolds by Mr. Monarch Properties Limited.
15:39:33 30 At 3894. Isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
133
15:39:34 1 A. Well I haven't seen it yet. Yes.
2 Q. 1149 And at 3895. I think we can see that your signature is on the cheque?
15:39:46 5 A. Yes. Well, yes.
6 Q. 1151 Now, when these payments are made initially where are they attributed?
7 A. I don't know. They're actually written by Monarch Properties Limited, which
8 is a different company.
9 Q. 1152 Yes. And they are attributed. 3902: They are Monarch Properties. Not
15:40:09 10 Monarch Properties Services Limited. And they are attributed to sponsorship;
12 A. That's right, so it seems, yes.
13 Q. 1153 And they are then transferred. 3900. Do you see the heading Cherrywood
14 Properties Limited? Do you see AR, FF 5,000 J B, F G, 2,500?
15:40:35 15 A. Yes, yeah.
16 Q. 1154 And you see that's an account called Cherrywood Properties Limited?
18 Q. 1155 And then at 4904. Do you see where it says the last transaction there is
19 transfer sponsorship FF, FG 7,500 pounds?
21 Q. 1156 And I suggest to you that is the transfer of the money to Mr. Reynolds and
22 Mr. Bruton?
23 A. Yeah, yeah, so it appears, yes.
24 Q. 1157 And that is being transferred into account number 7359201 into a Cherrywood
15:41:13 25 account isn't that right? It's a 73 account?
26 A. That's right, yes. Yes, sorry, yeah.
27 Q. 1158 So a decision is made in effect to do very much the same as happened with the
28 1991 payments with these payments in November 1992?
15:41:31 30 Q. 1159 And these payments then find themselves now on a list called third party costs

www.pcr.ie Day 660
134
15:41:47 1 in June of '93. At 4317. And you will see there a list of expenses called
2 third party cost. And included is Fine Gael 2,500. Fianna Fail 5,000
3 pounds?
15:41:53 5 Q. 1160 And that then is included at an invoice at 4302. And sorry. I should have
6 drawn to your attention that third party costs at 4317. If I could have 4317
7 and 4302 together, please. Now, you will see that the total of the third
8 party costs by June of '93 come to 20,370 pounds?
9 A. Right, yes.
15:42:34 10 Q. 1161 And that includes 2,500 to Fine Gael and 5,000 to Fianna Fail?
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. 1162 That appears to be included in an invoice at 4302. That's invoice 2066 as
13 miscellaneous fee third party costs 20,370. And what's being sought from GRE
14 is 50% of that figure; isn't that right?
16 Q. 1163 So what is being sought here are third party costs including half of the
17 payment to Fianna Fail and Fine Gael?
19 Q. 1164 And that's the payment made in November' 29 to Mr. Albert Reynolds and Mr. John
15:43:08 20 Bruton?
21 A. That's right.
24 Q. 1166 Now, we saw earlier on that the agreed balance or the maximum that GRE would
15:43:15 25 agree to pay for third party costs going forward was 18,500 pounds; isn't that
26 right?
28 Q. 1167 That's referred to at the invoice at 2066?
29 A. Yeah.
15:43:24 30 Q. 1168 There is there is also at 2062. A management claim. Sorry. At 4299. I

www.pcr.ie Day 660
135
15:43:32 1 beg your pardon. At 4299. An invoice No. 2062. For 30,000 pounds for a
2 management fee.?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 1169 Isn't that right? Now, I think that what happened was that GRE refused to pay
15:43:54 5 the invoice 2062. And invoice 2062 was the invoice in -- invoice 2066 they
6 refused to pay. If we have 4303. And under the heading invoice 2062, GRE
7 say to Mr. Sweeney?
8 A. Yeah.
9 Q. 1170 "This matter relates to the additional management fee. And should therefore
15:44:19 10 include the contributions of 2,500 and 5,000 pounds included in invoice 2066.
11 If you would confirm this I will arrange for invoice 2062 to be passed for
12 payment".?
13 A. All right.
14 Q. 1171 Now, invoice 2062 was a management fee of 30,000 pounds; isn't that right?
16 Q. 1172 And what GRE are saying. Is that the contributions of 2,500 and 5,000 pounds
17 should have been included in the management fee; isn't that right?
18 A. Um, um, yes, I'm not sure whether it means added on to the management fee or
19 included in the management fee. Yes, one or the other.
15:45:06 20 Q. 1173 Should include the contributions of 2,500 and 5,000 pounds included in invoice
21 2066?
22 A. Yeah.
23 Q. 1174 Now, if we just pause there for a second. The contributions of 2,500 and the
24 5,000 pounds are the payments in November 1992 to Fianna Fail and Fine Gael?
15:45:23 25 A. Yeah.
26 Q. 1175 They have been included on invoice 2066 under the heading third party costs?
27 A. All right.
28 Q. 1176 GRE say on receipt of that they should not have been included under invoice
29 2066 as third party costs but they should have been included under 2062.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
136
2 Q. 1177 And therefore, it follows from that, that there must have been some agreement
3 between Monarch and GRE, that political payments would have been included in
4 the management fee?
15:45:53 5 A. So it would seem, yes, yeah.
6 Q. 1178 And that would be borne out by the response from Mr. Sweeney, because
7 Mr. Sweeney says at 4314 ...
8 A. I think they are -- they are asking us there to include it in the management
9 fee.
15:46:09 10 Q. 1179 Yes. But Mr. Sweeney replies to Mr. Baker. And he says. "As regards
11 invoice 2062 and your reference to the two payments of 2,500 and 5,000, you
12 will note that these sums were paid bona fide to the parties concerned". Do
13 you see that?
14 A. Yes.
15:46:26 15 Q. 1180 And he goes on to say. "They therefore would not rank within the payments
16 envisaged which had been disbursed through the additional management fee. And
17 I therefore feel they could not be written out in the way that you suggest".?
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. 1181 Now, that exchange of correspondence, Mr. Glennane, appears to suggest that
15:46:50 20 there was an agreement of some sort between Monarch and GRE to include
21 political payments in a management fee. Would you agree with that?
22 A. It would appear so, yes.
23 Q. 1182 Right. Now, what can you tell the Tribunal about that arrangement?
24 A. Well I don't recall that arrangement. It seems clear to me that as I heard
15:47:06 25 that, that agreeing that GRE were quite prepared to pay these, they wanted them
26 described as management fees.
27 Q. 1183 Mr. Sweeney in his letter is making the point to GRE that the 2,500 and the
28 5,000 were paid bona fides and therefore should be included as third party
29 costs. Do you see that?
15:47:27 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
137
15:47:27 1 Q. 1184 And he then goes on to say "they would not rank within the payments envisaged
2 which had been disbursed through the additional management fee". And that I
3 suggest to you, would be payments which were not bona fide. Is that right?
4 A. No, I wouldn't think so, no.
15:47:43 5 Q. 1185 Well just look at it there now?
6 A. I think he's saying that the additional management would fee was to be 30,000
7 and he didn't think that the 7,500 should be included in the 30,000. It
8 should be 30,000 plus 7,500.
9 Q. 1186 What Mr. Sweeney is saying is that the 2,500 and the 5,000 were bona fides
15:48:06 10 payments and therefore should be include in the third party costs; isn't that
11 right?
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. 1187 He then goes on to say "that because they are paid bone fide they would not
14 rank within the payments envisaged which had been dispursed through the
15:48:16 15 additional management fee". So what are the payments that were disbursed
16 through the additional management fee, Mr. Glennane?
17 A. I don't know. I presume he just means costs. I don't know.
18 Q. 1188 What costs?
19 A. Well ordinary management costs. I mean, we were running -- Monarch was
15:48:37 20 running up huge costs. That's why they were getting management fees. Staff
21 costs. Various other costs.
22 Q. 1189 What Mr.-- what GRE are saying is that they'll pay it provided it's included in
23 the management fee. What Mr. Sweeney is saying is it was paid bona fide and
24 therefore it's third party costs and therefore doesn't go into the management
15:49:05 25 fee; isn't that right?
26 A. Well I think it's more to me an argument whether the management fee included
27 that 7,500 or not.
28 Q. 1190 And what arrangement was there between GRE and Monarch about including
29 political donations in the management fee?
15:49:23 30 A. I don't know. I wasn't aware of any arrangement. But it appears to me that

www.pcr.ie Day 660
138
15:49:28 1 as I said before, the suggestion came from them. It may have been that they
2 were an insurance company. They may well have not been allowed to make
3 political contributions, I don't know. But it appears to me from all of that,
4 that the initiative to do all of this came from them.
15:49:48 5 Q. 1191 And the use of the --
6 A. But that they were fully accepted as being bona fide.
7 Q. 1192 And the use of the word "bona fide" appears to have come from Mr. Monahan in
8 Monarch Properties; isn't that right?
9 A. I think he means that they are third party costs.
15:50:05 10 Q. 1193 He says that they were paid bona fide to the parties concerned; isn't that
11 right?
12 A. Well, yes, okay.
13 Q. 1194 He then goes on to say "they wouldn't rank within the payments envisaged which
14 had been disbursed through the additional management fee" now what payments
15:50:19 15 could Mr. Sweeney --
16 A. I think he means costs but I don't know.
17 Q. 1195 Well what could he have been talking about, Mr. Glennane?
18 A. Well obviously we made a claim for additional management fees. It could be on
19 the basis we'd taken on more staff and it was costing us more than we
15:50:36 20 envisaged.
21 Q. 1196 Well did you make an arrangement with Monarch or between Monarch and GRE that
22 political payments would be included in a management fee for example?
24 Q. 1197 Well what other interpretation could you take from the correspondence other
15:50:54 25 than there was such an arrangement. If you look at what Mr. Baker says at
26 4303. Because what Mr. Baker is saying --
27 A. "This matter relates to an additional management fee and should therefore
28 include the contribution included in the invoice (reading to himself).
29 Q. 1198 Yes. And invoice 2062 is an invoice in relation to a management fee, isn't
15:51:16 30 that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
139
2 Q. 1199 At 4400. So for whatever reason, Mr. Baker appears to be under the
3 misapprehension that the political payment of 2,500 and 5,000 made in November
4 1992 should have been included in the claim for the management fee and not
15:51:35 5 included as third party costs, isn't that right?
6 A. Yes. Well there was ongoing negotiations going on with GRE. And there was
7 different deals struck at different times and --
8 Q. 1200 Sorry.?
9 A. It he might well have said to me -- and looked at me and said we were obviously
15:51:53 10 claiming for more management fees and we were also claiming for these third
11 party costs and he may -- it appears to me that he was saying -- he had agreed
12 a fee of, an extra fee of 30,000 on the basis that these third party costs
13 would not arise. And now he's being billed for both and is really saying I
14 wouldn't have agreed the extra 30,000 if I realised that I was going to have to
15:52:20 15 pay these. That's my interpretation of what it says.
16 Q. 1201 It doesn't say that, you see Mr. Glennane?
17 A. It doesn't.
18 Q. 1202 If you look at what Mr. Baker actually says "this matter relates to the
19 additional management fee and should include the contributions of 2,500 and
15:52:35 20 5,000 included in the invoice 2066". In simple terms what Mr. Baker is telling
21 Monarch is the invoice that includes the 2,500 and 5,000 figures should be
22 included in the management fee and not under the heading of third party costs;
23 isn't this right?
15:52:54 25 Q. 1203 That would suggest that there was some arrangement between Monarch and GRE,
26 that political payments or contributions or Mr. Baker certainly believed that
27 they had some arrangement, that they would be included under the heading of
28 management fee as opposed to third party costs; isn't that right?
29 A. No, as I said, I can certainly read a different interpretation into it. That
15:53:17 30 he had agreed to pay the additional management fees, but he didn't want to pay

www.pcr.ie Day 660
140
15:53:24 1 additional management fees and pay these contributions. He was of the opinion
2 that the additional management fees would cover these, would cover their share
3 of these contributions.
15:53:33 5 CHAIRMAN: I assume Mr. Sweeney will be able to throw a lot of light on that
6 particular issue.
8 MS. DILLON: I --
15:53:43 10 CHAIRMAN: At least his evidence?
11
12 MS. DILLON: I assume so.
13
14
15:53:46 15 Q. 1204 Because certainly in the documentation that passed between Monarch and GRE, in
16 the correspondence between Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Baker, Mr. Sweeney makes the
17 argument that because these payments were paid bona fide they should be
18 included as third party cost and not included as management fee?
19 A. I think the word bona fides is a little bit of a mute point. You can take it
15:54:11 20 out of context.
21 Q. 1205 Okay?
22 A. I mean, if the inference is that there's some other payments that weren't bona
23 fide. Again, I think that -- I don't think that that follows. I think what
24 he said is they are bona fide third party costs. In other words, that they
15:54:29 25 weren't to our benefit. So it was a matter of either paying 22,500, which
26 would come to Monarch.
27
28 MS. DILLON: And I think ultimately the figure, second invoice, was sent in to
29 GRE by Monarch. That's invoice at 4311. And you will see that that invoice
15:54:56 30 is in the sum of 16,270 pounds; isn't that right

www.pcr.ie Day 660
141
2 Q. 1206 And there's within a reduction of 4,100 pounds on the earlier invoice; isn't
3 that right? Because the earlier invoice is for third party costs?
4 A. Yeah.
15:55:12 5 Q. 1207 Sorry?
6 A. I would again sorry. Obviously, we were trying to circumvent this limit that
7 he had put of 18,500 on third party costs.
8 Q. 1208 And I think that invoice, at 2069 makes a deduction for fees due to Noel Smyth
9 & Partners in the sum of 4,100 pounds. If we look at 4302, please. Yes.
15:55:48 10 That was the original invoice. And the difference between that and the 16,270
11 pounds is a sum of 4,100 pounds. Which were fees due to Noel Smyth. Do you
12 understand the point I'm making?
13 A. I don't see it anywhere.
14 Q. 1209 They are third party costs. The document on screen is third party costs. One
15:56:12 15 of the very first documents that I showed you. If we could look at 4317
16 please. This is the combination of the invoice?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 1210 For 20,370 pounds Mr. Glennane?
19 A. Yes.
15:56:36 20 Q. 1211 You see there a figure for 4,100 pounds to Noel Smyth & Partners?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 1212 That made up the first invoice put in for third party costs at 4302 in the sum
23 of 20,370 pounds. Do you see that?
24 A. I do, yes.
15:56:40 25 Q. 1213 Following the exchange of correspondence a second invoice is sent in by -- for
26 third party costs at 4311. Invoice No. 2069. And the figure now sought is
27 16,270 pounds.?
28 A. Right, yes.
29 Q. 1214 And the difference between the two are the costs due to Noel Smyth?
15:57:02 30 A. Right.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
142
15:57:02 1 Q. 1215 So what is still included on invoice 2069, are the contributions of 2,500 and
2 5,000 pounds made to Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. Do you understand?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 1216 And those were the subject of correspondence and ultimately were confirmed that
15:57:21 5 that invoice, 2069 at 4211. This is a letter dated the 28th of September '93.
6 And in it Mr. Baker confirms he has authorised invoices for payment and the
7 second invoices, 2069. Do you see that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 1217 And above it is the no. 2; do you see that?
15:57:45 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 1218 And No. 2 means back up required?
12 A. Right.
13 Q. 1219 Do you see that written at the very bottom?
14 A. Yes, I do, yes.
15:57:52 15 Q. 1220 That would have meant that Mr. Baker was agreeing to pay invoice 2069 including
16 the 5,000 pounds to Fianna Fail and the 2,500 to Fine Gael provided back up was
17 provided; isn't that right?
18 A. So it seems, yeah.
19 Q. 1221 Now, was such back up provided?
15:58:07 20 A. I don't know. But I presume all the back up it means was receipts from Fianna
21 Fail and from Fine Gael.
22 Q. 1222 And were such back up obtained?
23 A. Well I don't know but I'm sure there would have been. If it was the
24 difference between getting half of 7,500 back and not getting it I'm sure it
15:58:29 25 would have been easy enough to get them presumably.
26 Q. 1223 Can I ask you how the decision was arrived at to attribute those political
27 payments as costs in connection with Cherrywood?
28 A. Well on the same basis as we said earlier. Because we were again -- we seem
29 to have worn down GRE at this stage, that they agreed to pay them, to pay 50%
15:58:49 30 of them. So if we were able to get 50% back that was great as far as I was

www.pcr.ie Day 660
143
15:58:54 1 concerned for everybody else in the company.
2 Q. 1224 Certainly in deciding to attribute the costs to Cherrywood, did you take into
3 account in the company what Mr. Monahan had said to Mr. Reynolds when he made
4 the payment?
15:59:08 5 A. I have no idea what Mr. Monahan said to Mr. Reynolds.
6 Q. 1225 3891, please. In the letter that was sent with the payment to 5,000 pounds to
7 Mr. Reynolds, you will see in the second paragraph that Mr. Monahan says "as
8 you are aware, we in Monarch together with our partners Guardian Royal
9 Exchange, are in a position to begin a major development in Loughlinstown,
15:59:31 10 County Dublin, but are caught in the throes of the review of the County Dublin
11 Development Plan which is holding up developments. We have been greatly
12 assisted by your party members on Dublin County Council without whom it is fair
13 to say we would not have achieved the part zoning which now obtains on the
14 lands".
15:59:47 15
16 Do you know what he meant by that?
17 A. I assume he meant that, sorry, um, well I presume he meant that if party
18 members hadn't voted in favour of it, it wouldn't have gone through.
19 Q. 1226 Your members have been to the fore in encouraging good development based on
16:00:08 20 proper planning criteria endorsed by the council's own professional staff. In
21 so doing your party shows an admirable stance for a common sense approach to
22 development and for being positive towards job creation. Unfortunately other
23 parties who have been against all proposed developments during the review of
24 the Draft Development Plan now appear to take the High Road on job creation
16:00:28 25 possibilities during the course of the General Election".
26
27 That is the letter that Mr. Monahan sent to Mr. Reynolds for the cheque for
28 5,000 pounds.
29 A. Yes. Nice waffle, if I may say so, yes.
16:00:40 30 Q. 1227 But it's waffle in connection with the zoning of the Cherrywood lands isn't

www.pcr.ie Day 660
144
2 A. No, it's waffle in connection with job opportunities and the Fianna Fail party.
3 It's just saying that -- I don't know. He might have well written the same
4 letter to Mr. Bruton, for all I know. For all I know.
16:01:01 5 Q. 1228 How many developments had Monarch going into 1992?
6 A. I couldn't say.
7 Q. 1229 Well Somerton was before the council; isn't that right?
8 A. I don't know. I don't know what was before the council.
9 Q. 1230 Ongar Stud?
16:01:26 10 A. They were all certainly somewhere.
11 Q. 1231 And some of them were pending before the council in the Development Plan,
12 weren't they?
13 A. If the Development Plan was covering the whole county I would assume so, yes.
14 Q. 1232 But the only matter that's discussed by Mr. Monahan or mentioned by Mr. Monahan
16:01:34 15 to Mr. Reynolds when he writes this letter are the lands at Loughlinstown,
16 which are the Cherrywood lands; isn't that right?
17 A. He mentioned his partners, GRE, yes.
18 Q. 1233 Would that view as held by Mr. Monahan have anything to do with the decision to
19 attribute the payment to Fianna Fail and Fine Gael in '92 as being a cost of
21 A. Well as I said to you, really all of the costs were attributed. Obviously
22 when he mentions, he mentions GRE as well. It would have made it a lot easier
23 to get 50% of it back from GRE.
24 Q. 1234 Uh-huh. Can I ask you to assist the Tribunal with --
16:02:12 25 A. I don't think in general it mattered much where costs were attributed. They
26 were all sorted out at the end of the year, at the end of each year.
27 Q. 1235 That's not in fact the case, Mr. Glennane because these costs were allowed to
28 accumulate?
29 A. Yes.
16:02:27 30 Q. 1236 And they weren't in fact written out every year?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
145
16:02:29 1 A. No, I didn't say that they were written out every year. They were carried
2 forward and they were discussed every year.
3 Q. 1237 With a number of cash payments in November of 1992. If we could have 3875,
4 please. If you just look half way down that page. And you will see on the
16:02:52 5 17th of November 1992. Allied Irish Bank plc 10,000 pounds. Do you see
6 that?
8 Q. 1238 And that is debited I think to the account of Monarch Properties Services
9 Limited. It's quite faint. But it is at 4719. Do you see very faintly
16:03:18 10 there?
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. 1239 It's the second last entry?
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. 1240 And there is a second cheque. At 3917. And it's the sixth entry down. And
16:03:30 15 it's 5,000 pounds to Allied Irish Bank.?
17 Q. 1241 And that's debited at 3920 on the 23rd of November '92. Do you see that?
18 A. Yeah.
19 Q. 1242 And that is on foot of a cheque which I think is signed by yourself at 8456.
16:03:55 20 Isn't that correct?
22 Q. 1243 A cheque made out to Allied Irish Bank. That is attributed to the same
23 donations in the books of Monarch as Cherrywood. 3819, please. Sorry.
24 3877. Now, I want to draw to your attention there approximately to half way
16:04:16 25 down the page. Both of those payments, AIB 10,000 pounds cash. Do you see
26 that?
27 A. I do, yes.
28 Q. 1244 And one beneath that. After S Barrett FG, AIB 5,000 pounds cash. Do you see
29 that?
16:04:27 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 660
146
16:04:28 1 Q. 1245 And most or a lot of the other payments that are listed on that schedule are
2 political payments that were made in connection the General Election of
3 November 1992. Isn't that right?
16:04:39 5 Q. 1246 So you can see Mr. Keating, Mr. Flood, Mr. O'Connor, Therese Ridge, Mr. Hannon,
6 Ms. Harney, Sean Haughey, Anne Ormond, Ms. McGuinness, Mr. Lenihan, Mr Lyons
7 Keogh, Mr. Boland, Mr. McGrath, Ms. Flaherty, Mr. Taylor, Ms. Coffey, Mr. GV
8 Wright, Mrs. Owens and then AIB 10,000 cash. Sean Barrett, AIB 5,000 cash and
9 Nora Owen, do you see that?
16:05:03 10 A. Yes.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 1248 Now, would you tell the Tribunal what that payment of 10,000 pounds and 5,000
14 pounds that was a cost of Cherrywood that was made in November 1992?
16:05:19 15 A. Bank statements.
16 Q. 1249 The first?
17 A. Sorry, the cheque payments book, yes.
18 Q. 1250 The check payments book is at 3917 for the 5,000 pounds payment and it's the
19 sixth entry down.?
16:05:43 20 A. Sorry, I can't see that.
21 Q. 1251 Sorry. It's the entry that has Allied Irish bank plc. If we could highlight
22 it. It's now in yellow?
23 A. 5,000 pounds, that's correct.
24 Q. 1252 Do you want the 10,000 pounds cheque payments?
16:05:58 25 A. I'm just looking to see what difference that, that's more than likely I would
26 have thought a bank draft. However. There's no reference to cash anywhere
27 in that.
28 Q. 1253 No -- the cash appears --
29 A. In the ledger.
16:06:10 30 Q. 1254 Yes. It's after Sean Barrett and before Nora Owen. Do you see that?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
147
16:06:16 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 1255 Do you want to see the other cheque payments?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 1256 That is at 3875, and it's in the centre of the page. 10,000 pounds.?
16:06:31 5 A. Yeah, again, no reference to cash in it.
6 Q. 1257 No. But the reference to cash is from the extract for the general ledger, at
7 3877. And if we go back to that. That might assist you.
8 A. No well, this is the source document. The one before that.
9 Q. 1258 Yes. If we look at the centre of that. You will see it records AIB 10,000
16:06:55 10 pounds cash. Sean Barrett and the AIB 5,000 pounds cash?
11 A. I don't think it's right to mention names in the same breath as cash.
12 However, I don't -- they might well have been bank drafts for various things.
13 Q. 1259 Well let's look at where they are allocated. They are allocated as a cost of
14 Cherrywood; isn't that right?
16:07:19 15 A. Well they are included in the Cherrywood account. I've already explained that
16 might well have happened two or three months afterwards when somebody said that
17 where will we post this to and the answer I don't know, post it to Cherrywood
18 and we'll sort it out at the end of the year. I mean, all of these books and
19 accounts were scrutinised completely by the company's auditors KPMG and they
16:07:43 20 were at the end of each year. So they would have, they would have, they would
21 have been, as I said, scrutinised completely at the end of the year.
22 Q. 1260 That figure of 65696 goes into Cherrywood stock?
23 A. At that stage, yes.
24 Q. 1261 And it contributes to the build up of the Cherrywood stock?
16:08:00 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 1262 So now let's look at what the payment might have been for, Mr. Glennane.
27 Every -- or most of the other payments are rounded, are political payments;
16:08:14 30 Q. 1263 They are payments that are made in November 1992; isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
148
16:08:19 1 A. Yes, yeah.
2 Q. 1264 And there's a General Election in November 1992?
4 Q. 1265 And on that list, on that list of payments with the exception of the third last
16:08:32 5 item of 19,500, they are the two biggest payments; isn't that right?
7 Q. 1266 Now, does any of that assist you in trying to help the Tribunal in determining
8 what those payments would have been for?
9 A. No, not really, no.
16:08:52 10 Q. 1267 But it would have been a payment, as you described yourself this morning, in
11 association with Cherrywood?
12 A. Well it would have been a payment that was allocated to Cherrywood.
13 Q. 1268 Okay. So somebody when they make the payment of 10,000 --
14 A. Sorry. Whenever they come to post those entries, which could have been two or
16:09:11 15 three months later. They then raise the query where will I post this to.
16 And they decide, for whatever reason, to post it to the promotions account and
17 it was presumably on the basis that it can be sorted out at the end of the
18 year.
19 Q. 1269 Is that speculation on your part?
16:09:28 20 A. No, it's what I would have expected to happen, yes.
21 Q. 1270 These are two cheques made out to AIB, which according to your document being
22 Monarch's document, are cashed; isn't that right?
23 A. Well I don't, other than saying that on seeing it on this ledger I don't see
24 anything that suggests that they were cash as against getting bank drafts.
16:09:52 25
26 CHAIRMAN: Well if you go back to 3875 I think.
27
28 JUDGE FAHERTY: That's the 10,000.
29
16:09:58 30 CHAIRMAN: If you look at the -- do you see the one above the 10,000?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
149
16:10:03 1 There's -- I would think that probably is a bank draft.
2 A. Yeah, or something.
4 CHAIRMAN: Because the identity of the recipient is there. All right?
16:10:16 5 A. That's a Sterling draft.
7 CHAIRMAN: Yes.
9 CHAIRMAN: So wouldn't it be absolutely amazing if the 10,000 was a draft and
16:10:24 10 no one identified who the payee was. I mean, that wouldn't make the remotest
11 accounting sense; isn't that right? I mean, sure, wouldn't there have to be an
12 entry. If it was a bank draft to be paid to some individual or to a company,
13 sure, wouldn't it be crazy accounting not to include some item?
14 A. Well certainly it should have been at the time. That's the point I'm making.
16:10:55 15
16 CHAIRMAN: Well isn't it much more likely. We have to deal. If we can't
17 get specific direct detailed evidence about specific issues. We have to try
18 and decide what was probably the case. Isn't it probable or would you agree
19 that it is probable that it wasn't a bank draft because there's no identity of
16:11:16 20 the recipient?
21 A. Well it's -- I don't know is the short answer.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: Well you're the -- you're the Chief Financial Officer. And, I
24 mean, these are effectively your responsibility. So would you not agree?
16:11:40 25 A. I would certainly have expected to see written after it some explanation.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: Yes.
28 A. Or written across in the columns.
29
16:11:57 30 CHAIRMAN: And we have the reference elsewhere to cash?

www.pcr.ie Day 660
150
16:11:57 1 A. Yes.
3 CHAIRMAN: So isn't it probable that these were not bank drafts but that they
4 were cash taken directly from Allied Irish Bank?
16:12:00 5 A. Well I can't say they were, Chairman.
7 CHAIRMAN: Well what do you think is likely?
8 A. I don't know. I don't know. It's between the two. I mean I could
9 speculate between the two as to one or the other. It could be just careless
16:12:15 10 accounting or whatever. They could, they could well have been a cash. But I
11 would have expected them to have been made out to cash.
12
13 CHAIRMAN: In the strictest of accounting, surely given the size of the
14 amounts it would have been detected and corrected. Is that not probable?
16:12:32 15 A. Well it would have been. It would have been scrutinised at the end of the
16 year.
17
18 CHAIRMAN: Yes.
19 A. I mean --
16:12:38 20
21 CHAIRMAN: And --
22 A. I know they are big amounts. In the overall context of the Monarch Group they
23 weren't huge amounts.
24
16:12:44 25 CHAIRMAN: Well they were significant enough. I mean, if you look at all the
26 other figures they are the biggest item on that list there or it is the biggest
27 item.
28 A. Yes.
29
16:12:54 30 CHAIRMAN: In in relation to their designation into Cherrywood. Isn't that a

www.pcr.ie Day 660
151
16:12:59 1 decision that was unlikely to have been taken by a junior person in the
2 accounts? It would have been -- isn't it likely that it was taken, a decision
3 made by somebody, somebody with some seniority?
4 A. They would probably have asked somebody more senior. The actual posting would
16:13:20 5 have been done by a junior person.
7 CHAIRMAN: Well can we take it then as a matter of probability, because you
8 say that you are not certain. But as a matter of probability, that the
9 designation of these sums or these items were made on the direction of somebody
16:13:35 10 in a senior position in the accounts or financial division of the company?
11 A. More than likely, yes, yeah.
12
13 CHAIRMAN: Now, Ms. Dillon, it's now a quarter past four ....
14
16:13:51 15 MS. DILLON: Yes. Well I certainly. I mean, I will do my very best but it
16 will take me another hour and a half.
17
18 CHAIRMAN: Well, then it will have to wait until tomorrow.
19
16:13:59 20 MS. DILLON: It can't be taken tomorrow, with respect, Sir, because Mr.
21 Dunlop is being cross-examined by Mr. Shipsey at nine o'clock. And I don't
22 think anything can interfere with tomorrow or Friday. I think Mr. Sweeney is
23 only available to the Tribunal then.
24
16:14:13 25 CHAIRMAN: Well --
26
27 MS. DILLON: So it would be Tuesday week.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: Tuesday week. Well all right. Well if you talk to Mr. Sanfey
16:14:22 30 and see if we can make arrangements for Mr. Glennane to come back on a day that

www.pcr.ie Day 660
152
16:14:27 1 suits him.
16:14:29 5 CHAIRMAN: And suits the Tribunal. And we'll sit tomorrow at nine o'clock?
7 MS. DILLON: Nine o'clock, yes. That's for Mr. Dunlop.
9 CHAIRMAN: And then Mr. Sweeney?
16:14:39 10
11 MS. DILLON: Mr. Sweeney is going to commence his evidence at the conclusion
12 of Mr. Dunlop's cross-examination by Mr. Shipsey. Only, I think, tomorrow Mr.
13 Shipsey's cross-examination and then Mr. Sweeney.
14
16:14:48 15 CHAIRMAN: Well, will we say not before half ten for Mr. Sweeney?
16
17 MS. DILLON: I think that -- it really depends on Mr. Shipsey and Mr. Dunlop.
18
19 CHAIRMAN: It's a guess at this stage. So we'll say not before half ten for
16:15:01 20 Mr. Sweeney.
21
22 MR SANFEY: Chairman, you did say that I could ask questions of Mr. Dunlop. I
23 don't anticipate that I'll have anything much but ...
24
16:15:10 25 CHAIRMAN: Well, we will still say Mr. Dunlop at nine o'clock and Mr. Sweeney
26 not before half ten.
27
29
16:15:20 30 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Glennane won't be unhappy about not being here tomorrow. You

www.pcr.ie Day 660
153
16:15:25 1 can make an arrangement with him for some other date.
3 MS. DILLON: Most obliged to you, Sir.
16:16:58 5
8 THURSDAY, 29TH OF JUNE, 2006, AT 9:00 A.M..
16:17:13 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 660
1
08:24:22 1 THE TRIBUNAL RESUMED AS FOLLOWS ON
2 THURSDAY 29TH JUNE 2006 AT 9 AM:
09:04:13 5
6 MS. DILLON: Morning sir. Mr. Dunlop is to be cross examined by Mr. Shipsey.
09:04:20 10 MR. SHIPSEY: Chairman can I first express my gratitude to the Tribunal for
11 facilitating me and Mr. Sweeney in relation to the early sitting.
12
13 CHAIRMAN: All right. That's fine. I hope it won't become common practice.
14
09:04:36 15 FRANK DUNLOP, PREVIOUSLY SWORN, CONTINUED TO BE CROSS EXAMINED
16 BY MR. SHIPSEY:
17
18 Q. 1 Mr. Dunlop, my name is Bill Shipsey, I appear for Mr. Eddie Sweeney, and as I
19 think you probably know, Mr. Dunlop, Mr. Sweeney has not had any prior
09:04:59 20 involvement with this Tribunal, so I just want to begin by asking you if his
21 understanding and my understanding is correct, in that prior to April of 2000
22 you, Mr. Dunlop, had denied on oath, that you had made any corrupt payments to
23 politicians?
24 A. Correct.
09:05:24 25 Q. 2 And that some time in April of 2000, you had what I might characterise as a
26 type of Pauline conversion and decided that you would tell the truth in
27 relation to your personal involvement in making corrupt payments to
28 politicians, is that correct?
29 A. That is correct and the phrase we have come to use Mr. Shipsey is crossing the
09:05:56 30 rubicon, not to a Pauline conversion.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
2
09:05:58 1 Q. 3 And therefore, it follows that insofar as you gave evidence on oath prior to
2 April of 2000, prior to what I've described as your Pauline conversion what you
3 have described as crossing the rubicon, you lied to this Tribunal on oath.
4 A. Correct.
09:06:22 5 Q. 4 And what you want this Tribunal and the members of this Tribunal to believe is
6 that having decided to cross the rubicon, everything that you are now saying to
7 the Tribunal, if I can move from your Roman analogy to my Christian one, has
8 the ring of gospel about it.
9 A. Yes.
09:06:54 10 Q. 5 And after April of 2000 you made a number of allegations in which you pointed
11 the finger at other companies who were involved in development in South County
12 Dublin, who knowingly participated along with you in enabling you, or
13 requesting you, to make corrupt payments to politicians?
14 A. Yes.
09:07:42 15 Q. 6 And again I hope I am not spending too much time dwelling on Christian
16 analogies, but in terms of you betraying your former clients, you did this by
17 way of an asterisk on a list that you had provided to the Tribunal.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 7 There were a large list of developers and if they had an asterisk beside them
09:08:18 20 the Tribunal was to understand from that, that these companies had participated
21 to a greater or lesser extent with you in corruption of politicians for their
22 own benefit?
23 A. To a greater or lesser extent, yes.
24 Q. 8 So that we are clear, you at this stage after crossing your rubicon in April of
09:08:48 25 2000 were putting your hands up, and were admitting to your own corruption and
26 presumably and I don't want to pry too much into it, Mr. Dunlop, but presumably
27 at great personal and professional expense to you?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 9 Because prior to April of 2000 and certainly if we go back to April or March of
09:09:19 30 1993, Frank Dunlop was a respected, much sought after and to all the world an

www.pcr.ie Day 661
3
09:09:39 1 upstanding professional person?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 10 Frank Dunlop was a man who had the ear of not only councillors and TDs, but the
4 ear of ministers and prime ministers.
09:09:55 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 11 And in fact I will be coming on to a telephone attendance book from the 8th
7 March, I think maintained by your personal assistant or secretary, I will be
8 coming to it in a moment it's age 4041 in the Tribunal's Book of Evidence, but
9 if you look in fact, one page in terms of the persons who are calling, or
09:10:21 10 looking to speak with or meet with Frank Dunlop, it is a virtual whose who of
11 Irish business and politics, isn't that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 12 You have Bernie Cahill, you have Dan McGing, you have Brian Cowan and you have
14 at the end of the day Bertie Ahern to name just four of those who are listed
09:10:49 15 there.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 13 And to use a somewhat slang analogy, at that time in terms of public relations
18 and in terms of companies or politicians communicating their message and trying
19 to persuade people, Frank Dunlop was the man?
09:11:14 20 A. Well there were others but I was one of them, yes.
21 Q. 14 But in terms of the others, there were few if none others who had the level of
22 access that you had to, for example Mr. Ahern or Mr. Cowan at that time ?
23 A. There probably were but I might not have been aware of them, but certainly I
24 had the access that you are describing.
09:11:42 25 Q. 15 And certainly in 1993 and indeed probably up to April of 2000, other than those
26 persons whom you allege you received corrupt payments from you and those whom
27 you say knew you were making those corrupt payments, the world at large did not
28 know, and could not have known and you would not have wanted the world at large
29 to know about this.
09:12:21 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
4
09:12:23 1 Q. 16 And when you cross your rubicon in April of 2000 it is largely the end of the
2 professional role for Frank Dunlop in terms of your professional calling as a
3 public relations communicator and consultant?
4 A. Finito.
09:12:48 5 Q. 17 Now Mr. Dunlop, in -- now you are giving evidence on oath, isn't that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 18 And you were giving evidence on oath prior to April of 2000?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 19 So nothing about the oath has changed but Frank Dunlop has changed since April
09:13:12 10 of 2000.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 20 And obviously other persons who come to this Tribunal including Mr. Sweeney
13 will have to give evidence on oath, and clearly that has implications for the
14 person swearing to tell the truth, insofar as if you are a believer in an after
09:13:37 15 life you have got to face your maker in relation to that, who presumably knows
16 if you are or are not telling the truth, it has that implication for you.
17 A. Undoubtedly and that is a matter for me, not for anybody else Mr. Shipsey.
18 Q. 21 Absolutely it's a matter for you and your maker and it will be a matter for
19 Mr. Sweeney and his maker.
09:13:58 20 A. Correct.
21 Q. 22 But insofar as the temporal world is concerned, if you knowingly tell untruths
22 to this Tribunal or Mr. Sweeney knowingly tells untruths to this Tribunal there
23 are sanctions here on Earth, before you ever have to face your maker, isn't
24 that correct?
09:14:19 25 A. Correct, correct.
26 Q. 23 And one of those principle sanctions or ultimate sanctions would be the
27 sanction of being prosecuted for perjury.
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 24 And what I'd like to know Mr. Dunlop, is whether you have any agreement or
09:14:39 30 arrangement or understanding with the Tribunal or anyone else, which means that

www.pcr.ie Day 661
5
09:14:49 1 you will not or cannot be prosecuted for perjury in return for your cooperation
2 and your willingness to continue to give oath to give Tribunal?
3 A. There is no such arrangement.
4 Q. 25 And therefore whatever you say to this Tribunal, if it turns out that it is
09:15:18 5 knowingly false, Frank Dunlop can go to jail for that?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. 26 I'd like to see if we can get some measure of agreement Mr. Dunlop, in relation
8 to you and my client, Mr. Sweeney. Mr. Sweeney will say, and I think you
9 accept, that prior to the month of March of 1993 you never had any dealings
09:15:57 10 with him?
12 Q. 27 Now, could I also just as I see you reaching for what I apprehend might be
13 Mr. Sweeney's statement given in private to the Tribunal, I think back in 2000,
14 can I just ask you to do me a favour Mr. Dunlop? And that favour is that when
09:16:21 15 I suggest to you that Mr. Sweeney is going to say something or give evidence
16 that contradicts the evidence that you have given, that you will answer that
17 question or that suggestion and not refer to what Mr. Sweeney may or may not
18 have said on a prior occasion to the Tribunal, I think back in 2000, do you
19 follow me ?
09:16:48 20 A. I follow you, but just for clarification you are wrong, it was not
21 Mr. Sweeney's statement I was looking up, it was my diary of March 1993, so
22 let's get that clear first, so that was a wrong supposition on your part.
23
24 And secondly I have no difficulty, if you are going to suggest to me that
09:17:06 25 Mr. Sweeney will say something contrary to what I am giving evidence of I will
26 listen to what you have to say.
27 Q. 28 Yes but my point is this though, insofar as it may be in contradiction with
28 some thing that Mr. Sweeney said to the Tribunal which you have seen, I would
29 ask that you would not say, but Mr. Sweeney said to the Tribunal. Mr. Sweeney
09:17:29 30 will have to explain any contradiction or change in his position to the

www.pcr.ie Day 661
6
09:17:35 1 Tribunal subsequently, do you follow me ?
2 A. Yes, I follow you, yeah. So I'm not to refer to any statement that Mr. Sweeney
3 has made when you are asking me a question.
4 Q. 29 No, you take Mr. Sweeney's gospel as coming from me. You take it that whatever
09:17:51 5 I say Mr. Sweeney is going to say he is going to back me up on it?
6 A. Grand, okay.
7 Q. 30 And if I can then just suggest to you that prior to March of 1993, Mr. Sweeney
8 will say he had no dealings with Frank Dunlop?
9 A. Yes.
09:18:12 10 Q. 31 He will say that prior to March of 1993 he did not know very much about Frank
11 Dunlop and in terms of his involvement in business, did not have much cause for
12 knowing much about Frank Dunlop. And Mr. Sweeney was, you may or may not have
13 known it at the time, an executive director of Monarch, but was not a
14 shareholder in Monarch at the time, did you know or not know that?
09:18:57 15 A. I did not know whether he was a shareholder or not.
16 Q. 32 And he is a chartered quantity surveyor by training, you probably learned from
17 the first meeting that he is Scottish by birth if Irish by decent, and he is a
18 very pronounced Scottish accent, you'll remember that, won't you?
19 A. Yes.
09:19:19 20 Q. 33 Insofar as we are here today, Mr. Dunlop, it's because you put an asterisk
21 along side the name of Monarch in relation to Cherrywood and you followed that
22 up subsequently with a short statement in October of 2000, and then a further
23 statement, a much more detailed one in September of 2003, isn't that correct?
24 A. Correct.
09:19:54 25 Q. 34 And we'll be coming to those statements and obviously I will be asking you some
26 questions in relation to those statements insofar as they are inconsistent and
27 also insofar as they don't tally with the sworn statement that you have given
28 on this module to the Tribunal I think starting on 13th June. But what is
29 clear, Mr. Dunlop, from your sworn evidence and obviously it is your sworn
09:20:34 30 evidence that the Tribunal and that we have to take as being the version of the

www.pcr.ie Day 661
7
09:20:40 1 truth that you want the Tribunal to believe and for us to accept, that on the
2 basis of your sworn testimony given on principally the 13th and 14th of June,
3 we are here today because you allege that Mr. Sweeney said something to you in
4 the course of a meeting with you on the 8th March in Monarch's offices, which
09:21:18 5 lead you to understand that Mr. Sweeney knew that in carrying out the role that
6 you were to carry out for Monarch you would be involved in bribing politicians?
7 A. Broadly, yes.
8 Q. 35 And but for that statement by Mr. Sweeney, the precise words you can't
9 understandably remember, you would not have a basis for your understanding or
09:22:08 10 belief that Monarch knew that you were going to bribe politicians?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 36 And therefore it logically follows and having watched you give evidence over a
13 number of days now, Mr. Dunlop, you are a person that believes in a logical
14 sequence in general, would that be unfair to suggest to you?
09:22:51 15 A. Yes, I like logical, rational thought processes.
16 Q. 37 The logic of that therefore is that if the Tribunal was to disbelieve you in
17 relation to your evidence that Mr. Sweeney said something to you, the words of
18 which were not clear but which lead you to believe that Monarch knew that you
19 were to bribe politicians, there would be no basis for any finding that Monarch
09:23:35 20 were involved in corruption and the entire substructure of this module would
21 crumble, isn't that right?
22 A. Well I can't -- I can't attest to what the Tribunal would or would not do, in
23 logical consequence to the question you asked me, the penultimate question
24 which you asked me in relation to if I had not put the asterisk in front of
09:24:04 25 Monarch's name, then logic might be that Monarch might not be in the Tribunal
26 or they might not be such a module.
27 Q. 38 Sure.
28 A. What happens after that I cannot either speculate about or attest to.
29 Q. 39 Yes, but an asterisk alone does not condemn a man or a company.
09:24:26 30 A. Absolutely not.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
8
09:24:27 1 Q. 40 And what condemns Monarch in your eyes is the statement or the words used by
2 Mr. Sweeney on the 8th March 1993 which lead you to understand that he knew
3 that you were going to bribe politicians?
4 A. Yes.
09:24:46 5 Q. 41 And you may have misunderstood my question. If that is disbelieved, if the
6 Tribunal obviously, and you would not want them to do so, but if they come to
7 the conclusion that Mr. Sweeney either did not make that statement or any like
8 statement, or came to the conclusion that insofar as Mr. Sweeney made any
9 statement it was not on the balance of probabilities open to that construction,
09:25:21 10 then there would be no basis for a finding that Monarch were involved with you
11 in making corrupt payments to politicians, in logic.
12 A. Well I don't think I could accept that. But -- the premise of this question,
13 Mr. Shipsey is what the Tribunal will or will not do on foot of the evidence
14 that has been given to them, both by me and representatives of Monarch.
09:25:57 15 Q. 42 Yes.
16 A. Now, that's not for me, may I suggest with the greatest respect, for you
17 either, to infer or suggest what the Tribunal might or might not do in certain
18 consequences. I can only say that I put an asterisk in front of Monarch on
19 foot of the meeting I had with Mr. Sweeney in March of 1993, consequent to the
09:26:19 20 comment that was made to me .
21 Q. 43 Mr. Dunlop, if you don't want to answer my question that is fine, I think my
22 question was clear. I am not saying what the Tribunal will or will not do, I
23 am putting a hypothetical question.
24 A. Hypothetical yes, it's hypothetical.
09:26:40 25 Q. 44 If hypothetically you are disbelieved in relation to what Mr. Sweeney is
26 alleged to have said to you on the 8th March, you say the 8th March, then there
27 is no basis for a finding that Monarch was engaged with you in corrupt
28 payments, isn't that right?
29 A. Hypothetically, yes.
09:27:11 30 Q. 45 Now, can we then perhaps come on to the 8th of March of 1993, and I just want

www.pcr.ie Day 661
9
09:27:27 1 to put to you firstly that insofar as Mr. Sweeney is concerned, his evidence
2 will be that the meeting that was to take place around five o'clock on Monday
3 the 8th March was postponed to around 11.30 on the 9th March, and I take it
4 from your sworn evidence that you don't accept that?
09:27:56 5 A. No.
6 Q. 46 It is however the case that when you made your statement to the Tribunal in
7 September of 2003 that the date that you gave on that occasion was you
8 believed, the 9th March?
9 A. Yes, yes it's at the bottom of a page, yes the 9th March.
09:28:23 10 Q. 47 Trust me on that.
11 A. Yes, no you are quite right.
12 Q. 48 And that was a mistake?
13 A. Yes, correct.
14 Q. 49 Because the meeting took place on the 8th March at around five and it took
09:28:35 15 place in Monarch's offices, isn't that right?
16 A. (nods).
17 Q. 50 Now Mr. Sweeney's evidence as will be no, it was meant to be on the 8th but was
18 postponed to the 9th, so there we have our first conflict of evidence between
19 you and Mr. Sweeney.
09:28:51 20
21 Secondly you say that at the meeting on the 8th March it was you and
22 Mr. Sweeney and that Mr. Liam Lawlor was not present, isn't that correct?
23 A. Correct, not at the first meeting.
24 Q. 51 And you are agreed however, that in relation to your first meeting with
09:29:12 25 Mr. Sweeney that there was but one meeting, and that subsequent to that meeting
26 you met, believe, with Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 52 And you think it was on the next day at around four or five o'clock, is that
29 right?
09:29:29 30 A. That is correct.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
10
09:29:37 1 Q. 53 Now can I ask you to, could I ask the Tribunal to put up on the monitor page
2 4041? Sorry it's up already, and this, if I understand it correctly is the
3 Frank Dunlop & Associates telephone memorandum.
4 A. Yes.
09:30:06 5 Q. 54 Or memoranda pad.
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. 55 Your secretary, receptionist or PA receives calls and notes them down?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. 56 Not done by you but done by somebody in your office.
09:30:18 10 A. Correct.
11 Q. 57 Is it the same person does them or --
12 A. Well it was at the time you the secretary.
13 Q. 58 And who was that?
14 A. The secretary.
09:30:24 15 Q. 59 Who was that, what was that person's name ?
16 A. Norma , I think was her name .
17 Q. 60 So Norma takes all your calls, fields your calls or passes them on to you at
18 the time or notes them down, isn't that right?
19 A. Either in my absence or my unavailability.
09:30:42 20 Q. 61 Yes. Now the first on this page, we will come back to it, you will see there
21 is a reference to "Paul Walls 11 o'clock meeting here tomorrow".
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 62 That's a reference to a meeting with Mr. Paul Walls whoever he is, in your
24 offices and your offices are in Mount Street, isn't that right?
09:31:00 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 63 And just to be precise in relation to that, your offices were then 25 Upper
27 Mount Street?
28 A. Are now 25 upper Mount Street.
29 Q. 64 Are now and were then?
09:31:25 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
11
09:31:25 1 Q. 65 And Norma was your secretary then?
2 A. I have had a number of secretary Mrs. Shipsey, I'm just saying Norma was one of
3 them, I cannot absolutely attest that she was the secretary at the time .
4 Q. 66 No in fact I didn't know that, Mr. Dunlop, and I will come to a diary,
09:31:42 5 Mr. Sweeney's diary, because he has in brackets the word (NORMA). So it looks
6 as if you are right and he is right in relation to that in fact.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 67 But you are going to meet Mr. Walls at 11 o'clock in your offices in Mount
9 Street on the following day, that would be the 9th, isn't that right?
09:32:07 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 68 If you just go down to 9.55 there is a reference "Ann, Liam has arranged a
12 meeting with Ed Sweeney in Monarch House at five o'clock today". And we are
13 under no doubt but the Liam there is Liam Lawlor?
14 A. Yes.
09:32:28 15 Q. 69 And Ann is Liam Lawlor's secretary?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. 70 And it's making it clear that Liam had arranged a meeting for you with Ed
18 Sweeney in Monarch house?
19 A. That's what the implication of the reference is.
09:32:38 20 Q. 71 Yes. And therefore we can be under no doubt, because there seemed to be some
21 doubt in your evidence maybe I misunderstood this, that Mr. Lawlor was the one
22 who arranged your introduction to Mr. Sweeney in 1993?
23 A. The -- I don't think there is doubt in my mind about it Mr. Shipsey, as I said
24 in my recent statement, I went to meet Mr. Sweeney at Mr. Sweeney's request,
09:33:07 25 Mr. Lawlor subsequently alluded to the meeting in telling me that he knew that
26 I had met Ed Sweeney and I met Mr. Sweeney and Liam Lawlor together on a number
27 of other occasions subsequently.
28 Q. 72 But we are not talking about subsequently.
29 A. Correct.
09:33:24 30 Q. 73 Before you ever meet Mr. Sweeney you say at five o'clock on the 8th, Liam

www.pcr.ie Day 661
12
09:33:29 1 Lawlor's secretary rings you and says Liam, so we are not talking about
2 subsequent, we are talking about prior to it?
3 A. Mm-hmm.
4 Q. 74 Liam Lawlor is your procurer of this meeting.
09:33:39 5 A. That would, that message would suggest that, yes.
6 Q. 75 Yes and you would accept that that is the case?
7 A. Well I have to accept that that is a message that has come from Ann Urell,
8 Liam's secretary, saying Liam has arranged a meeting with Ed Sweeney, yes.
9 Q. 76 Now if you go down to, after Mr. Cowan phoning you at 10.45 and Mr. Cahill
09:34:08 10 phoning you at 10.50, down to 11.35 you will see the reference to Tim Collins.
11 I think Mr. Collins' name has come up before, in that Mr. Collins was also a
12 person who, if I can use a neutral term, procured introductions for you to
13 clients and including property developers?
14 A. Yes, arranged introductions.
09:34:29 15 Q. 77 And if I understood the position clearly and I don't obviously pretend to know
16 it to the level that you know it, Mr. Dunlop, but Mr. Lawlor and Mr. Collins
17 were your, if I can move to an analogy with barristers, they were your best
18 solicitors?
19 A. I accept the legal analogy, yes.
09:34:56 20 Q. 78 And at 11.35 Mr. Collins rings and says a meeting has to happen tomorrow with
21 Godfrey Higgins, Nasser Taher, FD Frank Dunlop and Tim Collins as Nasser is
22 going away, and there is a number for Mr. Higgins any time from 10 o'clock on,
23 do you see that?
24 A. Yes.
09:35:16 25 Q. 79 And Mr. Taher was at that time or had been prominent in the me at trade in
26 Ireland, he was of Jordanian, Palistinian origin and Mr. Higgins worked for
27 him, isn't that correct?
29 Q. 80 And they were involved in fairly high profile litigation with Mr. Phelan around
09:35:39 30 this time, you may or may not -- Mr. Pascal Phelan?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
13
09:35:43 1 A. I --
2 Q. 81 You don't know?
3 A. Vaguely yes, vaguely.
4 Q. 82 If you just turn, the Tribunal turn over the page to 4042? You see at 4.45
09:36:01 5 after Mr. Dan McGing rings awe at 4.25, there is another message from Ann to
6 say Liam won't be able to make the meeting until 5.30.
7 Now that suggests that as of 4.45, 15 minutes before the meeting that's due to
8 take place with Mr. Sweeney at Monarch House, Mr. Lawlor is saying he is coming
9 to it but he's running late?
09:36:32 10 A. That would appear to be the suggestion.
11 Q. 83 And then finally just on that day there is Mr. Ahern, Mr. Bertie Ahern is
12 returning your call at 5.05.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 84 You see that?
09:36:50 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 85 Now can I ask the Tribunal to bring up page 4045, which is an extract from your
17 diary? And would I be correct in inferring that your evidence in 2006 to this
18 Tribunal that you had a meeting on the 8th of March of 1993, some, in excess of
19 13 years ago, is based upon the entry for Monday 8th March at 5 o'clock, E
09:37:32 20 Sweeney?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 86 You don't have an independent recollection of the precise date or time ?
23 A. No.
24 Q. 87 Now could I ask you just to help us, Mr. Dunlop, is this diary in your hand, is
09:37:48 25 this in your own personal diary, do you make the entries here?
26 A. Yes it is.
27 Q. 88 And it's your -- exclusively your handwriting?
28 A. Yes it is.
29 Q. 89 Can I ask you to go to Tuesday 9th March and there is an 11 o'clock Paul Walls,
09:38:06 30 isn't that correct?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
14
09:38:08 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 90 And presumably that's the same Paul Walls that's referred to in the telephone
3 attendance at page 4041, 11 o'clock meeting here tomorrow?
4 A. Yes.
09:38:19 5 Q. 91 And it's probably safe to assume that meeting took place with Mr. Walls as
6 scheduled at 11 in your office?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 92 And then under that there is something not very clear but seems to be 11.30 and
9 it looks to be E Sweeney, it's not anything as clear because it's been squeezed
09:38:41 10 in at 11.30 but would you just see if you can assist me because you know your
11 writing, 11.30 appears to be E Sweeney?
12 A. Yes it is and it's squeezed in there, Mr. Shipsey, on the basis that there was
13 a meeting to have taken place as you alluded, as you referred to with Tim
14 Collins and the Taher people which is deleted because obviously that meeting
09:39:14 15 didn't occur.
16 Q. 93 T Collins, Godfrey Higgins and Nasser at that her, just for completeness if you
17 go on to March 10th, 2 pm you see Nasser Taher, Godfrey and T Collins, re:
18 Taher, so that meeting and again, I don't know if it was due to take place at
19 whatever time 12 or 11.30 was cancelled or put off, isn't that right?
09:39:39 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 94 Now you see what I am going to have to suggest to you is that the evidence of
22 Mr. Sweeney will be that the meeting on Monday 8th was cancelled and
23 rescheduled for Tuesday the 9th and that that rescheduled meeting took place in
24 your office on Tuesday 9th and that's what Mr. Sweeney will say?
09:39:58 25 A. In following along what you have said at the outset of your cross-examination
26 in relation to what Mr. Sweeney will say, well if Mr. Sweeney says that
27 Mr. Sweeney will say that.
28 Q. 95 But you don't agree?
29 A. I don't agree.
09:40:14 30 Q. 96 Yes. And you see Mr. Sweeney will say that meeting took place in your office

www.pcr.ie Day 661
15
09:40:18 1 it was a brief meeting --
2 A. In my office.
3 Q. 97 In your office in Mount Street and it was a brief meeting for no more than ten
4 or 15 minutes and it was only you and he, there was no other person, Liam
09:40:32 5 Lawlor or any other person. So you agree at least that Mr. Lawlor was not at
6 the first meeting with you where he disagrees with you is in relation to the
7 date firstly and in relation to the venue?
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. 98 You both agree that there is only one meeting between --
09:40:51 10 A. The two us.
11 Q. 99 The it would have you before you meet with Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 100 So one of you is right in relation to this if you are both right that there was
14 only one meeting, isn't that correct?
09:41:06 15 A. Correct.
16 Q. 101 Now in circumstances where on Monday the 8th a meeting is being set up urgently
17 for Mr. Taher, Mr. Higgins and Mr. Collins on the 9th and where your
18 contemporaneous diary crosses that out and inserts Mr. Sweeney's name, is that
19 not suggestive, not determinative but suggestive on a balance of probabilities
09:41:44 20 that the meeting with Mr. Sweeney took place or a meeting took place with
21 Mr. Sweeney at 11.30 on the 9th?
22 A. Oh I think it's determinative of one thing Mr. Shipsey that a meeting did take
23 place with Mr. Sweeney at 11.30 on the 9th.
24 Q. 102 And now you are saying that that means that there were two meetings between you
09:42:08 25 and Mr. Sweeney?
26 A. Yes. No I am not saying that now, I would disagree with the words now. My
27 diary shows two references to Mr. Sweeney, one on the 8th and one on the 9th.
28 Q. 103 But listen if we assume for the moment that there is only one meeting, it's
29 either the 8th or 9th?
09:42:25 30 A. But that is your assumption.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
16
09:42:26 1 Q. 104 No sorry --
2 A. An assumption you are making.
3 Q. 105 Let's back up a little bit, I hope it's not an assumption. My understanding of
4 your evidence is that there was one meeting before you met with Mr. Lynn and
09:42:37 5 Mr. Reilly, that's not my assumption that's your evidence?
6 A. Yes. There was a meeting with Mr. Sweeney before I met Mr. Lynn and
7 Mr. Reilly.
8 Q. 106 One meeting?
9 A. I had a meeting with Mr. Sweeney on the 8th and on the 9th, both are in the
09:42:52 10 diary.
11 Q. 107 You see I might be wrong, Mr. Dunlop, but I understood your clear sworn
12 evidence was to the effect that there was one meeting and it took place on the
13 8th, you are of course free to change that now, but my recollection from your
14 evidence was that there was one meeting and it took place on the 8th.
09:43:15 15 A. No the diary --
16 Q. 108 Sorry forget the diary for a moment?
17 A. No, no.
18 Q. 109 Sorry, Mr. Dunlop, yes?
19 A. No no.
09:43:22 20 Q. 110 Mr. Dunlop, I am here to ask the questions.
21 A. Fine.
22 Q. 111 That's my job, you are here to answer the questions.
23 A. Fine.
24 Q. 112 If there is anything inappropriate about my questions the Tribunal will tell me
09:43:34 25 and stop me .
26 A. I accept that, I have been here for a long time , Mr. Shipsey, I know the rules.
27
28 CHAIRMAN: Well I think Mr. Dunlop it's my recollection, subject to
29 correction, that you said there was one meeting, so Mr. Shipsey is asking you
09:43:50 30 now is that still your evidence or are you changing your evidence?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
17
09:43:54 1 A. No it's not a question, Chairman, in my view of changing evidence. My diary
2 shows I had two meeting with Mr. Sweeney after Mr. Richard Lynn's telephone
3 number is on the top of the page on Tuesday 9th, I had a meeting with Richard
4 Lynn and Phil Reilly at 5.15 on the 9th.
09:44:12 5 Q. 113 Yes well can I ask you then why in your sworn evidence on I think the 13th or
6 14th, you did not tell Mr. Murphy that you had a meeting with Mr. Sweeney on
7 the 9th of March?
8 A. Because Mr. Murphy's questions were solely related to the meeting on the 8th of
9 March and how it was established.
09:44:35 10 Q. 114 I am suggesting to you, Mr. Dunlop, that there was, and the evidence of
11 Mr. Sweeney will be that the meeting on the 8th was cancelled, just -- I am not
12 asking you to agree with me, I am saying that that's what Mr. Sweeney will say.
13 Mr. Sweeney had a dental appointment with a Dr. Wolf on Monday 8th March, that
14 the meeting that was due to take place in Monarch's premises at five o'clock
09:45:15 15 with you and Mr. Lawlor was cancelled or postponed and that you, Mr. Dunlop,
16 facilitated Mr. Sweeney with the meeting the following day at 11.30 but it was
17 in your offices?
18 A. Well you are saying Mr. Sweeney will say that, well again in answer to the
19 question you asked me previously in relation to what Mr. Sweeney will say, that
09:45:44 20 will be Mr. Sweeney's evidence. Let me just add one point, I have no
21 recollection whatsoever of Mr. Sweeney ever being in my office.
22 Q. 115 Can I ask you to just have a look at a document and it was provided by
23 Mr. Sweeney to the Tribunal, I am not sure if you have seen it or was made
24 available to you, but -- and I am not sure Chairman how best to get it up,
09:46:12 25 because it doesn't appear in the numbering system, I don't know if you have a
26 scanning --
27
28 CHAIRMAN: What's the document?
29 Q. 116 An extract from Mr. Sweeney's diary for the 8th and 9th of March of --
09:46:22 30

www.pcr.ie Day 661
18
09:46:22 1 CHAIRMAN: We should be able to --
3 MS. DILLON: We don't have this document so Mr. Shipsey may not be aware of the
4 previous ruling of the Tribunal, that documentation that hasn't been discovered
09:46:35 5 to the Tribunal and hasn't been circulated can't be introduced without notice,
6 it can be put up on screen there's no difficulties, it's a matter for the
7 Tribunal but we don't have this document and it hasn't been circulated and it's
8 not part of the brief.
09:46:47 10 CHAIRMAN: All right. Is this -- this is an extract from Mr. Sweeney's diary.
11
12 MR. SHIPSEY: It is and was made available in Mr. Sweeney's Affidavit of
13 Discovery which he was required to swear for the Tribunal. I don't know why
14 it's not in the circulated documents, but --
09:47:06 15
16 CHAIRMAN: Well are there a number of, will you be making a number of
17 references to Mr. Sweeney's diary?
18
19 MR. SHIPSEY: No it's actually just the one and fortunately I don't think there
09:47:18 20 are other persons named or --
21
22 CHAIRMAN: All right, well then, we can -- if I just give a copy.
23
24 CHAIRMAN: If you can produce hard copies for the moment and we'll put it into
09:47:28 25 the system later.
26
27 MR. SHIPSEY: Very good.
28 Chairman I will certainly, it's certainly possible that I am mistaken but my
29 instructions are that it was included in our Affidavit of Discovery, I will try
09:47:52 30 and get the reference for that.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
19
09:47:54 1 CHAIRMAN: All right we'll be able to put it up now on the screen.
3 MR. SHIPSEY: Chairman I also have the original of the diary I don't know if
4 Mr. Dunlop or the Tribunal would like to see in case the copy is poor because
09:48:23 5 some of the entries are in different coloured pen. If anyone want to see the
6 original I have it here.
7 Q. 117 If you just look at 8th of March, this Mr. Sweeney's diary, although it's not
8 very clear, 3.45 there is a reference to Dr. Wolf and then 5 pm Liam
9 Lawlor/Frank Dunlop.
09:48:46 10 A. Mm-hmm.
11 Q. 118 Then if you go to Tuesday 9th.
12 A. Mm-hmm.
13 Q. 119 You will see the words 15 minutes, you see that?
14 A. Yes.
09:48:54 15 Q. 120 11.30 and then 25 upper Mount Street.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 121 And then in brackets (NORMA).
18 A. Mm-hmm.
19 Q. 122 And above the upper Mount Street, what looks to be obviously the same person,
09:49:11 20 but written in different sort of in capitals are the words "Frank Dunlop".
21 A. Yeah.
22 Q. 123 And what Mr. Sweeney will say in relation to that is that 11.30, 25 upper Mount
23 Street and Norma and 15 minutes were written contemporaneously and subsequently
24 he put Frank Dunlop in to identify the 25 upper Mount Street was the office of
09:49:39 25 Frank Dunlop.
26 And what Mr. Sweeney will say so that you are clear is that he had a brief 15
27 minute meeting with you in your offices at 11.30 on the 9th and no meeting at 5
28 pm on the 8th, and I take it although you are nodding to me you hear that but
29 you don't agree with it?
09:50:10 30 A. As I keep saying that will be Mr. Sweeney's evidence.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
20
09:50:13 1 Q. 124 But I am putting it to you and giving you an opportunity to say whether you
2 think he is right or wrong?
3 A. No I don't think he is right.
4 Q. 125 And if there was a meeting on Tuesday 9th as I now understand you to accept,
09:50:28 5 based on your own diary, am I right in that understanding?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 126 And if you met Mr. Paul Walls in your office at 11 on the 9th, isn't the
8 probability, forgetting for a moment Mr. Sweeney's diary entry suggesting that
9 the meeting takes place at 25 upper Mount Street, forgetting that for a moment,
09:50:51 10 isn't the probability that if you met Mr. Sweeney at 11.30 on the 9th,
11 following on from a meeting in your office with Mr. Walls at 11 o'clock, that
12 that meeting took place in Upper Mount Street?
13 A. There is logic to that, yes.
14 Q. 127 And the fact that you both agree that Mr. Lawlor wasn't at the meeting that
09:51:30 15 took place between you initially, coupled with the fact that at 4.45 on the 8th
16 Mr. Lawlor is making his way to Monarch House for a meeting, he believes is
17 taking place, is that not also suggestive that the Monday the 8th meeting was
18 cancelled or postponed because otherwise you'd both recall that Mr. Lawlor was
19 at the meeting, do you follow me ?
09:52:09 20 A. No I don't and that is eminently illogical, Mr. Shipsey.
21 Q. 128 Well sorry we have a note at 4.45 on the 8th.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 129 Just let's take in baby steps, because I may be illogical but we'll take it in
24 smaller baby steps. 4.45 Ann phones your office to say that Mr. Lawlor won't
09:52:31 25 be able to make the five o'clock meeting in Monarch until 5.30.
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 130 That certainly is suggestive that Mr. Lawlor is going to the meeting but is
28 ringing 15 minutes before it's due to start to say that he is going to be a
29 half hour late?
09:52:49 30 A. Yes, it is suggestive that a meeting is taking place in Monarch House with

www.pcr.ie Day 661
21
09:52:53 1 Mr. Sweeney.
2 Q. 131 Yes, well at this stage going to because it's a five o'clock meeting and this
3 is 15 minutes before that?
4 A. Correct.
09:53:01 5 Q. 132 And since both you and Mr. Sweeney are clear that the first meeting, where ever
6 it took place, did not have Mr. Lawlor, and you couldn't miss Mr. Lawlor in a
7 room isn't that fair to say?
8 A. Certainly not.
9 Q. 133 Does that not suggest that that meeting on the 8th did not take place and was
09:53:25 10 cancelled or postponed based upon this entry in relation to Mr. Lawlor running
11 late for the meeting?
12 A. Taking it in baby steps, Mr. Shipsey, my answer is no, it is not suggestive.
13 Q. 134 You see because if the meeting on the 8th did take place there is no reason for
14 Mr. Lawlor not showing up?
09:53:52 15 A. Well we don't know whether Mr. Lawlor did show up or not to meet Mr. Sweeney,
16 he certainly wasn't at the first meeting between Mr. Sweeney and myself
17 Mr. Sweeney and I agreed to that.
18 Q. 135 But we know at 4.45 he is on his way there?
19 A. According to the telephone message.
09:54:08 20 Q. 136 And therefore it would follow that, seem to follow that he showed up and I am
21 trying to get an explanation for -- neither of you remembering him being there
22 if there was a meeting on the 8th, I have lost you?
23 A. That escapes me, that does escape me, sorry, Mr. Shipsey, that does escape me .
24 Q. 137 Sorry. Now on the 9th and the meeting that took place on the 9th, Mr. Sweeney
09:54:38 25 will say that Mr. Phillip Monahan, that it was Mr. Phillip Monahan who
26 requested him, Mr. Sweeney, to meet with you?
27 A. Well my answer to that is I don't know. I have no knowledge of whose, of what
28 Mr. Phil Monahan might or might not have said to Eddie.
29 Q. 138 But Mr. Monahan requested some time, either on the 8th or prior to the 8th, him
09:55:16 30 to attend a meeting with you, that it was postponed, and that it took place on

www.pcr.ie Day 661
22
09:55:24 1 the 9th in your offices. He will say that insofar as there was a discussion
2 with you, it was a brief and general discussion about Cherrywood and that he
3 explained to you that he would leave the detail of the project to Mr. Lynn and
4 Mr. Reilly who you were to meet, or he was arranging for you to meet later that
09:55:58 5 day, does that sound about right?
7 Q. 139 Well we know you were to meet with Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly?
8 A. I met with Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly, yes.
9 Q. 140 And that was about the Cherrywood project?
09:56:12 10 A. Nothing else.
11 Q. 141 And they were the ones, they were the team within Monarch who were the hands on
12 people involved in the lobbying exercise to secure an improvement in the zoning
13 for Cherrywood?
14 A. Broadly, yes that is correct.
09:56:33 15 Q. 142 And therefore it would not be surprising that Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly would be
16 the ones to provide you with the detail or the micro level detail about their
17 involvement in lobbying, which you were going and being asked to assist in?
18 A. That would not be surprising, no.
19 Q. 143 And therefore when Mr. Sweeney says he provided you with a macro level picture
09:57:01 20 at the meeting he says took place on the 9th, that would not be surprising
21 either?
22 A. No.
23 Q. 144 Mr. Sweeney will say that you were being retained for your public relations or
24 he understood you were being retained by Mr. Monahan who was his boss, had
09:57:30 25 instructed him that you were to be retained for your public relations, and
26 lobbying professionalism or experience.
27 A. Lobbying
28 Q. 145 Yes. And public relations?
29 A. No public relations involved.
09:57:48 30 Q. 146 All right. Well we may be sort of engaged in sort of semantics, but in terms

www.pcr.ie Day 661
23
09:57:57 1 of presenting Monarch to politicians and in terms of lobbying them, you are
2 trying to present Monarch and Monarch's position in a favourable light, you are
3 engaged in a form of it's a communications exercise you are engaged in, and
4 that is what, I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my understanding of
09:58:24 5 what is certainly within the umbrella of public relations?
6 A. Communications and persuasion.
7 Q. 147 Yes. So it is in the very broad sense a public relations, something public
8 relations consultants do in a general sense, but specifically it is lobbying?
9 A. Yes, specifically lobbying.
09:58:43 10 Q. 148 So your firm which is a public relations firm, you don't have on your letter
11 head lobbyists, that's a part of your public relations consultancy?
12 A. I can't imagine anybody putting the word lobbyist on their headed notepaper.
13 Q. 149 Not now, Mr. Dunlop?
14 A. Not now, not after May 2000.
09:59:01 15 Q. 150 No but maybe before?
16 A. Oh yeah.
17 Q. 151 Before May 2020?
18 A. I don't think public affairs was the colloquial moniker everybody talked about
19 public affairs.
09:59:12 20 Q. 152 Yes, you wouldn't put lobbyist now, you wouldn't put spin doctor or anything
21 like that now, isn't that correct, Mr. Dunlop?
22 A. No.
23 Q. 153 And when you attribute that to May of 2000 you have had a large part in that
24 situation?
09:59:31 25 A. Yes directly contributed to that, yes.
26 Q. 154 So, as it were, not to praise you too much in relation to it, but you are the
27 one that is largely responsible for that?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 155 And Mr. Sweeney will say as I have said, that he had a brief discussion
09:59:53 30 outlining the position to you, that there had been a zoning decision I think in

www.pcr.ie Day 661
24
10:00:06 1 May of 1992 which was a one house per acre plus a district centre that was
2 Mr. Barrett's motion, isn't that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 156 You will, he will say that he explained to you that one of your competitors had
10:00:25 5 been involved with Monarch back in 1992, Mr. O'Herlihy, and that Monarch were
6 to put it mildly, not happy or disappointed with the resolution from May of
7 1992?
8 A. Certainly with the outcome of the resolution.
9 Q. 157 And he will say that what they were trying to achieve and the aim of Monarch
10:00:52 10 was to get to a situation where instead of it being one house per acre they
11 wanted to, you show me your four fingers I was getting the queue from the
12 solicitor and I had it from you, you are right to go to four houses per acre
13 plus this district centre?
14 A. Correct and there were some discussion, I cannot specifically say that it was
10:01:17 15 at that stage, but there was some discussion either then or subsequently about
16 an IDA sponsored science park.
17 Q. 158 Yes which I think was Mr. Sweeney's baby as it were?
18 A. He certainly was very enthusiastic about it, and certainly subsequently I
19 remember him speaking to me in the end about it.
10:01:34 20 Q. 159 And Mr. Sweeney will say that having outlined the generality of the project and
21 having set up a meeting for you with Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly who were the
22 people you were going to be most closely liaising with, that there was a
23 discussion between the two of you in relation to the terms of your retainer.
24 And Mr. Sweeney will say that a fee of 4,000 a month was agreed with you and
10:02:15 25 that you requested or, yes requested I suppose, mentioned to him the
26 possibility of a success fee and Mr. Sweeney informed you that that is not
27 something that he could agree and that you would have to take that up with
28 Mr. Monahan.
29
10:02:41 30 Now there is three parts to that, there's obviously Mr. Sweeney says it was to

www.pcr.ie Day 661
25
10:02:47 1 be 4,000 a month, do you agree or disagree?
2 A. No I don't agree with that.
3 Q. 160 That you raised the issue of success fee?
4 A. There was no discussion of success fee at the outset.
10:02:57 5 Q. 161 And thirdly that you would have to take up with Mr. Monahan?
6 A. No.
7 Q. 162 So he is wrong in relation to those three points. And what you say is, before
8 we get on to other things that were said at that meeting, what you say is that
9 the agreed fee was 25,000 not sure whether it was with or without VAT or
10:03:20 10 inclusive of VAT, is that right?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. 163 Is it just for my curiosity, was the 25,000 inclusive or VAT fee was it, or was
13 VAT to be paid on top of that?
14 A. A straight 25,000.
10:03:35 15 Q. 164 So VAT was to be included and you would account for the VAT?
16 A. There are no invoices extant in relation to the 25,000 so I cannot absolutely
17 say that there was a discussion about VAT.
18 Q. 165 No sorry I hadn't asked you about invoices, I am asking you what was agreed so
19 the 25,000 was VAT inclusive?
10:03:51 20 A. Just 25,000, I am not saying whether VAT was discussed or not, but 25 was
21 agreed, that was the agreed fee.
22 Q. 166 Yes. And as a professional person that would carry with it, either 21 per cent
23 plus VAT or have it included in it?
24 A. Correct.
10:04:13 25 Q. 167 Mr. Sweeney will also say that you asked for 25,000 payment up front before you
26 commenced on the assignment that you were being asked to carry out?
27 A. Yes, there was a discussion about fees and 25 was agreed.
28 Q. 168 No I know that, Mr. Dunlop, did you understand my question?
29 A. Yes I did.
10:04:47 30 Q. 169 Yes. Well perhaps you'd now like to answer the question or what I put to you?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
26
10:04:53 1 A. There was a discussion about fees --
2 Q. 170 No sorry Mr. Dunlop, can I stop you again. Maybe I will put it to you again.
3 Mr. Sweeney will say that you requested a payment of 25,000 up front before you
4 started your assignment?
10:05:11 5 A. I disagree.
6 Q. 171 And after that, and having set up a meeting with Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly,
7 Mr. Sweeney's evidence will be that insofar as he was concerned with you, there
8 was no further discussion about fees, apart from the agreement in relation to
9 the 4,000 per month and the fact that you would take up the question of a
10:06:05 10 success fee with Mr. Monahan?
11 A. I disagree.
12 Q. 172 Now you, in fairness to you in your evidence, can't assist the Tribunal as to
13 when precisely you had your alleged further discussion with Mr. Sweeney about
14 fees, isn't that correct?
10:06:29 15 A. Correct.
16 Q. 173 Insofar as Mr. Sweeney suggests that you look for 25,000 up front, could I ask
17 you, Mr. Dunlop, as a professional person, have you ever asked for an up front
18 payment?
19 A. Yes, I think I have.
10:06:52 20 Q. 174 In respect of fees?
21 A. Sorry.
22 Q. 175 And could I ask you, without wanting to pry too much, is that something that
23 you did do and often did, I'm not attaching sort of criticism to you for that,
24 but again it may be sort of wearing my own profession, it's not unheard of
10:07:18 25 professional persons who agree a fee to say well here is to be my fee, it be my
26 brief fee or monthly retainer but I'd like an up front payment of X pounds or
27 now X euro not unusual at all.
28 A. In your profession or mine.
29 Q. 176 Well you probably wouldn't know mine?
10:07:37 30 A. I know certainly that it is not unusual in your profession for a briefing fee

www.pcr.ie Day 661
27
10:07:41 1 but certainly I could not definitively say I never asked for an up front
2 payment, I would have to say to you that yes that I probably did on a number of
3 occasions, depending on the client.
4 Q. 177 Yes. So for Mr. Sweeney to suggest that you asked for it in this case is not
10:08:04 5 completely outrageous in terms of your prior practice?
6 A. Or subsequent.
7 Q. 178 Or subsequent.
8 A. It's not outrageous, no it is not.
9 Q. 179 You are just saying it didn't happen in this case.
10:08:15 10 A. Correct.
11 Q. 180 Okay. Now the other, and obviously most fundamental part of what is meant to
12 have taken place at this meeting that took place on your evidence on, as I
13 understood coming in today on the 8th, now I think on your evidence on the 8th
14 or the 9th but on Mr. Sweeney's evidence the 9th, was Mr. Sweeney said
10:08:44 15 something to you I'm not sure if it's as a parting shot or during the meeting
16 or whenever it took place, but so far as your sworn evidence is concerned on
17 page 122 of the transcript for day one of this module, you said in response to
18 question 953 "Mr. Sweeney indicated to me that he knew of my relationship with
19 Dublin County Council and that I had been successful in other matters" and
10:09:24 20 here's the important part, because up to that point you will agree there is
21 nothing sinister or untoward about saying that he knew of your relationship
22 with Dublin County Council and your success in other matters but he used the
23 words to the effect that, this is your words "You know, you have to do what you
24 have to do to get things done in Dublin County Council". And on that phrase
10:10:00 25 Mr. Dunlop, you are seeking to hang Mr. Sweeney and hang Monarch, isn't that
26 correct? Well hang in the sense of implicate them in your corruption?
27 A. I have given evidence to the effect in response to a direct question from the
28 Chairman as to the interpretation of those words used by Mr. Sweeney and I have
29 given my interpretation of the words at the time .
10:10:30 30 Q. 181 Mr. Dunlop, I just want to come back to my question to you, my question to you

www.pcr.ie Day 661
28
10:10:36 1 was on the basis of those words you want, and maybe you don't like the word
2 hang, but you want to, the Tribunal to conclude that Mr. Sweeney knew and was
3 recruiting you to engage in the corruption of politicians?
4 A. No again Mr. Shipsey, I do not want the Tribunal to conclude anything. I am
10:11:05 5 giving evidence in, to -- in relation to my relationship with Monarch and
6 particularly with Mr. Sweeney and I have given evidence to the effect that a
7 phrase of that nature was said, it was used, and on that basis, I in direct
8 answer to the question by the Chairman, I said that that was my interpretation
9 of Mr. Sweeney's understanding of what I was about.
10:11:30 10 Q. 182 And where Mr. Sweeney doesn't say to you "Frank, I want you to go out and bribe
11 politicians for Monarch to get us our zoning" you may not want, but in terms of
12 us being here, we are here because of the --
13 A. Asterisk.
14 Q. 183 Now, understanding that you took from what Mr. Sweeney said, which was "You
10:12:22 15 have to do what you have to do to get things done in Dublin County Council" and
16 would you agree with me , Mr. Dunlop, before we come to the fact that you put
17 this in other ways at other times, let's park that for a moment. But would you
18 agree with me and indeed with an intervention from the Chairperson when you
19 gave this evidence, that that expression is capable of an interpretation which
10:13:02 20 does not involve or implicate Mr. Sweeney in any knowledge of corruption?
21 A. I agree and I have already attested to that fact.
22 Q. 184 Well that's fair of you Mr. Dunlop. So what we are then down to, if
23 Mr. Sweeney comes here as a God fearing man like yourself, father of nine
24 children, chartered quantity surveyor, executive director but not shareholder
10:13:41 25 in Monarch, and says on oath to this Tribunal that he never intended in
26 engaging you at the direction of Mr. Monahan, for you to engage in making
27 corrupt payments, you wouldn't dispute that, would you?
28 A. That is his interpretation and I would not dispute it.
29 Q. 185 No, no it's not his interpretation because he is the person that was at the
10:14:24 30 meeting and it is his words and now we know not just his words because you

www.pcr.ie Day 661
29
10:14:30 1 accept that his words are open to an innocent interpretation, we now know it is
2 your interpretation of his words that has us here?
3 A. I have already attested to that fact.
4 Q. 186 And if he says, and will say, Mr. Dunlop, that there was no intention,
10:15:00 5 knowledge on his part to have you engage in corruption of politicians, that
6 would presumably, if you accept that, and if that evidence is accepted, and
7 that's a matter for the Tribunal, but insofar as you are concerned, that must
8 make you question the interpretation that you placed on it?
9 A. No.
10:15:36 10 Q. 187 Well let me put it another way and just take Mr. Sweeney out of the equation.
11 If I say to Frank Dunlop or a Frank Dunlop who is my client and coming to give
12 evidence to a court, "Frank, you've got to do what you've got to do" and you
13 interpret that as meaning that as meaning that Bill Shipsey wants you to go and
14 lie to protect Bill Shipsey to the Tribunal, that is maybe an interpretation
10:16:21 15 that's open to you, but let's say that you ask for clarification from Bill
16 Shipsey and he says, you ask for example "Do you want me to lie?" and Bill
17 Shipsey says "Absolutely not, you have got to go Frank and tell the truth, do
18 what you have to do, is tell the truth" now where in that hypothetical
19 situation I tell you that, that must have a bearing on your original sinister
10:16:51 20 interpretation you put on what Bill Shipsey said, does that follow?
21 A. It does, yes.
22 Q. 188 And therefore just to move it to Mr. Sweeney for a moment, if Mr. Sweeney, who
23 didn't say anything directly asking you to corrupt politicians, says that you
24 have got it so incredibly wrong, I have no knowledge, no intention and any
10:17:18 25 interpretation that you put on that Frank is incorrect, I'm suggesting to you
26 that that at least ought to make you question the interpretation you are now
27 placing upon it?
28 A. No.
29 Q. 189 And why, Mr. Dunlop, can you not accept that you may have got it wrong in terms
10:18:00 30 of your interpretation of what Mr. Sweeney said? Why are you so certain that

www.pcr.ie Day 661
30
10:18:08 1 your interpretation of these words which are open to a number of
2 interpretations is correct, why is that?
3 A. That is my, was my interpretation and continues to be my interpretation.
4 Q. 190 No, no. I know that Mr. Dunlop, why? Why are you maintaining in the face of
10:18:34 5 what I put to you, that position?
6 A. That is my position and has always been my position.
7 Q. 191 No but could you answer me Mr. Sweeney and the Tribunal as to why that is?
8 Telling me it is doesn't explain why?
9 A. Well that may be a difficulty for you and Mr. Sweeney and indeed the Tribunal,
10:19:02 10 but it is not something that I interpreted from Mr. Sweeney lightly as
11 inferring or meaning, that was my interpretation and continues to be my
12 interpretation.
13
14 CHAIRMAN: But Mr. Dunlop given that we have evidence from you that a
10:19:18 15 particular expression --
16 A. Yes.
17
18 CHAIRMAN: -- was used by Mr. Sweeney, you interpreted it in a particular way
19 which would implicate Mr. Sweeney and Monarch in wrongdoing?
10:19:33 20 A. Yes.
21
22 CHAIRMAN: Or in the knowledge of wrongdoing or that there was to be
23 wrongdoing, you then accepted I think in response to the question from me, that
24 it was capable, that the particular expression that you say was used was
10:19:52 25 capable of both a, an innocent and a not so innocent meaning, you elected to
26 interpret it in the not innocent or not so innocent way, and Mr. Shipsey is
27 asking you and it seems to me to be a reasonable question, to explain why you
28 are so certain in your own mind that the not so innocent interpretation is the
29 correct one, given that it's capable of both, if you like, to an observer, it's
10:20:27 30 capable of both, so what was it that brought you in the direction of a not so

www.pcr.ie Day 661
31
10:20:36 1 innocent interpretation?
2 A. Well I agree Chairman I, and in response to Mr. Shipsey I did point out that I,
3 in response to a question from you I did say yes it was capable of another
4 interpretation, I fully accept that and have repeated that here this morning.
10:20:53 5 But the whole and I think it was in relation to Mr. Murphy, though Mr. Murphy
6 didn't seem to understand what I was saying when I used the word culture, the
7 whole culture of the meeting in relation to what was happening for Monarch and
8 what had happened to Monarch and what Monarch wanted and I was being brought
9 in, if you take Mr. Shipsey's words for my expertise in relation to the
10:21:16 10 knowledge of how the system worked or relationship with councillors or
11 politicians, that was my interpretation of the phrase that was used to me .
12
13 CHAIRMAN: But that has to be put into the context of the meeting that was
14 taking place at the time ?
10:21:30 15 A. Yes.
16
17 CHAIRMAN: But at the start of the meeting and as we understand this is your
18 first meeting in relation to Cherrywood?
19 A. Yes.
10:21:41 20
21 CHAIRMAN: So at the start of the meeting, if you were asked at the moment the
22 meeting starts what was your view, was Mr. Sweeney coming to suggest or to --
23 that some wrongdoing be undertaken or was he coming to suggest that a
24 legitimate PR exercise would be undertaken? I mean at that stage you don't
10:22:15 25 know, you never met Mr. Sweeney?
26 A. Correct.
27
28 CHAIRMAN: So you don't know anything about him or -- so I mean what, at that
29 point you don't know what exactly he is going to suggest or do you?
10:22:27 30 A. No.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
32
10:22:28 1 CHAIRMAN: No. He then comes in and he talks to you, and the words that you
2 suggested, give or take the words that you suggest, which based on your
3 evidence would implicate Mr. Sweeney, these were just spoken words, I mean
4 why -- it seems to me to be a reasonable question to put to you, what about
10:22:54 5 those words or what about the way they were said indicated to you that
6 Mr. Sweeney had a knowledge of the bribing of councillors?
7 A. Well Mr. Sweeney I think as I have said in my statement, Mr. Sweeney outlined
8 the problems that existed, that they were facing in relation to Monarch, in
9 relation to Cherrywood in relation to what had happened, in relation to what
10:23:17 10 had occurred in Dublin County Council, in relation to the dependabilty or
11 otherwise of politicians, and that he knew of my "expertise" in relation to
12 lobbying politicians, and the phrase was used in that context and I interpreted
13 it in that fashion.
14
10:23:40 15 CHAIRMAN: But you accept that it is capable of another --
16 A. Oh I absolutely, I have said that on a number of occasions.
17
18 Q. 192 MR. SHIPSEY: Mr. Dunlop, can I suggest something to you, something I won't say
19 a little unkind, probably very unkind? Can I suggest to you that the reason
10:24:08 20 that you want the Tribunal to accept the interpretation that you have placed on
21 the words that Mr. Sweeney used, and the reason you can't accept or agree that
22 another interpretation is as likely or more likely is because to do so would
23 involve you in admitting that having crossed the rubicon and fingered Monarch
24 with an asterisk, you have either made a mistake in relation to Monarch or you
10:25:04 25 have told a lie in relation to Monarch?
26 A. No.
27 Q. 193 Because if we are to believe your evidence that you are as amenable to perjury
28 as anyone who comes before this Tribunal, for to you do so having sworn
29 evidence to the contrary would obviously render you liable to that isn't
10:25:30 30 that --

www.pcr.ie Day 661
33
10:25:30 1 A. Yes.
2 MS. DILLON: I wonder would it be possible to break for a few moments I think
3 Mr. Dunlop just needs a break.
10:25:49 5 CHAIRMAN: All right. We'll break for ten minutes.
7 THE TRIBUNAL ADJOURNED FOR A SHORT BREAK AND RESUMED
8 AGAIN AS FOLLOWS:
10:26:12 10 MS. DILLON: I wonder sir, before Mr. Dunlop resumes the box might this be an
11 opportune time to indicate that Mr. Shipsey will continue to his
12 cross-examination it might take up to lunchtime , but it is unlikely anybody
13 else will be able to cross examine Mr. Dunlop because of the necessity of
14 commencing the evidence of Mr. Sweeney who is only available for a very limited
10:43:16 15 period.
16
17 CHAIRMAN: All right. Well we will have to make arrangements then for --
18
19 MS. DILLON: The return of Mr. Dunlop for the cross examination by other
10:43:19 20 parties but in case other parties who is are here to cross examine Mr. Dunlop
21 might like to leave that it's not going to happen. Thank you sir.
22
23 MR GORDON: I appear on behalf of Mr. Tony Fox and I understood that Mr. Fox's
24 position would be accommodated today directly after Mr. Shipsey's examination
10:43:39 25 and I just wish to inform the Tribunal --
26
27 CHAIRMAN: Well we are doing our best to try and ensure that we don't have
28 gaps in the evidence, we have a difficulty in relation to Mr. Sweeney after
29 this week, how long would your cross-examination be?
10:43:59 30

www.pcr.ie Day 661
34
10:43:59 1 MR GORDON: I can't imagine Chairman that I would take any more than two hours
2 with Mr. Dunlop.
4 CHAIRMAN: There is no question of that arising then today, if you said you
10:44:09 5 only had a couple of questions we would certainly facilitated you but what
6 we'll have to do is make arrangements and your solicitor can talk to the
7 solicitor for the Tribunal and see at some other arrangements can be made
8 suitable to yourselves and to Mr. Fox.
10:44:26 10 MR GORDON: I am very grateful I am just anxious to point out that we were
11 prepared today and in fact I had to adjourn another matter to, because I didn't
12 want to discommode the Tribunal but --
13
14 CHAIRMAN: Well that's unfortunate, we understood that we would have a little
10:44:44 15 bit more time this morning but we are not going to have it now, so we'll have
16 to make some other arrangements.
17
18 MR GORDON: Is if Mr. Costello my instructing solicitor will liaise perhaps.
19
10:44:54 20 CHAIRMAN: Yes and we'll endeavour to facilitate yourself, your solicitor and
21 Mr. Fox.
22
23 MR GORDON: I am very grateful.
24
10:45:01 25 CHAIRMAN: Now sorry Mr. Shipsey.
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 661
35
10:45:03 1 FRANK DUNLOP RETURNS TO THE WITNESS BOX AND CONTINUES
2 IN CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SHIPSEY:
4 Q. 194 Mr. Dunlop, your interpretation of the words that you say that Mr. Sweeney used
10:45:55 5 was and is of course conditioned or influenced by what you know and what you
6 knew about the modus operandi of Frank Dunlop?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 195 You knew on the 8th or 9th and 8th -- or alternatively 8th and 9th of March of
9 1993, that Frank Dunlop was a corrupt man who bribed politicians?
10:46:29 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 196 Mr. Sweeney's evidence will be that not only did he not know this, but had no
12 basis whatsoever in March of 1993 to know or believe or suspect that Frank
13 Dunlop confidante of the Taoiseach and government ministers was a corrupt
14 person who bribed politicians, and I'd have to suggest to you that there was
10:47:16 15 nothing known or that could have been known by Mr. Sweeney at that time to
16 support that?
17 A. Well I don't know that.
18 Q. 197 And certainly, prior to April of 2000, the public picture of Frank Dunlop was
19 upstanding, upright, professional man, isn't that right?
10:47:52 20 A. You are saying that Mr. Shipsey.
21 Q. 198 Yes. I thought you'd agreed with me earlier?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 199 And that's the Frank Dunlop that Eddie Sweeney was coming to meet in March of
24 1993, so I am suggesting to you that whatever interpretation you put on it is
10:48:11 25 based upon your knowledge of the corruption of Frank Dunlop, but that that
26 knowledge has in a sense blighted or clouded your judgement in relation to your
27 ability to interpret the words that other people use.
28 A. No.
29 Q. 200 Because it enables you either because it is what you believe or because what
10:48:46 30 you want to believe, to somehow suggest that "Well I may have been a corrupt

www.pcr.ie Day 661
36
10:49:02 1 man, but there were others who were the recipients of my corruption and there
2 were others who were the procurers of my corruption and therefore although
3 Frank Dunlop may be a bad man, I'm really only a pawn in their game" didn't it
4 enable you to do that?
10:49:22 5 A. Oh no.
6 Q. 201 It doesn't?
7 A. No.
8 Q. 202 Now after this meeting on the 8th or 9th or 8th and 9th of March, within a
9 couple of days you received two cheques totalling 25,000.
10:49:46 10 A. Correct.
11 Q. 203 Now that is consistent, both with your version of events which is that your fee
12 was 25,000, and it's also consistent with Mr. Sweeney's version of events which
13 is that you asked for 25,000 up front. So up until this point you both can be
14 right, isn't that correct?
10:50:14 15 A. Correct.
16 Q. 204 However prior to December of 1993 you don't issue any invoice claiming an
17 amount of 25,000 in respect of fees, isn't that right? I think on the 6th
18 December you issue an invoice which includes a fee for 25,000 plus VAT, it's
19 page 4772. Will you trust me on this for a moment Mr. Dunlop, if I'm wrong I
10:51:19 20 will stand corrected, but for the moment would you agree with me that you don't
21 issue any invoice for 25,000 prior to the 6th December 1993?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 205 And the invoice that you issue on the, on the 6th December 1993 is for 25,000
24 plus VAT?
10:51:42 25 A. Correct.
26 Q. 206 Which is different than what you understood had been agreed in March of 1993,
27 namely that it was 25,000 inclusive of VAT?
28 A. The 25,000 straight. Either inclusive or exclusive of VAT, the VAT issue did
29 not arise, it was a 25,000 pound payment.
10:52:08 30 Q. 207 Yes. So we know that between March of '93 and the 6th December of 1993, Frank

www.pcr.ie Day 661
37
10:52:17 1 Dunlop does not have any documentary evidence to support his contention of any
2 fee agreed at 25,000?
3 A. I don't have documentary evidence, I have remittance notices from Monarch.
4 Q. 208 I know yes, but you never got 25,000?
10:52:37 5 A. In a 25,000 pound amount, in that amount. No, two cheques 15 and ten.
6 Q. 209 Yes, so that doesn't tell you that you agreed a fee of 25,000 as your
7 professional fee, isn't that right?
8 A. I don't understand your --
9 Q. 210 Well the fact that you get a cheque for 10,000 and 15,000 a couple of days
10:53:03 10 after your meeting in March doesn't assist the Tribunal or you in determining
11 that it was payment on foot of an agreed 25,000 or a payment on account of
12 25,000?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. 211 And indeed in relation to your invoice of the 6th December which is 4772, there
10:53:26 15 are two invoices of that date or two documents that appear as invoices on that
16 date, one of which puts in an agreed fee of 17,500 and the other at 25,000.
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. 212 And my recollection was you weren't able to explain why you had those two
19 documents.
10:53:50 20 A. Correct.
21 Q. 213 And still aren't?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. 214 It is at best confusing, and perhaps at worst misleading, isn't that correct?
24 A. They both have the same number, Mr. Shipsey.
10:54:06 25 Q. 215 Yes. But just in response, both have the same number, different amounts?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 216 They can't both be right and they are at best confusing, at worst misleading.
28 A. Correct.
29 Q. 217 Mr. Dunlop, what I am going to do now, obviously the major issue for the
10:54:35 30 Tribunal is to determine whether you are telling the truth in relation to --

www.pcr.ie Day 661
38
10:54:45 1 well two things, actually a little more nuanced now, because it's not really
2 just whether Mr. Sweeney said the words that he said, but really whether the
3 Tribunal accepts that the interpretation you placed upon the words that
4 Mr. Sweeney said are correct or, sorry is correct, isn't that right?
10:55:10 5 A. Yes, it's a matter for the Tribunal.
6 Q. 218 And what I want to do now obviously is really just so that you are aware of
7 where I'm coming from on behalf of Mr. Sweeney, I am now setting out and trying
8 to set out to, to be under no illusion, discredit your evidence so that it is
9 easier for the Tribunal to believe Mr. Sweeney and to disbelieve Frank Dunlop
10:55:43 10 and we start from this position that it is accepted that Frank Dunlop acted
11 corruptly by Frank Dunlop.
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. 219 It is accepted by Frank Dunlop that he lied under oath to this Tribunal?
14 A. Correct.
10:56:06 15 Q. 220 And when we come on then to consider Frank Dunlop's evidence as to what was or
16 was not agreed or was not, was or was not done, it's in that context and for
17 the Tribunal to believe you they have to believe that in crossing the rubicon
18 if I can mix my metaphors, you also under went in that river crossing some type
19 of Pauline conversion if that's not too convoluted, as you are crossing the
10:56:58 20 river you decided I once was lost and a liar, I am now found and I tell the
21 truth, isn't that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 221 And we are now going to, as it were, test that position that you are
24 maintaining here, by reference to contemporaneous documents which I am going to
10:57:21 25 be suggesting to you suggest that no such conversion took place and the river
26 crossing was just a river crossing, do you follow?
27 A. I follow.
28 Q. 222 On the 10th April 1993 document 4133, an invoice is raised by Frank Dunlop &
29 Associates, isn't that correct?
10:57:55 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
39
10:57:55 1 Q. 223 And indeed all of the invoices that are raised by Frank Dunlop & Associates are
2 generated within Frank Dunlop & Associates, I mean it's pretty obvious but it
3 follows, these aren't Monarch dictating your invoices and you putting it on
4 your letter head and sending it out?
10:58:24 5 A. No.
6 Q. 224 You tell, be it Norma, or whoever it is that is doing it, "Would you have take
7 a fee note" whether you do it on a dictaphone for do it by hand, "take a fee
8 note to Monarch Properties Services Limited to agreed fee Republic affair
9 strategy and it's implementation, 10,000 plus VAT", Norma does that and it's
10:58:50 10 generated and sent out, that's how it works isn't it?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. 225 So on the 10th April when you sent out a fee note for 10,000 plus VAT, that's
13 on your direction?
14 A. It would be.
10:59:02 15 Q. 226 It would be on your direction. Was on your direction?
16 A. Logically yes.
17 Q. 227 And when we see the reference there "CW/south" could we take it that "CW" is
18 Cherrywood and "south" is Dublin, South County Dublin, is that right?
19 A. Yes.
10:59:28 20 Q. 228 And that doesn't relate at all to the 25,000 fee that you have agreed, when I
21 say it doesn't relate, it doesn't correspond with the agreed fee?
22 A. Correct yes.
23 Q. 229 Isn't that right.
24 A. Yes.
10:59:44 25 Q. 230 Because if you are right the fee that ought to have gone out after March of
26 1993 was to agree fee public affairs strategy and it's implementation 25,000,
27 either with or without VAT, probably with VAT because it's not a VAT exempt
28 service, isn't that right?
29 A. Right.
11:00:03 30 Q. 231 And we know that didn't happen until the 6th of December 1993.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
40
11:00:07 1 A. Correct.
2 Q. 232 So here you are sending out what is a, again at best confusing at worst
3 misleading invoice, suggestive of an agreed fee of 10,000 plus VAT, isn't that
4 right?
11:00:21 5 A. It's an invoice for 10,000 plus VAT.
6 Q. 233 No but it is misleading or confusing, whichever you like to take it, because
7 there is no agreed fee of 10,000 plus VAT which you have agreed with --
8 A. Oh there is no agreed fee exactly.
9 Q. 234 At 10,000.
11:00:37 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 235 To that extent it is. And you generate this and send it off to Monarch and on
12 it's face it purports to say we have an agreed fee of 10,000 plus VAT, please
13 pay it?
14 A. Correct.
11:00:50 15 Q. 236 And that's marked certified true copy and paid on 1st of June 1993 is that
16 right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 237 Now if you go over the page to 4142 please? That's the payment certificate in
19 respect of this invoice because it's referring to an invoice dated the 10th of
11:01:17 20 April 1993 from Frank Dunlop & Associates, description of the work PR strategy
21 and insofar as the paid on, go down to the bottom left hand corner, 1st of June
22 1993 that corresponds with what's stamped on your document at 4133, isn't that
23 right?
24 A. Yes.
11:01:40 25 Q. 238 And it also has marked as payment one, the first payment they are making to
26 you, or suggests that it is, isn't that right?
27 A. It's marked here as number one, yes.
28 Q. 239 And amount of quotation it says 4K or four K a month. Now insofar as that is
29 concerned or so far as that is entered, I think while Mr. Caslin's writing,
11:02:10 30 Mr. Sweeney will say obviously he provided Mr. Caslin with the information

www.pcr.ie Day 661
41
11:02:14 1 because you never spoke to Mr. Caslin?
2 A. No.
3 Q. 240 And Mr. Sweeney will say that he told Mr. Caslin what he had agreed with you
4 was 4,000 a month. And in him telling that to Mr. Caslin it may not be the
11:02:26 5 truth and can't be the truth if you are right, but it's consistent at least in
6 May of 1993 with what Mr. Sweeney says he had agreed with you in relation to
7 your retainer?
8 A. Yes it would appear to be.
9 Q. 241 And it's not appear, it be?
11:02:41 10 A. Nothing wrong in my view.
11 Q. 242 We know not what sees only what is?
12 A. Well thank you for the classic --
13 Q. 243 But you agree with that?
14 A. I don't agree at all that there was an arrangement between Mr. Sweeney and
11:02:55 15 myself for 4,000.
16 Q. 244 No no, my point was on the face of this it is consistent?
17 A. On the face it have yes.
18 Q. 245 On the face of this it is consistent with Mr. Sweeney's version and certainly
19 inconsistent with your version of 25,000?
11:03:09 20 A. On the face it, yes.
21 Q. 246 If you are right Mr. Sweeney ought to have put down amount of quotation 25,000
22 whether it was with or without VAT. So here we have what I might describe as a
23 straw in the wind, obviously not determinative against you because you don't
24 write it, but at least insofar as Mr. Sweeney is concerned, if he tells
11:03:33 25 Mr. Caslin this, he is either lying to Mr. Caslin, mistaken but he has to be
26 wrong because that's not what you agreed?
27 A. Correct.
28 Q. 247 And there obviously had to be some inquiry as to why Mr. Sweeney who doesn't
29 know you from Adam prior to March of 1993, who is, no reason to suspect he will
11:03:59 30 say why, that you were involved in any corruption, we'll have to inquire as to

www.pcr.ie Day 661
42
11:04:04 1 what possible interest he could have in putting it down, maybe your counsel and
2 the Tribunal will inquire, but at least it's consistent with his version and
3 inconsistent with yours, isn't that right?
4 A. My counsel will inquire into that.
11:04:16 5 Q. 248 Yes. If you just go over to, sorry over in my book because I have taken my out
6 but 4202, sorry 4204 I'm very sorry. This is an invoice from you or from Frank
7 Dunlop & Associates, isn't that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 249 It's dated the 19th of May?
11:04:39 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 250 Five weeks after the first one and this is for 12,396.69 pounds plus VAT. Now
12 I think we can take it you have never agreed a fee with somebody of 12,396.69
13 pounds?
14 A. No, correct.
11:05:06 15 Q. 251 And what this is an invoice to reflect either a fee or a payment of 15,000?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 252 Could be either?
18 A. Either.
19 Q. 253 Yes, if you get a cheque for 15,000 in and you are going to account for it
11:05:21 20 properly you will deduct, you'll calculate what the VAT is, isn't that right?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. 254 So again just on the face of this document it's described as an invoice number
24 A. Yes.
11:05:34 25 Q. 255 And then at the bottom it has paid with thanks, for VAT purposes only?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 256 That's typed in Frank Dunlop & Associates offices.
28 A. Correct.
29 Q. 257 Isn't that right? So here on the 19th May a document which purports to be an
11:05:49 30 invoice is issued, which is in fact a receipt?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
43
11:05:54 1 A. Paid with VAT yes, paid with thanks for VAT purposes only.
2 Q. 258 So firstly the invoice is a misnomer, it's a receipt?
3 A. It's a receipt yes.
4 Q. 259 And it's a receipt for a payment that has already been made?
11:06:07 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 260 And the only payment that has been made at this stage of 15,000 pounds is a
7 payment of 15,000 that is paid on the 11th of March 1993?
8 A. That is the only payment of 15,000, yes.
9 Q. 261 Therefore this receipt mis-called invoice logically must relate to the 15,000?
11:06:28 10 A. Logically it would appear to.
11 Q. 262 And although it was suggested and I was just a little bit confused about this,
12 but that's going to be a recurring theme in my cross-examination, Mr. Dunlop,
13 and you will have to clarify matters for me, but my recollection of your
14 evidence in relation to this invoice, which you now accept is a receipt, was
11:07:14 15 that this was in fact an invoice and that it was paid in two tranches of 7,500
16 each in July of 1993 and September of 1993?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 263 And that must be wrong now, isn't that correct?
19 A. No I draw your attention to the hand written note on the top of it.
11:07:33 20 Q. 264 Yes.
21 A. That's not my handwriting, that's an officer in the company.
22 Q. 265 Officer in whose company?
23 A. My company.
24 Q. 266 Yes. So where it says 19/5 and whatever it is 19/9 --
11:07:53 25 A. 17 or 19.
26 Q. 267 17 or 19, yes, what you have interpreted from that is since there was a payment
27 of 7,500 on the 9th, somebody in your offers made the assumption that this
28 actually relates at least partially to that payment because it was of 7,500?
29 A. Well I wouldn't necessarily suggest to you, Mr. Shipsey, that he made the
11:08:24 30 assumption, he was the person who is responsible for keeping the records.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
44
11:08:26 1 Q. 268 I know but Mr. Dunlop, that couldn't be right if this is a receipt, isn't that
2 right?
3 A. Well logically no.
4 Q. 269 I mean logically impossible, it's not even, we are not in the in the realm of
11:08:40 5 balances of probabilities or beyond a reasonable doubt, if this is paid with
6 thanks --
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 270 -- on the 19th of May --
9 A. Yes.
11:08:47 10 Q. 271 -- it can have nothing to do with the payment in September or July?
11 A. Well as I pointed out to you, that note in handwriting on the top of the
12 invoice or payment or receipt, whatever you like to call it, is not in my
13 handwriting it's in someone else's handwriting.
14 Q. 272 So you are disowning it?
11:09:05 15 A. No, no I am not disowning it, I am just pointing out to you that that notation
16 is not in my writing.
17 Q. 273 No. But that is not disowning it, it is not yours you can't be responsible for
18 it?
19 A. Well I can't be responsible for somebody putting down paid on 19th of the 5th
11:09:21 20 and 17 or the 19 of the 9th '93 I can't be responsible for that, that's not in
21 my handwriting.
22 Q. 274 I am not trying to make you responsible for it, but what I am suggesting to you
23 is that the suggestion you gave in evidence, that this invoice was paid in July
24 and September in two tranches is a nonsense.
11:09:40 25 A. No. I am suggesting to you that what I am saying to you is that as a record
26 out of my company with a notation on it by the officer who had responsibility
27 for keeping the books, this was written by him, and on foot of that he put down
28 "paid" on these two dates.
29 Q. 275 Yes. But you --
11:10:01 30 A. And that was, that is my evidence.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
45
11:10:03 1 Q. 276 But you got no payment on the 19th of the 5th?
2 A. Well he has put down --
3 Q. 277 No but sorry, you know Mr. Dunlop you got no payment on the 19th of the 5th?
4 A. Correct.
11:10:14 5 Q. 278 And insofar as you got a payment on the 17th or 19th of the 9th it was 7,500?
6 A. Yes, I think that was established later.
7 Q. 279 But the fact that this notation is there and presumably put on subsequently, it
8 wouldn't have been put on at the time .
9 A. I don't know when it was put on.
11:10:30 10 Q. 280 No. If this letter, invoice, statement goes out on the 19th of May 1993, you
11 couldn't put it on paid on the 17th or 19th of September?
12 A. Correct well it's, correct absolutely.
13 Q. 281 So I am suggesting to you that any suggestion that I took from your evidence
14 that this related to payments in July and September is a nonsense?
11:10:56 15 A. No, I keep coming back to the point the only explanation I can give you is in
16 relation to the notation on the top of the page. I did not write that, it was
17 written by the officer in the company responsible for the receipts of money and
18 in fact the issuing of the invoices.
19 Q. 282 And you are sticking to your version of events therefore that this relates to
11:11:18 20 July and September?
21 A. I cannot do otherwise, in the context of the person who made this note and in
22 the context of my knowledge of him.
23 Q. 283 Well can I suggest that there is another interpretation that I thought you had
24 perhaps come around to agreeing with, which is inconsistent with that. If this
11:11:33 25 is in fact a receipt as of the 19th of May?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 284 For 15,000, the only payment it can relate to is the one you got on the 11th of
28 March because that's the only payment of 15,000 that you had received up until
29 the 19th of May 1995?
11:11:52 30 A. No I don't accept that.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
46
11:11:53 1 Q. 285 Well sorry which part of it don't you accept --
2 A. First of all --
3 Q. 286 Let's do -- you don't accept it then I am asking you the questions Mr. Dunlop?
4 A. Did you ask me what I didn't understand I went to reply and you interrupted me .
11:12:09 5 Q. 287 Well I'm sorry for interrupting you Mr. Dunlop, but I am going to try hopefully
6 to make it easier. You accept that you only got one payment of 15,000 prior to
7 the 19th of May of 1993?
8 A. Yes in March.
9 Q. 288 You accept that this document which is your document insofar as there is typing
11:12:29 10 on it, reflects the fact that as of the date of this document you had already
11 been paid that 15,000?
12 A. No. This is dated 19th of May and I received 15,000 in March.
13 Q. 289 Yes, sorry you received it, but by the 19th of May you have received it?
14 A. I have received 15,000 pounds in March, yes.
11:13:00 15 Q. 290 And this document which reflects the receipt of a payment for 15,000 can only
16 refer to the payment you received in March because you received no other
17 payment for 15,000?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. 291 Apart from the March one?
11:13:09 20 A. Correct.
21 Q. 292 And you see therefore Mr. Dunlop, because I am trying to be logical and you are
22 logical, if that logically follows, this cannot be a receipt for a payment of
23 15,000 on the 9th of March or sorry 11th of March?
24 A. 11th.
11:13:30 25 Q. 293 11th of March and a receipt for two payments in July and September of 1993, do
26 you agree with me so far?
27 A. I see the logic yes.
28 Q. 294 And you agree with it?
29 A. Well I agree with the logic, yes.
11:13:42 30 Q. 295 And just taking these two invoices, one of which isn't an invoice, the 10th

www.pcr.ie Day 661
47
11:13:54 1 April for 10,000 and VAT and one of the 19th of May of 1993 for 15,000, they in
2 fact could both relate logically, to the two payments you had received in March
3 of 1993, save in the case of the one for 10,000 plus VAT and in the one of the
4 15,000 it's inclusive.
11:14:29 5 A. Yes, logically.
6 Q. 296 And we also know you got no payment on the first of June of 1993, isn't that
7 right?
8 A. Well I am taking your word for it.
9 Q. 297 Well we can go to it, if you go to 4205?
11:14:45 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 298 No payment on the first of June and the only payment or the only two payments
12 that you had received up to that point in time are the 10,000 on the 12th March
13 and the 10,000 on the 26th of May?
14 A. Yes. Sorry, sorry can you repeat that again, Mr. Shipsey, the only payments I
11:15:26 15 got?
16 Q. 299 Only payments you received?
17 A. Prior to the first of June.
18 Q. 300 Prior to the first of June, in an amount of 10,000.
19 A. Oh in an amount of 10,000, yes but there was the 15,000.
11:15:38 20 Q. 301 But Mr. Dunlop we've dealt with that, we are talking about 10,000, you know
21 that?
22 A. You have made it clear now you are talking about 10,000.
23 Q. 302 So the only payments you received prior to the 1st of June of 10,000 were on
24 the 12th of March and 26th of May?
11:15:54 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 303 And we know that the payment that you received on the 26th of May is the
27 payment that finds it's way to Mr. Lawlor?
28 A. Correct.
29 Q. 304 And your evidence in relation to that will obviously come to it, is that
11:16:19 30 however it got to Mr. Lawlor it was not Frank Dunlop?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
48
11:16:23 1 A. Correct.
2 Q. 305 So insofar as the invoice of the 10th of April 1993 relates to an amount paid
3 up to the first of June of 1993, the only one that is could come close to
4 approximating is the one of the 12th March?
11:16:52 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 306 So again Tribunals being Tribunals, like courts being courts, on the balance of
7 probabilities it is connected or probably connected to that payment rather than
8 any other one?
9 A. Logically, yes.
11:17:09 10 Q. 307 And it is confusing and misleading to repeat what's becoming my mantra, in that
11 it has 10,000 plus VAT when you have only been paid a sum of 10,000?
12 A. The cheque is for 10,000.
13 Q. 308 And it is confusing and misleading in relation to the invoice which is in fact
14 a receipt for 15,000 in that that is a 15,000 inclusive of VAT?
11:17:46 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 309 So at the very least an accounts department receiving these is going to be
17 somewhat confused, that's an accounts department in Monarch, would have to ask
18 some questions in relation to this, isn't that right?
19 A. Well logically, yes.
11:18:05 20 Q. 310 Could I ask just to put up 4219 and that's the remittance advice for the cheque
21 for 10,000, which finds it's way to Mr. Lawlor?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 311 And unlike the other remittance advices, it's actually to Frank Dunlop as
24 opposed to Frank Dunlop & Company or Frank Dunlop & Associates, there is a
11:18:54 25 Monarch document --
26 A. It's not my document.
27 Q. 312 You can't be responsible for that but the cheque that's actually drawn is made
28 out to Frank Dunlop & Associates?
29 A. Correct.
11:19:07 30 Q. 313 Consistent with the other cheques that were drawn and the other payments made.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
49
11:19:12 1 So that person who is preparing this within Monarch is preparing it with the
2 intention that it is to go to Frank Dunlop & Associates and it is a crossed
3 cheque which ought to make it difficult to negotiate other than by Frank Dunlop
4 & Associates?
11:19:29 5 A. Correct.
6 Q. 314 It should go nowhere other than into a Frank Dunlop & Associates account?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. 315 And if it does something has gone wrong in the banking process at least, isn't
9 that right?
11:19:40 10 A. Something has gone wrong somewhere.
11 Q. 316 Yes. Now whilst we have a remittance advice for this on the 26th of May, there
12 is according to you some mystery shrouding this cheque, Frank Dunlop's attitude
13 to this is not my signature on the back, not clear whether you are saying
14 whether you ever got it or not or it ever arrived in your office, but it's just
11:20:19 15 one of these mysteries, would that be an unfair characterisation of your view
16 in relation to this cheque?
17 A. Yeah well I mean I wouldn't characterise it simply as such I gave evidence to
18 the effect that one it is not my signature on the back of the cheque, I did not
19 give this cheque to any third party including Mr. Lawlor, and we now have
11:20:50 20 evidence to the effect as to how this cheque was negotiated.
21 Q. 317 Well --
22 A. Sorry I shouldn't say that we haven't evidence as to --
23 Q. 318 It suggests it --
24 A. We have a statement from a party.
11:21:01 25 Q. 319 Yes. There is just a few questions I have. I mean obviously Mr. Lawlor is not
26 going to be able to contradict that for obvious reasons, your evidence, so you
27 are home and dry in relation to that particular evidence that you didn't give
28 it to Mr. Lawlor, isn't that right? Mr. Monahan is not going to be able to
29 throw any light on any involvement he might have had in relation to it?
11:21:24 30 A. Correct.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
50
11:21:25 1 Q. 320 However, you also accept, this is where I am just a little bit mystified, you
2 accept that Frank Dunlop & Associates received payments to the value of 85,000
3 from Monarch?
4 A. Yes.
11:21:45 5 Q. 321 And included in that is the 10,000 that Mr. Lawlor seems to have been able to
6 negotiate?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 322 And I don't understand how you can on the one hand say I accept Tribunal, and
9 you are to find, Monarch paid me 85,000, but in fact 10,000 of that was stolen
11:22:07 10 from me, directed to somebody else, fell into other hands and I didn't get it?
11 A. Well the cheque is made out to my company and we have an invoice, a remittance
12 notice from Monarch, this was the copy of the cheque, Mr. Shipsey. I think you
13 are aware of this, and if you are stop me, or if you think it's irrelevant stop
14 me, this cheque was produced some 12 hours before I gave evidence here one
11:22:38 15 morning and there was always an argument as to a payment of 10,000. This
16 cheque was produced to me at about, copy of this cheque, a photocopy of this
17 cheque was produced to me at about 8 o'clock of a morning before I came down
18 here and I instructed my solicitors if they had the cheque, if they have
19 evidence of a cheque made payable to Frank Dunlop & Associates we accept, and
11:23:03 20 that instruction was carried out and given to Mr. Murphy by my counsel.
21 Subsequently in evidence when it was put up on the screen in relation to the
22 signature or the endorsement on the back of the cheque I realised it was not my
23 signature.
24 Q. 323 Was that for the first time ?
11:23:23 25 A. Yes and I, we had this discussion with Mr. Murphy.
26 Q. 324 I know I was here for it.
27 A. Yes. Bearing in mind that this copy of this cheque was produced to me that
28 morning in my solicitor's office, my solicitor produced the cheque and said we
29 have had this overnight, faxed communication from the Tribunal.
11:23:42 30 Q. 325 And you say that's the morning?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
51
11:23:44 1 A. I gave evidence on --
2 Q. 326 In June. A number of hours before, are you saying you didn't look at the back?
3 A. I didn't pay particular attention to it.
4 Q. 327 Oh no Mr. Dunlop.
11:23:57 5 A. There was a cheque made out to Frank Dunlop & Associates.
6 Q. 328 Mr. Dunlop can I stop you here. I didn't ask you whether you paid particular
7 notice or attention, so would you please if you can answer the questions that I
8 am asking, and listen to the questions I am asking, and I asked you prior to
9 coming to give evidence, did you look at the back of the cheque?
11:24:26 10 A. I looked at the documentation that was produced to me by my solicitor, which
11 included a photocopy of the back of the cheque.
12 Q. 329 And if that is the case and I infer from that that's a yes you did look at the
13 back of the cheque, you must have realised looking at the back of the cheque
14 that that was not your signature?
11:24:49 15 A. Well it's certainly -- well I cannot absolutely categorically tell you that at
16 the very moment I realised that that was not my signature. Yes, I looked at
17 the documentation that was produced to me by my solicitor my main, the main
18 orientation here was that there was a question about a payment of 10,000. My
19 solicitor told me that the Tribunal had produced a cheque of a payment of
11:25:14 20 10,000 to Frank Dunlop & Associates I said fine, if they have the cheque we got
21 the money. That was my immediate reaction.
22 Q. 330 But that's what you also said in evidence, isn't that right?
23 A. Mm-hmm.
24 Q. 331 Actually just going to be a little bit persistent now in relation to the back
11:25:33 25 of the cheque because my understanding of your evidence now is that you did
26 look at the back of the cheque when you got the document in your solicitor's
27 office?
28 A. I looked at the documentation.
29 Q. 332 Sorry, sorry could you -- Mr. Dunlop, just listen carefully please to my
11:25:51 30 question. Correct me if I am wrong, you did look at the back of the cheque for

www.pcr.ie Day 661
52
11:26:01 1 10,000, made out to Frank Dunlop & Associates, dated 26th of May of 1993 in
2 your solicitor's office?
3 A. I looked at the photocopied documentation including the front and the back of
4 the cheque. The front of the cheque was the most important aspect as far as I
11:26:22 5 was concerned.
6 Q. 333 So it's a yes to the back?
7 A. Yes I looked at the documentation.
8 Q. 334 And I would have to suggest to you, Mr. Dunlop, that if you looked at the back
9 of the cheque in the context of there being some controversy over this cheque
11:26:41 10 and whether it was paid or whether it was received, that you could not have
11 failed immediately to recognise that it was not your signature?
12 A. No I don't accept that, in the context of the presentation of the
13 documentation.
14 Q. 335 And you want the Tribunal to accept that you looked at the back of the cheque,
11:27:07 15 you saw what was written there and it didn't register with you immediately that
16 that was not your signature?
17 A. I looked at the documentation.
18 Q. 336 No sorry, Mr. Dunlop.
19 A. I looked at the documentation and it did not register immediately.
11:27:22 20 Q. 337 And it only registered some hours later when Mr. Murphy is asking you to look
21 at it?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 338 And you want the Tribunal to, and you want me and everyone to believe that?
24 A. Well --
11:27:40 25 Q. 339 You do.
26 A. I can only tell you what occurred.
27 Q. 340 And you accepted and you still accept that -- this is where I am not clear,
28 that your company got this cheque?
29 A. The cheque is made payable to Frank Dunlop & Associates.
11:28:02 30 Q. 341 Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
53
11:28:04 1 A. There is a remittance note from Monarch in evidence made payable to Frank
2 Dunlop.
3 Q. 342 Yes.
4 A. The history of this cheque was in dispute, the history of this payment was in
11:28:15 5 dispute. My main orientation in coming down here on that day was having been
6 given a photocopy of what the Tribunal sent to my solicitors overnight was if
7 they have a cheque made payable to me I accept that we got it, that was my
8 statement to my solicitor.
9 Q. 343 So the answer to my question is yes, you accept that Frank Dunlop & Associates
11:28:38 10 received this cheque?
11 A. The documentary evidence is to suggest that, yes.
12 Q. 344 And therefore any suggestion that it was sent by Monarch to anyone other than
13 Frank Dunlop & Associates can be disregarded?
14 A. No I don't accept that.
11:28:56 15 Q. 345 Mr. Dunlop, in relation to this cheque for 10,000, the person who is drawing
16 the cheque which is Monarch Properties Services, was drawing it in favour of
17 Frank Dunlop, that's who it's for?
18 A. Frank Dunlop & Associates.
19 Q. 346 And associates, yes.
11:29:38 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 347 And absent to any other evidence or suggestion, the probability is that this
22 was for Frank Dunlop & Associates and was sent to Frank Dunlop & Associates?
23 A. The probability and logical conclusion would accord with that.
24 Q. 348 And if that is the case, unless something went wrong in the post or something
11:29:58 25 was intercepted in the post, the logic is that it was received in 25 Upper
26 Mount Street?
27 A. The logic is, yes.
28 Q. 349 And therefore if it was received in 25 Upper Mount Street, somebody in Frank
29 Dunlop & Associates must have either directly or through an intermediary
11:30:29 30 conveyed it to Mr. Lawlor?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
54
11:30:32 1 A. Logically, yes.
2 Q. 350 And it would be surprising you would agree, in a logical sense, that the
3 Tribunal concluded -- sorry it would be surprising if they did not conclude
4 that this cheque made it's way to Frank Lawlor, sorry Frank Dunlop -- from Liam
11:31:06 5 Lawlor from somebody in Frank Dunlop & Associates?
6 A. It would be logical to suggest --
7 Q. 351 We have had --
8 A. Sorry I beg your pardon sorry, Mr. Shipsey, I don't -- I'm just got lost in
9 your question.
11:31:24 10 Q. 352 Well I understood we had logically got to the position that it had left Monarch
11 and arrived in Upper Mount Street?
13 Q. 353 And again I am just following it logically.
14 A. Yes right.
11:31:34 15 Q. 354 If it makes it's way to Liam Lawlor then it must logically follow that it's
16 made it's way to Mr. Lawlor either directly or through an intermediary from
17 somebody in your offers?
18 A. That would appear logical.
19 Q. 355 And again if we are talking about probabilities here, again logical
11:31:52 20 probabilities I don't know how many people are in your office, but you are the
21 principal in the office?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 356 And if there was an instruction to give it to Mr. Lawlor, logically it would
24 have come from you?
11:32:05 25 A. Correct.
26 Q. 357 Now you are saying it didn't?
27 A. Correct.
28 Q. 358 But the logic on my analysis points to that?
29 A. The logic on your analysis, yes certainly.
11:32:18 30 Q. 359 Logic doesn't obviously always, isn't obviously borne out in reality we all

www.pcr.ie Day 661
55
11:32:20 1 know that Mr. Dunlop but that's the logic of it. And again in terms of looking
2 for a rational, because I was going to say Tribunals are funny places but
3 Tribunals being operating on a basis similar to courts that they try to look
4 for the probabilities and they try to look for the motivation for this, but if
11:32:44 5 they came to the logical conclusion that this 10,000 got to Liam Lawlor at the
6 direction of Frank Dunlop that this was Mr. Dunlop paying Liam Lawlor for the
7 courtesy and kindness of the introduction to Mr. Monahan and Monarch Properties
8 on this assignment?
9 A. Logically.
11:33:09 10 Q. 360 But again on your evidence we have got to ignore logic because that didn't
11 happen. And however Liam Lawlor gets this cheque he doesn't get it from Frank
12 Dunlop and Frank Dunlop had no hand, act or part in getting the cheque made out
13 to Mr. Dunlop's company to Mr. Lawlor?
14 A. Correct.
11:33:34 15 Q. 361 And again the fact that we know from contemporary evidence that Mr. Lawlor is
16 the one that's setting up the meeting with Monarch, and we have that in your --
17 Norma's telephone attendance book, Liam has arrange as meeting with Ed Sweeney
18 in Monarch House that he was to be at the first meeting, the Tribunal would be
19 at least forgiven for assuming, assuming may be too strong, for suspecting at
11:34:11 20 least that this is Frank Dunlop paying Liam Lawlor's introduction fee?
21 A. There is a certain logic to that, yes. Can you assist me here, Mr. Shipsey?
22 Could I ask you to put the invoice for the 10,000 back on screen.
23
24 CHAIRMAN: Do we have the page number?
11:34:43 25 Q. 362 MR. SHIPSEY: 4133.
26 A. I'd ask you, Mr. Shipsey, to compare and contrast the type face on that invoice
27 with other invoices that I have prepared in my office or were prepared in my
28 office.
29
11:35:09 30 CHAIRMAN: Well is it your evidence Mr. Dunlop that that is not a type face

www.pcr.ie Day 661
56
11:35:17 1 that was used in your office at that time ?
2 A. I don't think that type face is a type face that was used in my office at that
3 time .
4 Q. 363 And who produced this document?
11:35:29 5 A. Produced it to Monarch?
6 Q. 364 Where was this document generated?
7 A. I don't know where it was -- it could have come from us, I don't know.
9 CHAIRMAN: It came from Monarch, from Monarch discovery, so it came from -- it
11:35:49 10 was in the possession of Monarch.
11 Q. 365 MR. SHIPSEY: I take it that if you send out an invoice you keep copies?
12 A. We would, yes.
13 Q. 366 Are you saying that this was not in the, this invoice was unknown to Frank
14 Dunlop & Associates or there was no copy in the office?
11:36:10 15 A. I think that is a logical conclusion.
16 Q. 367 Oh no not so much a logical conclusion, are you saying that this invoice dated
17 the 10th of April 1993 is a forgery and was forged by somebody outside of Frank
18 Dunlop & Associates?
19 A. I am not saying anything other than I am asking you to look at the invoice and
11:36:32 20 to look at the type face and in response to the Chairman's question, I do not
21 think that was a type face used by my office.
22 Q. 368 But if we found that that invoice or a copy it have was in the possession of
23 your office?
24 A. Oh -- (nods). If a copy of was in my files I would have to suggest, I would
11:36:53 25 have to say directly that it was generated in my office.
26 Q. 369 And what we have had for the last couple of minutes then would be some type of
27 merry dance?
28 A. No no it's not a merry dance, you are the one asking me the questions you keep
29 reminding me this, Mr. Shipsey.
11:37:08 30 Q. 370 Mr. Dunlop, you took us to this I didn't take you to it.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
57
11:37:11 1 A. Yes, deliberately.
2 Q. 371 So I didn't ask you any questions for the record?
3 A. I need you to look at this invoice because you opened your cross-examination
4 after the break with this invoice.
11:37:19 5 Q. 372 But you took me to this invoice to suggest to the Chairman that this did not
6 emanate from your office.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 373 And we have agreed that if a copy is found in your office then that would be
9 wrong?
11:37:31 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 374 And therefore if that is wrong you have led us on a merry dance?
12 A. No because you were questioning me in relation to how a cheque made out to
13 Frank Dunlop & Associates could get into the possession of a third party.
14
11:37:46 15 CHAIRMAN: But Mr. Dunlop the only suggestion that this might be a fraudulent
16 document has come from you?
17 A. Yes.
18
19 CHAIRMAN: So it is your suggestion that this is a fraudulent document
11:38:01 20 prepared by somebody else without your authority?
21 A. Yes. I am trying to assist Mr. Shipsey, Chairman, in relation to both the
22 generation of the cheque for 10,000 and the payment of it and the evidence that
23 I have given that I did not authorise the payment.
24
11:38:16 25 CHAIRMAN: Yes but you have said, you have asked the question?
26 A. Yes.
27
28 CHAIRMAN: Compare this to other invoices but you have to answer that question
29 as well?
11:38:29 30 A. Yes well --

www.pcr.ie Day 661
58
11:38:29 1
2 CHAIRMAN: I mean is it your evidence that this document is a forgery,
3 prepared by somebody else without your authority?
4 A. It is certainly not in the format or the type face that was used by Frank
11:38:45 5 Dunlop & Associates at the time .
7 CHAIRMAN: But is there anything else about it other than the type face which
8 would suggest that it's not, that it didn't emerge from your office?
9 A. I just in relation to what Mr. Shipsey brought my attention to, reference to CW
11:39:05 10 south, I think any invoice that was issued by Frank Dunlop & Associates related
11 to public affairs in relation to public affairs, provision of public affairs
12 services in relation to Cherrywood or to Monarch directly or along those lines
13 I can't be exactly --
14
11:39:24 15 CHAIRMAN: Could you put up 4204 beside this one?
16 A. Yes.
17
18 CHAIRMAN: There is no invoice number on the --
19 A. Correct.
11:39:50 20
21 CHAIRMAN: -- on the one on the left. Do you know Mr, or can you say
22 Mr. Dunlop if there was always an invoice number on your invoice?
23 A. Yes, generated by the officer that I mentioned to Mr. Shipsey earlier on, he
24 kept a record of the invoices and to -- in 99 cases out of a hundred there was
11:40:09 25 an invoice number.
26
27 JUDGE FAHERTY: Could I ask, sorry Mr. Shipsey, just perhaps Ms. Dillon if I
28 could address something to her, the invoice 4204 the one on the right,
29 Ms. Dillon, the one that's marked 834 that came , it would appear from
11:40:57 30 Mr. Dunlop's discovery?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
59
11:40:59 1
2 MS. DILLON: That's correct. The one with FD 34 at the top, yes that came
3 from Mr. Dunlop's discovery.
11:41:04 5 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes I am wondering do we have a match of that by way of original
6 from any Monarch discovery, just as a matter of interest?
8 MS. DILLON: I don't know if you just allow me to check that for a moment I
9 don't think so but I can't answer.
11:41:17 10
11 JUDGE FAHERTY: Because obviously if everything tallied and people had records
12 subject to people having kept records, both any copy retained by Mr. Dunlop and
13 indeed the original sent to Monarch should be discovered obviously, had they,
14 if they were retained thanks, you might just in due course do it. Sorry to
11:41:36 15 have interrupted you.
16
17 MR. SHIPSEY: Chairman can I proceed?
18
19 CHAIRMAN: Oh, yes, sorry.
11:41:42 20 Q. 375 MR. SHIPSEY: Mr. Dunlop I want you to look at document 4268? And this is an
21 invoice from Monarch to their joint venture partners GRE, dated the 29th of
22 June of 1993?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 376 And you will see insofar as Frank Dunlop and company is concerned, there is a
11:42:15 25 reference to paid on account, IM number 1, 25,000?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 377 And again, Mr. Dunlop, that is consistent with Mr. Sweeney's recollection of
28 the agreement insofar as he said you looked for a payment on account of 25,000?
29 A. Yes and it is consistent with the statement that I made and the evidence that I
11:42:42 30 gave, that I got the 25,000.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
60
11:42:44 1 Q. 378 Yes, but it is a payment on account, it's not as consistent with a view that
2 the agreement was a fee of 25,000?
3 A. Well I can't account -- sorry I can't account for Mr. Sweeney putting in on
4 account, I am just telling you what the agreement was.
11:43:00 5 Q. 379 No but you see if the agreement was as you suggest a fee of 25,000, you
6 wouldn't have the words on account.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 380 It would just be Frank Dunlop fee 25,000, isn't that right?
9 A. Mr. Sweeney would have to be, to give evidence to this effect.
11:43:17 10 Q. 381 Sorry not that Mr. Sweeney, I am suggesting to you.
12 Q. 382 This is inconsistent with your version the reason I am suggesting that to you
13 is, that if it was a flat fee of 25,000 that you had agreed as you suggest
14 there is no reason to put on account?
11:43:34 15 A. Oh there wouldn't appear to be logically, no.
16 Q. 383 That's my point. I would ask you to go to 4303 Mr. Dunlop, and this again is a
17 letter to Mr. Sweeney from GRE properties and if you go down to paragraph four
18 which is referring to that last invoice that I mentioned and it says "Although
19 at our meeting in May" and Mr. Sweeney will say that there was a meeting with
11:44:06 20 Mr. Baker I think on the 9th May of 1993, "I agreed the appointment of Frank
21 Dunlop, this was on the basis of 4,000 per month with no success fee."
22
23 Now again that on it's face suggests that Mr. Baker and Mr. Sweeney had a
24 discussion on what I am telling you is the 9th of May at which Mr. Sweeney and
11:44:36 25 Mr. Baker agreed that you would be retained on the basis of 4,000 per month but
26 that no agreement was reached in relation to a success fee?
27 A. That's what the document implies.
28 Q. 384 And that, Mr. Dunlop, is consistent with Mr. Sweeney's recollection and
29 evidence, that the arrangement with you was 4,000 per month and also it's
11:45:02 30 consistent but not conclusive with there being some discussion about a success

www.pcr.ie Day 661
61
11:45:07 1 fee?
2 A. He not appointing me at all or having any recollection of my appointment.
3 Sorry I have broken the rule.
4 Q. 385 Yes you have.
11:45:14 5 A. Sorry I beg your pardon, Mr. Shipsey, I did make an agreement with you, sorry I
6 apologise.
7 Q. 386 I appreciate that.
8 A. Yes it is consistent with what Mr. Sweeney has said.
9 Q. 387 And conversely inconsistent with your version?
11:45:29 10 A. Well logically it would appear so but I don't accept that.
11 Q. 388 And it is either that Mr. Sweeney is right and you are wrong or alternatively
12 Mr. Sweeney is less than truthful with his joint venture partner?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. 389 And it is at least a contemporaneous record which suggests, doesn't prove
11:45:55 15 Mr. Sweeney is telling the truth, but it's a contemporaneous or near
16 contemporaneous record as to what was agreed between you and he. Not as it
17 binds you but his recording of it or what his understanding was?
18 A. With his colleague in GRE.
19 Q. 390 Yes. I think I say the 9th of May the diary I think is the 7th of May the
11:46:20 20 Friday was the 7th May. If you go to 4308 Mr. Dunlop? That's from Mr. Caslin
21 to Mr. Sweeney, Glennane and Lynn and item number six and it's referring to the
22 GRE invoice looking for the 15,125 which would be, just to be clear, it's 50
23 per cent of the payment on account plus VAT, that's how it comes to 15,125, I
24 think it's 12,500 --
11:46:58 25 A. Sorry, Mr. Shipsey, which number are you referring to.
26 Q. 391 Six.
27 A. Number six.
28 Q. 392 4308 item number six.
29 A. Yes right.
11:47:06 30 Q. 393 This is Mr. Caslin writing to Sweeney, Glennane and Lynn and just making the

www.pcr.ie Day 661
62
11:47:13 1 point that this item of 15,125 which they are seeking to recover from GRE is
2 not agreed on GRE's part because what Mr. Baker, that's MB agreed, was 4,000 a
3 month from May?
4 A. On foot of the arrangement that Mr. Sweeney and he agreed.
11:47:32 5 Q. 394 Yes.
6 A. Yes, without my knowledge, I know nothing about that.
7 Q. 395 No but Mr. Sweeney telling him that that's what was agreed?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 396 So here is another pointer as it were to -- because obviously no dispute has
11:47:51 10 arisen between you and Mr. Sweeney in fact, Mr. Sweeney doesn't know what you
11 are saying until April of this year.
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. 397 So here we have something back in 2003 which I say points to Mr. Sweeney being
14 right and you being wrong.
11:48:03 15 A. Well that's your point, that's your suggestion.
16 Q. 398 And logically there is some logic to that?
17 A. There is a certain logic to it, yes.
18 Q. 399 If you go to 4310, this is subsequent to this July 1993 internal Monarch
19 document and subsequent to Mr. Baker's letter of the 7th July, but on the 12th
11:48:39 20 July a fresh invoice is issued to GRE, number 2068 and in which there is a fee
21 of 4,000 a month for the months of April, May, June and July and they are
22 looking for half of that from GRE, again consistent with Mr. Sweeney's version?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 400 And if you go to 4314? This is from Mr. Sweeney to Mr. Baker, Mr. Sweeney is
11:49:19 25 responding to the letter of the 7th July and the last paragraph there he says
26 he "is prepared to cancel invoice number 2064", that's where he looked for
27 25 -- where he looked for half of the 25,000 on account, and "reissue invoice
28 number 2068 at 4,000 per month for April, May June and July if you feel that
29 you should pay only on a monthly basis." So he is not saying that they didn't
11:49:49 30 make a payment on account, but he is saying well we made a payment on account,

www.pcr.ie Day 661
63
11:49:55 1 it's 4,000 a month and if you only want to pay us on that basis that's fine,
2 isn't that what is clear from that?
3 A. That's what that is saying, yes, or would appear to be saying I should stress.
4 Q. 401 It also says "Please note that Frank Dunlop & Associates were engaged from
11:50:12 5 April and requested that part of their payment would be up front before they
6 would take on the assignment that is the reason for the payment by us of 25,000
7 to date."
9 And again that's wholly consistent with Mr. Sweeney's evidence that what you
11:50:26 10 agreed was at least insofar as the up front payment, 25,000.
11 A. I agree, wholly consistent with Mr. Sweeney's construction of matters.
12 Q. 402 And again up to this point in time, can you think of any reason why Mr. Sweeney
13 would be suggesting this to GRE, did he offer any explanation?
14 A. No, I have no idea what the relationship between Mr. Sweeney or Monarch and GRE
11:50:56 15 was at the time or subsequently in relation to payments to anybody.
16 Q. 403 If it was, there was nothing wrong with Mr. Sweeney having agreed a fee of
17 25,000 with you, so again there would be nothing wrong with him saying I have
18 done a great deal with this Frank Dunlop, we could have him for two years and I
19 have agreed a fee of 25,000?
11:51:18 20 A. Nothing wrong.
21 Q. 404 Nothing wrong and if that was what was agreed, you'd expect Mr. Sweeney to have
22 said that to his joint venture partners?
24 Q. 405 Document 4861? Invoice to GRE dated 31st of August, so we have the fifth month
11:51:59 25 at 4,000 and they are looking for half of that?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 406 Can I ask the Tribunal to just put up 4392? That says "With reference to your
28 letter of the 2nd September and our meeting on the 27th September, I would
29 confirm our approval to the following additional costs. All of these costs are
11:52:59 30 in Irish pounds and will be payable 50/50" and then it sets out a number and

www.pcr.ie Day 661
64
11:53:04 1 the first on the list is Frank Dunlop "A retainer of 4,000 per month from April
2 to December 1993 inclusive plus a success fee of 50,000."
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 407 Now, that agreement to pay you a success fee as of the 28th September 1993 is
11:53:25 5 prior to you saying that you asked for it of Monarch, which was after the vote
6 on the 9th or 11th of November of 1993?
7 A. I issued an invoice, yes.
8 Q. 408 No sorry we know you issued an invoice but the invoice was issued you say at
9 the request of either Mr. Sweeney or Mr. Glennane, put it in and see how you
11:53:47 10 get on.
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. 409 So there is a degree of prescience on the part of Mr. Baker in London in
13 September of 1993, because not only is he anticipating your success fee invoice
14 in December of 1993, but he is anticipating that after the vote in November of
11:54:11 15 1993 you are going to ask for it and you are going to ask for it in an amount
16 of 50,000?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. 410 Pretty impressive.
19 A. Very.
11:54:20 20 Q. 411 On Mr. Baker's part.
21 A. Very.
22 Q. 412 Now the letter, two things that's referred to in the first paragraph of that a
23 letter of the 2nd of September and our meeting on the 27th of September, if you
24 accept from me at the moment that there is nothing in Mr. Sweeney's letter of
11:54:41 25 the 2nd of September referring to a success fee, that it can only have been
26 discussed between them on the 27th of September?
27 A. I accept that, Mr. Shipsey.
28 Q. 413 And Mr. Sweeney's evidence in relation to this will be that subsequent to your
29 discussion back in March, he was informed by Mr. Monahan that a success fee in
11:55:08 30 an amount of 50,000 pounds had been agreed by Mr. Monahan with you?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
65
11:55:12 1 A. No, I never discussed such an amount with Mr. Monahan.
2 Q. 414 It's certainly the case that you never discussed a success fee with Mr. Sweeney
3 prior to November of 1993, according to your evidence?
4 A. Yes.
11:55:27 5 Q. 415 And therefore, for Mr. Sweeney to have that information he must have got it
6 from somebody else, not you, he says Mr. Monahan, but it really can't be
7 Mr. Monahan because you never had that discussion with him?
8 A. No I never had any discussion with Mr. Monahan in relation to fees, success
9 fees or otherwise.
11:55:46 10 Q. 416 Well again when we are looking for straws in the wind as to who is telling the
11 truth about whether there had been a discussion back in March about a success
12 fee and Mr. Sweeney says there was, you say that there wasn't and that it only
13 arose after the vote in November, this letter evidencing a discussion about a
14 success fee of 50,000 in September would suggest that Mr. Sweeney is right and
11:56:21 15 you are wrong?
17 Q. 417 And can I just ask you in relation to success fees, I'm not saying it's unheard
18 of in the legal world, obviously we operate in more on a what are called briefs
19 and refreshers as you know, but in terms of a success fee, would it not be more
11:56:47 20 usual than unusual that if you are looking for agreement in relation to a
21 success fee that you would ask the person who you are hopeful of getting
22 agreement to pay that success fee to agree it prior to you actually carrying
23 out that which will give rise to the success fee?
11:57:21 25 Q. 418 It's a bit like the horse bolting the stable, in other words once the horse is
26 gone it's a little bit late to be looking for a success fee.
27 A. It's a bit late to catch him, yes.
28 Q. 419 And whatever hold you have over the horse or the client for the success fee,
29 you are far better getting agreement in relation to it before you have done
11:57:42 30 your magic or succeeded in getting what the client wants, than afterwards?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
66
11:57:47 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 420 I have to suggest to you it makes no sense or at least very little sense to
3 suggest that you would look for a success fee after the event?
4 A. No, I don't think it does make normal sense but then nothing is normal in the
11:58:08 5 context of the way I and some of my clients were operating.
6 Q. 421 Yes, but you see in terms of you Frank Dunlop wanting a success fee and your
7 evidence is you didn't get it, your evidence is --
8 A. Oh no, let me be absolutely categoric, I did not get it. A success fee.
9 Q. 422 No sorry your evidence is that you did not get it?
11:58:33 10 A. Correct, I thought you suggested that I mean I had -- I did not get a success
11 fee.
12 Q. 423 No I think unless my diction is very imprecise it's --
13 A. Well just for clarity yes.
14 Q. 424 Your evidence is you did not get a success fee?
11:58:49 15 A. Corrects, correct.
16 Q. 425 And what I want to suggest to you is that firstly when you put in your request
17 or you had your discussion for it, I take it you raised it with Mr. Sweeney or
18 Mr. Glennane?
19 A. Yes.
11:59:07 20 Q. 426 After, I forget whether it was the 9th of November, after the vote?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. 427 So this is your initiative, nobody in Monarch is coming to say great job Frank,
23 50 grand is on it's way to you?
24 A. Correct.
11:59:19 25 Q. 428 You went and said Mr. Sweeney or Mr. Glennane, "I done a great job, I'd like
26 you to pay 50,000."
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 429 And your evidence is that they said "Bang an invoice in and we'll see what
29 we'll do for you."
11:59:38 30 A. See how far you'll get.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
67
11:59:40 1 Q. 430 Yes. You see I have to suggest to you, Mr. Dunlop, that that is so unlikely
2 and implausible, almost to be farcical?
3 A. Many things are farcical, Mr. Shipsey.
4 Q. 431 But I am suggesting to you that this is and I want to know whether you agree
12:00:10 5 with me that that's a farcical, if not fanciful suggestion?
6 A. No, I don't agree.
7 Q. 432 Did you meet with the GRE people at any stage?
8 A. Never.
9 Q. 433 Can I ask for 4587, here we have your telephone book, if you just go down to
12:01:11 10 2.07 it's a call from Richard Lynn, isn't that right?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. 434 "Monarch would Frank Dunlop be available for a meeting tomorrow with Anthony
13 Pathfield a director of GRE in Royal Dublin at 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock." Then
14 something "will confirm 12 o'clock with Richard Lynn when he calls back this
12:01:28 15 afternoon."
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. 435 That's obviously an instruction that you gave. Then at 3.45 Richard Lynn comes
18 back and he, it is confirmed with him that a meeting for 12 o'clock in the
19 Royal Dublin tomorrow.
12:01:40 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 436 And did that meeting take place?
22 A. I have no recollection of ever meeting Mr. Pathfield or Mr -- Pathfield, yes.
23 Q. 437 I might be able to assist you in that regard, if you go to your diary which is
24 4589? If you look at the 14th of October at 12 o'clock.
12:02:25 25 A. Mm-hmm.
26 Q. 438 And there is something crossed out which I think is Richard Lynn and Royal
27 Dublin and then M Green, Frank Fagan or something.
28 A. You've lost me .
29 Q. 439 Frank Fagan?
12:02:39 30 A. 12 o'clock, yes something is crossed out -- oh, yes sorry I beg your pardon

www.pcr.ie Day 661
68
12:02:44 1 yes.
2 Q. 440 And then E Sweeney above it.
3 A. E Sweeney yes, circled yes.
4 Q. 441 And then sorry lunch I don't know whether you had lunch with M Green, Jack
12:02:58 5 Fagan or whether you crossed out the meeting with Mr. Lynn in the Royal Dublin
6 and slotted in Mr. Green and Mr. Fagan instead?
7 A. I suggest that that is the explanation, Mr. Green represented a client and the
8 name, the other name refers to a journalist.
9 Q. 442 So when you cross something out that suggests you have cancelled the meeting
12:03:21 10 and put something else in instead?
11 A. Well if I could just suggest to you while you are staying on that, Mr. Shipsey,
12 if you look it's 12 o'clock and whatever is there is crossed out, E Sweeney is
13 circled and there is an arrow coming from circle on E Sweeney down to where the
14 cancellation takes place, do you see that?
12:03:40 15 Q. 443 Yes.
16 A. And then Michael Green and Jack Fagan are included afterwards, but the logic
17 would appear to be that I met Michael Green and Jack Fagan in or around 12
18 o'clock instead of whatever it was referred to in the crossed out section.
19 Q. 444 Can I ask the Tribunal to go to 4633? Now, this also comes from the Monarch
12:04:07 20 discovery, I want you to perhaps maybe look at this and see do you recognise
21 the type face on this invoice?
22 A. Yes, I think that's the type face out of my office.
23 Q. 445 It has an invoice number on it and it says "For the provision of media and
24 communications training for 1993/94."
12:04:33 25 A. Yes yes.
26 Q. 446 15,000. What media and communications training did you provide for Monarch?
27 A. None.
28 Q. 447 None. And can you just explain then why you described it in this manner?
29 A. Obviously by agreement with Monarch for the payment of, or for an invoice of
12:04:50 30 15,000 and for the VAT exemptions.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
69
12:04:52 1 Q. 448 Yes. So you are looking for a payment of 15,000 and you want it zero rated for
2 VAT and you describe it in that manner?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. 449 Are you suggesting that that description there was requested by Monarch?
12:05:11 5 A. No no I am not suggesting who requested it, I am suggesting to issue an invoice
6 of that nature in that format, it would have been discussed in advance and
7 agreed.
8 Q. 450 It would have or it was?
9 A. I am not suggesting that Monarch suggested it, I am not making that suggestion
12:05:27 10 at all.
11 Q. 451 No but what possible benefit would there be for Monarch, I mean Monarch is
12 registered for VAT, VAT is neutral, there might be a cashflow implication but
13 it matters not a wit to Monarch whether they are charging that because they
14 will be able to recover it, isn't that right?
12:05:44 15 A. Correct.
16 Q. 452 So the only person that benefits here in relation to a payment of 15,000 is
17 Frank Dunlop & Associates?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. 453 So to suggest that it was discussed and agreed with Monarch I suggest to you is
12:05:56 20 a nonsense, this is?
21 A. No it's not.
22 Q. 454 This is an invoice generated by Frank Dunlop & Associates for the benefit of
23 Frank Dunlop.
24 A. Well the first question as you referred to earlier on, an hour ago, some body in
12:06:10 25 the accounts department of Monarch could immediately ask why this was VAT
26 exempt if an invoice came unsolicited without any pre knowledge.
27 Q. 455 So the onus would be on Monarch --
28 A. No it would be a joint onus, maybe an agreement in advance.
29 Q. 456 And who did you have that agreement with?
12:06:31 30 A. The only person I ever discussed fees with were Mr. Sweeney.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
70
12:06:35 1 Q. 457 So we can assume therefore that you met with Mr. Sweeney on or about the 2nd of
2 November 1993 and had such a discussion?
3 A. Or before the 2nd of November 1993.
4 Q. 458 On or before?
12:06:48 5 A. On or before or by telephone.
6 Q. 459 And you are saying that you and Mr. Sweeney agreed that you would invoice for
7 media and communications training for 1993?
8 A. No what I am suggesting, Mr. Shipsey, is quite simple that for me to issue an
9 invoice of that nature, VAT exempted unforewarned to somebody like a company
12:07:08 10 like Monarch, they could, they would legitimately come back and say why is this
11 not VAT inclusive or why is VAT not included.
12 Q. 460 We know they could but I am talking about what agreement you allege or
13 discussion you allege having with Mr. Sweeney?
14 A. No I am not alleging any -- all I am saying is that to issue an invoice of that
12:07:33 15 nature without VAT, without any pre notification that an invoice was going to
16 issue without VAT would be extraordinary, it would be the subject of a
17 discussion in advance because logically people would come back and say why is
18 this invoice not VAT inclusive.
19 Q. 461 I don't necessarily follow your logic there?
12:07:54 20 A. No, we are sticking with logic, Mr. Shipsey, we are been at it all morning, so
21 if we stick with logic that is a logical explanation.
22 Q. 462 Yeah. But are you saying or not saying that you had a discussion?
23 A. No I am not saying.
24 Q. 463 You are saying you must have had a discussion because of your invoice?
12:08:09 25 A. Correct.
26 Q. 464 I suggest to you Mr. Sweeney's evidence will be that there was no discussion in
27 relation to description of an invoice or having you describe it in such a
28 manner?
29 A. That is will be Mr. Sweeney's evidence.
12:08:27 30 Q. 465 I will to come on then to the two invoices in December of 1993, both with the

www.pcr.ie Day 661
71
12:08:37 1 same number and in different amounts. One is, in fact the four -- if you put
2 up 4845 along side 5697. Why are these two invoices, Mr. Dunlop, same day,
3 same invoice number but different amounts?
4 A. That I cannot tell you, Mr. Shipsey, I'd like to be able to tell you but
12:09:37 5 obviously if we are going to stick with logic and if my recollection is
6 correct -- sorry I cannot, I cannot tell you why the two invoices have the same
7 number issued on the same day, in different amounts, but only one of them was
8 paid.
12:10:09 10 Now, the one that was sent I cannot absolutely attest to this but I suspect the
11 one that was sent, actually sent, was the one on the left, the one on the right
12 appears to me to be a copy.
13 Q. 466 But not of the one that was sent?
14 A. Not of the one that was sent, no no sorry, I agree with that. But I cannot
12:10:40 15 give you an explanation as to, unless as there was a discussion in relation to
16 a fee note being issued and the one was prepared and it was agreed that there
17 would be changes, I cannot give you a rational logical explanation, I would
18 like to.
19 Q. 467 There isn't one really is there?
12:10:59 20 A. There is not, I mean as we look at the screen I cannot give it to you unless
21 some accountancy expert can come along and say why it was done in that fashion.
22 Q. 468 Mr. Dunlop, you issue your invoice for the success fee on the 14th December
23 1993.
24 A. Yes, I think that's correct, yes.
12:11:47 25 Q. 469 And some four days prior to that, if we can have 4832 up? Monarch are looking
26 for 50 per cent of that which you have not yet invoiced from GRE.
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 470 And again I would have to suggest to you that the only logical explanation and
29 what's referred to there is referring back to the discussions in September, is
12:12:16 30 that the success fee had been agreed by September with you and Monarch were

www.pcr.ie Day 661
72
12:12:22 1 looking for their joint venture partner now to pay half of that?
2 A. That would appear logical.
3 Q. 471 And that your invoice on the 14th December 1993 is really playing catch up with
4 what has already been agreed?
12:12:38 5 A. That again is logical.
6 Q. 472 And if you are right, Mr. Dunlop, there is a sum of 50,000 pounds plus VAT
7 outstanding on at least was outstanding until the statute ran out after six
8 years?
9 A. Correct.
12:13:08 10 Q. 473 And that's a 50,000 that having sent in the invoice you never sent a reminder
11 for.
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. 474 That you never chased up on the phone.
14 A. Correct.
12:13:21 15 Q. 475 And also that you never mentioned in the course of your earlier statements to
16 the Tribunal, you denied that there was ever a question as I understood, of a
17 success fee?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 476 Now that might have been partially true in terms of you getting paid, but it
12:13:46 20 couldn't have been true that to state that there was no question or no
21 discussion of a success fee?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 477 That was untrue, if you said that?
24 A. Correct, if I said that.
12:13:55 25 Q. 478 And why would you have said that, because you didn't remember it, because --
26 A. Well I certainly didn't get it. If I knew then what I know now.
27 Q. 479 But you knew you had your invoice of the 14th of December --
28 A. No if you knew then what I know now as to Monarch's modus operandi in relation
29 to getting the success fee from GRE I would certainly are followed it up.
12:14:25 30 Q. 480 Yeah well you see that is not the answer to the question?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
73
12:14:30 1 A. No but in my mind it is extremely relevant.
2 Q. 481 All right. Because what you are aggrieved about is A you putting a success fee
3 as you were questioned to do and these, forgive me, these ungrateful so and
4 so's in Monarch having achieved the great result for them, didn't pay it and
12:14:49 5 not only did they not pay it, but they recovered half of it from their joint
6 venture partners and didn't even pass that on to you, isn't that what you are
7 saying?
8 A. Correct, as we now know.
9 Q. 482 Yes. However you see if Mr. Sweeney is correct, again that it was 4,000 a
12:15:10 10 month and a success fee of 50,000, the 85,000 that you were ultimately paid is
11 there or thereabouts in relation to what is owed to you and Frank Dunlop or
12 Frank Dunlop & Associates could have no sense of grievance or no entitlement to
13 look for further payment or to whinge about not getting a success fee, isn't
14 that right?
12:15:38 15 A. Well I didn't whinge.
16 Q. 483 No but the reason you wouldn't whinge is that if you are paid 85,000 and the
17 agreement was that you got 4,000 a month for nine months, that comes to 36, and
18 you get a success fee of 50, and you add those together it's 86 and you are
19 paid 85, so you mightn't whinge over a grand?
12:15:59 20 A. Oh you wouldn't whinge over a grand.
21 Q. 484 No, so if Mr. Sweeney is correct, Monarch in fact paid all you were entitled to
22 and on top of that, were perfectly entitled to go to their joint venture
23 partner to say we have paid this great PR consultant Frank Dunlop who helped us
24 get this great success and along the lines of all the others we want 50 per
12:16:33 25 cent, that would follow wouldn't it?
26 A. It seems eminently logical as you put it, Mr. Shipsey.
27 Q. 485 It just according to your evidence, didn't happen that way, because you didn't
28 have that agreement or even request for a success fee prior to the vote and you
29 didn't get the payment of the success fee and you never did anything about it.
12:16:53 30 Now, I just want to know, you're a professional person, when you send out

www.pcr.ie Day 661
74
12:17:03 1 invoices, do you have a reminder system?
2 A. There are two types of invoices, Mr. Shipsey. One is on a monthly regular
3 basis, where they are automatically paid on a retainer monthly basis and then
4 there is the client who pays on the receipt of an invoice. If the, there is
12:17:27 5 any break down in the system in relation to the retainer system obviously there
6 would be a telephone call but if you stick with me in relation to the
7 retainers, you agree a fee with a client for five grand a month, ten grand a
8 month plus VAT, that goes out automatically on the last day of every month and
9 payment is received normally within a week or ten days.
12:17:51 10
11 There is the other client where you do a job for them and you agree a fee and
12 the fee is paid and the work is more than anticipated, you go back and you talk
13 about extra fees, you send out the invoices and if there is a delay you make a
14 telephone call and say where is the payment.
12:18:10 15 Q. 486 Now, the success fee falls into the second category?
16 A. Yes it does.
17 Q. 487 And I want to know is, what I want to know is, does, does Frank Dunlop &
18 Associates, or sorry did Frank Dunlop & Associates not have is system whereby
19 if that invoice isn't paid after a month or three months or whatever your
12:18:32 20 credit terms are, that you send out a reminder and you say this invoice is
21 outstanding because your accountants get it, and it stays there as a debt and I
22 am just wondering if you sent out the invoice why and you say you weren't paid,
23 why you never sent a reminder?
24 A. Well I have no recollection of sending a reminder, there is no evidence that I
12:19:02 25 sent a reminder and I would just posit it in the context of what was said to me
26 at the time of the invoice being sent it, send it in and see how far you get.
27 Q. 488 So presumably when somebody in your accounts department says to you Mr. Dunlop
28 Monarch owe us 50,000 for this unpaid invoice, you say don't worry about it
29 that's a wing and a prayer invoice, don't know if I'm going to get it, don't
12:19:38 30 worry about it, is that what you are saying?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
75
12:19:40 1 A. It could well be.
2 Q. 489 Mr. Dunlop I have to say, to suggest to you that this is completely untrue?
3 A. Well the invoice was sent.
4 Q. 490 I know but your evidence in relation to the circumstances surrounding the
12:19:58 5 success fee and not being concerned about it not being paid, it's completely
6 untrue?
7 A. Well again just to, for clarification, Mr. Shipsey, I sent out the invoice in
8 the circumstances that I did, I am quite straightforwardly said to you I have
9 no recollection of sending a reminder, if somebody was to suggest to you or
12:20:19 10 produce a piece of paper that I sent them a reminder fine, I will gradually
11 accept that is correct, I have no recollection of doing so, and I have no
12 recollection of anybody in Monarch ever saying to me you are not going to get
13 paid.
14
12:20:33 15 I have no recollection of having any discussion in relation to whether or not I
16 was going to get paid, I have the documentary proof that the invoice was sent
17 and we now have the documentary evidence in relation to what happened
18 subsequent to that in relation to the GRE and Monarch.
19 Q. 491 Yes.
12:20:49 20 A. But I, in relation to what actually occurred, I cannot say to you that I have a
21 recollection of sending out a reminder or that I had discussions saying where
22 is the 50 grand. I accept in ease of your argument, I accept that if you sent
23 out an invoice for 50,000, based on success, which was a success and Monarch
24 were pleased with the success, that not to follow it up would appear illogical,
12:21:27 25 but the only explanation I can give you is in the context of the conversation I
26 had with either Mr. Sweeney or Mr. Glennane in relation to sending the invoice,
27 send it in and see how far you get, so I obviously didn't get very far.
28 Q. 492 Now insofar as that success fee or those discussions are concerned you never
29 said anything in your private discussions with the Tribunal about that?
12:21:52 30 A. No.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
76
12:21:52 1 Q. 493 That's something you either recollected or the first time in the witness box or
2 as I would suggest, made up for the first time in the witness box?
3 A. No because they have documentary evidence of the sending of the invoice.
4 Q. 494 Oh no but that doesn't tell you whether you had that discussion about sending
12:22:10 5 it and anything like that?
6 A. Sorry I do beg your pardon. No I recollected that that was a discussion. I
7 cannot say to you with whom exactly that discussion took place, but it was with
8 an officer of Monarch, either Mr. Sweeney or Mr. Glennane.
9 Q. 495 But in the course of your very extensive private interviews with the Tribunal
12:22:28 10 where you are asked for to say that you are asked for chapter and verse is to
11 do chapter and verse a disservice Mr. Dunlop. You never mentioned this at all,
12 I would have to suggest to you is both extraordinary and incredible?
13 A. No.
14 Q. 496 Now finally or penultimately, Mr. Dunlop, in relation to the words or words to
12:23:02 15 the effect that you took an interpretation out of that are at the core of this
16 module, because if they weren't said the edifice crumbles, if some words were
17 said and they have an innocent explanation the edifice similarly crumbles, you
18 can't but be unaware of the significance of that portion of your evidence in
19 relation to what Mr. Sweeney is alleged to have stated to you and which he
12:23:46 20 denies?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 497 And your realisation of the significance of that is not hitting you like a bolt
23 from the blue here today or last week?
24 A. No.
12:24:02 25 Q. 498 Because what I might describe as the betrayal of Monarch with an asterisk was
26 based upon what Mr. Sweeney said in his first meeting to you?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 499 And therefore I'd like to know why in October of 2000 having as I have perhaps
29 to colourfully characterised it as betrayed Monarch with an asterisk you are
12:24:43 30 asked to explain this, and you do send in something in writing, you make no

www.pcr.ie Day 661
77
12:24:52 1 mention whatsoever of Mr. Sweeney having said or said anything to the effect
2 along the lines of the evidence that you are now giving?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. 500 Sorry we know it's correct because we have the documents, why is that,
12:25:12 5 Mr. Dunlop, why knowing the significance of what Mr. Sweeney is alleged to have
6 said or the effect of what Mr. Sweeney is alleged to have said, when you are
7 asked to say why it is that Monarch are a corrupt partner of yours in securing
8 a rezoning of their lands at Cherrywood, you put this down in writing, the one
9 thing you don't say is Eddie Sweeney said do what you have to do during the
12:25:46 10 course of that meeting, why Mr. Dunlop?
11 A. Because, Mr. Shipsey, the Tribunal as you now know seek extensive narrative
12 statements in relation to the detail that were given in broad outline
13 initially, here in the witness box subsequently in a statement in October, on
14 the 9th October 2000 and subsequently again in relation to the module or
12:26:16 15 structure, they seek narrative statements in relation to details about
16 payments, with whom, who was met, the dates, what was said. These are all of
17 the details that are provided.
18 Q. 501 No, Mr. Dunlop, I don't profess to have anything like the understanding of the
19 workings of the Tribunal that you have?
12:26:34 20 A. No no -- I don't --
21 Q. 502 Just, Mr. Dunlop, in relation to the first statement that you make, in October
22 of 2000 you mention nothing about Mr. Sweeney?
23 A. Yes, correct.
24 Q. 503 And I am asking you for an explanation, I mean it's not a question of giving a
12:26:49 25 suggestion of it and then fleshing out the detail later. If you are correct,
26 Mr. Dunlop, if your interpretation of what Mr. Sweeney is alleged to have said
27 is correct, all you needed to tell the Tribunal in October 2000 was on the 8th
28 March 1993 I met their development director and he said to me, or words to the
29 effect "Do what you have to do" I understood that to mean that they understood
12:27:20 30 that I was going to bum politicians to use an inelegant phrase, full stop.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
78
12:27:28 1 That's all you needed to say, and my point, Mr. Dunlop, is when you are asked
2 to put it down in writing in October of 2000, the most important point, the
3 elephant in the room, Mr. Dunlop, is not identified by you, and I want to know
4 why that is?
12:27:49 5 A. Well I have given you an explanation in relation to the statements required by
6 the Tribunal in October 2000, sorry 9th of October 2000 and subsequently in
7 relation to requests from the Tribunal vis-a-vis individuals with whom I dealt,
8 in companies, among clients, conversations that took place, telephone calls
9 that took place, meetings that took place and what was said and done. In that
12:28:19 10 detail, that is the request of the Tribunal.
11 Q. 504 Mr. Dunlop, without being unfair to you, are you telling me and telling the
12 Tribunal you can't explain why you didn't mention Mr. Sweeney saying words or
13 words to the effect that you have now suggested?
14 A. No I'm not suggesting that I can't explain. What I am saying to you is the
12:28:41 15 progression that took place in relation to matters vis-a-vis the Tribunal. I
16 am in this witness box in May, April or May of 2000, identified that I had
17 received monies from various people, including Monarch. I was asked to make,
18 after the private sessions, I was asked to make a narrative statement, I made a
19 narrative statement, I was subsequently asked to make hundreds of narrative
12:29:11 20 statements, expansionary narrative statements in relation to all of the detail
21 that I have just suggested to you.
22 Q. 505 Mr. Dunlop, I am suggesting to you emphatically that the reason you didn't say
23 it when it was fresher in your mind at the time when you were first asked about
24 it, is because Mr. Sweeney did not say to you what you are now suggesting he
12:29:37 25 said, and that's the explanation, because back in 2000 you were insofar as your
26 recollection of what happened with Mr. Sweeney, telling the truth, and no such
27 discussion took place?
29 Q. 506 And then subsequently, Mr. Dunlop, because in the October 2000 statement you
12:30:03 30 only referred to Mr. Lynn having said anything, but subsequently in September

www.pcr.ie Day 661
79
12:30:12 1 of 2003 when you do your long narrative statement and I am not going to take
2 you through the details or the inconsistencies in relation to it and it's
3 detail, but at page 425 you say at the bottom of the first main paragraph:
12:30:42 5 "The only discussions with regard to payment to politicians was with
6 Mr. Sweeney who at my original meeting with him indicated that he knew that I
7 would have to make payments to councillors to achieve success. He said that he
8 knew that this was the only way that things could get done" and that was not in
9 your first statement, was in this statement and now in fact Mr. Dunlop, insofar
12:31:06 10 as your sworn evidence is concerned, you are not saying that Mr. Sweeney said
11 that to you, because earlier I read to you what you did say, which was words
12 that were open to the implication, whereas what you told the Tribunal in
13 September 2003 was that he indicated that he knew that I would have to make
14 payments to councillors to achieve success.
12:31:31 15
16 And you are certainly resiling from any implication from what you said in
17 September 2003, that Mr. Sweeney said that?
18 A. I have told you what, I have given evidence to the effect of what Mr. Sweeney
19 said and my interpretation of it.
12:31:50 20 Q. 507 Yes. And that is not consistent with what you told the Tribunal in September
21 2003?
22 A. Well I don't accept that, but --
23 Q. 508 And we can, because when you are speaking to the Tribunal, be it in October of
24 2000 or September of 2003, you are not under oath, isn't that right, you are in
12:32:20 25 to provide assistance to them, I am not sure whether you are actually sworn at
26 this stage?
27 A. Is this in private session?
28 Q. 509 Yes.
29 CHAIRMAN: Well he was not speaking to the Tribunal in October or September.
12:32:33 30

www.pcr.ie Day 661
80
12:32:33 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: He is making a statement.
2 Q. 510 MR. SHIPSEY: Sorry, this, my mistake, but this statement is not a sworn
3 statement?
4 A. This is a narrative statement submitted to the Tribunal.
12:32:44 5 Q. 511 But it's not an affidavit, it's not sworn?
6 A. No it's not.
7 Q. 512 And therefore we can take it that when you are here now, having put your hand
8 on the Bible and sworn to tell the truth to this Tribunal, that what you are
9 saying now is true and insofar as it is inconsistent with what you said in a
12:33:03 10 statement in September 2003, that should be ignored?
11 A. I am saying there is consistency in relation to my relationship with
12 Mr. Sweeney of Monarch, on foot of meeting that I had with them and the
13 statement that was made, that to me is consistent.
14 Q. 513 And I am putting maybe a hypothetical, if it's inconsistent, if it is
12:33:25 15 inconsistent, Mr. Dunlop, it is your sworn statement that you wish the Tribunal
16 to accept and not anything you have said in an unsworn statement?
17 A. Hypothetically, yes.
18 Q. 514 Thank you Mr. Dunlop.
19
12:33:38 20 CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you Mr. Shipsey. Just before we go any further
21 there are a couple of matters which I want to comment upon lest it be taken
22 that silence on the part of the Tribunal might be interpreted as agreement by
23 the Tribunal that certain, that two particular contentions put by Mr. Shipsey
24 are accurate.
12:34:06 25
26 Firstly, early in Mr. Shipsey's cross-examination of Mr. Dunlop and I think to
27 some extent more recently, he asked a question of Mr. Dunlop which in part
28 appeared to suggest that in the event of the Tribunal rejecting Mr. Dunlop's
29 evidence to the effect that in his view, that's Mr. Dunlop's view, Mr. Sweeney
12:34:30 30 knew of the practice and necessity of bribing councillors, that it would follow

www.pcr.ie Day 661
81
12:34:35 1 that there could then be no adverse finding against Mr. Sweeney and/or Monarch.
3 While this contention can of course be properly made by way of a submission to
4 the Tribunal, it should be borne in mind that it does not necessarily follow
12:34:53 5 that any finding involving Mr. Sweeney or Monarch will depend on the acceptance
6 or rejection of Mr. Dunlop's evidence solely. In due course the Tribunal will
7 consider all the evidence, both that given to date and yet to be given before
8 making any findings involving those parties or any other parties.
12:35:15 10 Secondly, insofar as Mr. Shipsey has suggested, as I think he did, that the
11 placing of an asterisk by Mr. Dunlop opposite the name of Monarch was the only
12 determinant in the Tribunal's decision to publicly investigate this module was
13 not entirely or necessarily accurate. Other factors and evidence other than
14 that of Mr. Dunlop, contributed to the decision to conduct this particular
12:35:44 15 module, as has been stated often a number of occasions by the Tribunal, a
16 decision to investigate any particular issue is not dependant on an allegation
17 of wrongdoing being made either in advance of or during the investigation.
18
19 Just to clarify that. All right? That concludes Mr. Dunlop's
12:36:05 20 cross-examination for today.
21
22 MS. DILLON: That's correct I hope possibly by the close of business, we might
23 have agreed a date for the conclusion of Mr. Dunlop's cross-examination.
24
12:36:14 25 CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you Mr. Dunlop.
26
27 THE WITNESS WITHDREW.
28
29 MR. QUINN: Mr. Edward Sweeney.
12:36:34 30

www.pcr.ie Day 661
82
12:36:34 1 EDWARD SWEENEY, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS EXAMINED AS FOLLOWS.
2 QUESTIONED AS FOLLOWS BY MR. QUINN:
4 CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon Mr. Sweeney?
12:37:27 5 A. Afternoon.
6 Q. 515 MR. QUINN: Good afternoon Mr. Sweeney?
8 Q. 516 Mr. Sweeney my name is Pat Quinn and I am counsel with the Tribunal and I will
9 be taking you through your evidence, is that okay.
12:37:41 10
11 Mr. Sweeney your involvement with the Tribunal to date I think includes
12 attending for interview with the Tribunal legal team on the 13th of June 2000,
14 A. Yes.
12:37:55 15 Q. 517 And then I think you were written to and you provided a statement through your
16 solicitors at, which is to be found at page 2078, that was a statement provided
17 on the 19th June 2000, isn't that right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 518 And enclosed with that letter are 2079 I think was a list of political
12:38:21 20 contributions made by the Pavilion Leisure Complex Limited, is that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 519 And then I think there was further correspondence between the Tribunal and your
23 solicitor and particularly Mr. Sowman on the 22nd of April 2002 which is at
24 2085?
12:38:40 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 520 And you recall that letter and that was responded to by Mr. Sowman on the 7 May
27 2002 and that response is at 2087 and 2088, isn't that right? And then you
28 were again written to I think on the 16th of May 2002 and there was a further
29 correspondence from your solicitors on the 24th of May 2002 and that's to be
12:39:14 30 found at 2091 and 2092 of the brief. Then I think there were orders made

www.pcr.ie Day 661
83
12:39:20 1 against you, but in any event the correspondence culminated in a statement from
2 you Mr. Sweeney, which was received by the Tribunal on the 18th of February
3 2003 and that's at page number 2096 and succeeding pages and I think that that
4 statement ran to over a hundred pages, isn't that right?
12:39:40 5 A. Excuse me, am I supposed to be seeing these things.
6 Q. 521 Yes.
8 CHAIRMAN: There is a screen there beside you?
9 A. Yes, but I haven't been getting them.
12:39:49 10
11 CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. Sweeney is saying as you are mentioning documents they are
12 not coming up on the screen. So --
13 A. I have got that one now.
14
16 Q. 522 MR. QUINN: Sorry about that Mr. Sweeney. But yes for your assistance it's
17 intended that you should be able to read the documents I refer to.
18 A. As you say that.
19 Q. 523 As I call them?
12:40:13 20 A. Okay.
21 Q. 524 Now, I think that statement commences at 2097 by setting out a biographical
22 history with particular reference to your employment history, isn't that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 525 And since you are only available to the Tribunal I understand Mr. Sweeney this
12:40:34 25 week I don't intend to read the over a hundred pages of statement unless you
26 require me to do so, or your counsel requires me to do so, I will from time to
27 time refer to particular parts of the statement but unless you --
28 A. I have no objections to that.
29 Q. 526 If you or your counsel insist, I don't intend to. You were born in Scotland I
12:40:58 30 think Mr. Sweeney, isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
84
12:40:58 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 527 And I think you went to third level college and your academic record is to be
3 found at 2098 in that you qualified with a Scottish certificate of education in
4 1963 and you have set out there the fellowships with which you were associated,
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 528 And that's more or lesson a technical side on the quantity surveying Institute
8 of Chartered Surveyors.
9 A. Yes.
12:41:30 10 Q. 529 Profession.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 530 And then I think you went on in your statement to deal with your employment
13 history from your graduation in 1966, right through to the present day, isn't
14 that right and we can see that at 2099 and succeeding pages, isn't that right?
12:41:51 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 531 But suffice to say that prior to joining Monarch in 1974, you were employed
17 with a construction firm here in the city, isn't that right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 532 PJ Walls and company.
12:42:03 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 533 And I think you have told the Tribunal that you were effectively head hunted by
22 Mr. Monahan, is that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 534 And I think you have told the Tribunal that you had, if we look at 2111 that
12:42:17 25 you joined Monarch Properties Limited as a chief surveyor in May 1974, isn't
26 that right?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 535 And your employment ended I think in December 1996 and although the Tribunal
29 will not be going into it, it will be fair to say that the relationship between
12:42:35 30 yourself and Mr. Monahan and other members of the Monarch team broke down

www.pcr.ie Day 661
85
12:42:40 1 sometime in or about '95 or '96?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 536 Maybe even earlier I think would that be fair to say?
4 A. Yes.
12:42:48 5 Q. 537 I think you have advised the Tribunal as we see there , that your initial
6 function and position was under the supervision of the Chairman and managing
7 director Mr. Phillip Monahan and the financial director Mr. Dominic Glennane,
8 isn't that right?
9 A. Yes.
12:43:02 10 Q. 538 Now at 2132, you deal with your relationship, relative to the role of other
11 employees and members of the Monarch Group, isn't that right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 539 And I think you there tell the Tribunal that Mr. Monahan was the dominant force
14 behind the group and that Mr. Dominic Glennane, a chartered accountant, was the
12:43:27 15 financial director and you say that as chartered surveyor and, that you were
16 the chartered surveyor and the technical support director and generally worked
17 under the direction of both Mr. Monahan and Mr. Glennane, is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 540 And is that your evidence to the Tribunal that over the 22 year period you were
12:43:46 20 with the company, that you effectively worked to Mr. Glennane and Mr. Monahan?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 541 In other words, both Mr. Glennane and Mr. Monahan had seniority over you within
23 the company and could direct you as to what you did?
24 A. Yes.
12:44:02 25 Q. 542 Now, again on that page I think you go on to say that Mr. Monahan dealt with
26 the core development issues including site acquisition, isn't that right?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 543 You say that he was, had entrepreneurial aspects of these acquisitions
29 specifically in dealing with securing of development opportunities, is that
12:44:31 30 right?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
86
12:44:31 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 544 You say you dealt with all technical aspects of matters concerning development
3 and construction, is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
12:44:38 5 Q. 545 And I think at 2134 you set out more or less the position within the company as
6 of 1990, isn't that right? And we see there that Mr. Monahan is the Chairman
7 and managing director, he is entrepreneurial site acquisitions, isn't that
8 right? You see that grid produced by your solicitors. And the financial
9 director is Mr. Glennane and you are seen as the development director, would it
12:45:06 10 be fair to say that apart from the fact that you have told the Tribunal that
11 you would have worked to Mr. Monahan and Mr. Glennane, that it would appear
12 that other than yourself, there was no more senior person within Monarch that
13 is to say other than yourself, Mr. Monahan or Mr. Glennane?
14 A. Yes.
12:45:23 15 Q. 546 At 2135 I think you go on to say that from 1990 onwards Phillip Monahan
16 operated most of the time if an annex to his new home in Somerton, Castleknock,
17 where he set up a separate team of people including personal assistant, Ann
18 Gosling, John Sherwood, as well as two of Phillip Monahan's sons Colm and Paul,
19 is that correct?
12:45:51 20 A. That's correct from 1990.
21 Q. 547 That appears to be what the statement says Mr. Sweeney.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 548 So would you tell the Tribunal what the setup was in Somerton from 1990 onwards
24 and what was, what were the individual roles played by Mr. Monahan,
12:46:15 25 Mr. Sherwood and Ms. Gosling and both Phillip and Paul, sorry Colm and Paul
26 Monahan?
27 A. I don't think the setup in Monarch actually changed, just because Mr. Monahan
28 went to live in Somerton. He had set up an office there from 1990 but I am not
29 entirely clear when it actually functioned as a complete office, because he was
12:46:43 30 back and forward a lot in, while there was the lack of communication, that I

www.pcr.ie Day 661
87
12:46:52 1 have mentioned there, communications were still good, he did come in, he was on
2 the phone often and the communication between Mr. Monahan and Mr. Glennane and
3 myself really didn't change.
4 Q. 549 Yes. I am more concerned at this stage, Mr. Sweeney, with evidence that you
12:47:17 5 might be able to give the Tribunal concerning the setup in Somerton from 1990
6 forwards. You are I think dealing with Mr. Monahan's involvement with yourself
7 and Mr. Glennane in your offices in Harcourt Street I suspect, is that correct?
8 A. I don't quite understand that.
9 Q. 550 I understood, Mr. Sweeney, that the Monarch Group had offices in Harcourt
12:47:42 10 Street, is that correct?
11 A. Yes the Monarch Group was in Harcourt Street. Phil had moved out to Somerton
12 and had set up an office there, but the main office was still in Harcourt
13 Street.
14 Q. 551 But the office he set up in Somerton was an office staffed by himself,
12:48:04 15 Ms. Gosling, Mr. Sherwood and his two sons Colm and Paul Monahan, if what you
16 have said in this statement is correct?
17 A. Well let me put it into context. The office was run from Harcourt Street,
18 Mr. Monahan had moved to Somerton and his secretary also moved out with him.
19 John Sherwood that you mentioned was an assistant to Mr. Monahan, the two sons
12:48:43 20 were coming back and forward all the time, but I am not very clear at this
21 stage whether they had anything to do with the business.
22 Q. 552 Mr. Sweeney, what I have put to you and what's on the screen is a statement
23 that you have supplied to the Tribunal in 2003?
24 A. Yes.
12:49:02 25 Q. 553 Do you understand that. I am not putting to you hypothetical situation or
26 something I am dreaming up do you understand?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 554 And I take it when you prepare this comprehensive statement in 2003 you were
29 anxious to be of as much assistance as possible to the Tribunal, isn't that
12:49:21 30 right?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
88
12:49:21 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 555 And you were anxious to be truthful to the Tribunal, isn't that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 556 And in that statement we can see there it's on screen and I can get you a hard
12:49:29 5 copy if you wish you say the followings "At this time Philip Monahan" sorry
6 "Also from 1990 onwards Phillip Monahan operated most the time from an annex to
7 his new home in Somerton, Castleknock, where he set up a separate team of
8 people including his personal assistant Ann Gosling and John Sherwood, as well
9 as two of Phillip Monahan's sons, Colm and Paul."
12:49:50 10
11 Now would you agree with me Mr. Sweeney that any reasonable interpretation of
12 that statement would lead one to believe that there was a separate team of
13 people operating out of Somerton, headed up by Mr. Monahan and included, which
14 included his two sons Colm and Paul?
12:50:09 15 A. Well the answer is yes but you've got to take --
16 Q. 557 If I could just stop you there for a moment. Presumably that was the evidence
17 you wished to convey to the Tribunal in, or the information you wished to
18 convey to the Tribunal in 2003, isn't that right?
19
12:50:27 20 MR. SHIPSEY: Chairman he did say yes but and I'd just like --
21
22 CHAIRMAN: Perhaps it would shorten matters considerably if Mr. Sweeney was to
23 tell us the extent to which, if you want to, you want to qualify what was said
24 in that statement read out by Mr. Quinn, so if you want to give us some more
12:50:51 25 detail then we'll take that from you now.
26 A. Well Chairman I am a bit confused about what you do want. I have said --
27
28 CHAIRMAN: No, no it's just that if the impression given as Mr. Quinn has
29 indicated from the statement is that from around 1990, Mr. Phillip Monahan
12:51:10 30 effectively set up a separate office of his own, if you like, personal staff,

www.pcr.ie Day 661
89
12:51:15 1 which included his two sons, Ms. Gosling and Mr. Sherwood, now your evidence is
2 that the main office as it were, for the company, was in Harcourt Street, so we
3 just need to know some information as to what the different roles were of the
4 people in Somerton on the one hand and the people in Harcourt, were they
12:51:45 5 effectively separate operations or to what extent was there contact or
6 interaction between the two?
7 A. Okay. I can understand that a bit better now. What you have to do here is
8 split up what the different roles are for Monarch Properties Limited and what
9 Mr. Monahan's other businesses might have been. For example, he was involved
12:52:08 10 in vintage cars which had nothing to do with the property and various other
11 things, so John Sherwood assisted him on that, as did his sons. It had really
12 nothing to do with me in Monarch. I was concentrating on development and, it
13 was only in his role as Chief Executive and Chairman of the development company
14 that I was talking about.
12:52:35 15 Q. 558 So other than the business of acquiring vintage cars, what other business was
16 conducted by Mr. Monahan from Somerton?
17 A. Well that's a good question. Mr. Monahan was involved in now -- I don't like
18 to say everything, but he was. He was out there looking for business
19 opportunities, not only in property but in other things and that was his job
12:53:10 20 really, but he was the primary mover in Monarch.
21 Q. 559 When you say he was a prime mover in Monarch what do you mean by that
22 Mr. Sweeney?
23 A. He was the guy that got the jobs.
24 Q. 560 And I think your statement goes on to say Mr. Sweeney, again at 2135 and I can
12:53:33 25 give you now a hard copy of your statement it might be easier to follow, and if
26 you, on the top right hand corner you should see a numbering system and
27 Mr. Sweeney if I could direct your attention to page number 2135.
28 A. Yeah.
29 Q. 561 You say that "At this time Phillip Monahan also employed Richard Lynn whose
12:54:04 30 initial role in the company and his terms of employment were at first unclear

www.pcr.ie Day 661
90
12:54:08 1 to me. It later became clear that his role was as project coordinator for
2 various projects at first working directly for Mr. Phillip Monahan. What my
3 understanding as to what this entailed was the coordinating and interfacing of
4 projects with the relevant local authorities."
12:54:23 5
6 Now first of all, you were the third most senior person within the company,
7 isn't that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 562 Did you know that Mr. Monahan had a vacancy within the company for a project
12:54:37 10 coordinator with local authorities?
11 A. In advance of his employment?
12 Q. 563 In advance of Mr. Lynn's employment?
13 A. Not in advance of it.
14 Q. 564 Was --
12:54:47 15 A. Mr. Monahan didn't consult me on that.
16 Q. 565 So would it be fair to say that Mr. Lynn's appointment by Mr. Monahan came as a
17 surprise to you?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 566 Yes. And you say that his role within the company together with the terms of
12:55:05 20 his employment were at first, unclear to you. What did you mean to convey by
21 that Mr. Sweeney, to the Tribunal?
22 A. What I meant by that was that his role was unclear to me .
23 Q. 567 But you were the third most senior person within the company, isn't that right?
24 A. Yes.
12:55:23 25 Q. 568 Mr. Glennane was looking after the financial end of the company, isn't that
26 right?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 569 Mr. Monahan was the Chairman and apart from his entrepreneurial skills and his
29 skills in acquiring projects for the company, he from what I can gather from
12:55:39 30 your evidence took no greater interest in the day to day management of the

www.pcr.ie Day 661
91
12:55:44 1 company, isn't that right?
2 A. Sorry. Could you repeat the last bit.
3 Q. 570 It's a little convoluted I agree. Mr. Monahan's role, his day to day role was
4 that of acquiring and sourcing projects for the company?
12:55:56 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 571 But the day to day technical aspect of the company was under your control,
7 isn't that right, apart from the financial aspects?
8 A. Yeah in terms of projects, yes.
9 Q. 572 Yes. So if somebody was retained by Mr. Monahan as Mr. Lynn was, then it's
12:56:13 10 almost certain that he would be working to you, isn't that right?
11 A. Not necessarily. The process that happened in Monarch up until that time was
12 that anyone who was brought on to the technical team as I would call it, went
13 through a process of interview with myself and with other senior members of
14 staff and after that they joined the team. Mr. Lynn was an exception to that.
12:56:47 15 Q. 573 There was no vacancy, no interview and he was appointed by Mr. Monahan without
16 reference to you, the most senior technical person within the company?
17 A. There was no reference to me .
18 Q. 574 Yes. And even though he was employed by the company, his terms of employment
19 were unclear to you initially, isn't that right?
12:57:10 20 A. They were unknown to me .
21 Q. 575 There were unknown to you and his role within the company was also unknown to
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 576 And at some stage did Mr. Lynn's role become apparent to you?
12:57:24 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 577 And at what stage did Mr. Lynn's role become apparent to you?
27 A. Well it would have been sometime later.
28 Q. 578 When you say later, it was it weeks, months, years?
29 A. What year are we talking about again?
12:57:40 30 Q. 579 It would appear from your statement that we are talking about from 1990

www.pcr.ie Day 661
92
12:57:44 1 onwards?
2 A. Yeah well in 1990 I was based in The Square in Tallaght in a set of offices
3 there because I was responsibility for ultimately getting Tallaght finished on
4 time and on budget. And I believe that Mr. Lynn paralleled at that time with
12:58:09 5 Mr. Monahan and in what was then the Earlsfort Terrace office, now I was pretty
6 well tied up in this massive Square project, so the time that I would have
7 realised what Mr. Lynn was doing would have been subsequent to Tallaght and I
8 did recollect, I do recollect that he did work on legal things relating to
9 Tallaght in terms of leases, and at that time Cherrywood came into the frame
12:58:52 10 exactly when I just don't --
11 Q. 580 Yes. I think Cherrywood was aye acquired in June 1989?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 581 And I think Tallaght was being constructed in 1989 and was opened in October
12:59:08 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 582 When you talk about Mr. Lynn's terms of employment being unclear to you, are
17 you talking about that period or a period prior to that?
18 A. I am talking about that period.
19 Q. 583 Now, you say in your statement that he subsequently became a project
12:59:31 20 coordinator for various projects at first working directly for Phillip Monahan,
21 when you say at first working directly for Philip Monahan, do I understand by
22 that that he was reporting to Mr. Phillip Monahan?
23 A. Yeah, that would be more accurate.
24 Q. 584 And in what sense would he be reporting to Mr. Monahan?
12:59:48 25 A. As I recall he was reporting to him on a number of projects other than Tallaght
26 and other than Cherrywood.
27 Q. 585 So would it be fair to say that insofar as Tallaght and Cherrywood were
28 concerned Mr. Lynn was reporting to you and not Mr. Monahan directly?
29 A. At some point, exactly when I don't know, but at some point he did report to me
13:00:15 30 on Cherrywood.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
93
13:00:16 1
2 CHAIRMAN: It's now one o'clock, Mr. Quinn, so we'll adjourn until two
3 o'clock.
13:00:21 5 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED FOR LUNCH
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 661
94
13:00:34 1
3 THE TRIBUNAL RESUMED AS FOLLOWS AT 2:00 P.M.:
4 MR. QUINN: Mr. Sweeney.
14:06:13 5
6 CHAIRMAN: Now, good afternoon.
7 Good afternoon.
9 CHAIRMAN: If during the afternoon you want a break, we normally don't take a
14:06:37 10 break in the afternoon. But if you want a break, say so.
11 Okay. Thank you.
12
13 MR. QUINN: Thank you Mr. Sweeney.
14
14:06:44 15 Mr. Sweeney, before lunch we were talking about the terms of engagement of
16 Mr. Lynn by Mr. Monahan.
17
18 And if I could have 1384, the document coming on screen now, Mr. Sweeney, is
19 Mr. Lynn's statement to the Tribunal. And if I could just. It's a statement
14:07:02 20 dated 24th of April 2002. And just if you see the third paragraph there.
21
22 He says "I was engaged by MPSL", do you see that? "I was engaged by MPSL to
23 coordinate the team selected to the develop the Cherrywood site of 234 acres
24 which had been acquired by Monarch Properties in 1989." Now, prior to that he
14:07:25 25 had also said that he had actually applied to Monahan for the position.
26
27 Now, your recollection is, as I understand it, that Mr. Lynn was employed
28 directly by Mr. Monahan, without reference to you.
29 A. Yes.
14:07:44 30 Q. 586 If I could have 2135 please.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
95
14:07:50 1 I'm going back for a moment now to your statement, Mr. Sweeney. And at the
2 bottom of that page you say, "Mr. Lynn in his previous employment had been a
3 town Clerk, in Dundalk. And this background and his understanding of local
4 authority structures, were in my opinion, obviously key to his appointment by
14:08:10 5 Phil Monahan, as his brief extended to coordinating the dealings with local
6 authorities,s generally and specifically the Cherrywood project in Cabinteely,
7 for which Mr. Richard Lynn took on the role as project co-ordinator."
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 587 You had no vacancy for someone within the team, who would liaise with local
14:08:33 10 authority representatives; isn't that right?
11 A. I had no vacancy within the technical development team.
12 Q. 588 But for some reason, Mr. Monahan retained Mr. Lynn and it was your belief that
13 he retained him because of Mr. Lynn's experience as a local authority employee;
14 is that right?
14:08:58 15 A. Well it was certainly I think part of it.
16 Q. 589 Now, just in relation to Mr. Monahan himself, I think you have earlier given
17 evidence that Mr. Monahan was the entrepreneur and the and the Chairman within
18 the group; isn't that right?
19 A. Yes.
14:09:18 20 Q. 590 Were there instances when Mr. Monahan himself spearheaded his own projects and
21 did his own thing, separate from the group?
22 A. Within development, very rarely, but out with development, he had a lot of
23 different interests.
24 Q. 591 Yes. But were there instances of Mr. Monahan spearheading developments
14:09:41 25 without consultations with the other directors?
26 A. May I ask. Am I referring to this again?
27 Q. 592 No, I'm asking you to give evidence, Mr. Sweeney.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: I think it's just a general question.
14:09:58 30 A. Well, I can't pinpoint anything like that.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
96
14:10:03 1
3 Q. 593 MR. QUINN: You think that that would be an unfair criticism of Mr. Monahan?
4 A. Well certainly I wouldn't think it would be a fair criticism at all.
14:10:11 5 Q. 594 Yes. And you would say that there weren't separate instances where
6 Mr. Monahan might have spearheaded developments without consulting his fellow
7 directors?
8 A. Mr. Chairman, I have difficulty with this word "spearheaded".
14:10:25 10 Q. 595 CHAIRMAN: Well I suppose, did he go off on frolics of his own in the business
11 world, without necessarily, initially, bringing with him his directors and
12 others -- did he do things on his own, unannounced, in relation to property
13 development and so on? Would he arrive in, for example into work and say I've
14 just bought, I've just agreed to buy some property here, there, or wherever?
14:10:58 15 A. The answer to that Chairman, is yes. Very, very often he would be quiet for a
16 while and then suddenly you'd find something on your desk, that he had done.
17 And if that's what you mean by spearheading, certainly.
18 Q. 596 MR. QUINN: If I could have 8079.
19 Mr. Sweeney, what I'm putting up on screen is an extract from an affidavit
14:11:22 20 sworn by you, in your proceedings, against Monarch. Do you understand?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 597 And would you look at paragraph 20 of the affidavit that you swore.
23
24 This is your second affidavit. And you say "I think that in view of the
14:11:36 25 attack which Mr. Monahan has made upon my role as a director of the group, I
26 should point out that several instances where Mr. Monahan has spearheaded
27 developments, without consulting his fellow directors, or against our advice,
28 having caused serious difficulties."
29 A. Well I can understand --
14:11:54 30 Q. 598 So what I'm putting to you, Mr. Sweeney, are your own sworn statements to the

www.pcr.ie Day 661
97
14:11:59 1 High Court.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 599 To the High Court. Do you understand?
4 A. Yes.
14:12:02 5 Q. 600 And I've difficulty -- I've difficulty understanding how you have difficulty in
6 confirming that to be the case.
7 A. Yes. Well it all goes down to this word "spearheaded". What you meant by it
8 and what I would mean by it. What you're talking about here are two
9 developments that have already been on the Monarch portfolio, for a
14:12:27 10 considerable length of time. And by spearheading, in these instances, I mean
11 that he went on his own to get planning permission. That was without
12 consultation to his own in-house experts.
13 Q. 601 MR. QUINN: Mr. Sweeney, was there a difficulty of communication within the
14 Monarch Group? Was it the case that Mr. Monahan of his own volition did things
14:13:02 15 independently of the other directors?
16 A. Certainly Mr. Monahan did things independently. And I regarded -- I do regard
17 that, in retrospect, as being one of his strong points. That when he did go
18 for something, he went for it. And then he brought it back to the office to
19 us, to sort it out for him.
14:13:29 20 Q. 602 Mr. Sweeney, was Mr. Monahan surrounded in the Somerton by his own advisors,
21 independent of the group?
22 A. Well, he certainly had advisors in Somerton.
23 Q. 603 Yes?
24 A. He wasn't surrounded by them.
14:13:51 25 Q. 604 Okay. Who were his advisors in Somerton?
26 A. Well, within the Monarch organisation, they would have been John Sherwood. It
27 would have been Ann Gosling, and that's it.
28 Q. 605 Could I have 2138. Again, Mr. Sweeney, I'm putting up on screen extracts from
29 your own statement. Do you understand?
14:14:16 30

www.pcr.ie Day 661
98
14:14:16 1 And you give is there a schedule of Somerton. Do you see that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 606 And you see you identify Mr. Monahan underneath Mr. Monahan we have John
4 Sherwood, personal assistant. Underneath Mr. Sherwood you have entered for
14:14:31 5 personal assistant Ms. Gosling and then you put in Colm Monaghan and Paul
6 Monahan?
7 A. They were both his sons. They had both a very junior role.
8 Q. 607 And you've already told us that they were involved in Somerton from the 1990s
9 forward; isn't that right?
14:14:46 10 A. Well they were living in the house.
11 Q. 608 I was putting to you, Mr. Sweeney, what you yourself had told the Tribunal in
12 your statement, do you understand?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 609 I don't want to be unfair to you.
14:14:57 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 610 I can bring back up that portion of your statement where you dealt with his
17 team.
18 A. I don't think in Chairman we're in conflict here at all. I just reckoned that
19 those two guys were young and inexperienced at that time .
14:15:10 20 Q. 611 And was he visited in Somerton by very close associates?
21 A. Well when you say surrounded by experts. He did have a number of auctioneers,
22 valuers, who came .
23 Q. 612 Yes. And did you identify in your statement to the Tribunal a Mr. Jack Whelan
24 and a Mr. Richard Lynn, as numbering among those close associates in Somerton?
14:15:37 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 613 And you said in your statement I think that they spent much of their time at
27 his offices in Somerton, isn't that right?
28 A. If I did, I did, yes. They certainly spent a lot of time there.
29 Q. 614 You went on to say that while these people would not have been regarded as
14:15:54 30 being advisors to the Monarch Group. They would not in my opinion have gone

www.pcr.ie Day 661
99
14:15:58 1 through the normal strict interview process of Monarch. Rather their
2 appointment, renumeration and job specifications, would have been made by
3 Mr. Philip Monahan personally. Isn't that right?
4 A. Yes.
14:16:08 5 Q. 615 And you say that you would from time to time be summoned to meetings by
6 Mr. Monahan to Somerton. Is that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 616 Now, can I ask you about Mr. Jack Whelan. Who was Mr. Whelan?
9 A. Jack Whelan was an agent. An agent being a property agent, who brought
14:16:29 10 opportunities to various people, including Mr. Monahan.
11 Q. 617 Can we have 8574. Do you know of any of the projects that Mr. Whelan was
12 involved in with the Monarch Group?
13 A. I can think offhand of two. One of them was Prague.
14 Q. 618 Yes.
14:16:54 15 A. He was deeply involved in that.
16 Q. 619 We'll be getting to Prague later.
17 A. Okay. The other one was one he interfaced very directly with me. And that
18 was the possible take over, or purchase, of a number of supermarkets/shopping
19 centres in Spain, which had been owned by a French company and were trying to
14:17:30 20 get out of it, I visited those in Spain.
21 Q. 620 When was that, Mr. Sweeney?
22 A. When?
23 Q. 621 When, yeah.
24 A. Oh, when was the last World Cup? It was the same day that Ireland beat Italy
14:17:45 25 one nil, in New York.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: That was a long time ago.
28 Q. 622 MR. QUINN: 1994 I think.
29 A. That was 1994.
14:17:52 30 Q. 623 You were the project Manager of the Cherrywood site; isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
100
14:17:55 1 A. Well, no. I would say that the term "project manager" really only came into
2 it when a site developed to the point of having planning and construction
3 happening. I would have been the director in charge.
4 Q. 624 The most senior person in charge, after Mr. Monahan and Mr. Glennane?
14:18:20 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 625 In respect of the Cherrywood site?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 626 So almost anything that went on in relation to the Cherrywood site, something
9 that would have been known, or ought to have been known, by you; isn't that
14:18:32 10 right?
11 A. Yes, I certainly ought to have known it.
12 Q. 627 On screen, Mr. Sweeney, is an invoice dated the 16th of April 1991. Headed
13 Whelan land use specialists. And it's a fee in respect of services in
14 relation to residential consultancy at Cherrywood, for 150,000 plus VAT of
14:18:53 15 30,000. Do you see that?
16 A. Was that in the brief?
17 Q. 628 Yes. Now, I wonder could you tell the Tribunal, as the most -- third most
18 senior person within Monarch, what services were provided by Mr. Whelan, that
19 entitled him to command a fee, in 1991 of 180, 000 pounds?
14:19:15 20 A. I have absolutely no idea.
21 Q. 629 Who within the Monarch Group would be able to answer that question,
22 Mr. Sweeney, in your view?
23 A. Well, I would presume if it was an invoice it would be presented to the
24 accounts and I would have suggested that the accounts personnel would have a
14:19:47 25 view on that.
26 Q. 630 And who would be in charge of the accounts personnel?
27 A. Mr. Glennane.
28 Q. 631 Is it conceivable, Mr. Sweeney, that in relation to the Cherrywood project,
29 that there would be a -- an agent retained by Monarch, who could carry out
14:20:07 30 services to the tune of 180, 000 pounds and you wouldn't be aware of his

www.pcr.ie Day 661
101
14:20:12 1 existence, or to what those expenses related?
2 A. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I've just recalled another instance of Mr. Whelan.
3 And that was that at some point he introduced a housing development company
4 called --
14:20:27 5 Q. 632 Dwyer Nolan?
6 A. Dwyer Nolan.
7 Q. 633 Yes, we'll come to those in a moment. If we could just concentrate on this
8 invoice for 1991, Mr. Sweeney?
9 A. Yes.
14:20:38 10 Q. 634 And I want you to help the Tribunal in understanding how a company could be
11 retained to provide 180, 000 pounds worth of services, without any reference to
12 you, either in their retention by someone within Monarch, or indeed in relation
13 to the works which they would have done.
14 A. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have to say I know nothing about this invoice. It would
14:21:12 15 have upset me had I seen it at the time. And it would have doubly upset me if
16 I knew that it had been paid without me knowing.
17 Q. 635 Now, I can't tell you that it was paid, Mr. Sweeney. And in fact, the paper
18 trail would seem to suggest that it wasn't paid.
19 A. Oh.
14:21:31 20 Q. 636 But it was claimed. For the moment, I'm merely concerned about the contract
21 which would have given rise to the claim. Do you understand?
22 A. Yes, I do.
23 Q. 637 Was Mr. Whelan involved in relation to the residential development in
24 Cherrywood?
14:21:46 25 A. Insofar as Dwyer Nolan was concerned?
26 Q. 638 No. Other than Dwyer Nolan, was he involved?
27 A. Certainly I have no recollection of that at all.
28 Q. 639 In 1991, when this invoice was raised, was Mr. Whelan retained by the Monarch
29 Group, in relation to the Cherrywood site?
14:22:10 30 A. Certainly not to my knowledge.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
102
14:22:12 1 Q. 640 What services could Mr. Whelan have provided to Mr. Monahan or the Monarch
2 Group, or indeed you, in 1991, in April 1991, in relation to the Cherrywood
3 site?
4 A. Well, I could only speculate.
14:22:29 5 Q. 641 Yes.
6 A. That he might have been finding a purchaser for part of it, or something like
7 that.
8 Q. 642 And were you --
9 A. I don't have any --
14:22:41 10 Q. 643 Seeking a purchaser in April 1991 for Cherrywood?
11 A. Why would he be doing that?
12 Q. 644 No, I'm saying were the Monarch Group seeking a purchaser in April 1991?
13 A. Not obviously, but in property development everything is always for sale.
14 Q. 645 Who do you think retained Mr. Whelan?
14:23:08 15 A. Mr. Monahan would have.
16 Q. 646 And just in relation to the Dwyer Nolan involvement. If I could have 5040.
17
18 Mr.-- a summary of accounts due in relation to GRE was prepared. And sometime
19 after 1994. Sorry, if I could 5040, please.
14:23:41 20
21 And you will see there the third last entry Jack Whelan (introducing Dwyer
22 Nolan) 121,000 pounds. Is that the reference that you're making to, in
23 relation to Mr. Whelan and Dwyer Nolan?
24 A. Yes.
14:24:01 25 Q. 647 Did you know that Mr. Whelan had instituted proceedings against the Monarch
26 Group claiming fees that is were due to him for various works?
27 A. No.
29
14:24:18 30 This is a memorandum of Anglo Irish Bank. And it follows on a meeting between

www.pcr.ie Day 661
103
14:24:27 1 Mr. Beery and Mr. Murray. And it refers to Mr. Noel Murray of Monarch
2 updating the bank on issues. Do you understand?
3 A. Yes
4 Q. 649 In December 1993. And just under the heading Dwyer Nolan do you see the first
14:47:04 5 paragraph last sentence Noel Murray confirmed that Phil Monahan had been
6 carrying out all the negotiations with Eddie Dwyer directly and that the other
7 Monaghan direct Monarch directors were not fully informed of the arrangement.
8 Do you see that? That's at 4731. That Mr. Noel Murray was advising the bank
9 that Mr. Phil Monahan had been carrying out the negotiations in relation to
14:47:05 10 Dwyer Nolan's directly himself.
11 A. I see that but I wouldn't agree with it.
12 Q. 650 Yeah. Is there any reason why Mr. Murray would tell the bank something that
13 was untrue in December 1993?
14 A. I presume, Chairman, that that must have been Mr. Murray's opinion at the time.
14:47:06 15 From whatever source he was told that.
16 Q. 651 What was Mr. Murray's position in 1993?
17 A. He was marketing director.
18 Q. 652 A very Senior position within the Monarch Group?
19 A. Yes.
14:47:06 20 Q. 653 And I think he was, in fact on your nomination, ultimately to be appointed to
21 the boar of directors of Monarch?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 654 And in fact I think at one stage you reported to him; isn't that right?
24 A. At the very end, yes.
14:47:07 25 Q. 655 Now, just in relation to Monarch Properties Services Limited. Would you tell
26 the Tribunal what Monarch Properties Services Limited. What its function was?
27 A. Yes. Monarch Properties Limited, was the parent company, which had a number
28 of other companies under it. The actual service company, the one that was
29 used to employ all of the staff and the development and the accountancy and the
14:47:08 30 marketing ends were employed under Wilton House Limited, which was the initial

www.pcr.ie Day 661
104
14:47:08 1 name which eventually was changed to MPSL.
2 Q. 656 In your statement. If I could have 2113, please.
4 I think you do give and set out a narrative in relation to the Monarch
14:47:09 5 Properties Services. And you set out the contracts with which it was
6 involved; isn't that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 657 And I think you give a heading of the contract type. And a historical,
9 approximate historical value, of the works. Does that mean that in present
14:47:09 10 day values that the works carried out would have been 700,000, as in the case
11 of the Harcourt Street business, or at the time it was carried out it was
12 700,000?
13 A. Well, when I was doing these things I tried to make them at the same time as
14 the report. So it would have been the same date as you were reading.
14:47:10 15 Q. 658 Yes. So in 2003 values, values as of 2003 there was 700,000 pounds worth of
16 work carried out on the Harcourt Street property, if you look at the very first
17 one?
18 A. No, that's a different office block.
19 Q. 659 Okay. An office block in Harcourt Street?
14:47:11 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 660 Okay. Well, I don't want to go through them. If I could have 2116. Just
22 if you look at No. 60, that is the refurbishment of the Somerton House in
23 Castleknock, which is described as residential. Construction planning
24 project. You said there was a million pounds worth of work carried out on
14:47:11 25 that Somerton House at present day values. Isn't that right?
26 A. I'm trying to see that.
27 Q. 661 No. 60, Mr. Sweeney.?
28 A. Oh, yes. Yes.
29 Q. 662 Now, I think you yourself then, throughout this period, had your own company,
14:47:12 30 Edward Sweeney and associates. Isn't that right? Which was a quantity

www.pcr.ie Day 661
105
14:47:12 1 surveying company. And we can see that at 2118?
2 A. No, that was much earlier on, Chairman.
3 Q. 663 Yes, yes. It operated for an eight year period, between 1976 and 1983; is
4 that correct?
14:47:17 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 664 And you set out the works that it was engaged in?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 665 At 2118 to 2100. I think in October 1993 to the present day you operated a
9 company Pavilion Leisure Complex. At 2121 isn't that right?
14:47:18 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 666 And at 2123 you set out your introduction to the Monarch Group. And you
12 advised the Tribunal that you'd been previously employed by Walls and
13 headhunted by Mr. Monahan and you've given that evidence, isn't that right?
14 A. Yes.
14:47:19 15 Q. 667 And between 1974 and 1986, I think you had been with the Monarch Group. And
16 it would appear that around 1984 you were appointed a director. Would that be
17 fair to say?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 668 I think you were appointed a director of the Monarch Properties on the 29th of
14:47:20 20 July 1983. And appointed a director of Monarch Properties Holdings Limited,
21 on the 20th of October 1984. Would that be?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 669 Now, could I just refer you to two meetings which appear to have taken place on
24 the 28th and 29th of May 1986. If I could have 8105, please.
14:47:21 25
26 Was it the case that in 1986, Mr. Sweeney, as a result of a Texaco -- a Tesco
27 transaction, sorry
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 670 That quite a substantial amount of profits were made by the Monarch Group?
14:47:22 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
106
14:47:22 1 Q. 671 And I think arising out of that, Mr. Monahan was anxious to settle his affairs.
2 Isn't that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 672 At that time. And if we look at the document on screen, which is a memo of a
14:47:22 5 meeting, of the 28th of May 1986. Which was attended at a later stage by
6 yourself and Mr. Glennane. It would appear that Mr. Monahan was there telling
7 his accountant, Mr. Mooney, that he wished to give you 150,000 pounds out of
8 the deal; isn't that right?
9 A. I'm trying to read this.
14:47:23 10 Q. 673 Well if you look at paragraph No. 1 I'll read it you to, Mr. Sweeney. It says
11 "Monarch is in funds because of the completion of the Tesco transaction and PM"
12 which is presumably Mr. Monahan "now wants to make disbursements to Dominic
13 Glennane, Eddie Sweeney and to himself." In relation to Eddie Sweeney. I'm
14 reading from the third paragraph?
14:47:24 15 A. I can understand.
16 Q. 674 Phil Monahan proposes 100,000 pounds by the company and that in addition a
17 previous advance of 15,000 be written off?
18 A. I thought you had said 150.
19 Q. 675 Sorry, I should have said 115. I think you did in fact get monies out of that
14:47:25 20 project; isn't that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 676 And I think if we could have 8056.
23
24 This again is your affidavit to the High Court, Mr. Sweeney. Looking at
14:47:25 25 paragraph No. 10. And I'm deliberately jumping ahead. But if you wish for
26 me to do so, I'll read the earlier paragraphs.
27
28 You say "I requested that any such agreement would be implemented on a
29 professional basis accordingly it was agreed accountants Stokes Kennedy Crowley
14:47:26 30 could be asked to make the necessary arrangements. Meetings were held between

www.pcr.ie Day 661
107
14:47:27 1 Mr. Monahan and myself discussed a mechanism for the implementation of this
2 agreement. And it was agreed that an ex gratia payment of 100,000 pounds
3 would notionally be made to me , for which I would receive a cash sum of 50,000
4 pounds in a tax efficient manner, with the balance of 50,000 being paid to
14:47:27 5 Mr. Monahan as consideration for the acquisition of a tranche of his existing
6 share holding equivalent to 15 percent of the issued share capital of Monarch.
7 " Isn't that right
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 677 You say at paragraph 12, that the cash sum of 50,000 was duly paid to you,
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 678 At that time or in October of that year. If I could have 2767, these are
13 documents, Mr. Sweeney. The document coming on screen is a document disclosed
14 to the Tribunal by Mr. Monahan. It says 50,000 was paid to Bridie Sweeney on
14:47:29 15 the 31st of October 1986. Do you see that?
16 A. I do.
17 Q. 679 Had that anything to do with the 50,000 that we've just referred to?
18 A. Yeah, that's the same 50,000.
19 Q. 680 Now, if I could go back to 8105. I think Mr.-- as appears -- have you read
14:47:30 20 this document before, Mr. Sweeney. This is the document of the 28th of May
21 1986?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 681 And you will see that Mr. Monahan was anxious that a cash fund would be
24 available to him; isn't that right? At paragraph No. 2. From his own
14:47:30 25 viewpoint, Mr. Monahan wants to ensure that there is sufficient cash available
26 to him and to his wife in the event of his death. And that this cash is free
27 and not tied up with Monarch. Philip Monahan would like to withdraw between 1
28 and 1.5 million from Monarch's tax free. This money would not be required all
29 at once, but it would be available on loan account to Phil Monahan as and when
14:47:32 30 he required it. Do you recollect Mr. Monahan discussing that with you?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
108
14:47:32 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 682 And I think when you joined the meeting. And if we look at 8106. Yourself
3 and Mr. Glennane joined the meeting. And I think Mr. Glennane raised the
4 issue as to whether or not the company could make the disbursements at that
14:47:33 5 time , isn't that right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 683 And I think on the following day the company having been valued. If we look
8 at the bottom of the memo. We see that the valuation of the company was
9 somewhere between nine and ten million, isn't that right? There were
14:47:33 10 borrowings of about 16 and an asset value of about 25, isn't that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 684 Now, I think that subsequently you were paid another tranche of money by
13 Mr. Monahan, or out of the Monarch Group; isn't that right?
14 A. Are you talking about the same time, Mr. Chairman?
14:47:34 15 Q. 685 No, I'm talking about January 1992, when the Tallaght town centre came on line.
16
17 If we could have 8058, please.
18
19 Again, this is from your affidavit, Mr. Sweeney. This is paragraph 17. I
14:47:35 20 don't want to read it. I'm anxious, Mr. Sweeney, that you might recollect
21 matters rather than referring to the documents if you can at all.
22 A. I understand.
23 Q. 686 I would understand for detail that you would have to refer to the documents.
24 This is a situation where I think 270, 000 came under your control, isn't that
14:47:36 25 right?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 687 That's the type of thing, I suggest, that you would remember without having to
28 refer to a document. Do you remember in 1992 having received 270, 000?
29 A. In '92? No, I didn't receive 200 --
14:47:37 30 Q. 688 Did a company Isotope Limited, on your behalf?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
109
14:47:37 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 689 Receive --
3 A. On behalf of my wife and myself, entered into an export credit relief, I don't
4 know what the word is, scheme .
14:47:37 5 Q. 690 Yes.
6 A. That enabled 270,000 to pass to us, over a number of years.
7 Q. 691 Yes. But it related -- the agreement that you would receive the 270, 000
8 stemmed from a 1.8 million disbursement in 1992, isn't that right?
9 A. Yes, yes.
14:47:38 10 Q. 692 It was your share of that; isn't that right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 693 And are you saying that the monies came to you from Isotope limited. Or were
13 you -- were yourself and your wife the shareholders of Isotope?
14 A. Isotope was a company which was, of which my wife and myself were the
14:47:39 15 shareholders.
16 Q. 694 And was it Isotope that was involved in an export sales relief business, or was
17 to the Monarch Group?
18 A. It was a group of companies within the Monarch Group.
19 Q. 695 Yes.
14:47:39 20 A. Isotope is the one that dealt with the money that I was to receive.
21 Q. 696 Now, in relation to payments generally. If I could 2139. You set out the
22 system for dealing with payments; isn't that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 697 I take it that it would be fair to say that a company. And when I say
14:47:40 25 "company" I'm referring to the Monarch Group of companies obviously. That a
26 company like Monarch would have a fairly detailed system in operation for the
27 payments of invoices and the payment out of its funds?
28 A. Yes, certainly on the development end.
29 Q. 698 But not just at the development end. At every end; isn't that right?
14:47:42 30 A. Um, it should have but.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
110
14:47:42 1 Q. 699 Yes. I think you took credit for putting in place a certification process at
2 some stage in relation to the payment of contractors and subcontractor's; isn't
3 that right?
4 A. Yes.
14:47:43 5 Q. 700 And you set out there the procedure for the making of payments and the payments
6 on foot of instituted of chartered builders -- sorry. Royal Institute of
7 Architects and Ireland's building contracts and other payments; isn't that
8 right?
9 A. Yes.
14:47:44 10 Q. 701 And I think you, at 2140. You advised that the procedures were strict and
11 required the following. Checking of the accounts or invoices by a particular
12 staff involved. A final check by the surveyor in charge. Signature of the
13 chief surveyor and a signature of Eddie Sweeney chief surveyor/director, isn't
14 that right?
14:47:46 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 702 You want on to say that cheques were normally signed by Phil Monahan or Dominic
17 Glennane and in the rare absence that I counter signed any cheques exceptions
18 to the above strict procedures were rare. Is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
14:47:47 20 Q. 703 Quite a substantial amount of the cheques we have seen on screen and we'll be
21 dealing with some of them Mr. Sweeney, have two signatures. Was there a
22 situation where two signatures were sometimes required on cheques? One of
23 which was either Mr. Glennane, Mr. Monahan or yourself?
24 A. That was my understanding of the system required.
14:47:48 25 Q. 704 Two signatures?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 705 But one of the signatures had to be Mr. Monahan, Mr. Glennane, or in their
28 absence yourself?
29 A. It would depend on the particular circumstance.
14:47:49 30 Q. 706 Would it depend on the amount?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
111
14:47:49 1 A. Not particularly the amount. But I suppose the particular company.
2 Q. 707 Yes. Now, at 2198. Under the heading political parties you deal with the
3 system for the payments to political parties and the democratic process.
14:47:50 5 You say before any local general or European election it would have been a
6 general policy in Monarch to give donations to those parties or politicians
7 that made representations for help with their political expenses. And you
8 named the various parties there. You say I believe that representations would
9 have been made to Monarch personnel from many of the members of the various
14:47:50 10 political parties, Monarch would also have presented Christmas gifts to many
11 politicians and councillors and local authority officials, usually a bottle of
12 whiskey, brandy or something, or flowers or sponsorship for golf outings and
13 dinner. Is that right?
14 A. Yes.
14:47:51 15 Q. 708 That implies, Mr. Sweeney, that the donations for political parties were only
16 made at election time; isn't that right?
17 A. That it implies that?
18 Q. 709 Yes.
19 A. Yes.
14:47:51 20 Q. 710 Well was that the position? Were donations given other than at election time ?
21 A. I'm just trying to think now, Chairman. I suppose at any time if anybody
22 wrote in, it wouldn't necessarily need to be an election time. I just don't
23 want you to pull something out that is not an election time. That might be
24 quite correct: But you are quite correct. It would be normally at election
14:47:53 25 times.
26 Q. 711 But are you saying that at any time you received a request for a political
27 contribution you would have made it, Monarch would have made it?
28 A. I would say in most cases.
29 Q. 712 Can you recall of any instance when a request for a political contribution was
14:47:54 30 received and that the group refused to sanction the payment?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
112
14:47:54 1 A. No, I can't recall any.
2 Q. 713 If I go back to 2140 again. You say that, I do recall on several occasions
3 receiving letters from political parties or local representatives seeking
4 donations towards party political expenses. What I have done would have been
14:47:55 5 to pass these letters onto the council department with either a recommendation
6 to make a donation or not.
8 Did you ever pass on a request with the recommendation that the payment not be
9 made?
14:47:55 10 A. No.
11 Q. 714 You say you recall recommending payments to councillor Mary Flaherty Mervyn
12 Taylor and Jim Barry at some stage, although the dates of such are unclear. I
13 cannot also recall the actual amounts recommended by me , but believe them to
14 have been nominal and in each case the monies were paid by Monarch, letters of
14:47:56 15 receipts and thanks would have been received by each of the recipients. Is
16 that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 715 At 2191. I think you set out a list of personnel, namely, politicians, with
19 whom you would have had dealings; isn't that right? And the list is quite
14:47:57 20 extensive. It's at 2191 and 2192; isn't that correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 716 And then I think you -- just in relation to the political contributions. If I
23 could have 2866. Did you know, for example, that Mr. Monahan had made a
24 contribution to Mr.-- through Mr. Dermot Ahern to the Fianna Fail condalau,
14:47:58 25 General Election fund, in June 1989?
26 A. No, not that I can recall.
27 Q. 717 Did you know -- if I could have 2864. That Mr. Monahan on the 9th of June
28 1989, had forwarded a cheque for 16,000 pounds, being a donation to the General
29 Election, to Mr. Frank Wall of Fianna Fail?
14:48:00 30 A. No, but I did see these.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
113
14:48:00 1 Q. 718 You'd have seen these documents in the brief?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 719 And you'd have seen also I think the payment of 1,000 to Mr. Ciaran Haughey on
4 9th of June 1989, in relation to the election campaign of Sean Haughey, isn't
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 720 And you'd have seen the remittance on 15th of June 1989 of 500 pounds to Mr.
8 Kitt. And I think there was a a payment to Mr. Chris Flood on 25th of July
9 1989 of 1,000 also. Is that correct?
14:48:01 10 A. Yes.
12
13 I think the single biggest project after the Nutgrove Shopping Centre, in the
14 late 1980s, was the Tallaght town centre; isn't that right
14:48:01 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 722 And I think at 2136 of your statement, you set out the technical and project
17 management team which was assembled for that scheme; isn't that right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 723 And we see there an array of well known architects, mechanical and electrical
14:48:02 20 engineers, interior designers, landscape architects and planning consultants,
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 724 You advised the Tribunal in the last paragraph of that statement that the site
24 set up was run very efficiently and had full catering facilities, capable of
14:48:03 25 putting silver service lunches numerous politicians and businessmen from all
26 over the country as well as abroad. As Tallaght was at the forefront in terms
27 of the property development in Ireland at this particular time , from a public
28 relations and employment point of view. Many commercial and political people
29 visited the site, some of them arriving in Phil Monahan's helicopter and were
14:48:03 30 shown around the development as part of the marketing exercise to raise the

www.pcr.ie Day 661
114
14:48:03 1 profile of Tallaght which was seriously in need of such treatment, isn't that
2 correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 725 Do you recollect of any the political people you recollected there who visited
14:48:05 5 the site in Mr. Monahan's helicopter?
6 A. My recollection isn't perfect here now. But I have it in my mind that Padraig
7 Flynn arrived at some stage and that Tom Barry. They're the only two
8 political ones that I can recall. But I think there might have been more.
9 Q. 726 You think Mr. Flynn arrived in a helicopter at some stage?
14:48:06 10 A. At some stage, yes.
11 Q. 727 I think the site was opened by Mr. Haughey in October 1990?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 728 But prior to that I think there had been a topping out ceremony at some stage?
14 A. Yes.
14:48:06 15 Q. 729 And was that done by Mr. Flynn?
16 A. I just can't recall that.
17 Q. 730 Now, at 2165, under the heading, management team The Square, town centre
18 Tallaght, you set out the management structure there; isn't that right?
19 A. Yes.
14:48:07 20 Q. 731 And I think you're the development director, project Manager. And you have a
21 series of architects, engineers under your control; isn't that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 732 And similarly on his side, Mr. Glennane has Mr. Murray and Mr. Reilly, the
24 shopping centre management?
14:48:07 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 733 No mention of Mr. Lynn at this time; isn't that right?
27 A. No mention of Mr. Lynn.
29
14:48:08 30 It would be -- would it be fair to say that the Monarch got involved in

www.pcr.ie Day 661
115
14:48:08 1 Tallaght after an English company, London and Clyde Property. London
2 Clydeside Limited had been unsuccessful in developing the site; isn't that
3 right
4 A. Yes, that's correct, it was a Scottish company.
14:48:09 5 Q. 735 Yes. And I think at 2194 you've advised the Tribunal that the site had been
6 up for public tender and had been won by London and Clydeside Limited a
7 Scottish public company in 1986. And you set out the negatives of both the
8 existing planning permission and legal agreement between London and Clydeside
9 and Dublin Corporation, isn't that right?
14:48:10 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 736 I'm just going to summarise this, if I may. You, that is to say Monarch,
12 acquired the London and Clydeside interest in the contract. And one of the
13 stumbling blocks was the insistence by Dublin Corporation because the entire
14 site was their's as I understand it, to hold on to the site, or to have some
14:48:11 15 say in the development of the site?
16 A. Well, it was very complex.
17 Q. 737 Yes?
18 A. Chairman. If you like I'll give you a summary of it.
19 Q. 738 If you can give a quick summary of it, Mr. Sweeney.
14:48:18 20 A. Okay. When the site was acquired it was in an unusual situation that it was
21 own owned by a Dublin Corporation, that was situated geographically within
22 Dublin County Council. Which means that both authorities had a hand in it.
23 And there was a type of tug of war between the two. That coupled with 33%
24 shareholding, made it all very difficult. And that really is it. It was
14:48:57 25 very complex.
26 Q. 739 Yes. Complex from the point of view of acquiring the full interest in the
27 site; isn't that right?
28 A. Not only that, but complex in terms of trying to reshape the development.
29 Q. 740 Yes?
14:49:13 30 A. Or the details into something that was saleable, to third parties.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
116
14:49:18 1 Q. 741 If I could have 2195 please, you say that the local politicians and councillors
2 in particular were also end pressure from the community to get the project
3 under with a way and provide the many jobs which would hopefully result from a
4 successful development, it was in these circumstances in 1984 85 that Monarch
14:49:36 5 Properties entered into the picture from L & C Limited. Monarch was suddenly
6 in the driving seat and faced with the same serious development difficulties.
7 I was given the responsibility of project managing the eventual development and
8 with a great deal of preparatory work on legal and acquisition end spearheaded
9 by Mr. Smith's solicitor, was needed to get the project into shape to enable
14:49:58 10 the procurement of finance. These needed serious negotiations with the local
11 authority. You say that local politicians and councillors entered into the
12 scene sensing that at last something was going to be done and the possibility
13 to seek political credit for any progress that possibly helped to optimise
14 their chances in future election within the community?
14:50:17 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 742 You go on to say, at around this point Philip Monahan, chairman and managing
17 director of Monarch introduced Liam Lawlor to the Tallaght scene, as someone
18 who could advice with the strategy of getting through the tangle of red tape
19 with Dublin County Council and Dublin Corporation. Liam Lawlor was
14:50:48 20 subsequently asked by Phil Monahan to advise Monarch on contacts and protocol
21 to try to get the Tallaght project into shape, to encourage eventual
22 performance. There were several meetings between Philip Monahan myself and
23 Liam Lawlor, who advised on who in the various departments in Dublin County
24 Council and Dublin Corporation and indeed Dail Eireann, who could help to sort
14:50:59 25 out the various problems in Tallaght. I was very impressed with Liam's grasp
26 of the complicated structures that existed in national and local government and
27 his advice was very helpful.
28
29 And you there then set out a series of examples of negotiations that were
14:51:09 30 conducted by yourself Mr. Monaghan and Mr. Glennane; isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
117
14:51:14 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 743 You had several meetings with Mr. Lawlor, as identified there, isn't that
3 right?
4 A. Yes.
14:51:23 5 Q. 744 And Mr. Lawlor was introduced to you and to the Monarch Group by Mr. Phil
6 Monahan; isn't that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 745 And he was introduced in the context of somebody who could be of assistance to
9 the Monarch Group; isn't that right?
14:51:35 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 746 In their development of the shopping centre in Tallaght?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 747 Tallaght I think was one of the three designated towns in the Miles/Wright
14 Report and was identified as the shopping centre in the 1983 plan; isn't that
14:51:49 15 right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 748 And you set out there the assistance being provided to you by Mr. Lawlor; isn't
18 that right?
19 A. Yes.
14:51:55 20 Q. 749 And I think that assistance included being introduced -- first of all, included
21 in him identifying for you people within both the corporation and the County
22 Council who could be of assistance?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 750 Am I right in thinking that you're saying there that he would have identified
14:52:15 25 key personnel that would be of assistance?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 751 Did he ever introduce you to any of that personnel, or set up meetings with you
28 and the various personnel identified by him?
29 A. No, there were no introductions, Chairman, just indications of where to go.
14:52:33 30 Q. 752 You had, I think we have seen earlier, the array of experts available to you in

www.pcr.ie Day 661
118
14:52:42 1 relation to the Monarch site; isn't that right? If I could have 2136.
3 You had architects, mechanical and electrical engineers, quantity surveyors,
4 structural engineers, designers, landscape architects, planning consultants,
14:52:57 5 contract management advisors, solicitors and your own in-house professional
6 staff; isn't that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 753 And are you saying that but for the assistance of Mr. Lawlor, you would not
9 have been able to identify who within either the Corporation or the Council you
14:53:15 10 should negotiation with in relation to the development of the site?
11 A. Yes, it short-circuited it dramatically.
12 Q. 754 And I think you also said that he identified people within Dail Eireann who
13 could be of assistance to you; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
14:53:30 15 Q. 755 Did Mr. Lawlor ever set up any meetings with you with any of the
16 representatives of the Council or the Corporation?
17 A. No.
18 Q. 756 You did I think and when I say you did, Monarch did. It would appear from the
19 diary entries for Mr. Redmond. Have meetings with Mr. Redmond in 1988; isn't
14:53:58 20 that right?
21 A. Yeah, I did.
22 Q. 757 You did?
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. 758 And I'm sure you had meetings with other officials within the Council and the
14:54:02 25 Corporation in '88 and '89?
26 A. Yeah, many of them.
27 Q. 759 Now, at 2196. You say that, I was not aware at any time of any agreement
28 between Phil Monahan and Liam Lawlor, or the fees, if any, he was being paid
29 for his assistance. You say that the negotiations with the local authorities
14:54:21 30 over the next few years were extremely extensive and involved Monarch

www.pcr.ie Day 661
119
14:54:25 1 personnel, their solicitors and hundreds of meetings with the many and varied
2 personnel and departments in both the Corporation and the Council. At the
3 same time Monarch had made a request to the Government to allow Tallaght to
4 avail of a tax allowance which had already been given to other needy areas, or
14:54:42 5 towns around Ireland, isn't that right.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 760 Did Mr. Lawlor's assistance to Monarch extend to assistance in lobbying or
8 having the tax designation extended to Tallaght?
9 A. Well I certainly wasn't aware of that.
14:54:58 10 Q. 761 Are you saying that he assisted in the every other respect, save for the
11 extension of the tax designation to the site?
12 A. I'm not aware if he did assist on that. But the assistance that came to me
13 was of a technical nature.
14 Q. 762 When you say a technical nature. What do you mean by that Mr. Sweeney?
14:55:18 15 A. Um, I'm talking about the roads departments, the sewers, lighting, the various
16 property departments.
17 Q. 763 And --
18 A. And at that time Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council were all over the
19 place, literally all over the place. You would need a map to explain it. It
14:55:46 20 was tortuous, to say the least.
21 Q. 764 And are you saying that of all the many experts available to Monarch, you could
22 not progress matters in relation to Tallaght without the assistance of
23 Mr. Lawlor?
24 A. Certainly it could have been done without his assistance. But it quickened
14:56:07 25 it. It short-circuited it, which was very, very helpful and I was very
26 grateful for it.
28
29 You say having repeated what I've just said in relation to Mr. Lawlor and his
14:56:21 30 assistance in getting the project off the ground, which you say was deeply

www.pcr.ie Day 661
120
14:56:25 1 imbedded in local authority red tape. You say that Mr. Lawlor advised Monarch
2 on how to interface with two local authorities at the many different levels
3 required to achieve progress in some of the following areas. Acquisition,
4 legal, property, Valuation services for foul and surface water and community
14:56:42 5 relations. You say that I believe Mr. Lawlor's occasional input was very
6 helpful in the ultimate sorting out of some of the problems , at all the various
7 levels. I interfaced mainly on the technical and property aspects with the
8 rest of Monarch's technical team had numerous meetings and consultation with
9 local authority and personnel. While it took long period of negotiations
14:57:01 10 eventually all the problems were solved, to pave the way for the start of
11 construction in 1988. Eventually opening on time and on budget, in October
12 1990
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 766 So would it be fair to say that Mr. Lawlor's involvement in relation to the
14:57:13 15 Tallaght site extended at least from 1988 to 1990?
16 A. I would say even earlier.
17 Q. 767 Even earlier. Maybe 1986, '87 to 1990.
18 A. Yes, yes.
19 Q. 768 So he had an almost constant involvement with the site for at least four years?
14:57:35 20 A. Yes, on and off.
21 Q. 769 Now, one of the major achievements for the site I think was the tax designation
22 status, which was given to the site; isn't that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 770 Now, Mr. Lawlor advised the Tribunal.
14:57:55 25
27
28 That Monarch Properties with an address care of Phil Monahan in Somerton, was
29 one of the individuals, or entities, that had made contributions to him by way
14:58:12 30 of political payments. And he advised the Tribunal that a sum of 40,000

www.pcr.ie Day 661
121
14:58:16 1 pounds in his estimation, had been contributed towards his election campaigns
2 and running costs of his constituency.
3 Do you see that?
4 A. I saw that.
14:58:26 5 Q. 771 Now, when asked or in response to the request as to the name and address of the
6 individuals who actually made the payments, Mr. Lawlor said Mr. Phil
7 Monahan/Edward Sweeney of Monarch Properties. And you have seen that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 772 And you were written to I think on the 22nd of April 2002.
14:58:50 10 If I could have 2085.
11 Your solicitors were written to. And if you look at the third paragraph of
12 that letter, Mr. Sweeney. It says, as your clients may be aware, Mr. Liam
13 Lawlor TD has informed the Tribunal of monies received by him from Monarch
14 Properties limited. He has named your client and Philip Monahan as having
14:59:06 15 been involved in the payments. Do you see that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 773 And you were asked the Sole Member considers it necessary to investigate fully
18 any dealings with Mr. Lawlor and it would be necessary to consider similar
19 dealings between such persons and other public representatives. And you were
14:59:22 20 asked for a narrative statement isn't that right? Can I just show you your
21 solicitor's response, presumably written on your instructions. A letter from
22 Messrs. Fries on the 7th of May 2002.
23
24 And do you see the third paragraph of that letter, Mr. Sweeney? And just about
14:59:43 25 half ways down it says we note that you assert that Mr. Liam Lawlor has named
26 our client as someone he would have dealings within connection with the affairs
27 of Monarch Properties Limited. Do you see that?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 774 That is in response to a direct advice given to you in the earlier letter. At
15:00:06 30 2085. That in fact he was not advising the Tribunal of just an involvement or

www.pcr.ie Day 661
122
15:00:11 1 a connection with him. He was advising the Tribunal of someone who was --
2 from whom he had received money, isn't that right?
3 A. Yeah, I'm getting a bit lost here. Because I do accept that Mr.-- or that the
4 Tribunal wrote to me , saying that Mr. Lawlor had paid money to
15:00:36 5 Mr. Monahan/Mr. Sweeney. And that my solicitors responded by saying well what
6 did he say. And there was no response to that.
7 Q. 775 No. You were -- if you look at the letter on screen Mr. Sweeney, that's a
8 letter of the 22nd of April, 2002. And I'm not going to dwell on this very
9 much. But if you look at the third paragraph of that letter. The letter
15:00:57 10 says, as your client may be aware Mr. Liam Lawlor TD has Monarch Properties
11 Limited, isn't that right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 776 He has named your client and Philip Monahan as having been involved in the
14 payments?
15:01:08 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 777 So that's a letter about payments, isn't that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 778 Now, if we look at your response. At 2087?
19 A. If I may say.
15:01:16 20 Q. 779 Yes?
21 A. That my response to that, through William Fries, was what was Mr. Lawlor saying
22 about payments?
23 Q. 780 Yes.
24 A. Because there was no response to that. And I still can't see.
15:01:29 25 Q. 781 Yes.
26 A. Mr. Lawlor saying anything.
27 Q. 782 Yes.
28 A. That he gave any payments.
29 Q. 783 Did I not put on screen a moment ago, Mr.--
15:01:38 30

www.pcr.ie Day 661
123
15:01:38 1 CHAIRMAN: That he received payments. Not gave payments
2 Sorry.
4 CHAIRMAN: That he received payments. And Mr. Lawlor had told the Tribunal
15:01:45 5 that he received payments. And he named Mr. Monahan and yourself
6 Yes.
8 CHAIRMAN: As the provider of those funds.
9 A. Yes, Chairman. But I asked after that time what payments. And I didn't get
15:01:58 10 any response. And I still haven't got a response.
11
12 Q. 784 MR. QUINN: Well we'll deal with the payments now, Mr. Sweeney.
13
14 But before I do just to deal and finish on this matter. Your initial response
15:02:09 15 was a suggestion that you noted, or we noted, your solicitors noted, that the
16 Tribunal had asserted that Mr. Lawlor had named you, that is you, Mr. Sweeney,
17 as someone he would have had dealings with, in connection with the affairs of
18 Monaghan Properties
19 A. Yes.
15:02:26 20 Q. 785 You said, other than the political contributions made by our client subsequent
21 to his departure from Monarch Properties, of which he has already informed you
22 in full and furnished you with all of the documentation in relation to same.
23 No payments were ever made by our client either personally or on behalf of
24 Monarch, to any politician or elected official, isn't that right? That was
15:02:46 25 your response?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 786 That you never made a payment to a politician or an elected official, other
28 than the payments that you had identified in the earlier statement that we've
29 seen this morning?
15:02:55 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
124
15:02:55 1 Q. 787 And those payments were made after you left Monarch. So effectively what you
2 are suggesting there. is in response to an allegation that you had paid
3 Mr. Lawlor, through your solicitors, you were advising the Tribunal that no
4 payments were ever made by you, personally, or on behalf of Monarch, to any
15:03:12 5 politician?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 788 Or elected officials?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 789 Now, if we could have 7797.
15:03:21 10
11 This is a letter Mr. Sweeney. You'll have seen it in the brief. It's dated
12 the 29th of June 1988. And it's directed to Woodchester Hamilton Leasing.
13 And it would appear to amount to a guarantee of sorts, by the Monarch Group in
14 relation to advances to a company Advanced Proteins Limited, which he we
15:03:42 15 understand to be a Mr. Lawlor related company. Did you know that Mr. Monahan
16 had given that security in 1988?
17 A. No, I hadn't seen this before the brief.
18 Q. 790 This would have been at a time when Mr. Lawlor was providing the assistance
19 that you have just referred to in relation to Tallaght; isn't that right?
15:03:59 20 A. 1988?
21 Q. 791 Yes. And if we look at 7798. We see the actual leasing agreement itself;
22 isn't that right? Now, Mr. Lawlor in his lifetime wrote to Mr. Monahan.
23
24 If we could have 7875. Advising that he had a recollection, of receiving from
15:04:28 25 the company, Sincentering Public Life, in 1977, a sum of 40,000 pounds. Did
26 you know that Mr. Lawlor was alleging in August of 2001 that Monarch had given
27 him political contributions amounting to 40,000 pounds in August -- since he
28 entered public life in June 1977?
29 A. Are we talking about 2001?
15:04:53 30 Q. 792 Yes. That's correct.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
125
15:04:55 1 A. No.
2 Q. 793 You didn't know that he was make that claim in 2001?
3 A. No.
4 Q. 794 When did you discover that any monies had been paid to Mr. Lawlor?
15:05:02 5 A. When I saw the brief.
6 Q. 795 Does that surprise you Mr. Sweeney?
7 A. That any monies had been paid?
8 Q. 796 Yes.
9 A. A bit, yeah.
15:05:12 10 Q. 797 Does it surprise you that monies having been paid that you didn't know they
11 were paid?
12 A. Well that wouldn't surprise me .
13 Q. 798 Why would that not surprise you?
14 A. Um, well because I -- I was aware that Liam Lawlor had done a lot of work and
15:05:32 15 put in a lot of time and effort into helping us out in The Square in Tallaght.
16 So it did surprise me that he wasn't remunerated in some way for that.
17 Q. 799 Did you understand at the time that he was likely to have been remunerated?
18 A. He never came into any of the conversations.
19 Q. 800 Did you ever mention to Mr. Monahan how he was going to -- proposing to look
15:05:55 20 after Mr. Lawlor for all of his assistance?
21 A. No, never.
22 Q. 801 Was it ever discussed between yourself, Mr. Monahan, or indeed Mr. Glennane the
23 financial director of the company?
24 A. No, never. The dealings with Mr. Lawlor and Mr. Monahan were all very
15:06:11 25 informal.
26 Q. 802 If we look at 1249.
27
28 This is a letter from Mr. Monahan's solicitors. Of the 16th of April, 2002.
29
15:06:30 30 If we look at the third paragraph of that. It says with regard to Mr. Lawlor.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
126
15:06:35 1 Our client notes what he says but neither Mr. Philip Monahan, who is now
2 retired, or Paul Monahan the managing director of Monarch Properties Limited,
3 have any recollection that Mr. Liam Lawlor received a sum or any sum as high as
4 40,000 pounds. However our clients have instructed us that they will again
15:06:51 5 trawl through whatever records it may have, or make further queries to try and
6 ascertain if any further payments were made.
9 A. Yes.
15:07:02 10 Q. 803 Did anybody contact you in 2001 or 2002 querying what monies, if any, had been
11 paid to Mr. Lawlor?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 804 Who contacted you?
14 A. Mr. Monahan phoned me .
15:07:16 15 Q. 805 And what --
16 A. At night one night. And he said, did you give 40,000 pounds to Mr. Lawlor?
17 And I said no.
18 Q. 806 Did you ask him why he was asking you that question?
19 A. I couldn't figure it at all. I hadn't heard a word from him since 1996 before
15:07:39 20 that.
21 Q. 807 And was he -- did you think that he was surprised at a suggestion that 40,000
22 had been paid to Mr. Lawlor?
23 A. That was the tone.
24 Q. 808 Yes. Well did a discussion develop between you and as to?
15:07:52 25 A. It was a short call.
26 Q. 809 That would imply that whoever paid monies to Mr. Lawlor, it certainly wasn't
27 Mr. Phil Monahan?
28 A. Well I -- I don't know if that would imply that or not.
29 Q. 810 Well if he had paid the monies, he presumably would have remembered them; isn't
15:08:13 30 that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
127
15:08:13 1 A. Presumably.
2 Q. 811 And it came as a surprise to him that Mr. Lawlor was making this claim; isn't
3 that right?
4 A. That was the tone of the call.
15:08:27 5 Q. 812 Who else within the Monarch Group would have authority to pay Mr. Lawlor monies
6 at this time ?
7 A. I can think of no one other than Mr. Monahan.
8 Q. 813 So you don't believe that any monies were disbursed towards Mr. Lawlor at this
9 time ?
15:08:47 10 A. I have no knowledge of that.
11 Q. 814 But certainly from what you say Mr. Sweeney. Mr. Monahan was amazed to the
12 extent that he rang you to know if you had paid Mr. Lawlor 40,000 pounds at
13 this time; isn't that right?
14 A. I beg your pardon?
15:09:10 15 Q. 815 Mr. Monahan was -- had taken the unusual step of ringing you in 2001 or 2002,
16 to see if you had made a payment of 40,000 to Mr. Lawlor; isn't that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 816 That would have been a difficult phone call for Mr. Monahan to have made,
19 having regard to the nature of the relationship between you at that time; isn't
15:09:31 20 that right?
21 A. I don't know if it would be difficult for him or not.
22 Q. 817 You had left the company in 1996?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 818 As a result of litigation; isn't that right?
15:09:39 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 819 Had you spoken much to Mr. Monahan between 1996 and the receipt of that phone
27 call?
28 A. No, very, very little, if at all.
29 Q. 820 So this phone call would have been a phone call out of the blue from a former
15:09:54 30 colleague, work mate and possibly adversary; isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
128
15:10:00 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 821 So if monies were sanctioned for Mr. Lawlor, then would you agree with me, that
3 it's unlikely that Mr. Philip Monahan sanctioned them?
4 A. I wouldn't agree with that. I have no idea.
15:10:17 5 Q. 822 Now, you, as project co-ordinator, for the Tallaght site, would have been
6 responsible for the budget on the site; isn't that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 823 And there would be regular budgetary meetings. And you would discuss the
9 various contracts for the development of the site; isn't that right?
15:10:35 10 A. The Square.
11 Q. 824 The Square.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 825 And I'm talking now about that period between 1987 and 1990 when the site was
14 coming on line and was --
15:10:44 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 826 Being developed; isn't that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 827 And would there have been regular meetings where yourself and possibly
19 Mr. Glennane and Mr. Murray or Mr. Reilly would get together and discuss the
15:10:55 20 budgets?
21 A. Yes. And the banks.
22 Q. 828 And the banks?
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. 829 Particularly the banks perhaps?
15:10:59 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 830 So there was a fairly a tight budgetary control at this time in relation to the
27 site. And I think you've told us that through your efforts and perhaps that
28 of your staff, you brought the site on board on time and on cost; is that
29 right?
15:11:13 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
129
15:11:13 1 Q. 831 And all outgoings in relation to the site would be -- would be checked and kept
2 under control; isn't that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 832 And you would be reasonably familiar with the major project or project
15:11:30 5 contributors to the site, the -- Sisk I think were the contractors?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 833 Did you have, for example, if we could have 1254, please. This is a document,
8 Mr. Sweeney, that's included in the brief. It's headed L & C payments by
9 accounts. Do you see that? It would appear to be up to perhaps the 29th of
15:11:59 10 June 1992. If you look across the top?
11 A. Yeah.
12 Q. 834 You would have seen a document like this in your time during these projects
14 A. Not necessarily. I don't recognise that one.
15:12:10 15 Q. 835 You don't recognise that document?
16 A. No.
17 Q. 836 I see. Well maybe I'll put up a document that you might recognise. Could I
18 have 1255, please. This is an extract from the cash payments book and it
19 refers to cheque payments. Do you recognise that document, Mr. Sweeney?
15:12:27 20 A. I wouldn't have seen that document.
21 Q. 837 You wouldn't have seen that document?
22 A. No.
23 Q. 838 Well would you have seen a document which would show outgoings of about 58,000
24 pounds at this time, Mr. Sweeney?
15:12:42 25 A. No, at this time I was concentrating only on the construction payments.
26 Q. 839 You've a agreed with me that you would have attended regularly at financial
27 meetings in relation to the budget on the site, isn't that right?
28 A. Yeah but that was the budget for the construction.
29 Q. 840 And you would have been dealing with the outgoings; isn't that right?
15:13:01 30 A. For construction.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
130
15:13:01 1 Q. 841 Yeah?
2 A. And for the professional team.
3 Q. 842 Yes. And we see on the document on screen. About two-thirds of the way
4 down. Two payments on the 16th of October 1990 to an entity entitled Comex
15:13:13 5 Trading Corporation. Do you see those payments?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 843 They are about two down from Monarch Properties Services payroll account. Do
8 you see that?
9 A. Yes.
15:13:22 10 Q. 844 Can I ask you, what services did Comex Trading Corporation provide on the site?
11 A. Yeah. I've no idea now because I -- I haven't seen this before. Definitely
12 it wasn't construction, because I would have remembered it.
13 Q. 845 This document Mr. Sweeney, was included in the circulated book of documents.
14 Do you understand? And it's a payment, two substantial payments in October
15:13:58 15 1990 to an entity, Comex Trading Corporation. Do you see that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 846 Do you see the very last entry. Modern display artists 25,860 pounds? Do you
18 see that, for the 18th of October?
19 A. 25,000?
15:14:08 20 Q. 847 Yes. Each of those Comex payments on that document, Mr. Sweeney, represent
21 the highest payments on that page from the 15th of October to the 18th of
22 October 1990?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 848 Which would have been about a week off the opening; isn't that right? Can you
15:14:28 25 tell the Tribunal what contribution Comex Trading Corporation made to the
26 development of the site in Tallaght?
27 A. I've no idea.
28 Q. 849 Did you ever retain Comex Trading Corporation?
29 A. No, never.
15:14:44 30 Q. 850 Did you know that Comex Limited, was an entity Mr. Lawlor has advised the

www.pcr.ie Day 661
131
15:14:50 1 Tribunal was used by him for the purpose of raising invoices?
2 A. Not until I saw it coming up in the Tribunal.
15:15:00 5 This is a letter to the Tribunal, on the 1st of May, 2002. From Mr. Lawlor's
6 then solicitors, Messrs. Coins. Do you see that? And it says we are advised
7 by Mr. Lawlor that the following is a list of names used by him for the
8 purposes of creating invoices. And the second entity identified there is
9 Comex Limited. Do you see that? And then in the second part of that that
15:15:25 10 letter it says Mr. Lawlor advises that the following entities received or may
11 have received invoices under the above titles. And item C, Monarch
12 Properties. Do you see that?
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. 852 Would you agree with me, that based on that letter, and having regard to what
15:15:39 15 you've had to say about your lack of knowledge of this company, that it is
16 almost certain that the two payments to Comex Trading Corporation were payments
17 made to Mr. Lawlor?
18 A. Well that is the way it seems to pan out, yes.
19 Q. 853 In fact, one of those payments was lodged to an account of Economics Reports
15:15:58 20 Limited.
21
23
24 There's a lodgement on the 26th of October 1990 of 28,300 to the current
15:16:08 25 account number 63551061, of Economic Reports Limited.
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 854 Does it surprise you that Monarch paid Mr. Lawlor 56, 300 pounds in October
28 1990, Mr. Sweeney?
29 A. Well it seems a lot.
15:16:36 30 Q. 855 Why do you think Monarch paid Mr. Lawlor 56, 300 pounds in October 1990?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
132
15:16:42 1 A. No, the only inference I can come to is that it's a payment for the services
2 that he provided over a number of years.
3 Q. 856 If we could have 1267. This is a document complied on the 5th of February
4 1992. And it's an L & C property year end general ledger report, fiscal year
15:17:06 5 '91. Do you see that? Would you be familiar with these documents,
6 Mr. Sweeney?
7 A. I wouldn't. But I've definitely seen them in the brief.
8 Q. 857 Yeah but other than seeing them in the brief?
9 A. I would find it very difficult to read them.
15:17:19 10 Q. 858 I see. In your time in Tallaght and in your involvement with L & C Properties
11 would you have seen this type of documentation?
12 A. No, they wouldn't have come across my desk.
13 Q. 859 And what sort of documentation from a financial point of view in relation to
14 the outgoings of L & C Properties would have come across your desk,
15:17:36 15 Mr. Sweeney?
16 A. Well when we were meeting in relations to budgets. The budgets would be split
17 into various sections. One of which was construction. Of which I was
18 responsible. The other one would be marketing. The other one would be
19 legal. And possibly legal and accountancy.
15:17:55 20 Q. 860 And strategic planning, which one would that fall into Mr. Sweeney?
21 A. Sorry. I have to say, in my own technical end, I knew every single thing that
22 was happening. But when it came to the other ends, I always had a difficulty
23 with there being open ended agreements, particularly in accountancy and in
24 legal.
15:18:22 25 Q. 861 Yes. Accountancy and legal --
26 A. I could never get to grips with how that can be controlled so ....
27 Q. 862 Yes. But I take it that you were involved in, as you've described it, in the
28 development and in the construction; isn't that right?
29 A. In the construction.
15:18:37 30 Q. 863 But you would also have been involved in the planning; isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
133
15:18:40 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 864 And strategic planning is something that would fall under your charge, isn't
3 that right?
4 A. No, I would say town and country planning.
15:18:57 5 Q. 865 Well the designation given to these payments, see you can see on screen. If
6 we look at the second and third entry there, Mr. Sweeney. Is strategic
7 planning. Do you see that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 866 And which category or whose responsibility was strategic planning in 1990 in
15:19:05 10 Tallaght?
11 A. There was no such thing as strategic, responsibility for strategic planning.
12 Q. 867 Well of the various sub-headings that you've given us, legal and accounting and
13 planning and development. Would you agree with me that strategic plan is more
14 likely to fall under development than it is under either legal or accountancy?
15:19:28 15 A. No, I don't agree with that.
16 Q. 868 Well what strategic plan was there in operation in relation to the accountancy
17 end of L & C Limited in 1990, Mr. Sweeney?
18 A. I've no idea, if any.
19 Q. 869 Would you, for example, be concerned with the professional consultancy fees
15:19:52 20 generally?
21 A. Most certainly when they were related to construction. But my bone of
22 contention always with the Board was that I never found the same constraint
23 being on the other ends of the development.
24 Q. 870 Is it credible, Mr. Sweeney, that there would be 56,300 pounds of the
15:20:15 25 development budget paid out on foot of a strategic plan that wouldn't have been
26 brought to your attention or that wouldn't come to your attention?
27 A. Yes, it certainly could have been done without coming to my attention.
28 Q. 871 How could that possibly have happened, Mr. Sweeney?
29 A. That could have happened because it didn't come within the ambit of the
15:20:39 30 development end to which I was responsible.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
134
15:20:43 1 Q. 872 But you were responsible for the planning, you were responsible for the
2 construction; isn't that right?
3 A. Exactly.
4 Q. 873 So a strategic plan?
15:20:52 5 A. Strategic planning, if I may say, is nothing to do with town and country
6 planning. Town and country planning is to do with the planning or buildings on
7 site.
9 CHAIRMAN: Yes. You understand, Mr. Sweeney, what the term strategy plan or
15:21:07 10 strategic planning means in the development world. Does it mean anything?
11 A. I don't think it does.
12
13
14 Q. 874 MR. QUINN: Who within Monarch would have responsibility for checking that
15:21:22 15 outgoing, those outings, Mr. Sweeney?
16 A. As I said before, if an invoice went to accounts, it would be looked at by
17 accounts.
18 Q. 875 Well what does that mean, Mr. Sweeney?
19 A. Well what I'm trying to say is that the accountancy side of the business would
15:21:50 20 have looked at that.
21 Q. 876 Well assuming I'm a junior clerk in the accounts department of Monarch,
22 Mr. Sweeney. And I receive on my desk an invoice for a strategy plan for a
23 company, Comex, for 28,300 pounds on the 21st of March 1990. Do I
24 automatically pay it?
15:22:14 25 A. Well you wouldn't bring it to my attention. Because I was out in Tallaght.
26 Q. 877 Well -- ?
27 A. Trying to get the --
28 Q. 878 Had you no phones in Tallaght?
29 A. Yes, there were phones in Tallaght.
15:22:26 30 Q. 879 And if I didn't know what services were provided by Comex Corporation, surely

www.pcr.ie Day 661
135
15:22:31 1 in the first instance I would have to find out what services had been provided
2 by this company; isn't that right?
3 A. You would, if you were.
4 Q. 880 Yes?
15:22:40 5 A. A junior in the accounts department.
6 Q. 881 And I'd have to ring somebody and say well what services did this company
7 provide and --
8 A. Well you wouldn't ask me, with all due respect.
9 Q. 882 And who would I ask?
15:22:51 10 A. You would ask the accounts department.
11 Q. 883 But I'm in accounts, Mr. Sweeney.
12 A. You're a junior in accounts. You would ask a senior person within accounts.
13 Q. 884 And who is the most senior person within accounts?
14 A. Mr. Glennane would be.
15:23:04 15 Q. 885 So therefore Mr. Glennane, in the first instance, would have to know that Comex
16 Corporation had provided some services for the L & C Properties; isn't that
17 right?
18 A. I'm not saying it did. But I would presume he would.
19 Q. 886 As a matter of probability, he should have known; isn't that right? And if he
15:23:24 20 didn't know somebody else would have to provide the information?
21 A. Uh-huh.
22 Q. 887 Now, Mr. Glennane has told the Tribunal he knows nothing of these payments.
23 A. Uh-huh.
24 Q. 888 Does that surprise you?
15:23:34 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 889 In any event, you're telling the Tribunal you did not know that these payments
27 had been made at this time; isn't that right? But it doesn't surprise you that
28 some payments would have been made, having regard to the level of input of
29 Mr. Lawlor at the time. Is that correct?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
136
15:23:53 1 Q. 890 Now, I think you have advised the Tribunal.
3 If I could have 4536.
15:24:03 5 That in September I think 1993. Mr. Lawlor got involved with the Monarch
6 interest in relation to a project in Prague; is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 891 And we see there a memo to you from Mr. Philip Monahan. That is to say you,
9 Mr. Glennane and Mr. Murray; isn't that right? Enclosing information received
15:24:30 10 from Ambrose Kelly, via Liam Lawlor, for your information. Isn't that right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 892 And was that a request that Monarch might get involved in Prague?
13 A. I can't surmise from that what information he's providing.
14 Q. 893 Yes?
15:24:49 15 A. But the answer is around about that time we did get involved in Prague.
16 Q. 894 And you got involved in Prague at Mr. Lawlor's invitation; is that right?
17 A. I personally had been to Prague.
18 Q. 895 Sorry?
19 A. I personally had been to Prague.
15:25:10 20 Q. 896 Had you been to Prague by September '93?
21 A. Yes, I'd been there several times. And I'd looked at the property scene
22 myself. And I'd suggested it at some stage to the Board as being a
23 possibility, along with, if I may say, other areas in the world. So Prague
24 when it did come up, it wasn't a surprise to me. And I was very enthused by
15:25:38 25 it.
26 Q. 897 And who else was involved in that consortium other than Mr. Lawlor, Mr. Kelly
27 and the Monarch Group? Was --
28 A. Um, we're talking about the space of a good few months now, so ....
29 Q. 898 Yes?
15:25:54 30 A. You definitely had Jack Whelan. And you had Frank Dunlop. Noel Murray.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
137
15:26:02 1 Phil Monahan. Connor McElligott, who worked for, he was an architect who
2 worked for Liam Lawlor.
3 Q. 899 He worked for Mr. Lawlor in Prague or did he work for Mr. Lawlor here, can you
4 remember?
15:26:21 5 A. In Prague.
6 Q. 900 Right. And I think the arrangement was that a sum of 6,000 a month would be
7 paid by Monarch; isn't that right? As a contribution. And at least one
8 payment was made.
15:26:31 10 If we could have 5754, please.
11
12 Mr. Murray forwards 6,000, being the November contribution
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 901 And we see that cheque at 4755?
15:26:43 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 902 How long did the Monarch Group remain committed to the Ambrose Kelly
17 partnership and the Prague venture, Mr. Sweeney?
18 A. It wasn't long. I recall being out there in '93. I think it was November
19 '93. And with a bunch of them. And they all went off and looked at millions
15:27:14 20 of jobs. Whereas, I concentrated on the one job in -- called the Alpha
21 Building, which is the one that enthused me. And I wanted really to get
22 involved in that, because I saw great possibilities. When I got back I
23 instructed the in-house development team to prepare, in conjunction with
24 Ambrose Kelly and a Swedish company, an outline scheme for which we could do
15:27:47 25 feasibility studies and stackups. The result of that still looked good. And
26 on the opposite end, the legal end was coming along nicely. And for some
27 reason, I think in early '94, March maybe '94, the whole thing fizzled out.
28 Much to my disappointment.
29 Q. 903 Yes.
15:28:10 30

www.pcr.ie Day 661
138
15:28:10 1 If we could have 5402, please.
3 Mr. Monahan was written to by Rotary who I think were also involved in the
4 project, referring to a meeting of the 20th, where Mr. Monahan had advised that
15:28:22 5 he no longer wished to be an investor in the Alfa project. Isn't that right?
7 Q. 904 That slightly post dates?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 905 The period referred to by you. Do you recall any payment to Ms. Hazel Lawlor
15:28:38 10 in November 1993 by the Monarch Group?
11 A. No.
12 Q. 906 If we could have, please, 4880.
13
14 You see in the bottom left hand corner a reference to Hazel Lawlor, 3,000
15:29:01 15 pounds. Do you see that?
16 A. No, I don't.
17 Q. 907 And if we could have 1201, please. And again, the bottom. Third from the
18 end, there appears to be a Hazel Lawlor payment on the 30th of April '94 of
19 3,000 pounds. Do you see that?
15:29:19 20 A. Is that the same payment?
21 Q. 908 The earlier payment is November '93. This payment appears to be dated April
22 '94 but may in fact have been reversed out in later in April '94.
23 A. No, I have no knowledge of those.
24 Q. 909 Yes. If we could have 1202.
15:29:43 25
26 This shows a lodgement on the 23rd of November '93 of 3,000 pounds to a bank
27 account. Do you see that? Do you have any knowledge of any such payment to
28 Mr. or Mrs. Lawlor?
29 A. Not at all.
15:30:01 30 Q. 910 Now, there were further meetings I think throughout late '93 with Mr. Lawlor

www.pcr.ie Day 661
139
15:30:15 1 and I will in time be coming to deal with the payments to Mr. Dunlop. And
2 you've heard Mr. Dunlop's evidence this morning. I'm not just going to deal
3 with that just now. But on the 28th of July 1994.
15:30:19 5 If we could have 1641.
7 There appears to be a 199 -- 28th of July 1994 payment to a Lawlor A and L.
9 And again if we could have 5279, please.
15:30:35 10
11 Do you see that? A 3,000 pounds payment. That appears to have been a payment
12 to Mr. Lawlor. Do you know anything about that?
13 A. No.
14 Q. 911 On the 5th of January 1995.
15:30:47 15
17
18 There's a payment of 2,500 to Mr. Liam Lawlor. Do you see that? And if I
19 could get the cheque up, please. 5523.
15:31:07 20 Do you see the cheque made payable to L Lawlor? You see that, do you?
21 A. I see that.
22 Q. 912 Did you have anything to do with that payment?
23 A. No, nothing at all.
24 Q. 913 You see Mr. Glennane's signature I think on the cheque. And then I think
15:31:27 25 there's another signature on the cheque. Whose is the other signature?
26 A. I can recognise Mr. Glennane's but I'm not sure about the other one.
27 Q. 914 And that cheque seems to have been negotiated at P Murphy, Lounge Bar,
28 Inchicore but you know nothing about the cheque?
29 A. I heard all about this in the Tribunal.
15:31:45 30 Q. 915 At 6050. There's a further cheque of 1,000 pounds. Do you know anything

www.pcr.ie Day 661
140
15:31:51 1 about that cheque to Mr. Liam Lawlor, golf classic?
2 A. No.
3 Q. 916 Did you ever attend any of Mr. Lawlor's fundraising golf classics?
4 A. No, none at all.
15:32:02 5 Q. 917 Now, there are a series of entries in Monarch Properties Services accounts.
6 If I could have 4763. In relation to Prauge. You see Prague strategic
7 studies. Do you know anything about those payments, Mr. Sweeney?
8 A. Prague strategic studies. 1293. No, they don't mean anything to me .
9 Q. 918 Who would be the best person within the Monarch Group to advise the Tribunal in
15:32:44 10 relation to those entries?
11 A. In fact, I'm quite confused about the particular sheets, suppliers and all
12 that, you know.
13 Q. 919 Who was the expert within the Monarch Group in relation to those sheets and
14 suppliers?
15:33:02 15 A. Well I suppose anyone Senior in the accountancy department would be able to
16 understand those. Certainly it's not within the realm of my expertise.
17 Q. 920 Yes. Now, in 1980 -- in June of 1989, Mr. Sweeney, the Cherrywood lands were
18 acquired; isn't is that right?
19 A. Yes.
15:33:27 20 Q. 921 Did you know that Mr. Monahan was interested in acquiring those lands?
21 A. No, it came as a surprise to us when it eventually was ...
22 Q. 922 It surprised you that he had acquired them, or was interested?
23 A. Yes, it was bought by tender.
24 Q. 923 Yes?
15:33:41 25 A. So we kind of knew.
26 Q. 924 You knew that they were for sale; is that right?
27 A. Um.
28 Q. 925 You knew that they were for sale by tender?
29 A. Certainly.
15:33:51 30 Q. 926 Did you discuss it, did Mr. Monahan discuss it with you the prospect of the

www.pcr.ie Day 661
141
15:33:56 1 Monarch Group buying these lands?
2 A. No.
3 Q. 927 Does that surprise you?
4 A. No, because this had happened before.
15:34:01 5 Q. 928 Who would Mr. Monahan have discussed the purchase of these lands with, within
6 the company?
7 A. Within the company I -- maybe nobody within the company.
8 Q. 929 Who outside of the company might he -- might he have discussed the lands, the
9 acquisition with?
15:34:17 10 A. Well in this case, I know from reading the files that he was dealing with a
11 gentleman called McCarthy.
12 Q. 930 Who was Mr. McCarthy?
13 A. He was a -- I didn't hear of him until then. He was also a developer and it
14 looked as if he was also interested in the lands in a joint venture capacity.
15:34:42 15 Q. 931 Was he one of the people like Mr. Whelan and Mr. Lynn who would meet up with
16 Mr. Monahan in Somerton?
17 A. Well he certainly would have been in Somerton. But he wouldn't have been an
18 agent, he was more like a developer.
19 Q. 932 Yes. Now, I think just at the outset, in relation to the Cherrywood lands,
15:35:08 20 you take credit for convincing the Council to rezone the lands; isn't that
21 right?
22 A. Well, no.
23 Q. 933 You don't?
24 A. No, I don't.
15:35:18 25 Q. 934 I'm -- could I have 8063. I'm surprised that you say that, Mr. Sweeney.
26 Because again I'm going to quote to you extracts from your affidavit to the
27 High Court.
28
29 You say, by way of background. I say that Cherrywood Limited is involved in a
15:35:38 30 commercial and residential property development at Cherrywood County Dublin.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
142
15:35:51 1 The development itself only became possible after "I" succeed in the convincing
2 Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council to rezone the property in question for
3 industrial commercial and residential purposes. Residential uses
4 A. Certainly no one can take personal control or credit for that. But I did.
15:36:01 5 And what I meant by that was that I did put forward very strongly the Science
6 and Technology Park ethos which eventually resulted in the zoning of the
7 non-residential bit.
8 Q. 935 And we'll get to that, Mr. Sweeney. But what I had put to you and what you
9 denied and I'm not sure whether you still deny it. That you take
15:36:21 10 responsibility for having succeeded in convincing Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County
11 Council to rezone the property in question for industrial commercial and
12 residential use.
13 A. Yeah, I don't think that is exactly what I meant. What I meant was that I was
14 responsible for the science and technology end. And that's not to say that I
15:36:46 15 wasn't very instrumental in the residential end also. Because we did present
16 a very, very good case. But I couldn't take personal control or personal
17 credit for it.
18 Q. 936 Mr. Sweeney, this development and the rezoning of these lands reflected a
19 significant added a value to the Monarch Group; isn't that right?
15:37:11 20 A. May I say, Mr. Chairman. When we're talking about rezoning. I've noticed
21 this point coming up before. In terms of increased density, I was very much a
22 team effort. But in terms of the rezoning of the agricultural to industrial,
23 I did feel that I had an enormous input into that. Excuse me .
24 Q. 937 Thank you, Mr. Sweeney. The question I put to you, Mr. Sweeney, was that the
15:37:39 25 rezoning and the development of these lands represented a significant added
26 value to the Monarch Group; isn't that right?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 938 Were you happy with the initial purchase or acquisition of the lands?
29 A. Um, I wouldn't say happiness would come into it.
15:38:01 30 Q. 939 Well were you critical of the decision to buy the lands?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
143
15:38:05 1 A. Um, I looked at it as a very difficult challenge.
2 Q. 940 For example, the price paid for the lands, I understand was nine/10 million?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 941 In 1989?
15:38:16 5 A. Yes, roughly 50,000 pounds an acre.
6 Q. 942 I think agricultural land was five or six thousand an acre at this time ?
7 A. This wasn't agricultural land.
8 Q. 943 Slightly better than agricultural land from a zoning point of view, isn't that
9 right?
15:38:30 10 A. No, I think the price didn't deter me , or didn't put me off.
11 Q. 944 Was the price unjustifiably high at the time ?
12 A. No, I don't believe so. It was a high price but someone's always going to pay
13 a high price.
14 Q. 945 You wouldn't say it was an unjustifiably high price?
15:38:47 15 A. No, because it was zoned. And it had a great potential.
17
18 This again is an extract from an affidavit sworn by you. And it's in the
19 brief Mr. Sweeney.
15:38:59 20
21 Paragraph 27. By way of background, I say that the price of 10 million
22 pounds, paid for the Cherrywood lands which was negotiated by Mr. Monahan was
23 at the time an unjustifiably high price. And I would be the first to agree
24 that this undoubtedly placed financial constraints upon the group.
15:39:18 25
26 I put to you, Mr. Sweeney, your very own sworn statement.
27 A. Well possibly at the time it could have been that. But certainly in looking
28 back it wasn't. It's now two million an acre.
29 Q. 947 And you went on to say, that the purchase of the lands at such a high price
15:39:36 30 with no appreciable zoning left me with an enormous task to accomplish.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
144
15:39:42 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 948 It didn't leave the company, it left you Mr. Sweeney with the task?
3 A. Sorry for being so objective.
4 Q. 949 Over the next six years however together with the development team I succeeded
15:39:50 5 in having the zoning for the property changed, so as to significantly enhance
6 the value of the group; isn't that right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 950 If we revert to 8063, please.
15:40:03 10 I think you say in that affidavit that, the development was without doubt the
11 single most valuable and significant asset within the Monarch Group. Upon
12 which you worked diligently for over six years to become the main Monarch
13 development, with a net value of approximately 12 million. If retained the
14 development should yield to the Monarch Group a fee income over the next seven
15:40:30 15 years of approximately five million, in respect of the group's total project
16 management, marketing and letting input, excluding a provision for property
17 management income , estimated at 130, 000 pounds per annum, together with a
18 potential development profit for the Monarch Group of 20 million,
19 approximately. They are the type of figures we're talking about isn't that
15:40:54 20 right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Now, when the lands were --
23
24 MR. SHIPSEY: Chairman, I'm just wondering in relation to this.
15:40:58 25
26 I'm not critical of Mr. Quinn at all. He is quoting from this affidavit which
27 is sworn in 1996. I just don't know if it's come out yet. That that's when
28 this affidavit was actually sworn.
29
15:41:10 30 CHAIRMAN: We're aware that this is a '96 document.

www.pcr.ie Day 661
145
15:41:14 1
2 Q. 951 MR. QUINN: If I could have 2128, please.
4 You set out in your statement the works that the Monarch Group would have been
15:41:32 5 involved in in 1989, isn't that right? And we see there the submission for the
6 development of the Tallaght Hospital, completion of the west link industrial
7 estate, Navan shopping centre, phase two, reverse take over of Europe Green,
8 development of Phoenix Park Race Course, Blackrock Business Park, Somerton,
9 Castleknock House refurbishment, purchase of Cherrywood, Cabinteely, Tallaght
15:41:54 10 civic offices and the Tallaght swimming pool/leisure centre. They are all of
11 the activities that the group were involved in in 199; isn't that right? Did
12 you know that when the lands were acquired that they had the zoning
13 difficulties that you had to overcome over the succeeding years?
14 A. When the lands were acquired? No, I didn't know the full extent of them.
15:42:21 15 Q. 952 Did you know, for example, that Mr. Monahan had visited the Minister not long
16 after the acquisition of the lands, on the 24th of May '89. At 7661.
17
18 It's a diary entry for Mr. Flynn for 5 p.m. meeting on the 24th.
19 A. No, I didn't know at the time.
15:42:42 20 Q. 953 Mr. Monahan never discussed with you the fact that he was going to meet the
21 Minister at this time ?
22 A. No, not that I recall.
23 Q. 954 Did Mr. Monahan ever discuss with you his meetings with Ministers or
24 politicians?
15:42:57 25 A. Um, I suppose yes, but I don't recall too many of them. In fact, I don't
26 recall any of them hardly.
27 Q. 955 You don't recall any of the discussions?
28 A. No.
29 Q. 956 But such discussions would have taken place, is that fair to say?
15:43:19 30 A. I can't recall. At the moment I can't recall a single instance of him talking

www.pcr.ie Day 661
146
15:43:23 1 to me about visiting a politician.
2 Q. 957 Either proposing to visit a politician or having visited a politician?
3 A. Yeah.
4 Q. 958 And it's not just any politician. He's visiting the Minister for the
15:43:35 5 Environment; isn't that right?
6 A. Yeah.
7 Q. 959 Do you know why Mr. Monahan visited the Minister for the Environment, on the
8 24th of May 1989?
9 A. No.
15:43:50 10 Q. 960 You can't?
11 A. No.
12 Q. 961 Could it have been in the context of the Cherrywood lands which he had just
13 acquired?
14 A. It could have been.
15:44:04 15 Q. 962 Now, I think that you asked or Mr. Monahan in the first instance asked Mr.
16 McCabe. Mr. McCabe is the planner that used by the Monarch Group, isn't that
17 right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 963 And we see that request. Sorry, the advices given by Mr. McCabe on 16th of
15:44:21 20 May '89. At 2846.
21
22 And I think Mr. McCabe was to subsequently write to you on the 7th of June '89.
23 At 2852. In relation to the development possibility. And at that stage the
24 Development Plan was under review by the Council, isn't that right?
15:44:51 25 A. In 1989?
26 Q. 964 In 1989.
27 A. Yeah.
28 Q. 965 He's writing to Mr. Monahan and he's writing to you, presumably.
29 A. Yeah.
15:45:00 30 Q. 966 Yeah. You had a meeting with him on the 1st of June. You don't recall that?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
147
15:45:04 1 A. Sorry, I really don't know.
2 Q. 967 Yes. Well this letter of the 7th of June, it's on screen, refers to a meeting
3 on the 1st of June. And it wouldn't be unusual presumably that you would meet
4 with the planner, consultant planner, being employed by you at that time , to
15:45:20 5 discuss the --
6 A. It's like 16 years ago.
7 Q. 968 I appreciate that, Mr. Sweeney. But it wouldn't be unusual that as having
8 regard to the position within the company?
9 A. No.
15:45:29 10 Q. 969 And having regard to the fact that your company and with regard to the fact
11 that your company had just spent 10 million on a site acquisition that you
12 would speak with a planner in relation to its potential?
13 A. Well what I see there is what would normally happen.
14 Q. 970 Yes.
15:45:42 15 A. A planning consultant would have been brought in.
16 Q. 971 Yes.
17 A. Albeit after.
18 Q. 972 Yes.
19 A. The purchase.
15:45:50 20 Q. 973 Yes.
21 A. Possibly before the purchase.
22 Q. 974 Yes.
23 A. But after the purchase. And he would have given his overview when work was,
24 the potential of the site that. Would then have passed over to me .
15:46:02 25 Q. 975 Yes.
26 A. And then I would have then passed it over to others.
27 Q. 976 Yes. You see, Mr. McCabe, when he gave evidence, has given evidence of all of
28 these advices?
29 A. Yes.
15:46:18 30 Q. 977 But he felt it unusual. And I think it's -- I suspect that you're saying that

www.pcr.ie Day 661
148
15:46:18 1 it's also unusual that you would go to Mr. McCabe after you had bought the
2 lands?
3 A. Most certainly.
4 Q. 978 Yes. Now, Mr. McCabe's advice at the time then that it would be better that
15:46:28 5 the zoning could be secured in the initial draft plan. Wasn't that his
6 immediate advice to you? That if it came on the draft plan, that was the best
7 way to proceed?
8 A. Well, the one thing I would say there, Mr. Chairman isn't that all of this
9 terminology about draft plans and motions and this and that, weren't familiar
15:46:51 10 to me at the time. I was more into the construction end of it. I had to
11 become familiar, and I did become familiar. But at that time I wasn't clear
12 at all about what a draft plan was even.
13 Q. 979 This is in 1989?
14 A. In 1989.
15:47:10 15 Q. 980 So would it be fair to say that you had no real familiarity with the zoning
16 process?
17 A. No, I'm a quantity surveyor. Not a planning surveyor.
18 Q. 981 Of course Mr. Lynn, because of his employment with the local authority, he
19 would have quite extensive knowledge of the process?
15:47:26 20 A. Yes, this is true.
21 Q. 982 And Mr.-- we see as I say, that on the 7th of June, '89. You got advices in
22 relation to the potential. And I think there were a series of meetings and at
23 which the development of the site were considered; isn't that right? And if we
24 look at 2992. This is a meeting on the 18th of August '89. And it's
15:47:54 25 attended by Fergal McCabe, Dr. Brian Meehan, who I think was another planner.
26 Your associates I think were a firm of well represented engineers. And then
27 yourself and Mr. Cassidy and Mr. Lynn also attended; isn't that right?
28 A. Yeah.
29 Q. 983 Would you agree with me, Mr. Sweeney, that from here on this in, that is to say
15:48:12 30 from June 1989 forward. That the objective from Monarch's point of view is to

www.pcr.ie Day 661
149
15:48:18 1 improve the development potential of these lands by improving their zoning
2 and/or getting planning on the lands; isn't that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 984 And in order to do that, from time to time strategies have to be devised as to
15:48:34 5 how best to achieve those objectives; isn't that right?
6 A. Well, again, to use the word strategy. There's nothing wrong with the word
7 strategy.
8 Q. 985 I'm not suggesting there is, Mr. Sweeney.
9 A. Yes, certainly, strategy.
15:48:51 10 Q. 986 In a commercial sense you have an objective. You device a strategy to achieve
11 that objective isn't that right?
12 A. Yes. You try to plan your way out of it.
13 Q. 987 Yes. And the strategy is devised by you at this meeting in August '89. And
14 we see you there in the centre of the memo of that meeting was to move the
15:49:11 15 roadway, increase the density of housing, provide for a retail shopping centre
16 and provide for a business park. They were the objectives and the strategy
17 was to achieve those objectives; isn't that right?
18 A. Those are the objectives that are laid down.
19 Q. 988 And again, nothing at all wrong with that. It was a --
15:49:33 20 A. No.
21 Q. 989 And again, I think that on the 11th of August '89 Mr. McCabe wrote again to
22 you. If we look at 2894. And I don't propose to go in in any detail to his
23 advises to you but he was more or less advising you on how a case might be made
24 to achieve some of those objectives; isn't that right?
15:49:56 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 990 And amongst the strategies that you would have to devise, or one of the
27 strategies, I suggest to you, apart from retaining experts, both in-house and
28 outhouse, so to speak, would be to develop some sort of rapore with the
29 planners and find out how they were, what their views were on the site and its
15:50:18 30 development; isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 661
150
15:50:19 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 991 And one obvious way of doing that would be to set up a meeting with the
3 planners; isn't that right?
4 A. Yes.
15:50:25 5 Q. 992 And such a meeting did take place I think on the 29th of August 1989. If I
6 could have 2902.
8 Did Mr. McCabe or Mr. Lynn advise you that they had difficulty setting up a
9 meeting with the planners in August 1989?
15:50:42 10 A. Um, I can't imagine that they did. Because there's never been any difficulty
11 setting up meeting with planners.
12 Q. 993 Yes. You see, when you were dealing with Tallaght and Mr. Lawlor's
13 involvement. I got the impression, and maybe wrongly, Mr. Sweeney?
14 A. Yes.
15:51:07 15 Q. 994 That Mr. Lawlor was necessary in order to advise you who to meet and where you
16 should go, despite the fact that you had all of these experts; isn't that
17 right?
18 A. Yes, but not on the planning end.
19 Q. 995 Not on the planning end?
15:51:11 20 A. No, no.
21 Q. 996 What about the Roads Department?
22 A. Yes, certainly, the roads, the sewers.
23 Q. 997 One of the difficulties with this site was a roads difficulty; isn't that
24 right?
15:51:22 25 A. Yes, there were three main difficulties. One was roads. One was --
26 Q. 998 Sewage?
27 A. One was access and one was sewage.
28 Q. 999 And one was zoning?
29 A. Well the zoning was there.
15:51:33 30 Q. 1000 Yes. But not for a --

www.pcr.ie Day 661
151
15:51:35 1 A. Just to clarify, Mr. Chairman. The zoning was there. And the zoning had an
2 arbitrary line down it, which meant that the zoning -- you see, I find it hard
3 to explain this. But if you imagine a field with a line down it and one side
4 of it is housing and the other side of it is agriculture. It's a pretty well
15:52:00 5 established fact and principle, that if you go for planning with a business on
6 the other side of the line. Then the planners are quite open to that, as
7 would be An Bord Pleanala. Because it's kind of an overlap. And there's no
8 logic to making one half of a field agriculture and the other half housing.
9 So I was quite comfortable with that from a planning point of view.
15:52:32 10 Q. 1001 At 2177, you set out your dealings with local authorities concerning re zoning,
11 planning permission, acquisitions, disposal of lands. Again, from your
12 statement. I think throughout that page, 2177 and for at least half the
13 following page, at 2178. You set out various people and personnel that you
14 would have had contact with and within outside local authorities, isn't that
15:52:55 15 right? In relation to rezonings?
16 A. No, in relation to planning.
17 Q. 1002 Planning. And in relation to the Cherrywood rezoning. If I could have 2181
18 and in fairness to you, Mr. Sweeney. I better put to you what you -- just to
19 develop what you were telling the Tribunal. You set it out there.
15:53:17 20
21 I think that the -- your view was -- you say that when Monarch bought the lands
22 in 1989 by tender, the majority of the zoning was for one house per acre on
23 septic tanks. On the face of this seemed to be a ludicrous and elitist zoning
24 density, but the reality was very different. And it was generally known and
15:53:36 25 crystal clear from advice from planning consultants and indeed the planners
26 themselves the that the professional planners did not intend such a
27 zoning/planning to be performed or executed in practice, rather the
28 planners/officials fully intended and in fact had themselves recommended normal
29 density since the 1983 Development Plan and indeed in previous history back to
15:53:55 30 1972, the one house per acre was in fact an artificial density

www.pcr.ie Day 661
152
15:53:59 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 1003 You go on to say that the real reason for the zoning of one house per acre on
3 septic tank was to avoid the strong possibility of a compensation claim for
4 developers further to refusal permission non-availability of services, such as
15:54:11 5 sewers water etc...In the case of Cherrywood the foul sewer has not yet been
6 completed and the lack of the sewer could have been used by a developer to
7 claim substantial compensation from the local authority as has been the case in
8 several other circumstances in the past.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 1004 And you go on to say that, in your view, to suggest that the increase of
13 existing density on septic tanks from one house to four houses per acre indeed
14 six-hours per acre, was in any way against the policy of the planning
15:54:39 15 department or officials is very misleading and is wrong. This is very clearly
16 reflected in the recommendations of planning officials and planners in Dublin
17 County Council and Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown County Council, throughout the past
18 12 years in all of the Development Plans.
19 A. Yes.
15:54:52 20 Q. 1005 We spoke about difficulties that you had with meeting representatives or
21 officials in the Council. And you say that there were no difficulties meeting
22 the Planning Department. What about the Roads Department?
23 A. There was no difficulties in meeting with them. The difficulties were in
24 trying to get some result out of a meeting with them.
15:55:15 25 Q. 1006 And that's where Mr. Lawlor came in; is it?
26 A. In Cherrywood?
27 Q. 1007 No, generally.
28 A. In generally, no. The difficulties in The Square in Tallaght, were much
29 different, in that it was exacerbated by the fact that Dublin County Council
15:55:34 30 owned the land and Dublin Corporation had the site inside it. And that meant

www.pcr.ie Day 661
153
15:55:41 1 that you were dealing with all of them. And that was very, very tortuous, but
2 in Cherrywood that didn't happen at all.
3 Q. 1008 Now, I think on the -- I think on the 4th of September '89. At 8799 we see
4 the transfer and conveyance of the property to Perivale Limited, which became
15:56:04 5 Cherrywood Properties Limited, isn't that right? By Mr. Galvin?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 1009 And I think by October 1989 although they had not yet been involved at an
8 official level. GRE Properties at 8798.
15:56:24 10 Referred to previous meetings and discussions and conversations regarding a
11 possible involvement in relation to the site, isn't that right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 1010 And I think that that letter was to lead on to a more formal agreement in 1990.
14 December 1990 between Monarch and GRE, isn't that right?
15:56:41 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 1011 And I can if necessary open all of those agreements. But in a nutshell would
17 you agree with me ?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 1012 That it more or less resulted in an agreement to be jointly involved in the
15:56:52 20 development of the lands that Monarch Properties Services Limited were going to
21 provide the development services for the lands and that the fees would be
22 shared 50/50; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 1013 And I think it was also intended, as appears from the very last sentence of
15:57:15 25 that letter. That Monarch would be prepared to pay a million pounds once
26 Cherrywood had achieved sales or pre planning sales of 10 million, isn't that
27 right?
28 A. Could you repeat that again.
29 Q. 1014 Sorry. The last sentence of the second last paragraph. It says, however as I
15:57:29 30 feel we should have perhaps moved more quickly to make the monies for this

www.pcr.ie Day 661
154
15:57:35 1 transaction available. We would be willing to make an extra 1 million once
2 Cherrywood had achieved sales or pre planning permission sales of 10 million to
3 the joint venture. Isn't that right?
4 A. Yes.
15:57:53 5 Q. 1015 Now, I think in time the submissions prepared by Mr. McCabe and Mr. Meehan and
6 you were submitted isn't that right? To the planners.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 1016 In fact, they were initially advised in the July of Monarch's interest in the
9 lands. I think at 2192, on the 20th of October '89, following on meetings
15:58:19 10 with Mr. Davin, draft structural plans were forwarded, isn't that right? And
11 then ultimately I think on the 27th of November '89 a draft plans were sent
12 forward for consideration. And they are at 2898. Again, I don't propose to
13 go into those unless you require me to do so, isn't that right?
14 A. No, that's fine.
15:58:41 15 Q. 1017 But on the 22nd of November '89 I think Mr. Monahan had a second meeting with
16 the Minister, isn't that right? At 7663. We see the Department of the
17 Minister is -- did Mr. Monahan discuss that meeting with the Minister with you?
18 Do you see 4:15 P Monaghan?
15:59:00 20 Q. 1018 You have no recollection of the meeting, or you have no recollection of a
21 discussion concerning the meeting?
22 A. Of the discussion or of the meeting.
23 Q. 1019 Yes. And then I think at 2128 you set out in your statement the developments
24 that you were involved in. And the various interests that you had throughout
15:59:21 25 1990; isn't that right? And they included development in Wales, there were at
26 least four of them, isn't that right?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 1020 Science and Technology Park. Proposals for the Cherrywood Science Park,
29 American Movie Corporation, negotiations conducted in the relation to Tallaght
15:59:36 30 town centre, Malahide Road neighbourhood centres, Jervis shopping Street

www.pcr.ie Day 661
155
15:59:41 1 centre, developments of a shopping centre in Madrid, Glasgow 17 million
2 comprising an 8 acre site bordering on the Forth of Clyde canal. Gobles
3 shopping centre Glasgow, Waterford shopping centre, Dundalk town centre,
4 Bachelor's Walk development. In October 1990 the opening of The Square in
15:59:59 5 Tallaght. They were all projects being undertaken by the Monarch Group in
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 1021 I think on the 24th of January 1990 you had a further meeting in relation to
9 the Cherrywood lands. And we see those at 2954.
16:00:16 10
11 And one of the issues at this stage that you were considering was a possible
12 application for outline permission on the site, isn't that right
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 1022 And the advice of Mr. McCabe. And I think advice that you took on board at
16:00:27 15 the time. Was that such an application was premature?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 1023 Since the planners themselves hadn't worked out a strategy for the site, isn't
18 that right?
19 A. Well mainly because of the access to sewers etc...
16:00:39 20
21 CHAIRMAN: All right, Mr. Quinn, it's four o'clock. So we'll rise.
22
23 MR. QUINN: Ten o'clock tomorrow morning?
24
16:00:59 25 CHAIRMAN: Yes. Will Mr. Sweeney finish tomorrow do you anticipate or?
26
27 MR. QUINN: There's a possibility that he may not finish tomorrow. I don't
28 know who has -- I don't know who is proposing to cross-examine him and for how
29 long.
16:01:03 30

www.pcr.ie Day 661
156
16:01:03 1 CHAIRMAN: I'm sure there will be some cross-examination. Because we may.
2 There is a suggestion that we might sit next week for a day even.
4 MR. QUINN: I understand that Mr. Sweeney is available on Monday and Tuesday of
16:01:18 5 next week but isn't available thereafter, for the rest of the month.
7 MR. SHIPSEY: Sorry, Mr. Sweeney leaves first thing on Wednesday morning.
8 And obviously he will make himself available. Preference would be for Monday.
9 But ...
16:01:32 10
11 CHAIRMAN: Well we'll see. Perhaps there could be some discussion between
12 the legal teams tomorrow to make a decision. We'll sit, there is a slight
13 preference for Tuesday. It doesn't really make an awful lot of difference.
14
16:01:49 15 MR. SHIPSEY: Thank you.
16
17 CHAIRMAN: All right?
18
19 MR. SHIPSEY: Thank you.
16:02:04 20
21
22
23
24
26 FRIDAY, 30TH JUNE, 2006, AT 10:00 A.M.
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 661
1
2 30TH JUNE, 2006, AT 10:00 A.M.:
4 MR. QUINN: Good morning, Sir.
10:08:25 5
8 MR. QUINN: Mr. Sweeney, please.
10:08:28 10 MR. EDWARD SWEENEY, ALREADY SWORN, CONTINUED TO BE QUESTIONED
11 BY MR. QUINN AS FOLLOWS
12
13 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Mr. Sweeney.
14 A. Good morning.
10:08:42 15 Q. 1 MR. QUINN: Good morning, Mr. Sweeney.
16 A. Good morning.
17 Q. 2 Mr. Sweeney, yesterday we were speaking about the period 1990, and the position
18 of the Monarch Group vis-a-vis the Carrickmines lands. And would it be fair
19 to say that as you went into the early 1990s you were in a position where Mr.
10:09:04 20 McCabe on your behalf had made submissions to the planners in relation to the
21 possible zoning for these lands? Isn't that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 3 And I think one of the issues in addition to the zoning issue in relation to
24 the lands was the question of where the Southeastern Motorway might be sited in
10:09:23 25 relation to the lands. Isn't that right?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 4 And there were a number of different proposed lines for the road at that stage,
28 isn't that right? Some of which would have been advantageous to the
29 development of the site others of which would have been disastrous. Isn't
10:09:43 30 that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
2
10:09:43 1 A. No. I don't quite agree that it would have been disastrous. I mean, the
2 road was a moveable object.
3 Q. 5 Maybe I'm a bit excessive in disaster but certainly would have been less
4 advantageous from development or a rezoning point of view from the lands?
10:10:07 5 A. Well if I may say so, Chairman, the object or the desire of Monarch was to get
6 all of the lands within the cartilage of the new motorway.
7 Q. 6 But one of the issues from your point of view, was where might the road be
8 aligned, isn't that right?
9 A. Yes.
10:10:25 10 Q. 7 And you were anxious to find out what alignment might be put for -- on the
11 lands for the roadway, isn't that right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 8 And if we could have 2956, on the 24th of January 1990, in a memo recording a
14 meeting at Monarch Properties, you, Mr. Sweeney, are recorded there under
10:10:46 15 heading paragraph No. 4. As having stated that the political decision had
16 been made to align the motorway on the western edge of the site. Although the
17 forward planners in roads and the planners were continuing meeting/discussions
18 options.
19
10:11:01 20 MR. SHIPSEY: I don't think it's come up.
21
22 Q. 9 MR. QUINN: Sorry. That's 2956.
23 If we go to paragraph No. 4, Mr. Sweeney.
24
10:11:10 25 Do you see under paragraph No. 4. Do you see the middle paragraph? It was
26 stated by ES, who presumably you. That the political decision had been made
27 to align the motorway on the western edge of the site. Do you see that?
28 A. I do see that.
29 Q. 10 That's a record of what you are reported to have said at that meeting, isn't
10:11:34 30 that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
3
10:11:36 1 A. Is the rest of that meeting there?
2 Q. 11 Yes. If we could have the full document, please. It's a document supplied
3 to the Tribunal by Muir Associates, who were, I understand, consultants
4 employed by Monarch, isn't that right?
10:11:54 5 A. Is the second page there?
6 Q. 12 Yes. If I could have 2957, please?
7 A. Yes, I don't recall making that statement. And I find it perplexing,
8 Chairman, to think that anyone could have made a statement of that nature at
9 that time because my understanding is that the roadway was eventually decided
10:12:21 10 by an EIS prepared by the NRA, the National Roads Authority.
11 Q. 13 And that was I think in 1997. If we could have 2956 again, please. Let's
12 look, Mr. Sweeney, at the other matters that are recorded on that memo and see
13 if they are correct.
14
10:12:43 15 Firstly it says "An extension has been requested by Dublin County Council to
16 the Minister for delay to presentation of the Draft Development Plan. It is
17 expected that it will now not go on the wall before October/November 1990."
18 In fact, I think it didn't go on the wall until September 1991, isn't that
19 right?
10:13:01 20 A. I don't really have a memory of that.
21 Q. 14 Yes. "Consideration was given to the submission to an outline planning
22 application now as the further delays are expensive." Was there consideration
23 given in the early 1990s to an outline planning application?
24 A. Yes, I recall that, Chairman. And the upshot of that was that it was
10:13:22 25 considered to be ...
26 Q. 15 Premature. We dealt with that yesterday, isn't that the right? Mr. McCabe's
27 advice to you was that an outlining planning application at this time would be
28 premature since the planners hadn't formulated a view as the zoning of the
10:13:44 30 A. That's true.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
4
10:13:44 1 Q. 16 So that portion of the memo is correct, isn't that right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 17 So it's possible that was said at a meeting in January 1990, isn't that
4 correct?
10:13:45 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 18 And it's also possible -- sorry. It was also the case that the Development
7 Plan was out of date at that stage and that the five year period would have to
8 be extended, isn't that right? I think we're dealing with the 1983 plan.
9 A. I have to say I wasn't really up to all the Draft Development Plan stuff at
10:14:03 10 that the stage.
11 Q. 19 Yeah.
12 A. I was up to my neck in The Square in Tallaght.
13 Q. 20 "It was agreed that we would wait the publication of the Draft Development Plan
14 or at least an indication of the final structure of it." Was that agreed?
10:14:17 15 A. I really can't recall that.
16 Q. 21 Yeah.
17 A. It says it was agreed so ...
18 Q. 22 So it's probably true. If we go to 2957, please: "The programme for the
19 sewer appears to be slipping backwards. McDaid has advised Richard Lynn that
10:14:37 20 there are sections of the county with overloaded systems that require to be
21 prioritised. This sewer does not fall into this category." Do you recall a
22 discussion on the sewer at this time?
23 A. Yes, I recall several discussions on the sewer.
24 Q. 23 Yeah. The contract documents I think were being prepared within the council
10:14:54 25 at this stage. The go ahead having been given on the 1st of May '89, isn't
26 that right by the department?
27 A. If you say so. I don't have any memory of that.
28 Q. 24 Paragraph No. 6. "A discussion took place in regard to the IDA's stated need
29 for a significant industrial land in the southeast of the city. They have
10:15:13 30 about 40 acres in Carrickmines although no sewer and we have planned some

www.pcr.ie Day 662
5
10:15:18 1 industrial. F McCabe discussed the option of mobilizing the IDA's support in
2 order to expedite the construction of the sewer."
4 Was there discussion about expediting the sewer by involvement of the IDA and
10:15:30 5 the possible zoning or proposed zoning of these lands for industrial purposes?
6 A. Yes, Chairman. May I say that all of these things are recorded in a meeting.
7 It's obvious that they were discussed.
8 Q. 25 No. But the reason I'm going through them, Mr. Sweeney, is that the one issue
9 that's recorded concerning you, you don't agree with. If we could have 2956.
10:15:55 10
11 "It was stated by ES", who presumably is you.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 26 "That the political decision had been made to align the motorway on the western
14 edge of the site." That's the one statement in that memo that you don't agree
10:16:09 15 with, Mr. Sweeney, isn't that right?
16 A. Yeah, I don't recall that.
17 Q. 27 Yeah.
18 A. And I must say, how would I have known that?
19 Q. 28 Unless somebody in political circles told you, isn't that right?
10:16:21 20 A. Well certainly no one in political circles told me anyway.
21 Q. 29 But certainly whoever wrote this memo had a recollection at this time of you
22 having said this Mr. Sweeney, isn't that right?
23 A. The only thing I can say is that it's possibly not me that said it.
24 Q. 30 Well, were you present at a meeting in early 1990 when somebody at the meeting
10:16:41 25 advised the meeting that the political decision had been made to align the
26 motorway on the western edge of the site?
27 A. Again, I note it there but I have no recollection of it.
28 Q. 31 No. I know it's said here and it is stated here that you said it but you say
29 you didn't say it. But what I'm asking you, Mr. Sweeney, is have you a
10:17:01 30 recollection of being at a meeting when somebody else might have said that?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
6
10:17:04 1 A. I don't have a recollection.
2 Q. 32 And can you proffer any explanation to the Tribunal as to why somebody within
3 Muir Associates would record that as having been said in the first instance and
4 that as having been said by you in particular?
10:17:19 5 A. Could you go to the second page again?
6 Q. 33 2957, please.
7 A. I'm not sure this is Muir Associates. I wouldn't be sure that this is Muir
8 Associates minutes.
11 A. They've got my name wrong for a start ...
12
13 CHAIRMAN: At the top of the first --
14
10:17:41 15 MR. QUINN: 2956 please.
16
17 CHAIRMAN: At the top of the first page, if it is you, you are down as G
18 Sweeney.
19 A. Yes.
10:17:47 20
21 CHAIRMAN: Is that likely to be you or was there a G Sweeney
22 A. It would definitely be me. There's no other Sweeney as around.
23
24 Q. 34 MR. QUINN: Was there anybody else within the Monarch group that the had the
10:18:01 25 initials ES, that is somebody at a Senior level within Monarch?
26 A. No, Chairman
27 Q. 35 In any event you have no recollection of stating this to the meeting or having
28 heard anybody else state it to that meeting?
29 A. No.
10:18:12 30 Q. 36 Now, I think that Mr. McCabe was able to say in March of 1990 that the western

www.pcr.ie Day 662
7
10:18:23 1 most line was the option being considered. If we have 2970. He advised Mr.
2 Lynn I think in correspondence on the 2nd of March 1990 "That he now believed
3 for good reason that the motorway option selected by the planner road section
4 was the western most line." Isn't that right?
10:18:45 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 37 And one of the problems for Monarch at this stage was the Carrickmines sewer
7 and having it come on line, isn't that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 38 And you were anxious to expedite the construction of the sewer, isn't that
10:19:01 10 correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 39 It was one of the key features of developing this site.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 40 In the services and Carrickmines sewer was probably one of the most important
10:19:12 15 necessary developments to facilitate housing or industrial development on the
16 site, isn't that right?
17 A. Yes, Chairman. There were three criteria that were essential. One was the
18 access, one was the road location and one was the sewer.
19 Q. 41 So therefore, a strategy would have to be designed to expedite the construction
10:19:31 20 of the sewer, isn't that right?
21 A. Strategy. I think what had to happen there was, as much pressure had to be
22 put on to the local authority.
23 Q. 42 Yes.
24 A. To do it. And one would be the strategy.
10:19:45 25 Q. 43 Yes. And one of the points of pressure being considered. If we could have
26 2976. This is a note of a meeting held on the 16th of March 1990. With you,
27 Mr. Sweeney, and if we go to the second page, at 2977. And if we look at the
28 last paragraph. It says ES, which is presumably you. "Indicated that he may
29 be in a position to get a letter from Ikea requiring 100,000 square foot
10:20:12 30 development on the retail park, which could be used with the IDA to speed up

www.pcr.ie Day 662
8
10:20:16 1 the drainage contracts or ML", whom I presume is Mr. Lynn "to make contact with
2 the IDA and ascertain whether they would back Ikea in their application." Do
3 you recall that type of discussion going on between yourself and Mr. Lynn?
4 A. Yes.
10:20:29 5 Q. 44 And that's a strategy discussion, isn't that right?
6 A. Yes, that's an attempt to ...
7 Q. 45 To expedite the sewage system?
8 A. To accelerated the sewer.
9 Q. 46 Yes. And if we go to 2980, this is a meeting on the 3rd of May 1990, attended
10:20:45 10 by Dr. Meehan, who was the planner, Fergal McCabe planner yourself and Mr.
11 Lynn. And again, under the heading "Carrickmines Valley sewage system". If
12 you look at the last paragraph.
13
14 "It was agreed that a political input was required to ensure that the
10:20:59 15 Carrickmines sewerage scheme went ahead as soon as possible and F McCabe
16 indicated that -- and reference to another developer "would accompany ES", who
17 is presumably you, Mr. Sweeney.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 47 "to see Minister Flynn to indicate an overall need in the area." Isn't that
10:21:14 20 right?
21 A. That's right.
22 Q. 48 So this was another strategy at this stage, that is May 1990. Namely, that
23 yourself and another developer would approach Minister Flynn, isn't that right?
24 A. Yes.
10:21:23 25 Q. 49 And did you approach Minister Flynn?
26 A. No, I didn't.
27 Q. 50 And why not?
28 A. Well, that appeared in a meeting. There was no action ever taken on it.
29 Q. 51 But it was being considered in May 1990 that you would approach the Minister to
10:21:38 30 expedite the construction of the sewer. Isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
9
10:21:40 1 A. Yes, my understanding of, that Chairman, is that Fergal McCabe acted for a
2 number of landowners in the area. One of whom his land was also very deeply
3 effected by the progress of this sewer. And he suggested really that both of
4 us should get together to go and see Minister Flynn. Now, that didn't happen.
10:22:07 5 That certainly didn't happen.
6 Q. 52 You didn't go to Minister Flynn. Did Mr. Monahan go to Minister Flynn at this
7 time?
8 A. That I'm not sure of.
9 Q. 53 We know that he did visit Minister Flynn twice in '89 June and again in
10:22:22 10 November and we saw those meetings yesterday, isn't that right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 54 Now, another difficulty that you were having with the site at this time was the
13 access to the site, isn't that right?
14 A. Yes.
10:22:30 15 Q. 55 And we discussed the motorway and the alignment of the motorway?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 56 But I think that by July 1990 you had come to the conclusion that in fact not
18 just the line of the motorway required to be fixed but that the motorway itself
19 ought to be constructed, isn't that right?
10:22:45 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 57 And if we look at a meeting then on the 5th of July 1990, at 2985. It's a
22 meeting between yourself and Mr. Lynn. And if we go to 2986, under the
23 heading "access to the site". We see "RML" which presumably is Mr. Lynn
24 "indicated that it was not alone necessary to have the line of the motorway
10:23:08 25 established but to have it actually constructed to facilitate the development
26 and recommended that contact be made at highest level i.e. ministerial level to
27 ascertain the position." Do you see that, Mr. Sweeney?
28 A. I do, yes.
29 Q. 58 This is yourself and Mr. Lynn now trying to devise a strategy in relation to
10:23:26 30 the construction of the motorway line, isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
10
10:23:28 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 59 And the strategy that's being recommended to you by Mr. Lynn is another visit
3 to ministerial level, isn't that right, in relation to the matter?
4 A. Yes.
10:23:37 5 Q. 60 Did such a meeting take place?
6 A. No.
7 Q. 61 Why not?
8 A. Well I was -- it didn't happen because I wasn't in the habit of going to see
9 ministers about roads and I would have no access.
10:23:57 10 Q. 62 But there was discussion between yourself and Mr. Lynn in relation to the
11 possibility of meeting with ministers on two key issues which concerned the
12 development of the site, isn't that right?
13 A. Certainly, yes. The whole purpose of trying to accelerated the three
14 obstacles was to reach into the air and see what could be done anywhere to
10:24:20 15 accelerated them.
16 Q. 63 And I think that we know that a memo was prepared within the Department of the
17 Environment in relation to an upcoming meeting between the minister and
18 Mr. Monahan on the 6th of December 1990. If we could have 8511, please.
19 This is an internal department memo which says:
10:24:45 20
21 "We are awaiting the submission of contracts documents -- CD -- by Dublin
22 County Council for the Carrickmines Valley sewer scheme. The work on these is
23 substantially complete and the CD -- which presumably refers to contract
24 documents -- should be examined at the latest by sorry -- should be received at
10:25:02 25 the latest by January 1991. A branch sewer to service the Cabinteely area
26 will service the something lands acquired by Monarch Properties. This will
27 be -- will link the Shanganagh treatment works which is currently working at 25
28 percent capacity."
29
10:25:20 30 That's a memo being prepared within the department. Would you agree with me

www.pcr.ie Day 662
11
10:25:24 1 that by December 1990, it was anticipated that Mr. Monahan would meet with
2 Minister Flynn in relation to the Carrickmines Valley sewage scheme?
3 A. I can't say that. I can't say that at all.
4 Q. 64 Now, I think the planners presented their report to the council, isn't that
10:25:55 5 right? In November and December -- October and November 1990. And it came --
6 matters came to a head on the 6th of December 1990, isn't that correct?
7 A. I'm not entirely sure what you mean.
8 Q. 65 Okay. On the 6th -- could I have 3068, please. This is a letter,
9 Mr. Sweeney, written to you by Mr. McCabe following on a meeting he attended in
10:26:18 10 his capacity as a representative of the Planning Institute. And a meeting
11 held with three politicians. He felt Mr. Lawlor was one, Mr. McGrath was the
12 other and he wasn't sure but he thought that Mr. Wright was the third. And it
13 was on the eve of the vote on the 6th of December. And he's writing to you
14 advising you of the outcome of that meeting. Do you recall receiving that
10:26:46 15 letter, Mr. Sweeney?
16 A. I don't recall it specifically, no.
17 Q. 66 Do you recall discussing the letter with Mr. McCabe?
18 A. It's um, may I read it.
19 Q. 67 Yes. Certainly. I'll get you a hard copy of it if it would be more
10:27:00 20 convenient.
21 A. Therefore our support is tenuous .... irritated? I can understand the context
22 of this now. This is Fergal McCabe, planner, saying that he had understood
23 from whatever discussions he had (document handed to witness). That some of
24 the councillors were a bit fed up that the council officials had gone ahead and
10:27:36 25 done a particular plan without consulting them. I believe that's the context
26 of that.
27 Q. 68 And did you discuss the matter with Mr. McCabe?
28 A. No, he's reporting to me.
29 Q. 69 I accept that but having received the letter did you speak with him concerning
10:27:51 30 its contents?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
12
10:27:52 1 A. No, I don't think I did.
2 Q. 70 Yes. Did you ever discuss the matter with Mr. Lawlor, for example?
3 A. No.
4 Q. 71 Now, I think the agreements then were entered into between Cherrywood
10:28:06 5 Development Limited and Cherrywood Properties Limited, at 8808. And again, I
6 don't intend to go into those unless you require me to do so. In relation to
7 the joint development of the lands. It was a complex structure set up but
8 effectively in essence, it meant that you were going to share the costs of
9 development 50/50 and you were going to share the rewards on the development
10:28:32 10 50/50, isn't that right?
12 Q. 72 And I think there was a 1 million pounds bonus that we discussed yesterday when
13 planning came through, isn't that right?
14 A. Yes, I saw that yesterday.
10:28:41 15 Q. 73 Did you not know about that until yesterday?
16 A. I did, I knew that.
17 Q. 74 So as we head into 1991, if I could have 2128, please. You set out in your
18 statement the projects being developed at that time. Developments of sites in
19 Russia, Moscow, Air Rianta shopping centre, St Petersburg bar and restaurant,
10:29:01 20 Clonskeagh Business Park, Singapore science park, isn't that right?
21 A. Which year are you on?
22 Q. 75 I'm on 2128 the very bottom of the page, 1991.
23 A. Oh, yes, yes.
24 Q. 76 You knew that the manager's proposals had been unsuccessful as of the 6th of
10:29:20 25 December 1990. Isn't that right, Mr. Sweeney? The Manager had proposed wide
26 sweeping changes for the zoning of these lands in his map DP90/123, isn't that
27 right?
29 Q. 77 You don't recall that?
10:29:35 30 A. No.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
13
10:29:35 1 Q. 78 Did you not know the planning status of the lands or the zoning status of the
2 lands in early 1991?
3 A. I did.
4 Q. 79 You see, I would have understood, Mr. Sweeney, as the head of the project team
10:29:51 5 dealing with the -- and with overall responsibility for the site in Cabinteely,
6 that you would have been aware at every stage of the zoning status of these
7 lands and the proposed zoning options from the planners point of view in
9 A. Yes, I was totally aware of the planning status of the --
10:30:12 10
11 CHAIRMAN: Yeah. I think, I understood Mr. Sweeney's reply to be to the
12 effect that he didn't know the precise detail that you were putting to him in
13 relation, say, to the map. But I assume, and Mr. Sweeney can correct me if
14 I'm wrong, that you knew in general?
10:30:28 15 A. Yes.
16
17 CHAIRMAN: What happened, what the sort of zoning history was?
18 A. Yes.
19
10:30:35 20 CHAIRMAN: Although you mightn't now be in a position to say it was in
21 November of a particular year or December of a particular year.
22 A. Yes.
23
24 CHAIRMAN: Is that fair or?
10:30:43 25 A. Yes, Chairman.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: It's just that when Mr. Quinn put something to you about something
28 happening on such and such a date in relation to such and such a map, for
29 example.
10:30:53 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
14
10:30:53 1
2 CHAIRMAN: And you say well I'm not quite certain. Do you mean to indicate
3 that you really don't know in even in general what's being, or that you're not
4 aware in general of what is being put to you or are you saying that you don't
10:31:09 5 know the precise detail, which is a slightly different thing?
6 A. Well the only thing that I'm sure of is I did know that the zoning status of
7 the land in 1991 was one house per acre on septic tanks on two-thirds of the
8 land and one-third agricultural. That is the extent of my knowledge.
11 A. Of it.
12
13 Q. 80 MR. QUINN: And are you saying, are you telling the Tribunal, Mr. Sweeney, that
14 you did not know that the manager had proposed a comprehensive rezoning of the
10:31:42 15 lands in October and November 1990?
16 A. 1990?
17 Q. 81 Yes.
18 A. No, I don't --
19 Q. 82 If we could have 6936.
10:31:54 20
21 JUDGE FAHERTY: Just on that, Mr. Sweeney. A few moments ago you said that
22 you recall that there was a Planning Institute meeting.
23 A. Yes.
24
10:32:00 25 JUDGE FAHERTY: That Mr. McCabe reported on.
26 A. Yes.
27
28 JUDGE FAHERTY: Between Mr. Lawlor and Mr. McGrath and perhaps another person.
29 And where you understood the situation to be that the politicians, the
10:32:13 30 councillors were complaining that the planning department had proposed plans

www.pcr.ie Day 662
15
10:32:19 1 without consultation at that early stage with the councillors.
2 A. Yes, Chairman, that's what the letter says.
4 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes. But I took it from that, maybe I'm wrong, that he must
10:32:31 5 have had some idea of what caused the concern to the councillors or the
6 disquiet amongst the councillors at the time. You knew that the lands were
7 zoned one house to the acre on septic tank.
8 A. Yes.
10:32:43 10 JUDGE FAHERTY: And that's the way it was from 1983, isn't that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12
13 JUDGE FAHERTY: And we know that a review had commenced in '89 of the plan.
14 Internally. But you were meeting, certainly Mr. McCabe is reporting to you.
10:32:55 15 A. Yes.
16
17 JUDGE FAHERTY: Having met some councillors and they are complaining about the
18 council.
19 A. Yes.
10:33:00 20
21 JUDGE FAHERTY: And what they are complaining about is that the council had
22 gone on and made plan without consulting them
23 A. Yes.
24
10:33:09 25 JUDGE FAHERTY: And were you not aware at all of the sort of plans that were
26 envisaged by the council back in -- when -- I think that's where Mr. Quinn is
27 coming from.
28 A. In 1990.
29
10:33:21 30 MR. QUINN: In October/November 1990.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
16
10:33:23 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: These were the council's plans Mr. Sweeney. They had to
2 progress the matter and put it out to the public at is some point.
3 A. I explained yesterday that this was all pretty new territory to me.
10:33:34 5 JUDGE FAHERTY: I understand that you were employed in Monarch from the 1970s.
6 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE FAHERTY: And would you not have had any idea, there was a plan in 1983,
9 for example.
10:33:44 10 A. Yes.
11
12 JUDGE FAHERTY: Would you not have had -- I know the lands were zoned from one
13 house per acre on septic tank perhaps earlier. Certainly in your time within
14 Monarch.
10:33:56 15 A. Yes.
16
17 JUDGE FAHERTY: If Monarch had lands and obviously they didn't own the lands
18 at the time and I appreciate that, particular lands. But Monarch may well
19 have had input into, not input but knowledge of the making of what happens
10:34:07 20 within the County Council when a plan is made for a particular area.
21 A. No, it went back as far as 1983 I would have been completely oblivious to a
22 Development Plan.
23
10:34:18 25 A. I became very educated in it, at the end. But at the beginning, I was ....
26
28 A. And we didn't have any land that came within that category.
29
10:34:33 30 JUDGE FAHERTY: All right.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
17
10:34:34 1 Q. 83 MR. QUINN: So you, did you ever see that map on screen, Mr. Sweeney, the
2 Monarch lands would have been in the bottom right hand corner of that map.
3 The blue line represented a notional line for the Southeastern Motorway. The
4 purple area that you see there, is a proposed industrial zoning. And the red
10:34:54 5 area is a town centre. And the yellow area would be residential development.
6 The green area open spaces. You were unaware of that, is that your evidence,
7 Mr. Sweeney
8 A. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that I would have replied on the planning professional
9 consultants to absorb that type of detail.
10:35:18 10 Q. 84 But leaving aside the detail, Mr. Sweeney, the proposal in 1990, if it had been
11 successful, would have resulted in the manager recommending to the councillors
12 that they develop these lands for industrial, residential and town centre
13 development. Isn't that right?
14 A. Yes.
10:35:38 15 Q. 85 Which would have been the ideal development from Monarch's point of view?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 86 And are you saying that in late 1990 you had no idea that the manager was
18 recommending that these lands be so developed?
19 A. Well I was always aware that the officials, including the management, were
10:36:00 20 pro-development for those lands, which included the shopping element of it,
21 which was our major concern.
22 Q. 87 But, Mr. Sweeney, all of your efforts since the lands were required, through
23 Mr. McCabe and the various meetings both in relation to the road department and
24 planning department and the various submissions put in, were to try and
10:36:20 25 convince the planners that they would recommend development on these lands,
27 A. No, the planners themselves in my opinion were already convinced.
28 Q. 88 But do you accept, Mr. Sweeney, that Monarch were paying Mr. McCabe to put in
29 plans or sorry to put in submissions to the planners to have the lands zoned
10:36:38 30 for residential, industrial and town centre development?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
18
10:36:40 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 89 And are you telling the Tribunal that the manager could produce proposals in
3 October and November 1990 recommending that the lands be so developed and you
4 wouldn't have known about it?
10:36:51 5 A. I would have found out about that subsequently. I have to repeat again, that
6 I was up to my neck at that time in Tallaght, which was opening around about
7 then. And it was a 24 hour a day job. And I kind of internally resented
8 anyone coming to me to interrupt my flow and trying to get the project
9 completed on time.
10:37:13 10 Q. 90 Mr. McCabe was telling you tittle tattle that kind of a meeting he had with
11 Mr. Lawlor and Mr. McGrath in relation to the manager's plan, isn't that right
12 and their dissatisfaction of consultation with them as councillors by the
13 managers, isn't that right? On the eve of the vote concerning the manager's
14 proposals and we saw that letter a moment ago on the screen and you recalled
10:37:38 15 receiving the letter?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 91 And are you saying that he would have told you that and you would have known of
18 that but you wouldn't have known of the manager's proposals as published that
19 the lands, the Cherrywood lands, for which your company had spent 10 million
10:37:53 20 the previous year to have those developed for residential, industrial purposes?
21 A. I knew that the manager and the officials and the planners were all for it.
22 Q. 92 And therefore, you must have known that it had, the manager's objectives for
23 the lands had suffered a setback at the meeting in December 1990. Isn't that
24 right?
10:38:12 25 A. That's what I'm a bit unclear about.
26 Q. 93 I see.
27 A. I would like, if possible, to find out what that setback was.
28 Q. 94 Well I can bring up for you, if you wish, the motion of the 6th of December
29 1990, which was successful.
10:38:28 30

www.pcr.ie Day 662
19
10:38:28 1 CHAIRMAN: Well is it likely, Mr. Sweeney, that during this period, that while
2 it mightn't have been while you mightn't have been familiar of the detail of
3 what was going on at council, that you would have been made aware in general
4 terms by Mr. McCabe or other colleagues, as to developments. I mean
10:38:50 5 developments in the sense of the matter winding its way through the council
6 which either benefited or were to the detriment of Monarch.
7 A. Yes, certainly people would have kept me up-to-date.
9 CHAIRMAN: So if something happened, such as Mr. Quinn is going to give you
10:39:12 10 the detail of now, without knowing or without necessarily being informed of the
11 precise detail. You would have been told as a matter of probability as to
12 what happened at the council and the different stages that the resulting from
13 council meetings and so on, council votes. You'd have been aware of, in
14 general terms, what was going on surely.
10:39:40 15 A. Well certainly in general terms, but specifically at that time I don't think --
16
17 CHAIRMAN: So if you had a bad day, if Monarch had a bad day at the council,
18 you'd have been told or if they had a good day or a good outcome you'd have
19 been told?
10:39:55 20 A. Yes. The key figure that would have emerged for me but would been what the
21 status at that present time would have been in terms of zoning. And I would
22 have recognised that as being what I described earlier.
23
24 Q. 95 MR. QUINN: Mr. Sweeney, I'm going to put on screen. I'm going to give you a
10:40:14 25 hard copy and put on screen document No. 6952, which is the minutes of the
26 meeting of the 2nd of December 1990. And I don't want to spend too much time
27 on this but since it might help to revive your memory on the issue. You will
28 see on the document that I'm going to give you A motion which was proposed at
29 the meeting by Councillor Coffey. If we could have 6953, please. (document
10:40:42 30 handed to witness)

www.pcr.ie Day 662
20
10:40:44 1 Now, at the bottom of 6953, you will see a motion proposed by councillor
2 McDonald and seconded by Councillor Coffey. And you can read the motion but
3 the net effect of that motion, if we could have 6953, was that there would be
4 no development south of the proposed Southeastern Motorway line. Could I have
10:41:06 5 6954, please.
7 JUDGE FAHERTY: Just for clarification, Mr. Quinn. I think you should advise
8 the witness that it was the 1983 Southeastern Motorway line.
10:41:19 10 MR. QUINN: That's correct.
11
12 JUDGE FAHERTY: Which you I understand was a dissection of the Monarch lands.
13 A. Yeah, I can recall that now.
14
10:41:28 15 Q. 96 MR. QUINN: I see.
16 A. I thought in fact, Chairman, that you were talking about zoning, in terms of
17 density but in fact you're talking about the geographical location of the line
18 of the motorway.
19 Q. 97 No, we're talking about the zoning being limited to an area east of the line,
21 A. Uh-huh.
22 Q. 98 Which was -- the manager has given evidence, Mr. Sweeney, more or less to the
23 effect that he regarded that motion as a water shed. In other words, it
24 stopped his proposals as we saw them in DP90/123 which would have opened up the
10:42:03 25 entire area for development?
26 A. Yes, yes, I understand that.
27 Q. 99 That's something you would have recollected, isn't that right?
28 A. Yes, I understand that.
29 Q. 100 And you would have known about it.
10:42:12 30 A. And that correspondence is my understanding from the zoning status at that

www.pcr.ie Day 662
21
10:42:16 1 time.
2 Q. 101 And it was back to the drawing boards for you at that stage and indeed for the
3 manager, isn't that right, after the motion?
4 A. Yes.
10:42:22 5 Q. 102 And if we look at 3089. On the 22nd of January 1991, Mr. McCabe and
6 Mr. Meehan were being now asked to urgently prepare um, a -- plans at that
7 meeting on the 22nd and more particularly at the meeting on the 23rd. Which
8 is at 3094. Fergal McCabe tabled two zoning structure maps.
9 A. Yes.
10:43:00 10 Q. 103 And at this stage, you were looking for new zonings to include town centre,
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 104 You hadn't been looking for town centre. You are now looking for town center.
14 You had to go back and revise your submissions in relation to the matter, isn't
10:43:16 15 that right?
16 A. Well, I'm not entirely sure of the mechanics at that time.
17 Q. 105 Yes.
18 A. But I can tell you that our major ambition was town centre.
19 Q. 106 So in early 1991, as you went into early 1991, the manager's proposals, which
10:43:31 20 would have benefited the site, had been rejected by the councillors, isn't that
21 right? And Mr. McCabe was being asked to prepare maps and plans in relation to
22 an alternative zoning, isn't that right?
23 A. The -- is this the line you're talking about again?
24 Q. 107 No, I'm still talking about zoning but I'm talking about zoning now --
10:43:52 25 A. Yeah.
26 Q. 108 -- up to the line?
27 A. Up to the line. Yes, that's correct.
28 Q. 109 And the line at that stage, as I understood it, divided the land, the Monarch
29 lands?
10:43:59 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
22
10:43:59 1 Q. 110 The '83 map?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 111 And in early 1991 I think, if I could have 8716. Mr. Monahan made a
4 contribution I think to the -- Mr. Haughey and the party leaders fund. And we
10:44:19 5 see that at 3100 on the 6th of February '91. What do you know about that
6 contribution, Mr. Sweeney?
7 A. I knew nothing about that contribution until I saw it in the brief.
8 Q. 112 You did not know in 1991 that Mr. Monahan had made that contribution?
9 A. I did not.
10:44:44 10 Q. 113 And you say that you did not know that that contribution had been made until
11 this year, when you received the brief?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 114 But Mr. Monahan gave evidence at another Tribunal on the 31st of October 2000
14 in relation to the contribution, and that's at 7814. Are you saying you you
10:45:01 15 didn't know in 2000 that Mr. Monahan had made that contribution?
16 A. I didn't read up or pay any attention to --
17 Q. 115 So Mr. Monahan came and gave evidence at another Tribunal in relation to this
18 contribution given during your time with the Monarch Group and you didn't know
19 that he had given that evidence?
10:45:15 20 A. Sorry. May I ask you when he gave it?
21 Q. 116 On the 31st of October 2000.
22 A. Well I wasn't at the Monarch Group at that time.
23 Q. 117 No, no, the contribution was given whilst you were with the Monarch Group.
24 A. Um, I understand, Chairman, that that was a personal --
10:45:32 25 Q. 118 Albeit a personal contribution, Mr. Sweeney, are you saying that in October
26 2000 Mr. Monahan could give evidence in public in relation to the contribution
27 and you wouldn't have known about it?
28 A. Absolutely. I didn't keep track of that at all.
29 Q. 119 Okay. Now, I think a number of motions then were tabled, which would have
10:45:49 30 assisted the Monarch Group. If we could have 6972, on the 6th of February

www.pcr.ie Day 662
23
10:45:54 1 1991. This is a motion by Councillor McDonald. "That the council agreed to
2 provide for a district shopping centre in the rezoning of the lands." Do you
3 know anything about how Councillor McDonald came to table that motion?
4 A. Um, no.
10:46:09 5 Q. 120 And there was a subsequent motion I think at 6974. And there were other
6 motions by Councillor Brady and Coffey, at 6976, which appear to have been
7 lodged on the 13th of February '91 and a motion by Councillor Carroll and
8 Mitchell on the 14th of February, '91. At 6978?
9 A. No, I didn't know anything.
10:46:31 10 Q. 121 You don't know how those motions came to be tabled?
11 A. No.
12 Q. 122 I think on the 12th of February, '91, Mr. Monahan met with Minister Flynn, at
13 7664. Did you know anything about that meeting, Mr. Sweeney?
14 A. Um, no.
10:46:54 15 Q. 123 So this is the third time that Mr. Monahan has met Minister Flynn and you
16 haven't been told by him that that meeting was taking place or what was
17 discussed?
18 A. No.
19 Q. 124 And there's been no discussion amongst you as to what he might discuss with the
10:47:09 20 Minister if and when he met him?
21 A. No.
22 Q. 125 But there had been discussion between yourself and Mr. Lynn about possibly
23 meeting a minister to make representations in relation to the construction of
24 the roadway and the expedition of the construction of this Carrickmines sewer?
10:47:23 25 A. Well I could speculate that the connection was there but that would be ...
26 Q. 126 Now, I think there was a meeting on 7th of May 1991. If we could have 3664,
27 Mr. Sweeney, attended by Mr. Monahan, Mr. Glennane, you, Mr. Lafferty,
28 Mr. Murray and Mr. Lynn. And you tabled a master plan and advised that it was
29 intended to submit a planning application by the 1st of September 1991 which
10:47:52 30 would include for circa 250 square foot retail industrial business park and

www.pcr.ie Day 662
24
10:47:57 1 residential development. Isn't that right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 127 That was your -- that was your proposal at that stage?
4 A. Yes.
10:48:02 5 Q. 128 And I think if we look at 3665, under the heading "project management
6 agreement. Mr. Glennane indicated that the 100,000 pounds included in the
7 project management agreement was to cover management costs only and not to
8 cover design input made by MPSL. It was agreed that the matter would be
9 raised at an upcoming meeting with GRE." Is that correct?
10:48:27 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 129 Now, later that month I think on the 24th of May 1991, there was a council
12 meeting which was going to determine the status of the lands in the draft 1991
13 Development Plan, isn't that right?
14 A. Can you say that again?
10:48:43 15 Q. 130 I said on the 24th of May, later that very same month, that is the 24th of May
16 1991, there was to be a special meeting of the County Council which would
17 determine the proposed zoning status for these lands in the 1991 draft plan.
18 Do you recall?
19 A. Well I don't recall it but I accept that.
10:49:02 20 Q. 131 And at 7006, the manager put forward three possible proposals in relation to
21 these lands. The first of which was accepted, which is DP90/A -- 129A, which
22 is to be found at 7019. And that effectively proposed that the lands would be
23 zoned for residential purposes on piped sewage. Isn't that right?
24 A. Yes.
10:49:30 25 Q. 132 That was something that would be of benefit to the Monarch interest in that it
26 increased the zoning status of the lands, isn't that right?
27 A. Yes, and it also established the -- that the sewer was going to go in.
28 Q. 133 Yes. Do you recall any discussion within Monarch in relation to the -- to
29 that upcoming meeting and the possibility of asking councillors to vote in
10:49:56 30 support of a proposal that the lands be so zoned?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
25
10:50:01 1 A. No.
2 Q. 134 I think the next thing that happened was that the council fell and that there
3 was a Local Election in June 1991, isn't that right? If I could have 3241.
4 Between the 30th of May and the 3rd of October I think 23,450 pounds had been
10:50:19 5 disbursed in political contributions by the Monarch Group, isn't that right, in
6 respect of that election campaign?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 135 Were you aware that those contributions had been made or given?
9 A. Not specifically but I knew generally.
10:50:34 10 Q. 136 Well what did you know, Mr. Sweeney?
11 A. I knew, to repeat what I have said earlier. That if anyone applied for help
12 in the -- in their election campaigns, that it was pretty certain that they
13 would get it.
14 Q. 137 Was there any discussion on the level of contribution that might be made?
10:50:57 15 A. No.
16 Q. 138 We know, for example, if you look at that page. The very second name on the
17 page, that is to say Mr. Hand, was given a sum of 5,000 pounds. Isn't that
18 right?
19 A. Yes.
10:51:08 20 Q. 139 That was the single largest contribution at that time?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 140 Can you assist the Tribunal as to how it was decided within Monarch that
23 Mr. Hand would receive such a generous contribution for his Local Election
24 campaign?
10:51:21 25 A. Well, it seems enormous. And I've -- I've also noticed later that that might
26 not have been for Mr. Hand but have been for the Fine Gael Party.
27 Q. 141 Was there any discussion within Monarch concerning the question of payment
28 of -- payment of political contributions for this election?
29 A. Could you repeat that again?
10:51:44 30 Q. 142 Was there any discussion at board level or otherwise, within the Monarch Group,

www.pcr.ie Day 662
26
10:51:48 1 concerning the possibility of contributing to that Local Election?
2 A. Most certainly.
3 Q. 143 There was?
4 A. Yes.
10:51:54 5 Q. 144 And were you privy to that discussion?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 145 And who else would have been involved in that discussion?
8 A. I think the board would have been.
9 Q. 146 The board at that time would have been you, Mr. Monahan and Mr. Glennane?
10:52:08 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 147 Well were there other board members?
12 A. Um ...
13 Q. 148 At that time, that is 1991, June 1991?
14 A. No, that was the board.
10:52:16 15 Q. 149 Would it be fair to say that when you refer to board decisions, Mr. Sweeney,
16 you are referring to a decision of yourself, Mr. Monahan and Mr. Glennane?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 150 And there was a board decision as to how you might approach a situation of
19 requests for political contributions during this election campaign?
10:52:40 20 A. Well I wouldn't go so far as to say there was a board decision. But I would
21 have repeated what you said at the beginning, that the board was aware of these
22 things were happening.
23 Q. 151 But --
24 A. There wouldn't have been --
10:52:51 25 Q. 152 Were they aware that it had happened or were they aware that it was likely to
26 happen, Mr. Sweeney?
27 A. Um, just to get away from the fact that it's a board meeting and the board
28 meeting would not have had something on the agenda that said councillors are
29 going to apply for -- but the board would have been aware that this was
10:53:17 30 happening.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
27
10:53:18 1 Q. 153 Uh-huh. And how would the board be aware that this was happening?
2 A. Well the board should be aware of everything.
3 Q. 154 Well who would advise the board that this was actually happening?
4 A. I would say Mr. Lynn would have been.
10:53:42 5 Q. 155 Did Mr. Lawlor have any input into the selection of persons who might receive
6 political contributions in 1991?
7 A. No.
8 Q. 156 Did you know who had received money in 1991 in that election, in a general way?
9 A. In a general way but not certainly specific.
10:54:01 10 Q. 157 Yes
11 A. I wouldn't have known that list, for example.
12 Q. 158 Yes.
13 A. And I wouldn't known the extent of it.
14 Q. 159 Yes. Looking at that list, Mr. Sweeney, the one name missing from the list
10:54:14 15 and he was I understand a candidate, I understand in June 1991, was Mr. Lawlor.
16 Does that surprise you, having regard to your evidence yesterday in relation to
17 his assistance to the Monarch Group in the Tallaght context?
18 A. Again, the fact that he's not on that list, does that surprise me?
19 Q. 160 Yes.
10:54:37 20 A. And was he going for election?
21 Q. 161 Yes.
22 A. Then it does surprise me.
23 Q. 162 Now, 3122. Is a list prepared of initials and parties and contributions.
24 And again, it's -- whilst it amounts to 22,150, the actual amount paid out,
10:55:00 25 Mr. Sweeney, was 23,450. But again, I'm not going to take you through the
26 financial detail necessarily unless you wish me to do so, but I'm going to ask
27 you to accept as I go forward now that the documents establish a particular
28 pattern. Do you understand?
29 A. Yes.
10:55:23 30 Q. 163 Was there any discussion within Monarch as to, and certainly discussion with

www.pcr.ie Day 662
28
10:55:29 1 GRE, as to the headings of expenses in relation to Cherrywood that might be
2 recoverable by the Monarch Group?
3 A. I really don't understand that question.
4 Q. 164 Okay. It might be better, therefore, if I were to put up 8769. This is a
10:55:53 5 schedule which accompanied a letter dated the 16th of March 1992. To the
6 accounts department of GRE Properties. And it's headed Cherrywood project --
7 projections, Cherrywood Properties Limited Draft Development Plan cashflow
8 projections. Would it be fair to say that there was ongoing contact at some
9 accountancy level between GRE and Monarch in relation to the development costs
10:56:21 10 for Cherrywood?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 165 And in fact, we'll come to see your involvement in recovering some of those
13 costs -- or the GRE contribution for some of those costs, isn't that right?
14 A. Yes.
10:56:31 15 Q. 166 And there were negotiations and GRE were refusing to pay some of the costs,
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 167 And you had to negotiate the recovery of some of those costs yourself, directly
19 with Mr. Baker, isn't that right?
10:56:43 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 168 And you spearheaded those discussions. You were the highest person within
22 Monarch to deal with the recovery of the costs. Presumably when you were
23 speaking to Mr. Baker you were speaking at the highest level within GRE in
24 relation to the matter?
10:56:58 25 A. Certainly but there were several strands and layers.
26 Q. 169 I accept that but they were lower strands and layers, isn't that right?
27 A. There was accountant to accountant. There was Richard Lynn to some other
28 executive and there was myself and Martin Baker I think.
29 Q. 170 Mr. Beele, I think also. But yourself and Martin Baker did the final
10:57:14 30 balancing, isn't that right? You were the two most senior people to deal with

www.pcr.ie Day 662
29
10:57:18 1 the matter. Any issues that arose and other discussions were left over to
2 discussions between yourself and Mr. Baker?
3 A. Yes. When an impasse reached and I had to come in with Mr. Baker to sort it
4 out.
10:57:34 5 Q. 171 Now, this letter, the letter accompanying this schedule is at 8767 and it's
6 dated the 16th of March 1992. And if we go back to the schedule at 8769. It
7 shows the monies, it proposes to show the monies paid to the 31st of January
8 1992, isn't that right? And that's the first column on the left?
9 A. May I ask you to see the second page of the letter.
10:58:06 10 Q. 172 Of the letter, yes. It's at 8768.
11 A. Uh-huh. Yes, thank you.
12 Q. 173 And it attaches a breakdown of the invoices now claimed and it asks that if
13 there are any queries perhaps Mr. Mullen would make contact with the under
14 signed, who was Mr. Lynn, or Ken Lawless. Isn't that right?
10:58:29 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 174 What position did Mr. Lawless hold within the company?
17 A. Mr. Lawless was an accountant.
18 Q. 175 Yes. Now, I think a further projection was prepared, if we could have 3736,
19 please, on the 27th of April, '92.
10:58:43 20 A. Sorry, I missed that.
21 Q. 176 Sorry. This is a second similar type of projection --
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 177 -- being prepared on the 27th of April 1992. Do you understand? You are
24 getting familiar, I take it now, Mr. Sweeney, with the format?
10:58:57 25 A. Yes.
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 179 And at the bottom of that list prepared on the 27th of April '92, there is a
29 handwritten note to Richard, who is presumably Mr. Lynn. Which says "I can't
10:59:10 30 find the 25,000 pounds in respect of strategy consultancy fees. Can you be

www.pcr.ie Day 662
30
10:59:15 1 specific." Do you see that note? Do you recognise that handwriting
2 Mr. Sweeney?
3 A. I don't.
4 Q. 180 Mr. Glennane thought it might be the handwriting Mr. Lawless , that we saw
10:59:26 5 referred to in the March letter a moment ago. But it's not your handwriting?
6 A. No, definitely not.
7 Q. 181 If we had 3992. This is a list prepared on the 28th of April. That's the
8 following day, Mr. Sweeney. And it takes account of the instruction, the
9 manuscript instruction contained in the statement of the 27th of April '92.
10:59:56 10 And it includes, as you will see there, four from the bottom under the heading
11 "strategy consultancy fees. April '92. 22,150." Now, as I say and I ask
12 you to accept this for the moment, Mr. Sweeney, that that figure in fact should
13 be higher, but for the moment, do you see the 22,150?
14 A. Yes.
11:00:16 15 Q. 182 That corresponds with, if we could have 8579. This is an internal document
16 produced, I understand, by Mr. Glennane. And it relates to the payments to
17 the politicians in June '91. Now, you have to take my word for it, for the
18 moment, Mr. Sweeney, but in fact the 22,150 is shy of the actual amount paid.
19 Do you understand?
11:00:39 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 183 But if we could go back to 3992. When we're talking about strategy
22 consultancy fees, Mr. Sweeney, we're talking about payments to politicians
23 during this election, isn't that right?
24 A. If that amount --
11:00:57 25 Q. 184 Yes.
26 A. -- relates to that list.
27 Q. 185 Yes
28 A. Then that is the case.
29 Q. 186 Yes. Do you recall yesterday you were talking about being involved in the
11:01:06 30 preparation of budgets and projections for site development costs?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
31
11:01:13 1 A. Um.
2 Q. 187 That you would have an involvement and you recall being involved in Tallaght
3 and in particular in relation to the construction costs?
4 A. Certainly in Tallaght. When it came to construction cost, yes, certainly, I
11:01:27 5 would have been involved.
6 Q. 188 Now, looking at that list, at 3992, there is a claim being submitted to GRE and
7 we'll see in a moment as we go through, how you negotiated 50 per cent of that
8 claim on behalf of Monarch. But the claim attributes a strategy consultancy
9 fee of 22,150. And indeed, in time when we add in a further 3,000 pounds
11:01:53 10 which was paid in May 1991. And we take account of an adjustment. The
11 figure comes to 27,850. So if you for the moment, Mr. Sweeney --
12 A. Yeah.
13 Q. 189 -- and just bear with me on this, Mr. Glennane has dealt with this in evidence.
14 When we look at 22,150 we're really looking at 27,150 as having been paid by
11:02:14 15 May 1991.
16 A. That's an additional 5,000?
17 Q. 190 It's 27,850. It includes 3,000 and it includes an adjustment to bring the
18 21,000 -- the 22,150 up to the 23,450 that it should have been.
19 A. Yes.
11:02:32 20 Q. 191 That's terribly confusing I know.
21 A. Uh-huh.
22 Q. 192 If I could have 8579. Whoever did up the list of political contributions in
23 June '91 and prepared the list that we see on screen, they came to a figure of
24 22,150.
11:02:55 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 193 In fact, they should have come to a figure of 23,450. And then in May '91
27 there was a further 3,000 pounds made payable to cash.
28 A. Does that mean that that adds up wrong?
29 Q. 194 Yes.
11:03:03 30 A. Yeah.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
32
11:03:03 1 Q. 195 That should in fact be a higher figure is what I'm saying.
2 A. And then?
3 Q. 196 You add-on a figure of 3,000 pounds cash, cheque made payable to cash in May
4 1991. And that takes you up, Mr. Sweeney, to a figure of 27,850.
11:03:22 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 197 Under the headings "strategic consultancy fees".
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 198 And 24,850 of that is attributable to the payments to politicians in June 1991?
9 A. Yes.
11:03:38 10 Q. 199 And we call that strategy consultancy fees?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 200 And we see it in that list there and we see it as being submitted to the GRE
13 company for the purpose of establishing a claim, 50 percent of which they're
14 liable to Monarch, isn't that right?
11:03:59 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 201 Did you know that such a claim was being made?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 202 Did you have input into a claim or an attribution for these figures to the
19 strategy consultancy fees?
11:04:22 20 A. Where are the -- where the actual heading came from I'm not entirely sure.
21 Q. 203 Yes.
22 A. It sounds a pretty typical heading.
23 Q. 204 Yes. Well what do you mean by "typical heading" Mr. Sweeney?
24 A. Well you have to call it something.
11:04:39 25 Q. 205 Well you could call it political contributions, presumably?
26 A. Yes, you could have.
27 Q. 206 Now, I think that the agreement between yourselves and GRE were for the payment
28 of third party 50 percent of third party costs, isn't that right?
29 A. Yes.
11:04:55 30 Q. 207 And the claim in relation to the strategy consultancy fees fell under a claim

www.pcr.ie Day 662
33
11:05:02 1 for third party costs?
2 A. Um, they did.
3 Q. 208 Yes.
4 A. Right.
11:05:10 5 Q. 209 I can -- I'll take you through the correspondence.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 210 I'm anxious not to get weighed down too much on the correspondence.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 211 I will take you through it. And perhaps I should in fairness to you, to show
11:05:24 10 you how you came to argue for it, Mr. Sweeney. As you say, and if I could
11 start at 3987. This is the entry in the records of the Monarch Group, the
12 financial records of the Monarch Group. And you will see there just third or
13 fourth down. A whole series of entries in the sponsorship account of GRE --
14 of Monarch Properties Services, of those payments totalling 15,350. Do you
11:05:55 15 see those?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 212 And they were transferred across to the promotions account. The Cherrywood
18 promotions account together with a further 8,100 pounds. If we could have
19 3988. You see further entries there? Again third or fourth down "J Hand."
11:06:16 20 A. Mr. Chairman, I have seen these documents in the brief. And it may short
21 circuit things a little bit to know that I have read most of them.
22
24 A. And --
11:06:27 25
26 CHAIRMAN: That will speed up things.
27
28 Q. 213 MR. QUINN: And those documents, and those payments, came into the general
29 promotions, Cherrywood promotions account. They were included as third party
11:06:40 30 expenses. They were queried. We have correspondence in relation to the

www.pcr.ie Day 662
34
11:06:46 1 querying of them. And then you got involved I think and you wrote in July
2 1992 to Mr. Baker. We have that at 3789, isn't that right, in relation to the
3 matter? And then he wrote back to you on the 24th of August in relation to the
4 expenses. There was further correspondence. And I think it culminated with
11:07:08 5 a letter of the 2nd of October 1992, at 3837. And do you see item No. 2 there
6 on that letter, Mr. Sweeney? That's a letter signed by you to Mr. Baker and it
7 sets out the position of your claim for your share. And you're claiming
8 management fees for the period September '89 to June '92 and from July '92 to
9 March '93. You're claiming costs, Monarch costs for September '89 to June
11:07:39 10 '92. And then you're making a claim for third party outlay from September '89
11 to June '92 of 556,288. They are entitled to, you claim 50 percent of that
12 less whatever has been paid to date. The strategy management fees that we had
13 up a moment ago, which related to the payments, are included in that figure of
14 556.
11:08:11 15 A. I don't see the figure 556.
16 Q. 214 You see No. 2? Third party outlay from September '89 to June '92?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 215 If you take it from me, that that strategy management fee is in there?
19 A. Yes.
11:08:14 20 Q. 216 And you're seeking that?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 217 And you're seeking that and you're justifying your claim in the context of the
23 agreement which you had, isn't that right?
24 A. Yes.
11:08:26 25 Q. 218 And you're setting out a strategy. And you're talking about what you have
26 done to date in relation to the lands. If we look at 3838, which is the
27 second page of that letter, just to put it in context. And you referred to
28 the recent meeting. Do you see that?
29
11:08:45 30 "Where I told you at a recent meeting that we'd been asked -- we had asked some

www.pcr.ie Day 662
35
11:08:50 1 representatives to request Dublin County management that the Dun
2 Laoghaire/Rathdown portion of the Draft Development Plan be finalised ahead of
3 the other two areas comprising Fingal and south Dublin."
4 A. Yes.
11:08:59 5 Q. 219 That was a strategy that you had embarked upon, isn't that right? Who had
6 made, come up with that strategy or that suggestion, Mr. Sweeney?
7 A. Could I have the date of that letter again?
8 Q. 220 That's October '92?
9 A. October '92. Well there would have been numerous meetings in-house.
11:09:19 10 Q. 221 Yes.
11 A. Regarding strategy.
12 Q. 222 Yes.
13 A. And they would have developed from one of those meetings.
14 Q. 223 Okay. Somebody, but you can't say who, had come up with this suggestion; that
11:09:29 15 you would expedite matters if the council were just to approve the plan in
16 relation to the area where these lands were situated, isn't that right?
17 A. Oh, absolutely. The expedition was the key word.
18 Q. 224 And you advised there that there were upcomings meeting on the 29th and 30th of
19 September in relation to the written statement, isn't that right, and how they
11:09:51 20 might effect the lands?
21
22 And you said "In order to achieve these results it was and is necessary to
23 continue contacts with those representatives favourable to our side.
24 Unfortunately, there is still a strong core of members opposed to any
11:10:01 25 development and we'll take every opportunity to limit development of the lands.
26 We must continue to hold our support and recent discussions with other parties
27 suggest that additional support has been attracted to our side." Isn't that
28 right?
29 A. Yes.
11:10:13 30 Q. 225 Now, you've set up another strategy. You go on to say "That unemployment is a

www.pcr.ie Day 662
36
11:10:17 1 big issue here at the moment and will be the main feature in the next General
2 Election which will take place in mid '93. We have taken Cherrywood to the
3 fore as a source of creating employment and it may be that we should add an
4 additional 5/20 acres to the business park element to make the scheme even more
11:10:38 5 employment friendly. We are sounding this out with a few of the politicians
6 and we see the attached map as a possible lay out to achieve this end. I
7 would like you to make yourself available to meet with senior politicians to
8 emphasis your concern about the delay in bringing this project to a
9 commencement date."
11:10:53 10
11 You were seeking the support of GRE in making themselves available to so that
12 he that they could meet with senior politicians?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 226 Because of the delay in the implementation of the Development Plan?
11:11:03 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 227 Did any such meetings take place, Mr. Sweeney?
17 A. No.
18 Q. 228 What politicians, what senior politicians had you in mind when you wrote this
19 letter?
11:11:11 20 A. Um, I can't recall specifically. Just anyone who might have had the power to
21 influence.
22 Q. 229 I think the Minister for the Environment in 1992 might have been Mr. Flynn.
24 A. I don't know.
11:11:33 25 Q. 230 You don't know, but in any event, you say no such meetings took place?
26 A. With?
27 Q. 231 Politicians?
28 A. With GRE, no.
29 Q. 232 You say that I am also enclosing the planning construction programme for the
11:11:44 30 project. This is based on a Draft Development Plan being finalised in April

www.pcr.ie Day 662
37
11:11:48 1 1993 or at least we knowing that at that stage that it will -- what it will
2 contain. The progress of the review of the Development PLan is torturous and
3 with only holding four meetings per month, it is frustratingly slow."
11:11:59 5 You said that "I am also enclosing a background memo as to the input of the
6 Monarch technical team and also the political input made to date which you may
7 find useful."
9 CHAIRMAN: Can we have the next page?
11:12:10 10
11 Q. 233 MR. QUINN: That's at 3839. Now, first of all, can I ask you, Mr. Sweeney.
12 And I have to tell you that unfortunately Monarch have been unable to discover
13 to the Tribunal, the schedules that accompanied this letter. Can I ask you,
14 what was the political input background that you were able to advise Mr. Baker
11:12:31 15 of in that letter?
16 A. Can I see that?
17 Q. 234 Yes, it's at the very top. "I am enclosing a background memo." Do you see
18 that?
19 A. Yes.
11:12:49 20 Q. 235 "As to the input of the Monarch technical team and also the political input
21 made to date which you may find useful." So what I'm anxious to know and I
22 think the Tribunal is anxious to establish from you as the author of this
23 letter. What did that memo contain in relation to political input made to
24 date?
11:13:06 25 A. The answer is I don't know what I meant there.
26 Q. 236 This is October 1992, Mr. Sweeney, isn't that right?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 237 You were writing in the context of seeking to recover the GRE share of the
29 outlay --
11:13:22 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
38
11:13:22 1 Q. 238 -- incurred. That claim includes 556,000 for third party outlay, isn't that
2 right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 239 As we see. Included in that 556,000 is the 27,000 odd payments under
11:13:39 5 strategy, which had been paid to councillors. Isn't that right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 240 You are putting forward a case, you're setting out the strategy for the future,
8 isn't that right?
9 A. Yes.
11:13:48 10 Q. 241 And you're setting out a memo which shows the input of the Monarch technical
11 team to date. But also you're setting out a memo which includes the political
12 input to date, isn't that right?
13 A. Yes, I'm trying to figure that out but I really can't put anything around it.
14 Q. 242 Well doing the best you can, Mr. Sweeney, what do you think it might have
11:14:09 15 included? What was the political input to date other than the contributions
16 made to the political system in June 1991?
17 A. Well that's what I would have thought. I would have thought that the
18 political input would have been what you just mentioned, for the strategy
19 payments. Other than that, I can wrack my mind about it but I really can't
11:14:33 20 get anything that would fit in.
21
22 JUDGE FAHERTY: Mr. Quinn, can I ask just when the discovery. I know you say
23 that Monarch have been unable to discover the political input memo. What
24 about the other background memo?
11:14:48 25
26 MR. QUINN: No, no. It might all in fact have been the one memo I think.
27 But --
28
29 JUDGE FAHERTY: Maybe one document.
11:14:56 30

www.pcr.ie Day 662
39
11:14:56 1 MR. QUINN: One document. In any event it hasn't been discovered.
11:15:01 5 Q. 243 MR. QUINN: And Mr. Sweeney, you can't assist the Tribunal in relation to what
6 that memo might contain in relation to the political input to date?
7 A. No but I'll certainly wrack my mind about it.
8 Q. 244 Yes.
9 A. It's possible that it could be just a phrase. You know, to mention what had
11:15:20 10 been mentioned before but it doesn't look like that. I can't recall it.
11 Q. 245 Well can I approach it another way Mr. Sweeney. You had meetings with GRE,
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 246 And you said that the board were aware that there were going to be payments
11:15:35 15 made in June '91 for that Local Election, isn't that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 247 Were GRE aware that contributions were made in advance of them being made in
18 June '91?
19 A. They certainly were.
11:15:47 20 Q. 248 And was it a source of discussion between the -- yourselves, Monarch and GRE in
21 relation to your approach that that Local Election?
22 A. Was it a source of?
23 Q. 249 Of discussion or agreement as to what would happen in relation to requests for
24 contributions for that Local Election?
11:16:06 25 A. Yes, everything to do with the project was discussed.
26 Q. 250 And those payments were strategy payments, isn't that right? They were
27 described as such --
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 251 -- in the document. "Strategy consultancy fees." If we could have 3992,
11:16:20 30 please.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
40
11:16:21 1 A. Yeah, what I'm finding it difficult to understand, Chairman, is was there a
2 thing called political payments on that list?
3 Q. 252 Not -- no. Not on the list, no.
4 A. So it's just a summary of what the --
11:16:33 5 Q. 253 They come in under the heading strategy consultancy fees.
6 A. So that last paragraph you were talking about was really to indicate a summary
7 of what the political input had been to date?
8 Q. 254 I suspect so, Mr. Sweeney.
9 A. Yes. But there's certainly no money attached to it?
11:16:49 10 Q. 255 No, the money -- the political contributions are in under "third party costs"
11 and they're in a sub-heading called "strategy consultancy fees".
12 A. Yeah. Well it doesn't help me remember but ...
13 Q. 256 On the 15th of October 1992, at 3842, there was simultaneous correspondence I
14 think in relation to outstanding monies on the Tallaght project, isn't that
11:17:26 15 right written bring Mr. Monahan?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 257 But in any any event, I think that Mr. Baker wrote to Mr. Monahan on the 15th
18 of October 1992. And we see it, as I say, 3842. And he sets out his
19 comments in appendix two in relation to the claim. Now, that's at 3843. You
11:17:49 20 see at the very bottom of 3843. You would have got a copy of that letter
21 yourself and Mr. Glennane, isn't that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 258 And if we look at the accompanying. If we could get to 3845, please. And
24 you see there heading "agrees fees to be paid" and under item 14 heading
11:18:10 25 "Cabinteely outstanding development costs." And there's our figure; 556
26 again?
27 A. Right.
28 Q. 259 And just to confuse matters somewhat, Mr. Sweeney, in fact, that figure shut be
29 netted back to 550,977, but I'm not going to go into that detail.
11:18:29 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
41
11:18:29 1 Q. 260 You can take it that GRE are prepared at that stage to make that payment. And
2 if we go to 3850. Under the heading "third parties costs" it says "GRE
3 confirmed that they would be responsible for 50 percent of 556,288. However,
4 this is subject to confirmation from GRE that the invoices are properly payable
11:18:47 5 and in this respect I would refer to the recent correspondence between Monarch
6 and G Beng."
8 Paragraph 2. "GRE confirmed that they would agree to pay 50 percent of future
9 third party costs amounting to 18,500 pounds on the receipt of proper
11:19:01 10 invoices."
11
12 So subject to proper invoices, that figure has been agreed, isn't that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 261 And when I say proper invoices, that is to say an invoice between the third
11:19:12 15 party and Monarch rather than an invoice between Monarch and GRE?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 262 But of course the recipients of that money wouldn't be providing invoices, I
18 take it?
19 A. This is the political contributions?
11:19:29 20 Q. 263 Yes.
21 A. No. They might be sending letters acknowledging receipt.
22 Q. 264 And I think an invoice was indeed raised between Monarch and GRE. And we see
23 that at 3955, that's an invoice No. 1932 raised on the 15th of December 1992.
24 And the figure, you see the figure 55,978? That's the revised figure?
11:19:54 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 265 The 50 percent contribution is 275,489. And a payment had already been made
27 by them of 71,463 leaving a balance outstanding of 261,878 allowing for VAT,
29 A. Yes.
11:20:08 30 Q. 266 Do you know if that figure or sum was ever paid by GRE?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
42
11:20:19 1 A. Which figure?
2 Q. 267 That is the amount outstanding on that invoice.
3 A. Like 261?
4 Q. 268 261.
11:20:28 5 A. I would think it would have been paid.
6 Q. 269 Yes.
7 A. But I -- yep.
8 Q. 270 But there is no doubt, Mr. Sweeney, that the payments to the politicians --
9 sorry. The payments made in 1991 Local Elections were considered as payments
11:20:51 10 in connection with the Cherrywood lands?
11 A. Yes, in so far as the Cherrywood lands was the only big job that was going on
12 at the time.
13 Q. 271 Yes. There were payments in connection with the Cherrywood lands and the
14 Cherrywood lands were being -- were in the process of being rezoned at that
11:21:12 15 time, isn't that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 272 And the councillors would have to vote on the rezoning of the lands and the
18 upcoming meetings of the council after the publication of the Draft Development
19 Plan?
11:21:25 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 273 And the monies paid were described as strategy consultancy fees, isn't that
22 right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 274 And GRE, a claim was made on GRE for the recovery of 50 percent of those fees?
11:21:36 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 275 And GRE agreed to make the contributions in relation to the fees but that any
27 third party outlay in the future was limited as per that letter at 3850 to 50
28 percent of 18,500 pounds and only on receipt of proper invoices, isn't that
29 right?
11:21:55 30 A. Yes, that was the position at that time.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
43
11:21:57 1 Q. 276 Yes. Therefore, we can take it, Mr. Sweeney, that when we see the reference
2 to strategy consultancy fees, we're looking at a reference to payments to the
3 political system, isn't that right?
4 A. In this particular case, yes.
11:22:14 5 Q. 277 Now, yesterday we spoke about projected payments, isn't that right? And the
6 possibility of budgets. I mean, large organisations operate on budgets and
7 coming in, setting themselves targets, isn't that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 278 And presumably joint ventures, as this was, would also involve itself in
11:22:39 10 projections. Your partners would want to know, as you did, what the likely
11 projection for the future was?
12 A. Yes, that would be normal.
13 Q. 279 And you would try and seek agreement in advance in relation to upcoming
14 payments?
11:22:45 15 A. Yes, if possible.
16 Q. 280 Yeah. And you try and project insofar as you could, the outlays that you
17 would make in a particular area, isn't that right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 281 And if we go back now to the schedule at 3992 for the 28th of April 1992. We
11:23:07 20 see the claim for the 22,150 as having been paid in April '92. In fact, it
21 had been paid in May June '91, but the claim is coming in here in April '92,
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 282 Under the heading "strategy consultancy fee".
11:23:25 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 283 For the Cherrywood village. And we have agreed that that figure in fact is
27 27,850. But leaving that figure aside for the moment and just looking at the
28 strategy consultancy fee. Just look to the figures to the right. In other
29 words, these are the projections for payments under this heading for April and
11:23:46 30 May -- sorry. May and June 1992, a sum of 10,000 and a sum of 50,000. Isn't

www.pcr.ie Day 662
44
11:23:53 1 it fair to say that it was anticipated in April '92 that under this heading
2 strategy consultancy fee, which is a payment to the political system, it was
3 projected that the payments for May and June of 1992 would be 60,000?
4 A. Yes, that looks like that.
11:24:13 5 Q. 284 And can I ask you, who would have projected that level of payment at that time?
6 A. I don't know.
7 Q. 285 Well, as one of the three board members, Mr. Sweeney, who within Monarch would
8 have been projecting that level of payment at that time?
9 A. I can only speculate on that.
11:24:35 10 Q. 286 Well, I think it's probably best that you should, Mr. Sweeney.
11 A. Well I would think Mr. Lynn would have provided those figures.
12 Q. 287 So Mr. Lynn was figuring that it was going to -- he was going to layout 60,000
13 pounds in May and June 1992 as of April '92, he was anticipating an expenditure
14 for the political contributions for May and June of 60,000?
11:24:59 15 A. Well provided my speculation is right, yes.
16 Q. 288 Yes. And that would have to receive approval from somebody within Monarch, I
17 presume?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 289 At a senior level?
11:25:09 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 290 And who was the most senior person within Monarch who had responsibility to
22 sanction payments?
23 A. Well ...
24 Q. 291 Or expenditure?
11:25:20 25 A. Payments of this type?
26 Q. 292 Yes.
27 A. Um, it would be a mixture of the individual members of the board, myself,
28 Mr. Glennane and Mr. Monahan.
29 Q. 293 And that was the projected expenditure at that time, isn't that right? Now, if
11:25:39 30 I move forward then to July 1992. If we could have 3789, please. Now, this

www.pcr.ie Day 662
45
11:25:46 1 is your letter to Mr. Baker in July of 1992. And it again relates to the
2 outlay claim that we referred to earlier, which seems to have been resolved
3 around October 1992. But if I could refer you to the heading "costs" and just
4 in relation to the second paragraph there. You say:
11:26:08 5
6 "I attach an estimate of future costs which may be incurred on the Draft
7 Development Plan amounting to 63,500 exclusive of project management fee".
8 Do you see that?
9 A. Yes.
11:26:20 10 Q. 294 Now, that's -- you are advising. You are seeking recovery of costs to date
11 and you are now giving a projection of costs into the future, isn't that right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 295 And you accompany that document with a schedule, isn't that right, making up
14 that 63,500? And if we could have 8753, please. Do you see the figure of
11:26:42 15 63,500?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 296 These are projected expenditures for August to December '92.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 297 "Irish Productivity Centre 1,500 pounds" and Mr Gilmore has given evidence,
11:26:55 20 Mr. Sweeney, which you may or may not be familiar with, to the effect, that he
21 had asked or challenged figures that were being produced in relation to the job
22 creation prospects of a science park and the Irish Productivity Centre I think
23 had been asked?
24 A. Yes.
11:27:12 25 Q. 298 And that figure presumably would relate to that element of costs.
26 A. Yes, I remember that.
27 Q. 299 Yes. Legal fees -- legal of 7,000. MPSL staff costs 35,000 and then
28 strategy consultancy 10,000.
29 A. Yes.
11:27:31 30 Q. 300 Now, what payments did you envisage amounting to 10,000 pounds for strategy

www.pcr.ie Day 662
46
11:27:35 1 consultancy were likely to take place between August and December '92?
2 A. I don't know.
3 Q. 301 Who would have provided you with the schedule accompanying your letter,
4 Mr. Sweeney?
11:27:48 5 A. The schedule accompanied that letter and parts of the letter themselves --
6 Q. 302 Yes.
7 A. -- would have been as a result of me asking various executives for their input.
8 Q. 303 And who --
9 A. Into that letter.
11:28:01 10 Q. 304 And who would have given you the figure strategy consultancy 10,000, do you
11 think?
12 A. It would have been the same as I said before.
13 Q. 305 Mr. Lynn.
14 A. Yes.
11:28:09 15 Q. 306 And I think also accompanying that letter was a projection for planning costs.
16 If we could have 3791. This is a planning application cashflow projection in
17 relation to Cherrywood Properties Limited. And if we look at the second last
18 item there. "Strategy consultancy fees. Total 40,000. Payable on the
19 third month." Presumably the third month after planning application had been
11:28:37 20 lodged?
21 A. Okay. Can I see the context of that letter?
22 Q. 307 Yes. In fact, I should open I think in total the letter to you, Mr. Sweeney.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 308 And perhaps it might have been fairer to you had I done it from the outset.
11:28:55 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 309 It's at 3789. And I can get you a hard copy of it. And you say:
27
28 It's written by you. It's to Martin Baker. It says "Many thanks for your
29 letter of the 16th of July 1992. And at the outset I wish to keep the
11:29:12 30 Cabinteely project separate to Tallaght and in this letter will address those

www.pcr.ie Day 662
47
11:29:16 1 issues relevant to Cabinteely. I understand a separate communication will
2 issue in relation to the position on Tallaght. I have noted your note
3 regarding the zoning position and it accurately reflects the position. The
4 dates for the particular meetings have not as yet been set but prior to the
11:29:30 5 summer recess, the council was meeting on a weekly basis to deal with the Draft
6 Development Plan. Richard Lynn has attended most of these meetings on our
7 behalf. And will let you have the dates of the said meetings in due course."
9 Just to stop there, Mr. Sweeney. Would it be fair to say that Mr. Lynn was the
11:29:46 10 representative of Monarch at the cold face in relation to the Development Plan
11 review?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 310 Now, then you go on to say under the heading 'costs'.
14
11:29:58 15 "I note that you've approved payments of 149,898 pounds and are presently
16 checking the further invoices per schedule eight which amount to 99,858 pounds
17 and not 56,784 pounds as mentioned in yours. I attach an estimate of future
18 costs which may be incurred on the draft development plan amounting to 63,500
19 exclusive of project management fee. You will appreciate that this is an
11:30:22 20 estimate only and depending upon the outcome of the September meeting this sum
21 could vary either up or down.
22
23 however, as costs are incurred we will continue to forward same to you. In
24 this connection, Richard Lynn has indicated that your Mr. Geoff Beng was to
11:30:38 25 clarify queries he had previously raised. As far as we can ascertain you are
26 in receipt of all of the relevant invoices and should be in a position to deal
27 with these."
28
29 Under the head "planning application cashflow".
11:30:47 30 "I enclose as requested a schedule of projected costs associated with the

www.pcr.ie Day 662
48
11:30:51 1 planning application. The schedule is based on our overall application but
2 does not include for a planning appeal."
4 Fees to Monarch. By letter of letter of 14th July '93 Richard Lynn had
11:31:00 5 forwarded to Brian Gillies, a breakdown of the staff costs involved by MPSL of
6 the Draft Development Plan submission and result in lobbying. Perhaps you
7 will talk to Brian about this sum as no queries have been raised to date. I'm
8 in complete agreement with you that it is essential that the matter be resolved
9 as quickly as possible and in that you may have the schedule to hand since the
11:31:20 10 14th of July '92. Perhaps we could hear from you."
11
12 Joint venture agreement: "We agreed at our meeting that you would instruct Ian
13 Scott to prepare a new agreement to take us through the completion of the
14 zoning/planning and we look forward to receiving this in due course which will
11:31:32 15 have our earlier attention. I would like to conclude by saying that you in
16 recognition must be given to what has been achieved in obtaining commercial
17 zoning on 25 acres of land. This decision we have, we belive was greatly
18 assisted by the fact that Monarch had engaged in the Dun Laoghaire project.
19 We were able to convince the councillors that the Cherrywood project would not
11:31:53 20 have an adverse impact on Dun Laoghaire and demonstrated our confidence in Dun
21 Laoghaire in going ahead simultaneously with that development.
22
23 We are of the opinion that four houses to the acre will be achieved and the
24 residue of the lands and we continue to keep contact with the vital public
11:32:12 25 representatives to ensure that this objective is met. There have been total
26 commitment given by the Monarch staff and management to the Cherrywood project.
27 And it would be greatly appreciated if due recognition was given to this by the
28 release of the monies due on Cherrywood by your good selves. If you may feel
29 that a meeting between us would be beneficial to progress to matters, I am of
11:32:24 30 course available. Yours sincerely."

www.pcr.ie Day 662
49
11:32:28 1 It might have been fairer in a way had I read that letter to you.
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. 311 But I don't think that it greatly alters matters.
4 A. No.
11:32:35 5 Q. 312 The schedule if we put it back up at 3791, is your schedule of projected fees
6 in relation to a planning application excluding the possible fees incurred in
7 an appeal, isn't that right? And what I'm asking you, Mr. Sweeney, is who
8 provided for you the figure of 40,000 pounds strategy consultancy fee in
9 relation to a planning application?
11:32:57 10 A. I don't know.
11 Q. 313 And can you speculate as to how that figure was arrived at?
12 A. There seem to be very bald figures put in there generally. There's a
13 contingency of 100,000 also I see.
14 Q. 314 But you agree with me that a strategy consultancy fee of that order is --
11:33:28 15 anticipates a contribution to the political system?
16 A. It seems to be the same.
17 Q. 315 Yes. As the earlier payments?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 316 It's now half eleven, Sir. I propose to move on to a new topics.
11:33:45 20
21 CHAIRMAN: All right. So we'll take a ten minutes break.
22
11:34:10 25
27
28 MR SANFEY: I wonder if I could just address the position of Mr. Paul Monahan?
29
11:50:59 30 Chairman, after Mr. Monahan gave his evidence earlier in the week, you made

www.pcr.ie Day 662
50
11:51:04 1 certain observations and said that you would give Mr. Monahan a further
2 opportunity in the course of this week to give additional evidence to the
3 Tribunal. And I had said that we would meet with Mr. Monahan and advise him
4 and take instructions and so on.
11:51:19 5
6 Now, can I say Mr. Chairman, we have done that. And Mr. Monahan is
7 considering his position. I should say, it appeared that there wouldn't be an
8 opportunity for Mr. Monahan to give evidence this week anyway because
9 Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Dunlop had to be taken. So the present position is that
11:51:37 10 we hope to meet with Mr. Monahan and determine his position early next week.
11 And if we were to ask the Tribunal at that time for an opportunity for him to
12 give further evidence, we would make that clear to the Tribunal at the earliest
13 possible opportunity
14
11:51:49 15 CHAIRMAN: All right. Thanks fine.
16
17 MR SANFEY: I'm grateful. Thank you, Sir.
18
19 Q. 317 MR. QUINN: Thank you Mr. Sweeney. Mr. Sweeney, just before the break we were
11:51:59 20 dealing with the period June 1991 and if I could have 8927, please. In August
21 1991 there appears to have been a meeting between Monarch representatives and
22 Anglo Irish Bank. And just if you look at the -- this is a handwritten note
23 of this meeting. But if you look under the third line heading "sewer. "PM
24 working on it", that presumably is Phil Monahan. "Said to be on Minister's
11:52:28 25 desk awaiting approval."
26
27 That I presume is the contract document hadn't been received back by the
28 minister in relation to the Carrickmines sewer and the minister had to give
29 approval for the sanction of the funds for the construction of the sewer. And
11:52:41 30 that somebody is updating the bank at that time, that is to say August 1991

www.pcr.ie Day 662
51
11:52:46 1 it's an unsatisfactory letter I accept. But would you accept that it does
2 appear to show that somebody from Monarch is advising the bank that the
3 document is on the minister's desk awaiting approval?
4 A. Yes.
11:52:59 5 Q. 318 And I think in September 1991, at 3326. There was a meeting attended by you,
6 Mr. Lafferty, McCabe and Messrs. Lynn. And again, under the heading Cherrywood
7 "ES advised F McCabe that consideration was being given towards submitting an
8 outline planning application to bring forward construction of the sewerage
9 system", isn't that right? This was a strategy being devised at this stage
11:53:26 10 that is to say September 1991, to advance the construction or expedite the
11 construction of the sewage system that you would lodge a planning application?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 319 And you were advising there your planner that consideration was being given to
14 that. And again, on the 25th of September 1991, at 3341. There's a further
11:53:46 15 meeting between Monarch Properties Services Limited representatives and
16 representatives of experts retained by the company. And if we could just go
17 to 3342, which is the very last paragraph.
18
19 Under the heading Carrickmines Valley sewage system "ES requested that a letter
11:54:05 20 be sent to each of the directors requesting assistance and having the
21 Carrickmines sewage system sanctioned."
22
23 I take it that you are requesting that a letter be sent to Mr. Glennane and
24 Mr. Monahan that they provide assistance in trying to have that constructed?
11:54:19 25 A. No, Chairman. What that means is a letter to the directors of each of the end
26 users mentioned in the previous paragraph.
27 Q. 320 Oh, I see, I'm sorry.
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 321 In other words that the people who might take up options on the site.
11:54:36 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
52
11:54:37 1 Q. 322 That they might put exercise some influence in having the matter expedited?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 323 Yes. Now, that takes us then I think to the end of November 1991 and at this
4 stage between September and November 1991, Mr. McCabe has put in a further
11:54:53 5 submission during the display period. I think the final date for submission
6 was the 3rd of December 1991. And at 8095, I think there is a further meeting
7 held on the 25th of November. Under the heading "Cabinteely zoning submission
8 to be lodged further meetings with O'Herlihy on Tuesday." And I think at this
9 stage you had retained the services of Mr. O'Herlihy in relation to the matter,
11:55:18 10 isn't that right, and he was PRI consultants, is that correct?
11 A. Yes, it would be around about that time.
12 Q. 324 Yes. And these led on to the road shows and the briefings and the videos that
13 we've heard about, isn't that right?
14 A. Yes.
11:55:31 15 Q. 325 And at 3522. On the 3rd of December 1991, Mr. Lafferty is sending you a
16 memorandum advising you that himself and Mr. Richard Lynn had met Ms. Coffey,
17 Fianna Fail councillor for Dun Laoghaire, in connection with the Cabinteely
18 scheme. And while she stated that she liked the scheme she would not support
19 any shopping development outside Dun Laoghaire. And they were able to tell
11:55:59 20 her that you were considering development in Dun Laoghaire, isn't that right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 326 And again, would it be fair to say that whilst you did go on to develop both
23 the Bloomfield site and the Pavilion site, that it was a strategy at this time
24 to advise local councillors that you were not neglecting Dun Laoghaire. That
11:56:18 25 you were going to develop Dun Laoghaire. And try and calm their fears in
26 relation to the development of Cabinteely at the expense of Dun Laoghaire?
27 A. Yes, this became a particular bone of contention with some councillors.
28 Q. 327 Yes.
29 A. Who were very protective of Dun Laoghaire town centre.
11:56:36 30 Q. 328 But there was a benefit from Monarch's point of view at this time in promoting

www.pcr.ie Day 662
53
11:56:42 1 their presence in Dun Laoghaire, isn't that right?
2 A. Yes. The benefit at that time was to be towards the Cherrywood scheme.
3 Q. 329 Yes. And in fact, I think you sought contributions from GRE at some stage in
4 relation to your outlay in Dun Laoghaire, isn't that right?
11:56:59 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 330 And you sought it on the basis that this would be of benefit to the Cabinteely
7 project, isn't that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 331 Now, I think then at 2129, to return to your statement and dealing with 1992.
11:57:14 10 You there set out the involvement of Monarch in 1992, isn't that right? And
11 you say "This year also saw the planning stages for a road show in respect of
12 the lands at Cherrywood to explain the merits of the Monarch scheme to the
13 community. Bill O'Herlihy, public relations was involved in this and also
14 conducted staff training in meeting public representatives I think." Sorry.
11:57:35 15 "In media/public relations expertise", isn't that correct. And you say "As
16 part of this road show I would have met certain public representatives to lobby
17 in respect of the development in Cherrywood as part of this process I can
18 recall having lunch in the Shelbourne with Mary Flaherty TD, dinner with
19 Senator Councillor Don and Maeve Lydon in Kielys in Donnybrook and lunch with
11:57:54 20 Councillor Tom Hand at a Chinese restaurant in Sandymount."
21 A. Yeah.
22 Q. 332 And you deal with the other areas the Phoenix Park race course, the Blackrock
23 baths, the golf course and hotel resort in Donegal and the science conferences
24 in Hong Kong and Singapore." Isn't that right? They were all projects that
11:58:11 25 you were involved in at that time?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 333 Just in relation to your meetings with Mary Flaherty, Don Lydon and Tom Hand,
28 can I ask you just in relation to Mary Flaherty, she has given evidence to the
29 Tribunal that you had asked her to have a word with her colleagues and seek
11:58:24 30 their support. Would that be fair, a fair representation of what happened

www.pcr.ie Day 662
54
11:58:30 1 between you?
2 A. No, Chairman. That was near enough what happened but what my recollection of
3 what happened at that lunch was that we discussed the success, if you like,
4 that we had in Finglas shopping centre, of which she was very helpful to us.
11:58:53 5 And I didn't ask for any introductions but I simply said that I would be
6 meeting various councillors and would I have her permission to ask them to
7 contact her for basically a reference to sound our praises, hopefully. That
8 was my recollection of it.
9 Q. 334 I see. And did she give that permission to you?
11:59:16 10 A. She certainly did.
11 Q. 335 Yes.
12 A. But I must say, she did not introduce me to anyone.
13 Q. 336 Now, at 2183. Again, you deal with that early period in late '91 early '92.
14 And you say "That Monarch started a road show with video models drawings and
11:59:38 15 perspectives of development taking it on public display over six or seven
16 consecutive weekends at various schools and other locations around the
17 Cherrywood area. Each member of the Monarch Group was involved in this road
18 show and many of these were trained in media/relations where Bill O'Herlihy has
19 come from so that they could deal with the general public. At the same time
11:59:53 20 a lobbying exercise was started with politicians and councillors, especially
21 those who were local and near the Cherrywood area including Donal Marren, Larry
22 Lohan, Larry Butler, John Barrett, Frank Smith, Don Lydon, Eamonn Gilmore.
23 This was co-ordinated by Richard Lynn and many of the Monarch staff were given
24 certain councillors to contact for their support. I would have contacted
12:00:13 25 Flaherty, Don Lydon and Tom Hand in this respect." Isn't that right?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 337 Now, we do know that the councillors, if I could have 7144. That is to say
28 Councillors Lydon and Hand. On the 4th of May 1992 lodged with the planning
29 department of Dublin County Council a motion which if successful would have
12:00:37 30 improved the zoning on the lands, isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
55
12:00:40 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 338 Now, you were assigned these two councillors you've told us in your statement.
3 Can I ask you, your involvement with these councillors and in particular any
4 involvement you may have had which led to the tabling of this motion by them?
12:00:56 5 A. Yes. I met them I think one for lunch and one for dinner. And basically, I
6 was trying to explain Cherrywood to them. And specifically having a bit of a
7 attention on the science and technology end of it. I have to say that at
8 those meetings we didn't talk specifically about Cherrywood. It was pretty
9 social and it was talking about travel and talking about this that and the
12:01:34 10 other. And then at some point we would have talked about Cherrywood but not
11 an awful lot of it.
12 Q. 339 Do you know how Councillors Hand and Lydon came to table this motion,
13 Mr. Sweeney?
14 A. Not specifically.
12:01:52 15 Q. 340 Who would have asked them to table the motion, do you know?
16 A. Yes. Most certainly it would have been Mr. Lynn.
17 Q. 341 Yes. And did Mr. Lynn advise you that he had been successful in asking these
18 gentlemen to table a motion?
19 A. Not that I recall specifically but certainly I would have become aware of it.
12:02:08 20 Q. 342 Can I ask you how the -- how these two particular councillors were assigned to
21 your allocation of councillors that you would lobby?
22 A. I can't say specifically but there was the luck of the draw.
23 Q. 343 Yes. But from what you say Mr. Lynn also would have lobbied them at this
24 time?
12:02:32 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 344 When you spoke with them you didn't speak with them in the context of putting
27 in motions?
28 A. No.
29 Q. 345 Did they ever ask you for any contribution towards the cost of putting in this
12:02:45 30 motion?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
56
12:02:45 1 A. No.
2 Q. 346 Did you know that a motion had been lodged by Councillors Lydon and Hand in May
3 '92?
4 A. Um, did I know that the time?
12:03:00 5 Q. 347 Yes.
6 A. Um, I would have known at that time, yes.
7 Q. 348 Did it -- it didn't surprise you I take it therefore having regard to your
8 discussions with them that they were promoting a motion which would have been
9 beneficial to Monarch interest?
12:03:13 10 A. Yes, yes. You mentioned previous to that the video.
11 Q. 349 Yes.
12 A. I just wonder, Mr. Chairman, has the Tribunal seen that video?
13
14 CHAIRMAN: We haven't seen it.
12:03:27 15
16 Q. 350 MR. QUINN: I don't think we have, Mr. Sweeney.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 351 But we'll make efforts, you think it might be beneficial to the Tribunal's
19 deliberations?
12:03:35 20 A. Yes. I certainly think it would.
21
22 CHAIRMAN: Well we'll certainly look at it.
23
24 Q. 352 MR. QUINN: In any event, as it happened. The two councillors that you were
12:03:42 25 detailed to canvass, lobbied -- lodged a motion which was -- which if sucessful
26 would have been beneficial to the Monarch interest. Isn't that right?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 353 The text of that motion, did you have any input into the text of that motion?
29 A. No.
12:04:04 30 Q. 354 Who would have advised Councillors Hand and Lydon about the text of the motion

www.pcr.ie Day 662
57
12:04:05 1 do you know?
2 A. Again, I'm speculating.
3 Q. 355 Yes.
4 A. It would have been Mr. Lynn.
12:04:08 5 Q. 356 Now, that motion came on for hearing I think on the 27th of May 1992. When
6 the manager at 7203 produced his own report, DP92/44. Which was a map which
7 if successfully carried, would have result in the a zoning of the lands to a
8 new line of the Southeastern Motorway at a density of residential piped sewage
9 on an action area plan, isn't that right?
12:04:36 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 357 And some of the, but not all of the agriculturally previously zoned land would
12 have now been included in the action area plan for residential development?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 358 This would have been a significant uplift on the rezoning of the Carrickmines
12:04:51 15 land if successful?
16 A. Yes, this would have been very successful.
17 Q. 359 Did you know that the manager was proposing that the lands be rezoned as we see
18 on this map?
19 A. Yes.
12:05:02 20 Q. 360 Was there much discussion within the Monarch Group in relation to the manager's
21 proposals and how they might be dealt with on the day?
22 A. Um, the main discussion would have been on the proposal that Monarch were
23 putting across.
24 Q. 361 Which was being --
12:05:20 25 A. Which was.
26 Q. 362 Being spearheaded by Councillor Lydon's and Hand's motion which we saw a moment
27 ago?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 363 Do you know how Councillor Lydon and McGrath came to propose the manager's
12:05:32 30 proposal on the day?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
58
12:05:33 1 A. No.
2 Q. 364 Had there been any discussion within the Monarch Group on whether or not the
3 manager's proposals ought to be voted upon or supported?
4 A. Not that I can recall.
12:05:46 5 Q. 365 In any event, the manager's proposals were not successful but a motion by
6 Councillor Gilmore and O'Callaghan for a C zoning was successful. isn't that
7 right?
8 A. Yes. I could never figure out why that happened.
9 Q. 366 Why it was successful or why they had brought such a motion?
12:06:04 10 A. Why the manager's thing ...
11 Q. 367 Wasn't successful?
12 A. Wasn't successful. I could never figure that out.
13 Q. 368 This was a major setback within the Monarch Group, isn't that right?
14 A. Yes.
12:06:14 15 Q. 369 Did it take you by surprise that the manager's proposal was unsuccessful?
16 A. Yes, it took me by surprise because I think anything supported by the manager
17 and his professional planners ought to be given a lot more credibility than to
18 be turned down on a vote.
19 Q. 370 And I think at 3706. This is a note, possibly of a telephone conversation,
12:06:44 20 with somebody within Anglo Bank in relation to the what had happened on the
21 27th of May. Possibly a conversation, a note of the conversation between you
22 and the note taker. You'll have seen this in the brief?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 371 Do you recall having this conversation?
12:07:03 25 A. I do.
26 Q. 372 And I think you were there advising the note taker of what had actually taken
27 place, isn't that right?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 373 And you were advising that the C zoning had in fact been successful?
12:07:14 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
59
12:07:14 1 Q. 374 But that the residential zoning because of Sean Barrett's motion, had been held
2 on -- held at one house to the acre, isn't that right?
3 A. Yes. I tried to bring him down gently there, Chairman, by saying that there
4 was good news and bad news.
12:07:30 5 Q. 375 And he concludes the note by saying that you were absolutely -- it was
6 absolutely inevitable that this will get the residential, presumably
7 residential zoning and that you would explain later. Do you see the very last
8 manuscript entry there?
9 A. Yes.
12:07:50 10 Q. 376 What were you going to explain to him later about the residential zoning that
11 you couldn't have told him at the time?
12 A. Well, it seems to have been a very short conversation and obviously, I kicked
13 it a bit into touch.
14 Q. 377 And then I think on the 6th of July you advised Ansbacher of the situation,
12:08:11 15 isn't that right? At 3768. And again, you again highlighted the fact that
16 you had got the commercial zoning and that the residential zoning was -- you
17 were querying I think the procedures adopted on the day. Isn't that right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 378 And I think we know that Mr. Lydon at a follow-up meeting on the 12th of June
12:08:33 20 '92. At 3743 queried the procedures adopted on the day, isn't that right?
21 A. Yeah, I found that out but I didn't recollect that.
22 Q. 379 You didn't recollect that at the time?
23 A. No, I knew that there was something funny about the manager's report getting
24 knocked.
12:08:49 25 Q. 380 Now, so there matters lay as of May '92 you had the C zoning but you were back
26 to square one in relation to the residential zoning.
27
28 JUDGE FAHERTY: Mr. Quinn, could I just ask Mr. Sweeney something that occurs
29 to me now. Mr. Sweeney, we know from the records that when the vote on the
12:09:05 30 manager's map was unsuccessful, the motion that Monarch had before them, the

www.pcr.ie Day 662
60
12:09:13 1 council, tabled by Mr. Hand, the late Mr. Hand and Mr. Lydon was withdrawn.
2 A. Yes.
4 JUDGE FAHERTY: Can I ask you. You've already told Mr. Quinn that you were
12:09:22 5 aware that the manager was putting a proposal on the table?
6 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE FAHERTY: At that time and not extraordinarily dissimilar to -- not
9 terribly dissimilar to your motion?
12:09:34 10 A. Correct.
11
12 JUDGE FAHERTY: Was there any discussion -- contingency plan discussed within
13 Monarch about what would happen either of the manager's proposal was accepted
14 or not accepted?
12:09:49 15 A. Not in advance, Chairman, but I can say that I asked the same question as you
16 just did afterwards. And I was told that it became -- the people became aware
17 that the motion had no chance because of the manager's thing going down. And
18 therefore, why make things worse is the sort of thing.
19
12:10:16 20 JUDGE FAHERTY: Fine, Mr. Quinn.
21
22 Q. 381 MR. QUINN: So the next matter or the thing of interest that arises,
23 Mr. Sweeney, I think is the November 1992 General Election, isn't that right?
24 A. Yes.
12:10:29 25 Q. 382 And again there were disbursements made in relation to that election, isn't
26 that right?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 383 There were two withdrawals and the Tribunal has been unable to find the cheques
29 of the source of the payments. One is for a sum of 10,000 pounds on the 17th
12:10:47 30 of November 1992, at 3875. And the other is a sum of 5,000 pounds on the 19th

www.pcr.ie Day 662
61
12:10:56 1 of November 1992, at 3917. The 5,000 pounds cheque is at 8546. Can I ask
2 you, Mr. Sweeney. Do you know anything about the ultimate destination of
3 either of those, the proceeds of those cheques?
4 A. Sorry, could you repeat again?
12:11:18 5 Q. 384 The first payment appears to be by way of cheque on the 17th of November '92
6 for 10,000 pounds. And it's at document No. 3875.
8 JUDGE FAHERTY: I think these are cheques written to Allied Irish Bank plc in
9 fairness to the witness.
12:11:33 10
11 Q. 385 MR. QUINN: Yes. They appear to be written to the bank on which they are
12 drawn, Mr. Sweeney.
13 A. Yeah, I did she these in the brief.
14 Q. 386 Yes.
12:11:40 15 A. But I have no knowledge.
16 Q. 387 Who within Monarch would have knowledge of the ultimate payee of those cheques?
17 A. Well the accountancy department would.
18 Q. 388 Was there any discussion, to your knowledge, at board level or otherwise, in
19 connection with 15,000 pounds worth of funds being made available to anybody
12:12:07 20 within Monarch during the election of 1992, November '92?
21 A. Was there any discussion?
22 Q. 389 Yes.
23 A. No.
24 Q. 390 Can you assist the Tribunal in any way in relation to those cheques?
12:12:18 25 A. No.
26 Q. 391 The cheques were attributable to the Cherrywood stock. Can you think of
27 anything as the project leader in relation to the Cherrywood development that
28 would require a 15,000 pounds expenditure in the middle of the election in
29 1992.
12:12:37 30 A. What does "Cherrywood stock" mean?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
62
12:12:40 1 Q. 392 Yes. You can take it when I say" Cherrywood stock" it's a cost in relation to
2 the Cherrywood development.
3 A. Okay. No, I can't.
4 Q. 393 Can you speculate?
12:12:49 5 A. No, I can't, no.
6 Q. 394 Would you agree with me that it's unusual that there would be such large
7 disbursements by way of two cheques at that time attributable to the Cherrywood
8 project?
9 A. Would I think it's unusual?
12:13:07 10 Q. 395 Yes, yes.
11 A. Well looking at it now, no, I don't think it's unusual.
12 Q. 396 Why not?
13 A. Well I have no reason to say that it's unusual.
14 Q. 397 But it's a -- looking at the books and records of Monarch Properties Services
12:13:25 15 Limited. One doesn't see the payee of those cheques, isn't that right, or the
16 beneficiary of those funds?
17 A. The beneficiaries are Allied Irish Bank.
18 Q. 398 Well, I mean, I suggest to you that they were cheques written for the purpose
19 of putting somebody in funds. Isn't that right?
12:13:46 20 A. Well I don't know.
21 Q. 399 Did you -- did the Monarch Group, Monarch Properties Services Limited have
22 borrowings with Allied Irish Bank in November '92?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 400 And do you think that that 15,000 was applied towards those borrowings?
12:14:01 25 A. I don't know.
26 Q. 401 If it weren't applied towards those borrowings would you agree with me that it
27 would be an unusual way to treat the funds of Monarch Properties Services
28 Limited in 1992?
29 A. I couldn't say whether it was unusual or not.
12:14:20 30 Q. 402 Yes. One would normally I -- you gave evidence yesterday, Mr. Sweeney, of the

www.pcr.ie Day 662
63
12:14:21 1 procedures that you put in place in relation to the payment of invoices etc.
2 A. Exactly.
3 Q. 403 The payments are designated promotions and cash in the books of Monarch
4 Properties Services Limited?
12:14:38 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 404 And one -- presumably procedures were in place so that an auditor or an officer
7 of the company would know where the funds of the company were being
8 distributed, isn't that right?
9 A. Yes, I presume when it came to the end of the fiscal year that that the auditor
12:14:58 10 would be questioning that sort of thing.
11 Q. 405 Yes. And you wouldn't be surprised that he might question these two payments?
12 A. I'd be -- I wouldn't be surprised, no.
13 Q. 406 No. You a would be astonished if he didn't question them? They wouldn't be
14 found in the general promotions account if they were in relation to the
12:15:19 15 payment -- if they were assigned to the repayment of interest on a loan
16 outstanding, isn't that right? Maybe that's an accountancy point that should
17 be taken up with somebody else.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 407 But what I'm surprised at, Mr. Sweeney, is that you're not surprised there
12:15:37 20 should be two such large payments without any designation in the books and
21 records of the -- of Monarch Properties Services Limited. And that they
22 should be assigned to the costs associated with the Cherrywood lands.
23 A. Well I -- I'm not surprised because I can't see the whole thing in context.
24 Q. 408 I'll try and put it in context for you maybe by putting document No. 3877 on
12:16:07 25 the screen, Mr. Sweeney. This is a -- an extract from Monarch Properties
26 Services Limited's journal accounts. And it's under the heading "promotions
27 account" and you will see there a series of payments at this time, which we'll
28 be coming to in a moment, which were made to candidates in that election.
29 A. I see that.
12:16:29 30 Q. 409 And in the middle of those payments you will see these two payments about half

www.pcr.ie Day 662
64
12:16:34 1 way down the page you will see "AIB cash 10,000. AIB 5,000 cash." Do you
2 see that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 410 Does that help you, Mr. Sweeney, in coming to a view in relation to these
12:16:53 5 payments?
6 A. In coming to a view?
7 Q. 411 As to whether they are unusual payments or unusual withdrawals from the books
8 and records of Cherrywood?
9 A. Well I would expect the accountancy guys to be able to answer that.
12:17:09 10 Q. 412 You feel that Mr. Glennane and his staff would be able to tell the Tribunal
11 what those payments were in respect of?
12 A. I certainly don't know.
13 Q. 413 But you don't know. And you say there was no discussion in relation to these
14 payments at the time.
12:17:22 15 A. No.
16 Q. 414 Would you as a director of the company have to sign off on the books and
17 records of Monarch Properties Services Limited at year end?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 415 And you would have signed off on the accounts in relation to these?
12:17:32 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 416 And you would have signed off on these payments as a director of the company?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 417 And can you not tell the Tribunal what these two payments were in relation to?
24 A. Well they were never brought to my attention.
12:17:43 25 Q. 418 Had you -- had you stumbled across the document on screen when you were signing
26 the books and records of Monarch Properties Services Limited as director, would
27 you have raised or queried with the accounts department in relation to those
28 payments?
29 A. I may have. I can't positively say.
12:18:04 30 Q. 419 But would you have had had you seen those payments as we see them there now on

www.pcr.ie Day 662
65
12:18:09 1 screen?
2 A. I don't know for sure.
3 Q. 420 Would you have raised a query in relation to them, Mr. Sweeney?
4 A. I don't know for sure.
12:18:15 5 Q. 421 Does it surprise you that Mr. Glennane doesn't know what they were in relation
6 to?
7 A. Yes.
9 JUDGE FAHERTY: Mr. Quinn, would you mind. Would you go back up to the top
12:18:26 10 of the document I want to see the heading?
11
12 MR. QUINN: 3877.
13
14 JUDGE FAHERTY: Could you increase the heading?
12:18:33 15
16 MR. QUINN: To get a designation one has to go to the previous page which is --
17
18 JUDGE FAHERTY: Just before you do that, Mr. Quinn, I'm sorry to interrupt
19 you. There is a reference there to journal. And then there's the word
12:18:44 20 transaction. Is that cheque number? Or maybe Mr. Sweeney might help us. If
21 you see the very top. Journal is first. And then there's something and
22 there's a number.
23
24 MR. QUINN: It's a transaction number I think. I don't believe it's a cheque
12:18:58 25 number because we have the cheque in relation to one of them.
26
27 JUDGE FAHERTY: Just could I look at the cheque for the a moment. That's
28 really I point I just want to ...
29
12:19:13 30 MR. QUINN: 8456 on the screen.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
66
12:19:13 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: Thank you very much.
3 MR. QUINN: That's the cheque for 5,000. We don't have the cheque for 10,000.
12:19:16 5 JUDGE FAHERTY: Do we know the number of that cheque?
7 MR. QUINN: Yes, the cheque No. is 7102 I think.
12:19:35 10
11 MR. QUINN: Yes. And in relation to the 10,000 it's 7055. But in relation
12 to the one on screen, it's the last of the centre columns at 3877.
13
14 JUDGE FAHERTY: All right. Thanks very much.
12:19:52 15
16 Q. 422 MR. QUINN: In any event, Mr. Sweeney, you can't advance the Tribunal's inquiry
17 in relation to these payments.
18 A. No.
19 Q. 423 And you say there was nothing unusual about the payments?
12:20:03 20 A. Well I can't comment on that.
21 Q. 424 Well you were a director of the company. You signed off on the books and
22 records of Monarch Properties Services Limited as a director. They are your
23 books and records as certified by you, Mr. Sweeney. You may not have a direct
24 input in relation to the payments. But I'm asking you to comment as a
12:20:21 25 director and as somebody who had responsibility in relation to the payments and
26 the keeping and books and records of the company as to whether or not you see
27 anything unusual about those two payments?
28 A. Well if I may say so, Chairman, the first time I saw these internal accountancy
29 documents were a short time ago in the brief.
12:20:43 30 Q. 425 What I had asked you, Mr. Sweeney, was if you saw anything unusual about the

www.pcr.ie Day 662
67
12:20:47 1 payments?
2 A. If I had known.
3 Q. 426 Yes. Had you seen the document on screen when you came to write your name as
4 a director to the books and records of the company --
12:20:56 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 427 -- would you have raised a query in relation to those payments?
7 A. Well I may have or I may not have.
8 Q. 428 There were two fairly large round sum payments at that time. And assuming
9 that they weren't in relation to the repayment of interest to Allied Irish
12:21:14 10 Banks, are you saying or is it your evidence to the Tribunal that there was
11 nothing unusual about them?
12 A. I did in my recollection I did query payments in the accounts but they were
13 generally payments that were out of my own field of expertise. And, that as I
14 said yesterday, related to accountancy and legal. I generally queried those.
12:21:45 15 I was also quite content about the construction side of it.
16 Q. 429 Uh-huh. Well, would you have a necessity on the construction side of
17 Cherrywood to make disbursements in November 1992? There was no planning in
18 place. There was nothing being constructed in November '92 in Cherrywood?
19 A. No.
12:22:04 20 Q. 430 So whatever they were in relation to, it wasn't in relation to construction.
22 A. No. But there were construction things going on at the time.
23 Q. 431 That required a 15,000 pounds payment in November '92?
24 A. No, no, no. I'm not saying that.
12:22:19 25 Q. 432 Where do you think those payments went, Mr. Sweeney?
27 Q. 433 Well can you not speculate as the project leader or the person with overall
28 responsibility for the Cherrywood site in November '92?
29 A. Um, I could speculate but I don't know what it was.
12:22:42 30 Q. 434 Well speculate?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
68
12:22:43 1 A. Well I really don't know what it was. So ...
2 Q. 435 Well you were a director of the company, so you're in the best position to
3 speculate in relation to what the payments may have been in relation to.
4 A. Well, I can't speculate on it. I don't know what they were for.
12:23:09 5 Q. 436 Nobody brought them to your attention?
6 A. No.
7 Q. 437 They wouldn't appear to have been properly written up in the books and records,
8 isn't that right?
9 A. In the books and records?
12:23:18 10 Q. 438 Yes. That is to say it doesn't appear from anything that has been discovered
11 to the Tribunal that the ultimate payee of those cheques is identified, isn't
12 that right?
13 A. It's just Allied Irish Bank?
14 Q. 439 Yes.
12:23:32 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 440 They appear to have been cheques written, I suggest to you, for the purpose of
17 putting somebody in cash. And indeed, one of the cheques has a designation
18 "cash" written after it and you see on the screen. You see the one for 10,000
19 pounds?
12:23:48 20
21 CHAIRMAN: They both have.
22
23 MR. QUINN: Do you see on the left AIB 10,000 cash?
24
12:23:55 25 CHAIRMAN: They both have.
26
27 MR. QUINN: And so does the --
28 A. So they must have been for cash then.
29
12:24:05 30 Q. 441 MR. QUINN: Yes. Well do you have any idea who within Monarch Group would

www.pcr.ie Day 662
69
12:24:10 1 have required 15,000 pounds in cash in the middle of that local -- General
2 Election?
3 A. No.
4 Q. 442 Does that raise any -- or help to raise any queries in your mind Mr. Sweeney,
12:24:25 5 in relation to the payments, the fact that they have a cash designation?
6 A. No but it appears that they were cash.
7 Q. 443 Yes. Was it usual, for example, to write cheques to cash for such large sums
8 within the Monarch Group?
9 A. I don't know. I would have thought it was.
12:24:45 10 Q. 444 Yes. And what in Cherrywood would in 1992 would require the expenditure of
11 15,000 pounds in cash?
12 A. In Cherrywood?
13 Q. 445 Yes. In connection with Cherrywood. What in connection with Cherrywood in
14 November 1992 would require a 15,000 pounds cash expenditure?
12:25:03 15 A. I can't think of anything.
16 Q. 446 Who within Monarch would be the best person to ask for an explanation in
17 relation to that, Mr. Sweeney?
18 A. The accounts department.
19 Q. 447 Mr. Glennane?
12:25:14 20 A. Mr. Glennane.
21 Q. 448 Mr. Glennane doesn't know. Anybody else?
22 A. Well Mr. Monahan.
23 Q. 449 Mr. Monahan is dead, Mr. Sweeney, unfortunately.
24 A. Yeah, God rest him.
12:25:33 25 Q. 450 Anybody else?
26 A. No.
27 Q. 451 So here we have, as we see it on the screen, a promotions account, general
28 promotions account in connection with Cherrywood. Which contains all of the
29 cheque payments to the political representatives in that election, in November
12:25:56 30 1992. And in the middle of those we have these two cheque payments to Allied

www.pcr.ie Day 662
70
12:26:02 1 Irish Banks with the designation "cash" isn't that right? And you say that
2 that does not cause you any concern or doesn't come as a surprise to you.
3 A. I have to keep repeating myself here. I don't know about those cheques.
4 Q. 452 No. But had you known about them when you signed off on the accounts having
12:26:21 5 regard to the -- where they were assigned and the designation given to them and
6 the lack of supporting documentation. Would you have found it surprising?
7 A. I did not know about them when the accounts were signed off.
8 Q. 453 Yes. But had you known about them would you have raised queries in relation
9 to why these two cheques had been written?
12:26:44 10 A. I may or I may not have was my answer, for the third time.
11
12 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sweeney, would you, given the large amounts involved and I
13 think, well certainly the total would make them the second biggest item in that
14 list. Would you -- does it not surprise you, given your experience in
12:27:10 15 business, that there is no identity of the person or persons who benefit from
16 these cheques?
17 A. Well it does surprise me now.
18
19 CHAIRMAN: Yeah.
12:27:27 20 A. But I didn't see it at the time. So ....
21
22 CHAIRMAN: But had you -- this is the question -- had you seen it at the time.
23 I know you can't be certain now.
24 A. Yes.
12:27:37 25
26 CHAIRMAN: No one can. As to what your reaction would have been. But had
27 you noted them at the time and seen the designation "cash" in both cases. And
28 were not told as to who was to benefit from these cheques or the -- these cash
29 amounts. Is it -- do you think it likely that you would have raised a query
12:28:02 30 as to what they were for?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
71
12:28:03 1 A. Yes, I think it would be likely but I don't know whether I would have or not.
3 Q. 454 MR. QUINN: Now, if I could have 1582 please. This is a list supplied,
4 Mr. Sweeney, by Monarch in relation to payments to the political system during
12:28:18 5 that election. And that is to say the General Election and the Seanad
6 Election. Did you know that payments were being made at that time?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 455 And was that discussed at board level?
9 A. Yes.
12:28:33 10 Q. 456 And was there agreement as to the amounts that would be paid by the company?
11 A. There was general agreement. Again, to repeat what happened in the previous
12 one, it was generally discussed but the amounts weren't discussed specifically.
13 Q. 457 And who had the overall responsibility for the determining the amounts?
14 A. The amounts appeared to me to have been determined by, in the main, requests
12:29:04 15 from people.
16 Q. 458 They range from 1,000 to 2,000. And we know some of the people who had been
17 unsuccessful in the General Election were also in receipt of further funds for
18 the Seanad election. Isn't that right?
19 A. Yes, I've seen this list.
12:29:21 20 Q. 459 Yes. Did you know of the list at the time? Did you know that these payments
21 were being made at the time that they were being made?
22 A. I knew that payments were being made to various councillors and politicians.
23 Q. 460 Did you know that they were being written up in the books and records in
24 relation to general promotions Cherrywood?
12:29:39 25 A. Yes, I knew that they were being allocated under Cherrywood.
26 Q. 461 And again, I don't want to bog you down on detail, unless you require me to do
27 so but I think you've accepted that they were part of the accumulation of the
28 costs of the Cherrywood site. Isn't that right?
29 A. Yes, at that time.
12:30:05 30 Q. 462 Yes. And that was a board decision, presumably? Now, if I could bring to

www.pcr.ie Day 662
72
12:30:08 1 your attention to further payments. If I could have 3889. There were two
2 payments I think made in November '92 to the leaders of Fine Gael and Fianna
3 Fail, isn't that right? One in the sum of 2,500 and the other in the sum of
4 5,000.
12:30:29 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 463 Did you know that those payments were being made?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 464 And at 3904, we see the payment request in relation to the cheque to the leader
9 of Fine Gael, and that cheque is at 3905. And then at 3894 we have the cheque
12:30:40 10 to the leader of Fianna Fail. And we have an accompanying letter of 18th
11 November 1992 at 3891. Did you have any input, Mr. Sweeney, into the text of
12 that letter that's now on screen?
13 A. No.
14 Q. 465 Did you know that such a letter had been written?
12:31:01 15 A. At that time, no.
16 Q. 466 When did you come to know that such a letter had been written?
17 A. When I saw the brief.
18 Q. 467 Does it surprise you that the cheques, the letter accompanying the cheque
19 speaks about the assistance provided by the members of that party in relation
12:31:18 20 to the rezoning of the lands?
21 A. It doesn't surprise me, no.
22 Q. 468 Now, I think that you were to have an involvement in relation to those payments
23 in that there were invoices raised for them, isn't that right at 4317? The --
24 there is a document dated the 29th of June '93. Which sets out the basis of a
12:31:49 25 figure of 20,307 pounds which includes fees to Noel Smyth but also includes
26 these contributions of 2,500 and three?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 469 And I think that that figure of 20,370 then was contained in an invoice dated
29 the 29th of June '93, at 4302 and invoice No. 2066, isn't that right?
12:32:15 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
73
12:32:15 1 Q. 470 This was part of the 15,500 third party costs that we dealt with before lunch
2 which was the future projection limitation of payment, isn't that right?
3 18,500 I should have said. Sorry.
4 A. Yes.
12:32:28 5 Q. 471 And then I think there was a further invoice raised then in relation to
6 management fees. Isn't that right? At invoice No. 2062. Which is the 29th
7 of June '93 and these invoices were submitted, isn't that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 472 And you got involved when GRE raised issues in relation to those invoices.
12:32:52 10 Isn't that right? I think on the 7th of July '93. If we could have 4303,
11 please. Invoice No. 2062, which contained the sums to the party leaders was
12 queried, isn't that right? And it says the writer of that letter.
13
14 This that is to say Mr. Baker in a letter to you says under heading paragraph 3
12:33:17 15 invoice No. 2062. "This matter relates to the additional management fee. And
16 should therefore include the contributions of 2,500 and 5,000 included in
17 invoice 2066. If you should arrange confirm this I shall arrange for invoice
18 No. 2062 to be passed for payment."
19
12:33:34 20 What was the special management fee?
21 A. Where is that?
22 Q. 473 Do you see at paragraph No. 3. Heading invoice No. 2062?
23 A. Additional management fees?
24 Q. 474 Yeah. Effectively what Mr. Baker is saying to you there, Mr. Sweeney is that
12:33:52 25 you have included a sum for 7,500 in that invoice but in fact it should have
26 been included in another invoice which related to special management fees.
27 A. Yes.
29 A. Yes.
12:34:04 30 Q. 476 You'll recall that?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
74
12:34:06 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 477 And I think that you had occasion then to write back to him on the 13th of July
3 1993, at 4314. If we look at the third paragraph.
12:34:16 5 You say that "As regards invoice No. 2062 in your reference to the two payments
6 of 2,500 and 5,000 you will note that these sums were bona fide to the parties
7 concerned. They therefore would not rank within the payments envisaged which
8 have been disbursed through the additional management fee. And I would
9 therefore feel that they could not be written out in the way that you suggest."
12:34:36 10
11 That seems to imply, Mr. Sweeney, that fees written out under the heading
12 "special management fee" are fees which are not bona fide paid to third
13 parties, isn't that right?
14 A. Well that's not right.
12:34:55 15 Q. 478 Well you tell the Tribunal now, Mr. Sweeney, what that -- what the special
16 management fee was.
17 A. Well there was a number of fees being presented to GRE --
18 Q. 479 Uh-huh.
19 A. -- for 50 per cent input into the joint venture. They came under various
12:35:22 20 headings. I was at pains to try to make sure that Monarch weren't going to be
21 at any loss in this. And Monarch, as you'll notice from the build up to this,
22 was becoming increasingly and more increasingly involved from a management
23 point of view. And I was very anxious to try to get that money back. So I
24 tried to negotiate and I did negotiate with GRE that they would recognise the
12:35:46 25 input being put in by Monarch to achieving the zoning and the progress on the
26 development. So all of these were headings.
27
28 What Martin Baker, of GRE, would have indicated to me at various times, would
29 have been that they preferred one heading rather than another. And it didn't
12:36:17 30 matter to me what heading, so long as we got the money.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
75
12:36:24 1 Q. 480 Yes. But you advised Mr. Baker in that letter that they were bona fide
2 payments. And therefore, weren't payments that were envisaged within the
3 additional management fee heading, isn't that right?
4 A. Yeah. I think possibly that Mr.--
12:36:43 5 Q. 481 You agree with me, Mr. Sweeney, that that implies that payments envisaged under
6 the heading additional management fee were not bona fide payments?
7 A. I don't accept that for a moment.
9 CHAIRMAN: Well I think, I mean, it could mean that the management fee is a
12:37:06 10 fee, if you like, for labour supplied by Monarch. It wouldn't involve third
11 parties. Is that right?
12 A. Yes.
13
14 Q. 482 MR. QUINN: As a result of your negotiations, you issued two new invoices were
12:37:24 15 issued, isn't that right and the fees were ultimately paid? Or 50 percent of
16 the fees were ultimately paid?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 483 Now, if I move on to 1993 and if I could have 8129, please. You set out, this
19 is reverting to your statement, Mr. Sweeney. And you say that under the
12:37:49 20 heading 1993 development submissions for the -- sorry. 2129, I'm sorry.
21
22 You are setting out here what, from your statement what's happening in 1993
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 484 And you say meetings in Brussels Metropole Hotel re science park for
12:38:09 25 Cherrywood. I also attended a science park conference in Montpelier, France
26 also represented was Donal Marren from Dun Laoghaire/Rathdown Council. Science
27 park proposals for Prague science park and Tallaght shopping centre Prague.
28 As part of these I would have been present at meetings involving Ambrose Kelly,
29 Liam Lawlor, Frank Dunlop and Philip Brendan O'Mara, Philip Monaghan and these
12:38:30 30 would have involved discussions regarding a proposal -- sorry regarding a

www.pcr.ie Day 662
76
12:38:34 1 possible purchase of the Alpha Building in Prague and we dealt with that
2 yesterday, isn't that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 485 This is what was going on in 1993. And I think that in July 1993 you had a
12:38:50 5 meeting I think with the manager, isn't that right? If we could have 4312.
6 And at this stage, Mr. Sweeney, you were formulating your proposal in relation
7 to the possibility of a science and technology park on the site, isn't that
8 right?
9 A. Yes.
12:39:08 10 Q. 486 And would it be fair to say that the strategy here was to put forward to the
11 planners a planning gain which might be of -- have an attraction to them which
12 would facilitate their attitude towards accommodating an uplift in the rezoning
13 of the lands?
14 A. Yes, I may say though, Chairman, that that wasn't the very first start.
12:39:35 15 They'd been working on the science park for two years in advance of that.
16 Q. 487 Did the manager know that you had been promoting the concept of a science park
17 prior to this meeting?
18 A. The meeting was when?
19 Q. 488 July 1993.
12:39:49 20 A. Um, I can't say for sure but I would believe he would.
21 Q. 489 But just to put it in context, the strategy at this time, Mr. Sweeney, is to
22 bring the planners on board in relation to the -- the Carrickmines area, isn't
23 that right?
24 A. Yes.
12:40:07 25 Q. 490 And the carrot, so to speak, from their point of view, is to put forward
26 something which would improve the prospect of job re creation in the area?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 491 And the science park was being formulated as something that would achieve that
29 end, isn't that right?
12:40:22 30 A. Yes, I have to say that every time the science park was put forward it was an

www.pcr.ie Day 662
77
12:40:26 1 open door both to councillors and to the public and to anyone.
2 Q. 492 Yes. But your proposals at this time related to a possibility of industrial
3 zoning on the site, isn't that right?
4 A. Yes because a science park doesn't come under --
12:40:40 5 Q. 493 Yes.
6 A. -- the category of industrial.
7 Q. 494 Yes. And we see there from that memo where you're discussing the matter with
8 the county manager. And obviously anything that would promote job creation
9 within his county would -- is something that would have attraction to him.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 495 And you had, as you -- throughout this year and earlier I think you as you say
13 had been promoting the concept of a science and technology park. You had
14 picked up on this idea internationally and you had decided that this might be a
12:41:17 15 very good location for such a park. Isn't that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 496 Would it be fair to say that there were two areas of progress at this stage
18 vis-a-vis the rezoning. There was the question of convincing the councillors
19 in relation to the Development Plan which was under review and there was also
12:41:34 20 the question of convincing the planners themselves in relation to the lands?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 497 And was one of the difficulties at this stage the fact that there was no
23 industrial zoning on the map at this time? In other words, that what was on
24 display or what was under review were the amendments, the 1992 amendments, so
12:41:57 25 to speak. So, in other words, since industry wasn't included in the '92 plan
26 it wasn't something that was likely to come back before the current council.
28 A. The industrial had been put forward by the planner earlier.
29 Q. 498 Yes.
12:42:12 30 A. And they had been --

www.pcr.ie Day 662
78
12:42:14 1 Q. 499 That's way back in 1990 and that was knocked?
2 A. So in this form it was kind of trying to bring it back again.
3 Q. 500 Yes but there was a legal impediment as far as the manager was concerned I
4 think, isn't that right?
12:42:25 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 501 I understand?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 502 So you were negotiating with the manager on the concept of putting in some
9 industrial zoning on the site. And at councillor level you were seeking to
12:42:36 10 reverse the density in relation to the residential zoning?
11 A. Not to reverse it, to increase it it.
12 Q. 503 To increase the density?
13 A. From one to four.
14 Q. 504 When I say reverse, yes. To reverse a decision --
12:42:48 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 505 -- that limited density to one house per acre. And I think submissions were
17 prepared. If we look at 4321. There were a series of submissions prepared
18 by Mr. McCabe on the 30th of July 1993. One of which at least related --
19 sought to have an industrial zoning put on the lands. Can you advise or help
12:43:09 20 the Tribunal, Mr. Sweeney, as to whether any of those submissions were lodged
21 in 1993?
22 A. Could I see the date of that?
23 Q. 506 30th of July 1993. 4321.
24 A. That to me looks as if it is a submission.
12:43:28 25 Q. 507 Yes. There were three different submissions, one of which we know for certain
26 wasn't submitted.
27 A. Oh,.
28 Q. 508 And we're not sure if either of the other two were submitted, Mr. Sweeney.
29 I'm just wondering if you may or may not know whether or not it was submitted.
12:43:47 30 A. There are three letters.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
79
12:43:49 1 JUDGE FAHERTY: Three drafts I think.
3 Q. 509 MR. QUINN: Three drafts. And one of them may have gone in or may not have
4 gone there in. I'm just wondering can you assist the Tribunal if any of them
12:44:00 5 did go in?
6 A. Could I have the hard copies and I might ...
7 Q. 510 Yes. I won't delay you now. I'll get them to you over lunch Mr. Sweeney.
8 They are at pages 4321. The second is at page 7221. To 7223 and the one not
9 sent is at 8556 to 8558.
12:44:26 10
11 Now, Mr. Sweeney, we move on in the early part. I've slightly jumped ahead.
12 But if I just go back a little bit to -- I had start in the July '93 with that
13 meeting with the manager in relation to the possibility of the science and
14 technology park. And you agreed with me that you had the difficulty of trying
12:44:43 15 to get industrial zoning at this stage of the review of the plan because of
16 what had happened in May of '92. But at some stage and possibly in March
17 1990, in 1993, you came to be involved with Mr. Dunlop in connection with the
18 site. Isn't that right?
19 A. In March?
12:45:03 20 Q. 511 Of 1993.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 512 Now, your counsel has taken Mr. Dunlop through -- your counsel has taken Mr.
23 Dunlop through your evidence or what your evidence would be in relation to
24 that. And you were here yesterday and you heard his examination of Mr. Dunlop
12:45:28 25 and you heard Mr. Dunlop's replies?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 513 And just in a broad sort of a way, there is enormous difference between your
28 recollection of what happened and Mr. Dunlop's recollection of what occurred in
29 relation to his appointment to this project, isn't that right?
12:45:42 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
80
12:45:42 1 Q. 514 And in a moment, you are going to give your recollection of what transpired,
2 Mr. Sweeney. But in the first instance, we are at a situation where the --
3 Monarch have suffered the reversal in May '92. We have moved forward now to
4 March '93. The review of the draft '91 plan is coming forward at some stage,
12:46:11 5 either before the summer or after the summer. In the event it comes forward
6 in November '93, isn't that right? It comes back before the council on the
7 11th of November '93, as it happens.?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 515 Yes. You have lobbied it and you have told us about your efforts with
12:46:30 10 Mr. Lydon and Mr. Hand. And we know that Mr. Lydon and Mr. McGrath had
11 proposed a manager's proposals which would have been assistance. And they to
12 your astonishment had been unsuccessful in May '92?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 516 That had been proceeded by a fairly detailed campaign involving PR consultant
12:46:47 15 Mr. O'Herlihy, the road show and your efforts to deal with the concerns of
16 those objecting and local residents.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 517 Now, if we could have 4041. This is -- and you will have seen it in the
19 documents Mr. Sweeney. And I have no doubt that you will have gone through
12:47:06 20 this in some detail. But it may in some way assist you. This is a telephone
21 attendance taken within Mr. Dunlop's office. And you will see there that at
22 9:55 on that morning, that Monday morning, at ten to ten Mr. Lawlor's secretary
23 appears to have rang to say and to advise Mr. Dunlop that he had arranged a
24 meeting with Ed Sweeney in Monarch House at five o'clock for that very same
12:47:29 25 day. Do you see that attendance?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 518 Now, Mr. Monarch -- Mr. Lawlor was somebody well known to you. You had been
28 dealing with him since 1987 and had quite a substantial amount of dealings with
29 him in relation to Tallaght. Isn't that right?
12:47:44 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
81
12:47:45 1 Q. 519 And had Mr. Lawlor been involved in any of the strategy or the campaign or the
2 lobbying which had taken place in the lead up to the May '92 vote?
3 A. No.
4 Q. 520 Had he been involved post May '92 and prior to March '93?
12:48:06 5 A. No.
6 Q. 521 Does it surprise you that Mr. Dunlop's office would produce a document which
7 purports to show and a meeting being arranged by Mr. Lawlor with you for Mr.
8 Dunlop?
9 A. Does it surprise me?
12:48:29 10 Q. 522 Yes.
11 A. Well I can see it.
12 Q. 523 I can accept that it exists.
13 A. Yeah.
14 Q. 524 But from what -- does it surprise you that Mr. Lawlor was in a position or that
12:48:39 15 a document exists which purports to show that Mr. Lawlor was in a position to
16 arrange a meeting between Mr. Dunlop and yourself?
17 A. No. Because I -- I've -- I believe that Mr. Monahan and Mr. Lawlor met and
18 between them decided that Mr. Dunlop was going to be brought on to the team.
19 Q. 525 Okay. Can I ask you, Mr. Sweeney. And this may have been my fault. When I
12:49:07 20 asked you was Mr. Lawlor involved in the period up to May '92. You said no.
21 But could he have been involved without you knowing about his involvement?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 526 And when I asked you had he been involved after May '92 and before March 1993.
24 You said no. But you now believe that he must have been involved to the
12:49:30 25 extent that he had discussions with Mr. Monahan in relation to Mr. Dunlop, at
26 least?
27 A. Yes.
28
29 JUDGE FAHERTY: And just before you go on. You'd agree, Mr. Sweeney.
12:49:41 30 Earlier this morning you told -- Mr. McCabe reported to you that Mr. Lawlor had

www.pcr.ie Day 662
82
12:49:48 1 some involvement in a meeting with him on the 5th of December '91?
2 A. Oh, yes.
4 JUDGE FAHERTY: Regarding the plans for the Carrickmines area is, that
12:49:56 5 correct?
6 A. Yes.
8 JUDGE FAHERTY: So pre '92 he had an involvement and certainly a recorded
9 involvement on the 5th of December 1991. Not with you directly.
12:50:04 10 A. I didn't notice that.
11
12 JUDGE FAHERTY: But do you accept that?
13 A. Yes.
14
12:50:07 15 JUDGE FAHERTY: You didn't demur when Mr. Quinn put it to you earlier today
16 that Mr. McCabe reported to you I appreciate, I don't think you were at the
17 meeting?
18 A. That's quite correct.
19
12:50:21 20
21 Q. 527 MR. QUINN: Now, you -- you have advised the Tribunal that it was your belief
22 that Mr. Lawlor met with Mr. Monahan and it was decided that Mr. Dunlop would
23 become involved. Is that right?
24 A. Yes.
12:50:36 25 Q. 528 And that was a strategy, presumably, being devised at that stage in relation to
26 the rezoning? A strategy being devised between Mr. Monahan and Mr. Lawlor?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 529 At what stage -- and leaving aside your first meeting with Mr. Dunlop now,
29 Mr. Sweeney. At what stage did you become aware of that strategy?
12:51:01 30 A. The strategy?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
83
12:51:02 1 Q. 530 Of involving Mr. Dunlop in the project.
2 A. When Mr. Monahan phoned me or talked to me about it.
3 Q. 531 Okay. Well you better tell the Tribunal then what Mr. Monahan said to you
4 Mr. Sweeney.
12:51:12 5 A. He asked me to go and meet with Mr. Dunlop with a view to bringing him on to
6 the team, that would assist in the lobbying of councillors.
7 Q. 532 That Mr. Dunlop would assist in the lobbying of councillors?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 533 Did he tell you how he came to suggest that Mr. Dunlop be brought on board?
12:51:33 10 A. No.
11 Q. 534 Did he tell you, for example, that he had -- it was at the suggestion, as you
12 imply, of Mr. Lawlor?
13 A. Not that I can recall. But I had to assume that.
14 Q. 535 That it was Mr. Lawlor. Why do you assume that it was Mr. Lawlor?
12:51:49 15 A. Well he may have mentioned that he had met him.
16 Q. 536 That he had met Mr. Lawlor?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 537 So we now have a situation some time prior to you meeting with Mr. Dunlop of a
19 discussion between you and the late Mr. Monahan, at which Mr. Monahan advised
12:52:04 20 you that having discussed the matter with Mr. Lawlor, he would like you to take
21 Mr. Dunlop on board?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 538 To assist with the lobbying of councillors?
24 A. Yes.
12:52:15 25 Q. 539 Did you know of Mr. Dunlop at this time?
26 A. No.
27 Q. 540 You had, I think, previously engaged the services of at least two PR
28 consultants. Isn't that right?
29 A. Um, ...
12:52:27 30 Q. 541 Mr. O'Herlihy and I think you had some in-house PR consultants and others?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
84
12:52:32 1 A. Yes, Pembroke.
2 Q. 542 Yes?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 543 And I think you have told us this morning that Mr. Lynn was interfacing with
12:52:39 5 councillors in relation to what had taken place to date. Isn't that right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 544 So what was it that Mr. Monahan told you Mr. Dunlop would add to the efforts
8 with councillors?
9 A. He didn't say anything specifically.
12:53:07 10 Q. 545 Did you discuss with Mr. Monahan the terms of which you would engage Mr.
11 Dunlop?
12 A. Generally.
13 Q. 546 Well how long was Mr. Dunlop to be engaged for?
14 A. Until the vote.
12:53:19 15 Q. 547 Okay. How was he to be paid?
16 A. That was left up to me within various parameters.
17 Q. 548 Well what were the parameters?
18 A. The parameters would have been -- well the fee was 4,000 a month. And that
19 arose really from the previous employment of Mr. O'Herlihy, who tended to pan
12:53:50 20 out that amount per month.
21 Q. 549 Can I take it that at this stage, as a Director of Monarch Properties Services
22 Limited, that you could counter sign the payment of any amount of money within
23 the Company? I'm not saying that you would have done so. But that you could
24 have done so if you wished?
12:54:11 25 A. Counter sign?
26 Q. 550 Well you could have sanctioned or authorised the payments.
27 A. I think that's not quite accurate.
28 Q. 551 You don't think you could have sanctioned payments?
29 A. Any amount of money.
12:54:24 30 Q. 552 Well within reason.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
85
12:54:25 1 A. Within reason. But most of these things were within reason.
2 Q. 553 Yes. If we -- you were the person who was responsible, I take it, for
3 engaging professionals on this project?
4 A. Yes.
12:54:38 5 Q. 554 In fact, if we could have 2971, please.
6 This is at a meeting held way back on the 13th of March 1990 under the heading
7 "professional engagement and payments".
9 "At the outside Eddie Sweeney indicated that the procedures for engaging
12:54:55 10 professionals was through himself and PL." Who is P L? Pat Lafferty is it?
11 A. Pat Lafferty.
12 Q. 555 "The method of arranging payments to professionals was through DC", which
13 presumably is Dominic?
14 A. No.
12:55:07 15 Q. 556 Mr. Clarke is it?
16 A. Damien Clarke.
17 Q. 557 "And PL to countersign". Who is PL, Mr. Lafferty?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 558 Was that the procedure in relation to Cherrywood?
12:55:18 20 A. That had been the procedure for a considerable time.
21 Q. 559 Yes.
22 A. And it was intended to be the procedure and --
23 Q. 560 So all other things being equal, you would place an ad or source a PR firm --
24 you would engage that professional firm or people within the professional firm
12:55:38 25 and the payments would be arranged through DC, PL to counter sign?
26 A. Um, that would relate mainly, Chairman, to construction professionals.
27 Q. 561 Well it doesn't say construction professionals on the document we have on
28 screen, Mr. Sweeney.
29 A. But DC and PL were involved in nothing other than --
12:55:59 30 Q. 562 Construction.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
86
12:56:00 1 A. -- than construction.
2 Q. 563 I understand. So now you knew that Mr. Dunlop, did you have any say in the
3 circumstances under which Mr. Dunlop came to be retained? In other words, did
4 you have any input into whether or not Mr. Dunlop ought to be retained?
12:56:15 5 A. I was asked to go and meet him.
6 Q. 564 Yes.
7 A. To bring him on to the team.
8 Q. 565 Yes. The decision had been taken?
9 A. Yes.
12:56:21 10 Q. 566 By the time. You had no input into the decision, isn't that right?
11 A. No.
12 Q. 567 Did you raise with Mr. Monahan the prospect of maybe re-engaging Mr. O'Herlihy,
13 for example?
14 A. No, I didn't.
12:56:33 15 Q. 568 Did you raise with Mr. Monahan the fact that Mr. Lynn may be upset since he was
16 carry carrying out that type of function?
17 A. No, I didn't.
18 Q. 569 Did you ask Mr. Monahan if he had discussed or considered the decision with
19 others, that is to say other than with Mr. Lawlor?
12:56:52 20 A. No, I didn't.
21 Q. 570 Did you discuss with Mr. Monahan the success of Mr. Dunlop in other projects or
22 in this type of activity?
23 A. No.
24 Q. 571 Or his background in this sort of activity?
12:57:03 25 A. No, I knew nothing about his background.
26 Q. 572 Yes. You did not know Mr. Dunlop or you did not know of Mr. Dunlop?
27 A. No. It was explained to me he was a PR consultant.
28 Q. 573 Yes. But he was being retained for the purposes of lobbying councillors?
29 A. Yes.
12:57:19 30 Q. 574 And that was explained to you at the time?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
87
12:57:21 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 575 And you were to bring him on board, isn't that right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 576 Was there any good reason why Mr. Monahan himself would not have contacted Mr.
12:57:31 5 Dunlop?
6 A. He may well have, I don't know.
7 Q. 577 Yes. But certainly as far as your conversation with Mr. Monahan is concerned,
8 it was in the context of a direction to you by Mr. Monahan that Mr. Dunlop be
9 brought on board to assist in lobbying councillors in relation to this matter?
12:57:48 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 578 This is your final chance in the review of the '83 Plan, isn't that right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 579 It was a critical period in relation to the lands in question and increasing
14 the zoning density on the lands?
12:58:01 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 580 Very crucial period from Monarch's overall financial situation?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 581 These lands had to be developed. Permission had to be gained on the lands so
19 that some of the lands could be sold off and reduce the indebtedness of
12:58:17 20 Monarch?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 582 And the strategy as outlined to you and directed to you by Mr. Monahan was that
23 Mr. Dunlop be brought on board. Now, did you ring Mr. Dunlop or did you have
24 somebody ring Mr. Dunlop so that you could meet with him and talk to him about
12:58:32 25 his possible engagement?
26 A. My recollection having looked at all of the brief and the diaries and the thing
27 is that Mr. Monahan asked me to meet him on the 8th of March at five o'clock
28 but for some reason, I couldn't do that. So it was deferred to the following
29 day. And --
12:58:58 30 Q. 583 Sorry, apologies. I'm interrupting you now, Mr. Sweeney, and I shouldn't and

www.pcr.ie Day 662
88
12:59:02 1 I'm sorry. But you are saying that your recollection has been improved by the
2 documents contained in the brief?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 584 That it wasn't always your recollection that you had been involved in hiring
12:59:12 5 Mr. Dunlop. Isn't that right?
6 A. No. In fact, in my statement, Chairman, I have to apologise for that. That
7 when I did the statement in ...
8 Q. 585 2003 I think.
9 A. In '03.
12:59:25 10 Q. 586 Yeah.
11 A. I did it without really thinking of the importance of Mr. Dunlop.
12 Q. 587 Yes.
13 A. And I had nothing in terms of any paper. I had been away from Monarch for six
14 years.
12:59:39 15 Q. 588 You are now giving an explanation, Mr. Sweeney, of why your statement was
16 incorrect?
17 A. Yes and I'm sorry.
18 Q. 589 And I think in your interview to the Tribunal you were also incorrect in your
19 recollection in relation to this matter. Isn't that right?
12:59:52 20 A. That was in?
21 Q. 590 In 2000. June 2000.
22 A. Did I say that?
23 Q. 591 Yes. I think you -- I think you -- and I can open it if necessary to you.
24 But I think you were of the view that you might not have been involved in the
13:00:05 25 appointment of Mr. Dunlop at that time?
26 A. Yes, it's possible.
27
28 CHAIRMAN: All right. It's one o'clock. Sorry, Mr. Sweeney.
29 A. Sorry.
13:00:12 30

www.pcr.ie Day 662
89
13:00:12 1 CHAIRMAN: It's one o'clock. We'll adjourn until two o'clock.
2 A. Yes.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

www.pcr.ie Day 662
90
14:03:39 5 Q. 592 Good afternoon, Mr. Sweeney.
7 Q. 593 We were dealing before lunch with your involvement with Mr. Dunlop. In March
8 1993, but just before I get to that and maybe to short circuit matters
9 somewhat. You recall or your evidence in relation to the two cheques for 10
14:03:59 10 and 5,000 pounds in November 1992 made payable to Allied Irish Banks which had
11 the designation "cash" you recall that before lunch?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 594 Now, you'll have seen similar type cheques in the brief for '93, '94, '95 and
14 '96. Can the Tribunal take it that your evidence is the same in connection
14:04:18 15 with those cheques? Namely, that you can't offer any explanation in relation
16 those cheques and it's more or less the same. That is to say your evidence as
17 it was in relation to the cheques that we dealt with before lunch?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 595 And is it your evidence effectively that these are matters for the accounts
14:04:36 20 department and in particular Mr. Glennane?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 596 And possibly Mr. Lynn?
23 A. I don't know about Mr. Lynn.
24 Q. 597 Okay. Now, just to revert to your meeting then with Mr. Dunlop. You've
14:04:52 25 advised the Tribunal I think before lunch that you had this conversation with
26 Mr. Monahan. You were to meet Mr. Dunlop. Your recollection is that you
27 were initially to meet him on the 8th. You couldn't meet that appointment and
28 you met him on the 9th. Is that correct?
29 A. Yes.
14:05:08 30 Q. 598 And it would appear from the telephone attendance that maybe Mr. Lawlor

www.pcr.ie Day 662
91
14:05:11 1 organised the meeting insofar as Mr. Dunlop is concerned. Isn't that right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 599 And now would you tell the Tribunal your recollection of that meeting with Mr.
4 Dunlop?
14:05:23 5 A. Yes, the meeting was held in his office in 25, Upper Mount Street. And I
6 explained to him that we wished to employ him as a PR consultant to assist with
7 the lobbying of Cherrywood. We discussed the project briefly. He was aware
8 of Cherrywood. And we discussed and agreed fees in the amount of 4,000 pounds
9 per month. Mr. Dunlop requested that an up front payment be made. And that
14:06:25 10 was also agreed.
11
12 A success fee was also brought up by Mr. Dunlop. And I said that I was, that
13 was beyond my scope. And that it had to deal with Mr. Monahan on that. So
14 in relation to the detail of the meeting or the detail of Cherrywood, I have
14:06:58 15 posted that to a subsequent meeting with the executives, some executives of
16 Monarch, which would be Richard Lynn and Phil Reilly.
17 Q. 600 You -- sorry, Mr. Sweeney.
18 A. And as I recall, that was the extent of the meeting.
19 Q. 601 That's a fairly detailed recollection of what transpired at the meeting,
14:07:26 20 Mr. Sweeney, isn't it?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 602 You didn't always have that detailed recollection of what transpired at that
23 meeting. Isn't that right?
24 A. It was helped dramatically by the brief.
14:07:36 25 Q. 603 Yes.
26 A. And all of the information.
27 Q. 604 Yes. What was it within the brief that allowed you to give such detail that
28 you had obviously forgotten?
29 A. Well, the various figures were there. The fact that I went back to the
14:07:53 30 office, as I recall now, and reported to Mr. Glennane and Mr. Monahan what had

www.pcr.ie Day 662
92
14:08:01 1 happened. I then subsequently reported to our joint venture partner, GRE.
2 Q. 605 Did Mr. Glennane know that you were going to meet Mr. Dunlop?
3 A. Oh, I don't know. He certainly knew of it later.
4 Q. 606 When you originally recalled that meeting I think you had a recollection that
14:08:26 5 Mr. Lawlor was at the meeting, isn't that right?
6 A. No.
7 Q. 607 You say that when you met with the Tribunal legal team in 2000 you didn't tell
8 them that Mr. Lawlor was at the meeting?
9 A. No, I would have said that Mr. Lawlor was at several meetings.
14:08:41 10 Q. 608 Yes. I'll come to the subsequent meetings.
11 A. Yes, certainly he was at subsequent meetings.
12 Q. 609 Now, Mr. Dunlop was paid an up front payment, isn't that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 610 Did you agree the amount of up front payment?
14:08:58 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 611 So you agreed a monthly retainer and an up front payment?
17 A. I agreed the monthly retainer.
18 Q. 612 Yes.
19 A. And I think he then requested an up front payment which we then agreed.
14:09:10 20 Q. 613 Yes. And I think the up front payment was 25,000 pounds?
21 A. It was.
22 Q. 614 And the monthly retainer was 4,000?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 615 So he was getting little in excess of six weeks fees up front, sorry six months
14:09:25 25 fees up front.
26 A. Approximately, yes.
27 Q. 616 And this was in March.
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 617 So you were paying him up to October?
14:09:33 30 A. Exactly when, yes, I suppose so.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
93
14:09:38 1 Q. 618 And I think the vote was in November, isn't that right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 619 So really in essence you were paying him effectively the entire of his payment
4 up front, save for one month, namely, October or November?
14:09:56 5 A. A very big portion of it.
6 Q. 620 Yeah. Now, there's nothing in writing between yourself and Mr. Dunlop in
7 relation to that agreement, isn't that right?
8 A. No, you but I would have taken notes at the time.
9 Q. 621 And are you surprised Monarch have been unable to produce those notes in
14:10:06 10 discovery to the Tribunal?
11 A. Well it would be helpful if they did but I am surprised.
12 Q. 622 They did exist at some stage?
13 A. I always take notes of things like that.
14 Q. 623 Who would have sanctioned the payments?
14:10:20 15 A. The payments --
16 Q. 624 That is to say the up front payments, if we could have 4051.
17 A. I would have.
18 Q. 625 You would have sanctioned that payment?
19 A. I would have reported that to accounts and said this had been agreed.
14:10:34 20 Q. 626 The admittance advice that we see on screen here, Mr. Sweeney, is initialled
21 Monarch Properties Services Limited. Do you recognise who initialled that?
22 A. At the bottom?
23 Q. 627 Yes.
24 A. It's PC, I think that's --
14:10:50 25 Q. 628 Mr. Clarke is it?
26 A. Pat Caslin.
27 Q. 629 Caslin, yes.
28 A. There were two PCs. There was Pat Caslin and Pat Cooling. I'm not too sure
29 which one that was.
14:11:04 30 Q. 630 I'm sorry, Mr. Sweeney. What direction would you have given Mr. Caslin in

www.pcr.ie Day 662
94
14:11:09 1 relation to that payment?
2 A. I don't know if I spoken to Mr. Caslin. I would certainly have spoken to
3 Mr. Glennane and told him. He would have transmitted the same information to
4 Pat Caslin.
14:11:20 5 Q. 631 Do you recall discussing the matter with Mr. Glennane?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 632 Do you recall telling him that Mr. Dunlop had been retained?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 633 And do you recall telling him that you had, at Mr. Monahan's suggestion, spoken
14:11:30 10 with Mr. Dunlop.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 634 Sorry.
13 A. And that was after the meeting.
14 Q. 635 I accept it was after the meeting. But after the meeting and before the
14:11:38 15 payment, are you saying you had a conversation with Mr. Glennane where you
16 discuss with Mr. Glennane the terms in which Mr. Dunlop had been retained?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 636 Including the payments per month and the up front payment?
19 A. Yes.
14:11:52 20 Q. 637 And you would have directed Mr. Glennane to release monies to Mr. Dunlop on
21 foot of that agreement?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 638 And either you directly to Mr. Caslin or through Mr. Glennane, directed that
24 that payment as we see on screen, for the 15,000 and also if we could have
14:12:12 25 4062, a further payment for 10,000, be released?
26 A. I didn't differentiate between 15 and 10,000.
27 Q. 639 Yes. Can I ask you, Mr. Sweeney, why was it necessary to issue two separate
28 remittance advices and two separate cheques to Mr. Dunlop?
29 A. I've noticed that. I've no idea. It may have been at his request.
14:12:34 30 Q. 640 Yes. That request would have been made, would have to have been made to you

www.pcr.ie Day 662
95
14:12:38 1 at the meeting. Isn't that right?
2 A. No.
3 Q. 641 Do you think it might have been made subsequently?
4 A. Well I don't understand it.
14:12:45 5 Q. 642 Now, if we look at 4045. We see the entries in relation to the possible
6 meeting on the 8th. A possible meeting with you at 11:30 on the 9th. And a
7 meeting perhaps with Messrs. Lynn and Reilly for 5:15 on the 9th. But there
8 are no further meetings entered as I can see it on that diary with you or any
9 representative of Monarch between the 9th and the 12th. Isn't that right?
14:13:18 10 A. No.
11 Q. 643 So it's -- if there were -- if it were Mr. Dunlop's desire to receive two
12 cheques, that would have been -- would have had to have been communicated to
13 you perhaps at that meeting on the 9th which you say it took place on the 9th?
14 A. Not necessarily, Mr. Chairman.
14:13:37 15 Q. 644 Was Mr. Dunlop on the telephone to you after your meeting with him on the 9th.
16 A. No, not that I recall. It's a surprise to me to see that it's two cheques.
17 Q. 645 Yes. But you were the one who had contact with him, isn't that right?
18 A. Yes, to set up the --
19 Q. 646 Yes.
14:13:53 20 A. -- the agreement.
21 Q. 647 Yes.
22 A. But after this agreement was set up, I didn't have an awful lot to do with it
23 for some time.
24 Q. 648 Yes. Did you say that -- do you think that it was Mr. Lynn or Mr. Reilly that
14:14:06 25 gave the direction that two cheques issue?
26 A. I wouldn't think so, no. They wouldn't be --
27 Q. 649 The amount of 25,000 as being an up front payment, was that agreed with you?
28 That sum. In other words, not just at agreement in principle that there be an
29 up front payment but the precise amount that there be an up front payment.
14:14:25 30 Was that agreed at that meeting?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
96
14:14:27 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 650 As a matter of probability would you agree with me that Mr. Dunlop must have
3 sought the two cheques at that meeting at that time?
4 A. No, he didn't.
14:14:45 5 Q. 651 He didn't.
6 A. No.
7 Q. 652 And who would Mr. Dunlop have contacted after you had spoken with him and asked
8 for two cheques to be made payable to him?
9 A. I don't know that. They must have been in contact some how or other.
14:14:46 10 Q. 653 Did you, other than Mr. Reilly and Mr. Lynn, did you give any any other contact
11 names within the company?
12 A. Did I give him contact names?
13 Q. 654 Yes. People that he might be able to contact in relation to monies which he
14 was alleging were due to him. Namely, 25,000 so that he could give the
14:15:07 15 direction that had been given to him in two separate cheques?
16 A. Not that I recall.
17 Q. 655 So that's why I say to you, Mr. Sweeney, that as a matter of probability the
18 direction of the two cheques was given to you at your meeting with him?
19 A. No, it certainly was not.
14:15:22 20 Q. 656 And can you give any explanation as to how Mr. Dunlop dealing fresh with a
21 company, could have asked for two separate cheques be issued to him and the
22 person he had negotiated those cheques with was the only person he had contact
23 with at that time?
24 A. No, I'm surprised myself.
14:15:43 25 Q. 657 But in any event, you believe it was at Mr. Dunlop's request that the two
26 cheques were issued?
27 A. That's one explanation and one explanation that I can ...
28 Q. 658 It might have been to facilitate Monarch Properties Services Limited that they
29 decided to issue two cheques?
14:16:01 30 A. I don't know.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
97
14:16:02 1 Q. 659 Certainly there was no invoice for these cheques?
2 A. I noticed that.
3 Q. 660 Yes. So the cheques issued in the absence of an invoice on your instruction
4 after your discussion with Mr. Glennane?
14:16:14 5 A. Yes, it was very quick.
6 Q. 661 Yes. Almost immediately?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 662 Now, then I think you had a meeting with Mr. Dunlop or at least you are noted
9 as having a meeting with Mr. Dunlop on the 18th of March. If I could have
14:16:27 10 7971. Do you recall a meeting with Mr. Dunlop on the 18th of March?
11 A. Not specifically. I'd a number of meetings with him after that.
12 Q. 663 We'll deal with the meetings as we come to them in the brief, Mr. Sweeney.
13 But this was a meeting some six days after the cheques were drawn, isn't that
14 right?
14:16:54 15 A. Where is that?
16 Q. 664 The bottom left hand corner. You see Eddie S, you?
17 A. Question mark?
18 Q. 665 Yes.
19 A. I don't know if that was a meeting or not. And I would like to know if I have
14:17:09 20 got that in my diary.
21 Q. 666 Yes. You don't believe you met him so soon after your initial meeting?
22 A. Well not from that I don't.
23 Q. 667 Okay. If we could have 4133. Monarch Properties Services Limited did
24 receive I think an invoice dated the 10th of April 1993 from Mr. Dunlop. Do
14:17:28 25 you see that invoice?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 668 Now, you had dealings with Mr. Lawlor going back to the Tallaght development.
28 You had no contact with Mr. Lawlor in relation to Cherrywood but you knew as a
29 result of your conversation with Mr. Monahan that at his, at Mr. Lawlor's
14:17:49 30 suggestion, you were now being instructed to involve Mr. Dunlop. Isn't that

www.pcr.ie Day 662
98
14:17:53 1 right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 669 So you knew that Mr. Lawlor was now involved in the strategy concerning
4 Cherrywood?
14:17:59 5 A. Well I knew he was in the background.
6 Q. 670 Yes.
7 A. He had made that introduction.
8 Q. 671 Yes. Did you speak to Mr. Lawlor after you spoke with Mr. Dunlop?
9 A. I met with Mr. Lawlor several times after that. At meetings at which --
14:18:15 10 Q. 672 Did he?
11 A. Frank Dunlop was present.
12 Q. 673 Yes. Would it be fair to say that after Mr. Dunlop's involvement in March '93
13 and up until November '93, Mr. Lawlor came back into the picture so to speak as
14 a strategist or an advisor in relation to the Monarch Group in relation to
16 A. I don't recall him talking about strategy or anything like that.
17 Q. 674 Well what involvement did he have?
18 A. Well the only clear involvement I can recall was about Prague which was really
19 in his head at some point.
14:18:46 20 Q. 675 I think that starts around September '93?
21 A. I think it may have been earlier.
22 Q. 676 You think it was earlier? But the big project as far as you were concerned at
23 this stage was Cherrywood, isn't that right?
24 A. Certainly, yes.
14:18:58 25 Q. 677 Do you recall receiving that invoice that we see on screen, Mr. Sweeney?
26 A. I've signed it so I've ...
27 Q. 678 You have' approved it for payment?
28 A. Ivor' said "okay."
29 Q. 679 Yes. That means that the accounts department could issue a cheque on foot of
14:19:17 30 it, isn't that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
99
14:19:18 1 A. I'd say so.
2 Q. 680 And it appears to have been paid on the 1st of June 1993?
3 A. I don't know when it was paid. Oh, there, yes.
4 Q. 681 We -- you do know that the Tribunal cannot find a cheque to Mr. Frank Dunlop &
14:19:43 5 Associates of the 1st of June 1993 in the sum of 12,100 pounds?
6 A. There seems to be great confusion about all of these cheques.
7 Q. 682 There shouldn't be confusion, would you agree with me, Mr. Sweeney?
8 A. Well I can't add to it.
9 Q. 683 Well there shouldn't be confusion. This is a retainer of a PR consultant for
14:19:55 10 a development company, isn't that right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 684 There should be no confusion. There should be correspondence. We should see
13 your memo of your meeting in terms of which Mr. Dunlop was retained. We
14 should see invoices, isn't that right?
14:20:08 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 685 But there is confusion and you heard Mr. Dunlop's evidence in relation to that
17 invoice yesterday. He didn't think that that invoice had issued from him.
19 A. I did.
14:20:19 20 Q. 686 Yes. In any event, would it be fair to say that you treated this as a Frank
21 Dunlop & Associates invoice that ought to be certified as being payable?
22 A. Obviously.
23 Q. 687 But in fact, what you should have been certifying for payment was an invoice
24 for 25,000 pounds. Isn't that right?
14:20:39 25 A. Yeah, exactly.
26 Q. 688 Now, the services being provided there were public affairs strategy and its
27 implementation, isn't that right? That's what you certified as being payable?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 689 Not lobbying of councillors?
14:20:57 30 A. No.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
100
14:20:57 1 Q. 690 And I think you drew a certificate. If I could have 4142. This is a
2 payments certificate, 80884. Which appears to have been drawn on the 10th of
3 April '93. Do you see that -- sorry. The 1st of June -- which was paid on
4 the 1st of June '93. Isn't that right? Which would suggest that it's related
14:21:26 5 to the invoice we saw a moment ago?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 691 Are you certifying the payment or are you certifying that it should be paid in
8 that certificate?
9 A. It looks as if I am certifying the payment.
14:21:45 10 Q. 692 That it should be -- well the certificate. If we could go back to 4133.
11 Your certificate on the invoice is "okay" and your initials. Isn't that
12 right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 693 And a moment ago you said that based on that, that a cheque should issue, isn't
14:21:58 15 that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 694 Now, if we go to 4142. This is a payments certificate. Is this a
18 certificate to anybody that would wish to see it. That this payment had in
19 fact been made by Monarch Properties Services Limited?
14:22:11 20 A. This looks as if it's trying to provide the paper back up.
21 Q. 695 For somebody else?
22 A. To the payment that they had been made or part of the payment that had been
23 made.
24 Q. 696 Yes. In other words in, this is a certificate to a third party that payment
14:22:30 25 had been made of 12,100 pounds to Frank Dunlop & Associates and that payment
26 was effected on the 1st of June '93. Isn't that right?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 697 If I could have 4133 again. Are you saying, Mr. Sweeney, that a payment of
29 12,100 pounds was paid to Frank Dunlop & Associates on the 1st of June 1993?
14:22:53 30 A. No.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
101
14:22:54 1 Q. 698 Now, I think you -- we have a -- Mr. Dunlop has produced. If I could have
2 4204. This is a copy invoice No. 834 dated the 19th of May 1993. For a sum
3 of 15,000 pounds in respect of public affairs consultancy services. Isn't
4 that right? Do you recall seeing the original of that invoice?
14:23:20 5 A. No.
6 Q. 699 That invoice appears to have been paid per Mr. Dunlop's records by way of two
7 cheques on the 19th of May and the 17th of September in the sum of 7,500 pounds
8 each.
9 A. Um, can I say, Mr. Chairman, all of these invoices are all very mixed up. And
14:23:45 10 what I'd agreed was 25,000 be paid up front. There seems to be an attempt
11 here retrospectively, to provide invoices and back up to cover that. And it
12 is getting very confused.
13
14 CHAIRMAN: Well we're equally confused.
14:24:05 15 A. Yeah.
16
17 Q. 700 MR. QUINN: There's no reason why Mr. Dunlop couldn't have provided to you and
18 why you couldn't have certified a 25,000 pounds payment to him by this date?
19 A. None at all.
14:24:14 20 Q. 701 And yet your certificate certifies a much lesser sum as having been paid to him
21 and having been paid to him on a date when it wasn't paid, isn't that right, on
22 the 1st of June '93?
23 A. That's why I think it's very confusing.
24 Q. 702 Yes. And Mr. Dunlop has said that the invoice of the 10th of April '93 wasn't
14:24:33 25 one of his invoices even though it appears to be one of his invoices, isn't
26 that right?
27 A. Which one?
28 Q. 703 That's the one on the 10th of April 1993. 4133. For the sum of 12,100
29 pounds.
14:24:48 30 A. Yeah, I heard that.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
102
14:24:49 1 JUDGE KEYS: Mr. Sweeney, I wonder could I just ask you one question.
3 Why would you okay a payment in June of '93, that's the 1st of June '93. I
4 can't remember the sum. I think it's 4133. For, was it 12,000? 12,100.
14:25:06 5 Why would you okay that payment when you'd already come to an agreement with
6 him for a payment of 25,000 which he had been paid already? If the terms of
7 the agreement in relation to his remuneration is correct as described by you at
8 the meeting on the 9th of March?
9 A. Well, Chairman, because it fell within the amount of the 25,000. And it seems
14:25:36 10 to try in some way to reflect the fact that the 25,000 was split into two
11 payments.
12
13 JUDGE KEYS: Yes but my understanding was, and I'm subject to correction on
14 this, he was paid 15,000 and 10,000 very shortly after the meeting of the 9th
14:25:53 15 of March.
16 A. Yes.
17
18 JUDGE KEYS: That meant he was fully paid up to October or November on the
19 terms of the agreement you had reached with him.
14:26:01 20 A. Yes.
21
22 JUDGE KEYS: Isn't that correct? And yet before November had come, you had
23 now sanctioned a further payment of 12,100. But does that not contradict the
24 agreement which you had reached with him in relation to remuneration? In fact
14:26:18 25 you're paying him more than what you said you had agreed on the meeting on the
26 9th of March.
27 A. Yes but I would have thought that that was to back up the previous payments.
28
29 JUDGE KEYS: Of the 12 and the 10 and the 15?
14:26:34 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
103
14:26:35 1 JUDGE KEYS: But -- how can that be? I mean, wasn't there other -- well we'll
2 see what other ones are put to you.
3 A. Yes.
14:26:47 5 JUDGE KEYS: But it seems rather strange to me, did you not -- you thought
6 this was being done all retrospectively then?
7 A. I think it was an exercise to get the paperwork in order.
9 JUDGE KEYS: In order.
14:26:56 10 A. Yes.
11
12 JUDGE KEYS: I see.
13
14 Q. 704 MR. QUINN: If we could have 4219, this is a certificate that 10,000 be paid to
14:27:03 15 Mr. Dunlop on the 26th of May '93 and we see a cheque at 4221 made payable to
16 Frank Dunlop & Associates in the sum of 10,000. We're now up to 35, 000,
17 Mr. Sweeney. Isn't that right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 705 That's nine months. So that's going to take us beyond the relevant date.
14:27:26 20 Isn't that right? And take us outside the contract period?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 706 Now, Mr. Dunlop says he never received that cheque. You heard his in evidence
23 that regard.
24 A. I heard that, yeah.
14:27:36 25 Q. 707 Can you assist the Tribunal in any respect in relation to this cheque?
26 A. No.
27 Q. 708 Did you authorise this payment?
28 A. No.
29 Q. 709 Who would have authorised that payment?
14:27:49 30 A. I don't know. The payment is there. I didn't authorise it.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
104
14:27:52 1 Q. 710 If we could have 4209. Did Mr. Glennane authorise the payment, Mr. Sweeney?
2 You see the top right hand corner of the ...
3 A. That's Mr. Glennane's signature.
4 Q. 711 Yes. Does that imply that he had something to do with the issue of that
14:28:10 5 cheque?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. 712 And he knew that Mr. Dunlop had been retained and he would have known the
8 circumstances under which he had been retained?
9 A. Yes.
14:28:18 10 Q. 713 And he would have known that by issuing that cheque to Mr. Dunlop he was paying
11 Mr. Dunlop outside the period of his contracted, that he was now being paid
12 35,000. Isn't that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 714 Well in any event, you can't assist the Tribunal in any respect in relation to
14:28:38 15 that cheque or how it came to be written or how it may have fallen into
16 somebody else's hands?
17 A. No.
18 Q. 715 Did you know that by June 1993 Mr. Dunlop had received 35 -- or was per the
19 books and records of Monarch Properties had received 35,000. In fact, if you
14:28:56 20 take the invoice for 12,100 into account, he had received 47,100 pounds?
21 A. Yes, he seems to have been doing very well.
22 Q. 716 Yes. Mr. Dunlop has an entry for an eight o'clock meeting with you, at 4266.
23 For the 28th of June 1993. Do you recall a meeting an eight o'clock meeting
24 on the 28th of June that Mr. Dunlop might have attended?
14:29:24 25 A. I can't recall it specifically but that would fall into the category of meeting
26 at that time.
27 Q. 717 Yes. Would you have an early morning meeting with Mr. Dunlop?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 718 Was that in connection Cherrywood?
14:29:34 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
105
14:29:35 1 Q. 719 Who would have attended that meeting other than yourself and Mr. Dunlop.
2 A. I can't really say. But it could have been a number of people.
3 Q. 720 Who was in the habit of attending those meetings between yourself and Mr.
4 Dunlop?
14:29:54 5 A. Well, it could have been Richard Lynn, Phil Reilly, Noel Murray. All of them
6 had inputs into ...
7 Q. 721 They would all have -- they would all have attended from time to time meetings
8 between you and Mr. Dunlop?
9 A. Yes, they would all have inputs into the lobbying.
14:30:04 10 Q. 722 And would there have been minutes taken of those meetings?
11 A. Notes, yes.
12 Q. 723 Those meetings should be noted and there should be minutes available for those
13 meetings?
14 A. Notes, yes.
14:30:14 15 Q. 724 Yes. Who would have attended with Mr. Dunlop? Would Mr. Lawlor have attended
16 those meetings?
17 A. It's possible. Mr. Lawlor did attend briefly at some of those meetings.
18 Q. 725 In relation to the lobbying at Cherrywood?
19 A. Yes.
14:30:26 20 Q. 726 Could you give the Tribunal a flavour of the type of conversation one would
21 hear at those meetings?
22 A. Yeah. I think we'll be saying how are things going and then people would give
23 a short description of how they were getting on with the lobbying and that's
24 the sort of thing, it would be a monitoring meeting.
14:30:49 25 Q. 727 Yes. You recall --
26 A. There wouldn't be a long meeting, now.
27 Q. 728 Yes. You recall earlier this morning, Mr. Sweeney, that you indicated that in
28 the run up to the, I think it was the '92 vote, you had been assigned an
29 allocation of councillors. I think Councillor Lydon and Hand and Flaherty?
14:31:08 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
106
14:31:09 1 Q. 729 Had there been an allocation of councillors to Mr. Lynn, Mr. Reilly and Mr.
2 Dunlop and indeed perhaps yourself and maybe Mr. Murray?
3 A. To a loose extent, yes.
4 Q. 730 And who were the councillors assigned to Mr. Dunlop?
14:31:24 5 A. That I don't know. That was very much up to Mr. Dunlop.
6 Q. 731 Yes.
7 A. If you recall. If you would take on board my role was really to set him up
8 and do it.
9 Q. 732 Yes.
14:31:34 10 A. And hopefully gain the result at the end.
11 Q. 733 And was he bringing back a positive feedback to the meetings in relation to his
12 efforts at lobbying?
13 A. The meetings were positive.
14 Q. 734 Yes. And all three, that is to say well all four, and everybody at those
14:31:57 15 meetings were updated at each meeting on the extent of the lobbying of the
16 individual people assigned to the lobbying. Isn't that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 735 There's an -- on the 1st of July 1993. At 4266, there is a 12:30 meeting for
19 Eddie Sweeney, Monarch. Could you have had a meeting on the 1st of July with
14:32:19 20 Mr. Dunlop? That's on Thursday the 1st of July. Bottom left hand corner.
21 About midway. You see 12:30 Eddie Sweeney?
22 A. I could have but I have no recollection.
23 Q. 736 Again, that would be a meeting similar to the one you have described?
24 A. No, I think the one I've described would be the early morning meetings.
14:32:41 25 Q. 737 Okay. If we could have 4277. Mr. Dunlop appears to have come in into
26 possession of a cheque from Monarch for 7,500 pounds on the 1st of July 1993.
27 Do you see that?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 738 That remittance. Again, do you see Mr. Glennane's signature on the top right
14:33:04 30 hand corner of that?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
107
14:33:05 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 739 Does that signify that Mr. Glennane would have known that that cheque was
3 written?
4 A. Yes.
14:33:10 5 Q. 740 And did you ask Mr. Glennane to write that cheque?
6 A. No.
7 Q. 741 Mr. Dunlop would now have an additional 42 -- he would this in fact have a
8 42,100 excluding the 12,100 which he may or may not have been paid. Isn't
9 that right?
14:33:28 10 A. Uh-huh.
11 Q. 742 He would have been paid substantial monies at this stage?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 743 Did you give Mr. Dunlop that cheque at that meeting on the 1st of July?
14 A. I never gave Mr. Dunlop any cheques.
14:33:42 15 Q. 744 Did Mr. Glennane ever attend any of those meetings?
16 A. No.
17 Q. 745 Did anybody at those meetings give Mr. Dunlop a cheque?
18 A. No.
19 Q. 746 Did Mr. Dunlop ask for money at that meeting?
14:33:54 20 A. No.
21 Q. 747 So are you saying that the timing of the meeting and the issuing of the cheque
22 are just coincidental?
23 A. If the meeting did take place.
24 Q. 748 Yes.
14:34:03 25 A. Then it was definitely coincidental.
26 Q. 749 If we could have 4319. There's a further meeting at ten o'clock. Eddie and
27 I think Monarch again. You see the top left hand corner, Mr. Sweeney for the
28 26th of July? Do you recall that meeting? It's the last entry on the Monday.
29 A. At 12.
14:34:34 30 Q. 750 It's 12.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
108
14:34:34 1 A. I thought. Yeah.
2 Q. 751 Do you recall meeting Mr. Dunlop at 12 on a Monday in July?
3 A. I can't recall the actual meeting.
4 Q. 752 There's 30th of July. On the same page. The on the following "Friday 11:00
14:34:49 5 Eddie/Monarch."
6 A. I see that.
7 Q. 753 Would Mr. Lawlor have attended those meetings?
8 A. I can't recall that meeting.
14:35:01 10 MR. SHIPSEY: Chairman, sorry. If I can just give some assistance here in
11 relation to this. I mentioned yesterday that we had made discovery of
12 Mr. Sweeney's diary. And there are in respect of some of the matters that
13 Mr. Quinn has been referring to, entries in Mr. Sweeney's diary.
14
14:35:19 15 Now, some of them, at least two of the three that have been mentioned so far,
16 include not only Mr. Lawlor, LL, FD but also Mr. Ambrose Kelly.
17 Now, that might give some assistance as to what the purpose of the meeting was.
18
19 CHAIRMAN: All right. I suppose --
14:35:34 20
21 Q. 754 MR. QUINN: If Mr. Ambrose Kelly was, is signified as having been present at
22 the meetings, Mr. Sweeney, does that suggest that it was a meeting in relation
23 to the Prague project?
24 A. Well certainly you would jump to that conclusion.
14:35:49 25 Q. 755 Did Mr. Ambrose Kelly have any involvement in relation to Cherrywood at this
26 time, that is 1993?
27 A. No.
28 Q. 756 And he had no involvement in relation to Cherrywood at any stage --
29
14:35:59 30 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Quinn, perhaps you would take from Mr. Shipsey the diary. And

www.pcr.ie Day 662
109
14:36:05 1 where you are putting to the witness an entry in Mr. Dunlop's diary. You
2 might just see if there is a similar entry in Mr. Sweeney's diary and put the
3 content of that to him as well. (diary handed to Mr. Quinn)
14:36:22 5 Q. 757 MR. QUINN: So where there is an Ambrose Kelly entry, we can take it that it
6 relates to solely to Prague?
7 A. Well it certainly might have related to Prague. Again, I can't recall
8 exactly.
9 Q. 758 You have no entry in your diary for the 30th of July, isn't that right? Now,
14:36:46 10 the next entry that Mr. Dunlop has for you is an entry for ten o'clock on the
11 20th of August. At 4974 and there is no entry in your diary for that. Does
12 that signify to you Mr. Sweeney, that no such meeting took place?
13 A. It's possible it could have been deferred or whatever.
14 Q. 759 Yes. The next entry you have, Mr. Dunlop has is a ten o'clock meeting on the
14:37:09 15 27th of August. And you have a ten o'clock meeting for FD on the 27th of
16 August. There are no other entries in your diary. Does that mean that it
17 was in connection with Cherrywood?
18 A. Could you just repeat that one.
19 Q. 760 Okay. On the 27th of August. If we could have 4327, please. On Friday the
14:37:29 20 27th of August Mr. Dunlop has a ten o'clock meeting for E Sweeney. And your
21 diary for Friday the 27th of August has a ten o'clock meeting for FD, which I
22 suggest to you is Frank Dunlop.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 761 Now, there is no other entry in your diary. So does that mean --
14:37:48 25 A. It coincides --
26 Q. 762 That it coincides and that it was a Cherrywood meeting?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 763 You also have an entry in your diary for the 25th of August for a ten o'clock F
29 Dunlop meeting. But we know from Mr. Dunlop's diary on screen that he had
14:38:06 30 Nora appointment at 9:30 that morning. Can we take it that that meeting

www.pcr.ie Day 662
110
14:38:11 1 didn't take place and may have been deferred to the 27th?
2 A. I don't really know.
3 Q. 764 Mr. Dunlop's, if I could have 4365 Mr. Dunlop's next entry for a meeting with
4 you is an 8:30 meeting for the 14th of September. You have no entry in your
14:38:34 5 diary for that day. Having regard to the timing of the meeting, Mr. Sweeney,
6 is it possible that you did have an entry early morning meeting with Mr. Dunlop
7 on the 14th of September in relation to Cherrywood?
8 A. It's possible.
9 Q. 765 And that would have been attended by the other representatives?
14:38:54 10 A. It's really hard to say who was at any of these meetings. There was such a
11 conglomeration of different people. It certainly wouldn't have been all of
12 them.
13 Q. 766 Yes. But it would have been Mr. Lynn presumably and Mr. Reilly would have
14 been vital --
14:39:08 15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. 767 -- because they were lobbying, like Mr. Dunlop?
17 A. Yes, I would have been hoping that there would have been a co-ordination effort
18 between Mr. Lynn and Mr. Dunlop.
19 Q. 768 Did Mr. Lawlor have any lobbying functions?
14:39:22 20 A. No.
21 Q. 769 Now, on the 17th of September, Mr. Dunlop, again on the same page, Friday the
22 17th of December. He has an eight o'clock meeting for Eddie S. Do you see
23 that on the screen? And you have an entry --
24 A. December is it?
14:39:37 25 Q. 770 Sorry. September. The 17th of September 1993. And you have an eight
26 o'clock meeting in your diary for FD/RL/PR?
27 A. Yes , that would coincide.
28 Q. 771 Frank Dunlop, Richard Lynn and Philip Reilly?
29 A. Yes.
14:39:51 30 Q. 772 Now, on the 17th September Mr. Dunlop again had a cheque drawn in his favour in

www.pcr.ie Day 662
111
14:39:58 1 the sum of 7,500 pounds, at 4366. Do you see that?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 773 That's -- did Mr. Dunlop ask for a cheque in that sum that the meeting?
4 A. No.
14:40:16 5 Q. 774 Again, are you saying that it was coincidental that there was a meeting
6 attended by Mr. Dunlop on this -- which happened to be on the same day that a
7 cheque in his favour was drawn for 7,500 pounds?
8 A. I didn't have any conversation with him about cheques.
9 Q. 775 Would Mr. Reilly or Mr. Lynn have had any conversation with him about cheques?
14:40:37 10 A. No.
11 Q. 776 If we are still dealing with Mr. Dunlop's retainer, we are now up to 50,000
12 pounds by September 1993. Isn't that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 777 Did you know that Mr. Dunlop by the end of that meeting on the 17th of
14:40:52 15 September 1993 had received 50,000 pounds from the group?
16 A. I don't think I did.
17 Q. 778 Are you surprised that he had received such money from the group?
18 A. Well I knew that around about this time he was given a success fee.
19 Q. 779 Yes. Who approved the success fee, Mr. Sweeney?
14:41:20 20 A. Mr. Monahan.
21 Q. 780 When did he first seek the success fee?
22 A. He first -- when did?
23 Q. 781 Mr. Dunlop first seek the success fee?
24 A. At the first meeting.
14:41:31 25 Q. 782 Yes.
26 A. He asked for a success fee and I said that that was beyond my scope and --
27 Q. 783 Did you raise the issue of the success fee with Mr. Monahan?
28 A. No, he raised it with me. He said that a fee had been agreed. Some time
29 prior to -- some time around about then.
14:41:46 30 Q. 784 Around about September 1993?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
112
14:41:48 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 785 And you had discussed it with Mr. Monahan?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 786 And had you discussed it about Mr. Glennane?
14:41:54 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 787 And had Mr. Monahan and/or Mr. Glennane sought your views on whether or not Mr.
7 Dunlop was worth a success fee?
8 A. No, it was the other way about. It was Mr. Monahan informed me that a success
9 fee had been agreed with Frank Dunlop.
14:42:11 10 Q. 788 Who had agreed it?
11 A. Mr. Monahan.
12 Q. 789 And how much was the success fee for?
13 A. 50,000.
14 Q. 790 Were you surprised?
14:42:22 15 A. I wasn't surprised, no.
16 Q. 791 Was Mr. Dunlop advising you on the success or otherwise of his lobbying
17 campaign at this stage?
18 A. He was channelling at, mainly through Mr. Lynn, but did report at the meetings
19 that things were going okay. That was about it.
14:42:42 20 Q. 792 But the meeting of the 17th of September, an eight o'clock meeting --
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. 793 -- in the morning on the run up to a most crucial vote in relation to
23 Cherrywood?
24 A. Yes.
14:42:53 25 Q. 794 You, the most senior person within Monarch Properties dealing with the
26 Cherrywood site in attendance, this would have been one of the crucial
27 meetings. Isn't that right?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 795 Did Mr. Dunlop tell you who had indicated to him, that is to say what
14:43:10 30 councillors had indicated to him, that they would support the proposals in

www.pcr.ie Day 662
113
14:43:14 1 relation to Monarch?
2 A. Not that I recall. Simply that things were going okay.
3 Q. 796 And any discussion on which councillors were being approached by which
4 lobbiests?
14:43:29 5 A. No, no discussion on that. I wouldn't have been particularly interested in
6 that.
7 Q. 797 Can I ask you, Mr. Sweeney. Just listening to your evidence. You had to
8 in-house lobbiests, Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly. Both of whom knew councillors
9 and both of whom had been involved previously. What extra did Mr. Dunlop
14:43:48 10 bring to Monarch by way of lobbying that was disclosed at any of these meetings
11 to date. That is to say up to September 1993?
12 A. What did he bring to the party?
13 Q. 798 Yes. Exactly. You had two experienced lobbiests.
14 A. I suppose a third experienced lobbiest.
14:44:07 15 Q. 799 But you had two experienced lobbiests, isn't that right?
16 A. We had two and now we had three.
17 Q. 800 Yes. But what extra did Mr. Dunlop do?
18 A. I presume he was doing the same as the others.
19 Q. 801 Now, at 4387. You will see an 88 -- 8:15 Monarch meeting. Which although in
14:44:39 20 under Tuesday the 28th, there is an arrow pointing to the 29th of September
21 1993 and again, I should tell you that there is no entry in your diary for that
22 date, Mr. Sweeney.
23 A. Uh-huh. Then it's possible I may not have attended that meeting.
24 Q. 802 But it's possible that a meeting did take place between maybe Mr. Dunlop
14:44:58 25 Mr. Reilly and/or Mr. Lynn?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 803 Did any other senior person attend those meetings other than yourself,
28 Mr. Sweeney?
29 A. I think Noel Murray might have attended some of them.
14:45:11 30 Q. 804 Yes. When you weren't able to attend Mr. Murray you think might have stood

www.pcr.ie Day 662
114
14:45:16 1 in?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 805 Did he ever attend a meeting attended by you?
4 A. Yes, he did.
14:45:21 5 Q. 806 Did Mr. Lawlor attend any of these meetings do you think?
6 A. No.
7 Q. 807 Now, on the 8th of October, at 4561, Friday the 8th of October. Mr. Dunlop
8 has a ten o'clock entry for Eddie S. And there is no entry in your diary.
9 Do you recall meeting Mr. Dunlop on the 8th of October?
14:45:42 10 A. The 8th of October at ten o'clock?
11 Q. 808 Yes.
13 Q. 809 No. It's a ten o'clock meeting on the 8th?
14 A. Yeah.
14:45:55 15 Q. 810 You don't recall that meeting.
16 A. No.
17 Q. 811 Then there is a telephone attendance, at 4587. Where you rang Mr. Dunlop re a
18 meeting for the 14th of October. And we get some indication of what that
19 meeting might be about if we look at the entry at 207 where Mr. Lynn has rang
14:46:15 20 asking if Mr. Dunlop would be available for a meeting with Mr. Pat Field. And
21 I think Mr. Pat Field a director of GRE at the Royal Dublin on the 11th.
22 Sorry. At 11 or 12 o'clock on the 14th. And Mr. Dunlop's confirming the
23 meeting.
24 A. Yes.
14:46:32 25 Q. 812 Do you recall meeting Mr. Dunlop and Mr. Pat Field and possibly Mr. Sweeney in
26 the Royal Dublin on the 14th of October?
27 A. No.
28 Q. 813 There is, I should say to you, an entry in your diary for 12 o'clock for F
29 Dunlop on the 14th of October. You also have a 9:30 entry for RL, which is
14:46:55 30 presumably Mr. Lynn. Is that right?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
115
14:46:57 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 814 And you have an 8:15 entry for KOS. Could that be Mr. Kevin O'Sullivan?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 815 Did you meet Mr. Kevin O'Sullivan on Thursday the 14th of October at 8:15?
14:47:09 5 A. It seems very early for ....
6 Q. 816 Now, you also have an entry for the same day under the heading Ongar stud.
7 Ongar vote. Was there a vote in relation to a Monarch property on the 14th of
8 October 1993?
9 A. Yes.
14:47:24 10 Q. 817 Had Mr. Dunlop any involvement in relation to that vote?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 818 Mr. Dunlop was retained in relation to Cherrywood and Ongar.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 819 And I think there was some rezoning going on in relation to Somerton. Was Mr.
14:47:37 15 Dunlop retained in relation to that also?
16 A. I don't recall that he was involved in Somerton.
17 Q. 820 So he had two projects for Monarch at this time?
18 A. Yes. Though there was really only one project because the Ongar one was pretty
19 well straight forward.
14:47:57 20 Q. 821 Now, on the -- just to, for completeness I should put up Mr. Dunlop's entry for
21 that date, the 14th of October, at 4577. And Mr. Shipsey dealt with that with
22 Mr. Dunlop in evidence yesterday.
23
24 Now, at 4665, there is an eight o'clock entry for Eddie S. Do you see that,
14:48:25 25 for the 2nd of November?
26 A. Yes
27 Q. 822 And there is nothing in your diary for the 2nd or indeed the 3rd of November.
28 There's another entry for eight o'clock on the third of November. Do you see
29 that, Mr. Sweeney? Just top right hand corner Monarch.
14:48:42 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
116
14:48:42 1 Q. 823 There is no entry in your diary for either the 2nd or the 3rd.
2 A. Yeah.
3 Q. 824 Now, just in relation to the -- to those entries. Do you think that Mr.
4 Dunlop may have met representatives of Monarch other than yourself at the
14:48:57 5 meeting on the 3rd but that he would have met you at the meeting on the 2nd?
6 A. I can't say.
7 Q. 825 He seems to be making a distinction there in his diary entries between meetings
8 with you and meetings with Monarch, isn't that right?
9 A. Oh, well yes.
14:49:21 10 Q. 826 And coincidentally, Mr. Sweeney, at 4633, Mr. Dunlop presents an invoice for
11 yet another payment, this time in the sum of 15,000 pounds which now brings his
12 payments to 65,000 pounds. Do you see that invoice?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 827 And you certified that invoice. Because I think that's your signature or your
14:49:41 15 initials on the left?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 828 You certified it for payment?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 829 And you met with Mr. Dunlop on the same day. And the cheque at 4634. Is
14:49:53 20 dated the 2nd of November '93. As matter of probability, Mr. Sweeney, Mr.
21 Dunlop must have presented that invoice to you at that meeting on the 3rd -- on
22 the 2nd of November '93.
23 A. I don't think so. I don't think he ever presented me with anything.
24 Q. 830 So you think it's coincidental that on the same morning that you met Mr. Dunlop
14:50:12 25 you would have received from him an invoice which you paid on the same day?
26 A. Certainly I didn't receive any invoices from him.
27 Q. 831 At 4633. You certified the invoice, isn't that right?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 832 And the invoice we know was paid on the 2nd of November.
14:50:38 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
117
14:50:38 1 Q. 833 So you must have received it and paid it on the same day, isn't that right?
2 A. Well it's been paid.
3 Q. 834 Yes. But it was certified for payment on the day that it was received, which
4 was the 2nd of November?
14:50:50 5 A. Well if you go back to that.
6 Q. 835 Yes. 4633, please.
7 A. It doesn't really say when I certified it.
8 Q. 836 I accept that. But it's dated the 2nd of November?
9 A. It is dated that.
14:51:04 10 Q. 837 So are you saying that you --
11 A. I may not have received it on that day.
12 Q. 838 So you think that this might have been an invoice that was received within
13 Monarch after the payment had been made?
14 A. Yes. It certainly may have.
14:51:15 15 Q. 839 Now, you were certifying a payment on foot of an invoice for a contractor who
16 was purporting to provide media and communications training for '93 and '94,
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 840 Which he was suggesting was a VAT exempt activity?
14:51:34 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 841 Mr. Dunlop never provided media and communications training. Did he,
22 Mr. Sweeney?
23 A. Not to Monarch he didn't.
24 Q. 842 Well to any of the Monarch Groups?
14:51:44 25 A. No.
26 Q. 843 So you were certifying there a payment which effectively was a VAT free payment
27 to a supplier whom you knew from previous invoices was supplying a vatable
28 activity?
29 A. Can I short circuit that.
14:52:03 30 Q. 844 Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
118
14:52:03 1 A. By saying that when I agreed the payment -- when I agreed with Mr. Dunlop the
2 4,000 was to be exclusive of VAT. The 25,000 was a payment on account. And
3 as far as I was concerned from that point on, all payments should have
4 attracted VAT because VAT would have been of no importance to Monarch.
14:52:31 5 Q. 845 Yes. But why did you certify a payment to Mr. Dunlop which was VAT exempt in
6 November '93?
7 A. I don't recall even noticing that it was VAT exempt.
8 Q. 846 If we take your theory a moment ago, Mr. Sweeney, that you did not receive that
9 invoice on the 2nd of November, that you got it subsequently?
14:52:58 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 847 After the cheque had issued?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 848 That would mean you would have needlessly certified the payment after the
14 cheque had issued, isn't that right? Because the cheque had issued on the 2nd
14:53:10 15 of November.
16 A. Yes, I noticed that.
17 Q. 849 So somebody would have had to sanction the issue of the cheque on the 2nd of
18 November?
19 A. Yeah, the accounts would have issued the cheque.
14:53:22 20 Q. 850 Yes but they would have issued a cheque in the absence of an invoice?
21 A. That's possible.
22 Q. 851 And subsequently, you would have sanctioned an invoice for a cheque that had
23 issued?
24 A. Yes.
14:53:34 25 Q. 852 And who would have sanctioned the cheque on the 2nd of November?
26 A. The accounts would have.
27 Q. 853 Who within accounts would have?
28 A. I would have said any senior member, include Mr. Glennane.
29 Q. 854 But why would it have been necessary for you to certify the invoice if the
14:53:54 30 cheque had issued?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
119
14:53:56 1 A. To keep the paperwork correct I suppose.
2 Q. 855 But isn't that the one thing that's absent here, Mr. Sweeney?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 856 Is paperwork?
14:54:09 5 A. I must agree, it's very confusing and I can't figure it out.
6 Q. 857 And highly unusual.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. 858 And very confusing.
9 A. Yes. And I have to say, that didn't apply in the construction end.
14:54:24 10 Q. 859 Yes.
11 A. Which I was dealing with on a day-to-day basis.
12 Q. 860 But you're dealing here now with Mr. Dunlop and you're certifying his fees,
14 A. Yes.
14:54:33 15 Q. 861 You within, Monarch are taking responsibility for certifying Mr. Dunlop's
16 retainer, isn't that right?
17 A. I took responsibility for agreeing with him the brief and the amount.
18 Q. 862 And you certified his payments?
19 A. And after that it seems to me that the payments got into a very confused state
14:54:50 20 and there was all sorts of paperwork flying around to try and sort it out.
21 Q. 863 Aren't you the most senior man within Monarch, Mr. Sweeney, that's dealing with
22 Mr. Dunlop at this time? You have retained him, albeit on the direction you
23 say of Mr. Monahan. You have had meetings with him. You have been
24 sanctioning and certifying his invoices. Isn't that correct?
14:55:12 25 A. Well if he had invoiced properly, then everything would have been fine. But I
26 can't make head nor tail of the trail of paper that's there.
27 Q. 864 But you were the one person within Monarch that had primary responsibility for
28 this supplier. Isn't that right? This professional that was providing
29 assistance to the company?
14:55:33 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
120
14:55:34 1 Q. 865 And you were certifying his invoices?
2 A. Yeah but once the invoices were within the threshold of the agreement that I
3 had made, then that, that would have been okay.
4 Q. 866 But why didn't you raise with Mr. Dunlop the issue of proper accounting and the
14:55:54 5 provision of proper invoices so that he could be properly paid, isn't that
6 right?
7 A. Well I should have. I wouldn't have been wanting to start a fight with
8 someone who is just about to help us in a lobbying exercise.
9 Q. 867 Were you not curious as to why Mr. Dunlop was supplying all of these different
14:56:12 10 invoices?
11 A. I didn't see a lot of these until the end.
12 Q. 868 But you were certifying them, isn't that right?
13 A. Some of them.
14 Q. 869 You were certainly certifying this one as being payable even though it doesn't
14:56:21 15 contain a VAT amount, isn't that right?
16 A. Yeah and I didn't understand that.
17 Q. 870 You can't understand why Mr. Dunlop would submit a fee for works which he says
18 were VAT exempt, works that were not done by him, isn't that right?
19 A. Yes. I would have assumed in that invoice that the 15,000 would have included
14:56:44 20 VAT.
21 Q. 871 Under normal circumstances, Mr. Sweeney, we should be looking there on the 2nd
22 of November 1993 at an invoice for either the month of October or indeed the
23 month of November for the sum of 4,000 pounds plus VAT being the retainer for
24 that month in relation to the provision of lobbying services to Monarch
14:57:03 25 Properties Services Limited in connection with the rezoning of Cherrywood
26 lands. Isn't that right?
27 A. Yes, it does seem to me, Chairman, that within the umbrella of a very simple
28 agreement, all the payments got very confused.
29 Q. 872 And in fact, if we go to 4634, Mr. Sweeney. And we look again at the cheque.
14:57:25 30 If you look at the reverse of the cheque, you see that it's date stamped in the

www.pcr.ie Day 662
121
14:57:30 1 bank on the 2nd of November 1993. So it was the invoice was raised on the 2nd
2 of November, the cheque was drawn on the 2nd of November and the cheque appears
3 to have been negotiated on the 2nd of November. And you met with Mr. Dunlop,
4 according to his diary, on the 2nd of November. Do you think that you can
14:57:55 5 assist the Tribunal in any way in relation to those sequence of events?
6 A. Well I can understand the sequence of events but I did not receive an invoice
7 from him personally on the 2nd of November.
8 Q. 873 The 2nd of November was nine days off the vote, isn't that right?
9 A. Uh-huh.
14:58:17 10
11 JUDGE FAHERTY: Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Quinn, in fact I understand the vote was
12 scheduled for the 3rd of November.
13
14 MR. QUINN: And was adjourned to the 9th.
14:58:26 15
16 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes. If my recollection is correct.
17
18 MR. QUINN: Yes, that's correct, Judge. This was on the eve the vote as you
19 understood it on the 2nd when you met with Mr. Dunlop?
14:58:37 20 A. Well I understood the vote was on the 11th.
21
22 JUDGE FAHERTY: It was indeed, Mr. Sweeney, did take place on the 11th. If
23 the records are correct of the County Council was on the agenda for the 3rd of
24 November.
14:58:49 25 A. It had been deferred. Yes, I understand now.
26
27 Q. 874 MR. QUINN: And you were putting Mr. Dunlop on that day in funds to the tune of
28 15,000 pounds by drawing a cheque drawing a cheque which had no VAT element
29 insofar as the invoice was concerned. Isn't that right?
14:59:09 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
122
14:59:15 1 Q. 875 Now, at 4690. On the 9th of November Mr. Dunlop has a 12.00 or an 11.00
2 entry. If you just look at the 9th, which is Tuesday about midway down
3 Monarch/Eddie. Do you see that?
4 A. Yes.
14:59:39 5 Q. 876 Do you recall meeting Mr. Dunlop on that date and I tell you there is no entry
6 in your diary for that date?
7 A. Well I can understand the logic of it though being immediately before I think.
8 Q. 877 Yes.
9 A. Vote?
14:59:48 10 Q. 878 The vote was on the following Thursday, isn't that right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. 879 A an entry in your diary D day?
13 A. D day.
14 Q. 880 And we see Mr. Dunlop's diary on the 11th equally and the word Monarch written
15:00:13 15 on it. Do you see that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 881 Now, there were subsequent invoices. I think you may have phoned looking for
18 Mr. Dunlop on the Friday, that's the day following the vote, at 4699. And
19 again on the Monday the 15th. At 10.50 at 4707. But in any event, two
15:00:37 20 further invoices appear to have been raised. A copy of an invoice at 4768
21 dated the 6th of December 1993. In the sum of 22,296.94 was raised. You'll
22 have seen that. And then there is a further invoice dated the 6th of December
23 1993 at 4772. Which again is invoice No. 955 as that one on screen is. And
24 it's in the sum of 31,371.94, do you see that?
15:01:07 25 A. Yes.
26 Q. 882 And again, Mr. Sweeney, that's an invoice that's okayed and certified for
27 payment by you, isn't that right?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 883 Can you tell the Tribunal the circumstances under which you came to certify
15:01:19 30 that invoice for payment?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
123
15:01:24 1 A. I've looked at this and it appears that the accounts were very anxious to get
2 paperwork to cover all the monies that had been expended in Frank Dunlop's
3 favour. And that these were again a retrospective paper exercise to justify
4 what had been paid to him.
15:01:46 5 Q. 884 Why were you involved in getting the paper together Mr. Sweeney? Why not
6 Mr. Glennane or Mr. Lynn or Mr. Reilly? Why you?
7 A. Well it would have been at the request of the accounts department. So it
8 would have been at their behest.
9 Q. 885 But it was a request to you because Mr. Dunlop as a contractor fell under your
15:02:06 10 jurisdiction so, to speak, within the company. Is that correct?
11 A. Yeah, it was more or less go and get invoices from the guy.
12 Q. 886 Because he was your -- your retainer. Isn't that right? You had retained
13 him.
14 A. Yes.
15:02:17 15 Q. 887 You were responsible for him within the company?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 888 Yes.
18 A. Within the agreement that had been made.
19 Q. 889 Yeah. He more or less fell into a category of a contractor, isn't that right?
15:02:28 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 890 And you had responsibility to produce the paperwork to the accounts department?
22 A. Not only for our own particular reasons but also for our partner.
23 Q. 891 Claim against GRE.
24 A. Yeah.
15:02:41 25 Q. 892 For 50 percent of his contribution.
26 A. Yeah, who would be very lost to pay without the paperback up.
27 Q. 893 And in fact we see that, Mr. Sweeney, if we look at the paperback up. You,
28 first of all produce, based on those invoices three certificates. We dealt
29 with the one dated the 1st of June '93, which is at 4142. Where you certified
15:03:07 30 that Mr. Dunlop had been paid on the 10th of April '93. A sum of 12,100

www.pcr.ie Day 662
124
15:03:12 1 pounds. And if we could have 4846. There's a certificate that Mr. Dunlop
2 had been paid on the 14th of December '93 on foot of invoice No. 1251, 60,500
3 pounds. And then there was a third invoice where you had certified Mr. Dunlop
4 as having been paid a sum of 32,371.94 on the 6th of December '93 on foot of
15:03:51 5 invoice No. 955 and I'll put that document on screen in a moment, Mr. Sweeney.
6 I'll come back to that document. I just don't have the reference on it at the
7 moment. But on the 29th of June 1993 invoice No. 2064 was raised, by Monarch
8 Properties and forwarded to GRE seeking 50 percent of the 25,000 up front
9 payment, isn't that right? And we see that at 4819.
15:04:45 10 A. Yes.
11 Q. 894 That's invoice number -- there are three different types of invoices here,
12 isn't that right? There's Mr. Dunlop's invoice raised on Monarch. And then
13 there's Monarch's invoice raised on GRE. So what I'm talking about know--
14 A. Yes.
15:05:00 15 Q. 895 So it's quite confusing. So when are we're talking about Monarch's
16 relationship with GRE, Monarch would normally raise an invoice with GRE and
17 they would back that invoice up with third party invoices?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 896 In this case Mr. Dunlop's invoice to Monarch?
15:05:16 20 A. Yes. There were two. There was Dunlop's invoice to Monarch and Monarch's
21 subsequent invoice to GRE.
22 Q. 897 Now, that document on screen, which is the invoice of the 29th of June '93.
23 Was the subject -- was forwarded for payment to GRE. And on the 7th of July,
24 if we could have 4822. Mr. Baker wrote to you following on a meeting which
15:05:48 25 you had with him on the 29th of June, isn't that right? You had some regular
26 contact with Mr. Baker, isn't that right?
27 A. Yes.
28 Q. 898 And these sort of issues between Monarch and GRE would be trashed out between
15:06:02 30 A. Yes.

www.pcr.ie Day 662
125
15:06:02 1 Q. 899 And you had a meeting with him I think in May '93, isn't that right? Because
2 we see from that letter under item No. 4 invoice No. 2064. That Mr. Baker
3 advises you that at the meeting in May he agreed the appointment of Mr. Dunlop
4 but only on the basis that it was 4,000 per month with no success fee.
15:06:25 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 900 Sorry. The 7th of May 1993 I think is the date of that meeting, isn't that
7 correct?
8 A. Sorry, am I looking at something here?
9 Q. 901 Yes. Item No. 4. Although it says meeting in May. In fact I understand
15:06:43 10 from Mr. Shipsey and indeed I understand from the documentation as well that
11 that meeting may have taken place on the 7th of May.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 902 So you had retained Mr. Dunlop as far back as March on the instructions of
14 Mr. Monahan.
15:07:02 15 A. Yes.
16 Q. 903 And then you had a meeting the following May. On May 7th. 7th with
17 Mr. Baker and you advised Mr. Baker that you had retained Mr. Dunlop. That's
18 a meeting in your diary for the 7th of May E S/MB in Dublin.
19 A. Yes.
15:07:21 20 Q. 904 So at that meeting you are advising Mr. Baker of third party costs effectively
21 being incurred. And you're going to recover some of those costs from GRE,
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 905 And you're advising Mr. Baker that Mr. Dunlop has been retained, isn't that
15:07:36 25 right?
26 A. Yes.
27 Q. 906 And you advise him of the terms of his employment?
28 A. Yes.
29 Q. 907 Namely, that it would be 4,000 per month but you must have also advised him
15:07:45 30 that Mr. Dunlop was looking for a success fee and Mr. Dunlop said he wouldn't

www.pcr.ie Day 662
126
15:07:50 1 pay a success fee, isn't that right?
2 A. No, that's not correct.
3 Q. 908 Okay.
4 A. What happened there was I advised him a that a success fee had been requested
15:07:58 5 and that I had said that it was out of my control and that's why I said there
6 was no success fee and that we really meant it to be at that moment in time.
7 The fact that he said there was no success fee means that I had said to him --
8 Q. 909 That there was no success fee at that stage. He was envisaging a success fee
9 that stage?
15:08:21 10 A. No, he wasn't.
11 Q. 910 I see.
12 A. He was just noting the fact that there was no success fee.
13 Q. 911 And now he had received, having been advised or appraised of Mr. Dunlop's
14 appointment. He had now received an invoice for half of 25,000 pounds which
15:08:35 15 had been received by Mr. Dunlop and he is querying that invoice. He is
16 reminding you of the meeting that you'd had. And he goes on to say I find it
17 difficult to understand an invoice for 25,000 pounds in which you employ -
18 which would employ over six months work when Mr. Dunlop was only appointed in
19 May. Isn't that right?
15:08:55 20 A. Yes.
21 Q. 912 And I think you responded -- I think you responded to that letter in
22 correspondence on the 13th of July '93. If we look at 4825. The very last
23 paragraph on that page you say.
24
15:09:13 25 Your item No. 4, invoice No. 2064. "I am prepared to cancel invoice 2064 and
26 re issue invoice 2068 for April, May June and July if you feel that you should
27 pay only on a monthly basis. Please note that Frank Dunlop & Associates were
28 engaged from April and requested that part of their payment be up front before
29 they would take on the assignment. That is the reason why the payment by us
15:09:41 30 of 25,000 to date"

www.pcr.ie Day 662
127
15:09:44 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. 913 And I think there were subsequent correspondence between you. And on the 28th
3 of September 1993, at 4817. By the 28th of September you had again met with
4 Mr. Baker, isn't that right?
15:10:03 5 A. Yes, I must say I was in constant communication with Mr. Baker.
6 Q. 914 And he refers to that meeting.
7 A. Both by phone and by letter.
8 Q. 915 And although there's no entry in your diary, that letter of the 28th of
9 September suggest that is there may in fact have been a meeting on the 27th of
15:10:21 10 September, isn't that right? Because he says "With reference to your letter of
11 the 2nd of September and our meeting on the 27th of September".
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 916 And then he under the heading F Dunlop he says "a retainer of 4,000 per month
14 from April to December '93 inclusive, plus a success fee of 50,000 pounds."
15:10:38 15 So by 27th of September 1993 Mr. Dunlop had been given a success fee of 50,000
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. 917 And I think there followed then in December and January '93 and early '94 a
19 series of correspondence where you sought to recover 50 percent of the fees due
15:10:59 20 to Mr. Dunlop, isn't that right? And that correspondence relied on the
21 certificates which we have seen earlier. I put up two of the certificates.
22 And the third of the certificate is at 4773. In the sum of 32,371.94.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. 918 And those certificates were forwarded on the 15th of December 1993 at 4848 by
15:11:20 25 Mr. Caslin, isn't that right?
26 A. That 32 is wrong.
27 Q. 919 Yes. That should be 31, isn't that right? There had been I think -- you had
28 spoken to Mr. Baker on the 14th of December Because if we look at 8608 in
29 correspondence between Mr. Caslin and Mr. Binge. He says "I understand that
15:11:46 30 Eddie Sweeney is spoken to Martin Baker in the last few minutes and that Martin

www.pcr.ie Day 662
128
15:11:51 1 has confirmed that the situation is that he just requires copies of the third
2 party invoices to enable payments to take place acknowledging that we cannot
3 make payments of this order without having received half from yourselves."
4 A. Yes.
15:12:02 5 Q. 920 And then the response to that was a letter which we have seen at 4848.
6 Forwarding the Dunlop invoices or sorry certificates that we have seen there.
7 And it all culminated in correspondence I think in a further letter on the 16th
8 of December '93 at 4853. Where again Mr. Caslin attaches copies of the Frank
9 Dunlop invoices which he, Mr. Caslin, had certified as having been true copies
15:12:33 10 of the originals. "My original certified copies are in the mail to you today."
11 Presumably he forwarded the various invoices that we see from Mr. Dunlop, isn't
12 that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. 921 And ultimately I think on the 20th of December 1993. A cheque in the sum of
15:12:50 15 52,030 pounds as we see at 4815, was drawn by GRE and in favour of Monarch
16 Properties Limited. Effectively putting them in funds for 50 percent of the
17 Frank Dunlop & Associates payments to date?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 922 Now, just to go back to the retainer of Mr. Dunlop, Mr. Sweeney. And I
15:13:21 20 listened with care to what your counsel had to say to Mr. Dunlop in his
21 cross-examination and I may be incorrect in this and if I am, please correct
22 me. But I did not understand him to suggest to Mr. Dunlop, that Mr. Dunlop --
23 that you had not used the words that Mr. Dunlop had ascribed to you, namely,
24 that you had said to him that he had to do what had to be done or words to that
15:13:45 25 effect. Are you saying that you never used those words?
26 A. I don't recall using those words.
27 Q. 923 Yeah. I know that it is your case that --
28 A. I have to say that the very first time, Chairman, that I came across those
29 words was six or seven weeks ago. And my immediate reaction was to set in
15:14:09 30 place legal advice to be able to take steps to redress what I regarded as a

www.pcr.ie Day 662
129
15:14:16 1 slight on my character. And I discovered that because it was within the
2 privilege of the court I couldn't do that but I was outraged to see that
3 speech. And that was only a few weeks ago.
4 Q. 924 Not to put a tooth in it, Mr. Sweeney. Mr. Dunlop's evidence to this Tribunal
15:14:36 5 was to the effect that you, in particular, and Monarch in general, knew that he
6 was about to bribe councillors when he was retained, isn't that right?
7 A. That is absolutely ludicrous.
8 Q. 925 Yes. You agree with -- I'm not going it to go into detail of what you said
9 what he said but you don't believe what he says you said, isn't that right.
15:14:57 10 A. I certainly don't.
11 Q. 926 You do agree I suggest to you -- I suspect Mr. Sweeney, that there were unusual
12 features of Mr. Dunlop's relationship with Monarch?
13 A. From what point of view?
14 Q. 927 Well we'll go through them. You already had a lobbiest in-house. You had
15:15:16 15 two in fact; Mr. Lynn and Mr. Reilly, when Mr. Dunlop was retained?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. 928 Mr. Dunlop's retention was as a result of the suggestion of Mr. Lawlor.
18 Mr. Lawlor, that is to say at that time a TD and a former councillor himself.
19 A. Yes, I understand that.
15:15:43 20 Q. 929 Who had not been involved, you say, in any strategy in relation to Cherrywood
21 up to that point?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. 930 Mr. Lawlor attended some of the meetings.
24 A. Yes.
15:15:44 25 Q. 931 That took place subsequently. Mr. Dunlop's involvement was late in the day in
26 relation to the project. It had been going on I think since '89. And it was
27 now 1993?
28 A. He didn't really have any involvement in the project except for that
29 introduction.
15:16:02 30 Q. 932 Yes. No, that's Mr. Lawlor but Mr. Dunlop's involvement with the project was

www.pcr.ie Day 662
130
15:16:07 1 late -- was late on in the project?
2 A. Yes. And it was at a point where I may say that the other two lobbiests had
3 tried and failed.
4 Q. 933 And the previous PR consultant had been involved, isn't that right?
15:16:22 5 A. Yes.
6 Q. 934 And you had in-house PR consultants. You had Pembroke PR and at that time,
7 isn't that right?
8 A. Yeah, Pembroke PR would have handled the openings of shopping centres and stuff
9 like that.
15:16:37 10 Q. 935 Yes. Mr. Dunlop's appointment was not done by the project leader, namely,
12 A. Say that again.
13 Q. 936 His appointment didn't come about as a result of any suggestion by you as
14 project leader?
15:16:50 15 A. No.
16 Q. 937 There are major controversies between yourself and Mr. Dunlop in relation to
17 his appointment and the terms of his appointment?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. 938 The invoices don't tally. Isn't that right? The invoices in relation to the
15:17:04 20 payments don't tally?
21 A. No, they don't.
22 Q. 939 Mr. Dunlop alleges that in the case of one of the cheques for 10,000 pounds he
23 didn't receive the benefit of the proceeds of that cheque.
24 A. Yeah, so I heard.
15:17:18 25 Q. 940 And it would appear from the reverse of that cheque. That it was negotiated
26 with two publicans in Lucan?
27 A. Yes, I saw that.
28 Q. 941 The only payment that was made on foot of an invoice was a same day payment on
29 the 3rd of November 199 -- or the 2nd of November 1993. Isn't that correct?
15:17:42 30 A. That was the 15,000?

www.pcr.ie Day 662
131
15:17:43 1 Q. 942 Yes.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 943 The payment was made on a day that you met with Mr. Dunlop but on a day in
4 which Mr. Dunlop did not raise with you any issue concerning money?
15:17:55 5 A. No, he didn't raise any issues with me about money or invoices.
6 Q. 944 That invoice itself was not a correct invoice. That is to say that it
7 purported to suggest that the works or the services being provided were VAT
8 exempt, isn't that right?
15:18:12 10 Q. 945 Yet the works being provided by Frank Dunlop & Associates as per the previous
11 invoice were not VAT exempt?
12 A. No.
13 Q. 946 It was understood between you that VAT would be payable on any fees that he was
14 to receive?
15:18:27 15 A. Yes, that was the arrangement.
16 Q. 947 One of the invoices, that is to say the invoice of April 1991 for 12,100
17 pounds. Is now being queried by Mr. Dunlop, isn't that right? As being a
18 correct invoice from him?
19 A. Yes.
15:18:47 20 Q. 948 Although marked paid in June 1993, and certified by you for payment, no cheque
21 in the sum of 12,100 pounds can be found in relation to that payment.
22 A. I noticed that.
23 Q. 949 There are no memos or records of the meetings that you had either initially
24 with Mr. Dunlop or subsequently as I have detailed them here?
15:19:12 25 A. Well there were records of the meetings.
26 Q. 950 But they are no longer in existence?
27 A. No.
28 Q. 951 Your evidence and your account of the circumstances under which Mr. Dunlop came
29 to be retained, differs now from that given previously to the Tribunal. And
15:19:37 30 I'm not going to go into detail in how it differs but you accept in a broad way

www.pcr.ie Day 662
132
15:19:43 1 that it does differ?
2 A. Yes, it does.
3 Q. 952 And in fact your evidence now in relation to the circumstances under which Mr.
4 Dunlop came to be retained is a very detailed recollection of what transpired.
6 A. Well I've had the benefit now of all of the brief and it did open up my memory
7 substantially.
8 Q. 953 In your diary, Mr. Sweeney, you have an entry I think for a one o'clock meeting
9 in Sandymount with Mr. Tom Hand for the 13th of December 1993, isn't that
15:20:27 10 right?
11 A. If it's in my diary, yes.
12 Q. 954 And I think you had a 4:30 meeting with Kevin O'Sullivan on the same day, isn't
13 that right?
15:20:39 15 Q. 955 On the 17th of December 1993. I think you have an entry in your diary to
16 phone Don Lydon re lunch, is that's correct?
18 Q. 956 And also you have an entry for Tom Hand for the 17th of December 1993, that's
19 the same day?
15:20:57 20 A. If it's in my diary, yes.
21 Q. 957 In his interview with the Tribunal Mr. Dunlop said. If I could have page 575,
22 Mr. Sweeney. Just looking at the answer at question 7.
23
24 He says "Eddie Sweeney actually said at the meeting in the presence of Liam
15:21:31 25 Lawlor that an awful lot of people had already been looked after and they were
26 ungrateful bastards like you know every time a difficulty arose or they got
27 pressure from -- there was one man in particular who was orchestrating things P
28 Doyle I do not know his first name but he lived in the area." Do you have any
29 comment to make in relation to that Mr. Sweeney? Did you ever say in the
15:21:57 30 presence of Mr. Lawlor or indeed at any stage to Mr. Dunlop, that there were a

www.pcr.ie Day 662
133
15:22:01 1 lot of people who had to be looked after?
2 A. No.
3 Q. 958 Did you ever say to Mr. Dunlop that disbursements had already been made in
4 relation to councillors?
15:22:13 5 A. No.
6 Q. 959 Messrs. Lydon and Hand had been very -- very helpful to the Monarch Group by
7 December '93, isn't that right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. 960 And they'd been very much associated with the project in September '93, isn't
15:22:52 10 that right?
11 A. Both of those councillors were very much pro-development and pro Monarch.
12 Q. 961 And if I could have 2199. Just to return just to your statement, Mr. Sweeney.
13 And just taking the fourth paragraph.
14
15:23:08 15 You say "The next contact with Liam Lawlor was in 1993/1994 during the
16 Cherrywood campaigns when he advised on zoning strategy with public relations
17 consultant Frank Dunlop, who was employed as a consultant around the time that
18 the second Cherrywood rezoning was attempted by Monarch. I have no knowledge
19 of when exactly or who appointed Frank Dunlop but can recall that some of the
15:23:32 20 late Liam Lawlor/Frank Dunlop meetings were related to the promotion of a
21 number of developments in the Czech Republic especially the Alfa project in
22 Prague." And you go on to deal with the Prague connection which you have
23 given evidence on.
24 A. Yes.
15:23:45 25 Q. 962 But the earlier portion of that statement Mr. Sweeney suggests that Mr. Lawlor
26 was very much involved in the Cherrywood campaign in that he advised on zoning
27 strategy in '93 and '94?
28 A. By that I meant that he had arranged the introduction of Frank Dunlop.
29 Q. 963 That was the extent of his involvement in the zoning strategy?
15:24:06 30 A. Yes, in looking back on it, that's about it but then it kind of drifted into

www.pcr.ie Day 662
134
15:24:12 1 Prague.
2 Q. 964 And again, if we could have 2200, please. Under the heading Frank Dunlop and
3 Bill O'Herlihy.
15:24:24 5 "You say spanning a period of about one and a half years I would have met Frank
6 Dunlop about six times. Some of the meetings would have been about the
7 proposed development in Prague and some of the meetings would have concerned
8 Frank Dunlop's role as public relations advisor in relation to land rezonings
9 particularly in Cherrywood to which he was introduced some time after the
15:24:40 10 services of Bill O'Herlihy were no longer required (the road show).
11
12 I can recall no part in any agreement with either Bill O'Herlihy or Frank
13 Dunlop for the services that they provided to Monarch but I believe that such
14 consultancy agreements would probably have been formalised in writing. I
15:24:59 15 personally however at no time negotiated any agreement, agreed any payment or
16 certified or recommended any payments to Frank Dunlop or Bill O'Herlihy
17 whatsoever. Philip Monahan or Richard Lynn would have dealt with such
18 appointments."
19
15:25:12 20 I think you have resiled from that contribution to the Tribunal this afternoon,
21 Mr. Sweeney?
22 A. Yes, if I could explain again. At the time that I did that, I didn't have any
23 information at all on Monarch files or any contact with Monarch personnel.
24 And I regret it, but I didn't afford it the importance that I have seen in it
15:25:39 25 now since the brief and since the accusation that was made against me by Mr.
26 Dunlop.
27 Q. 965 It's now almost half three I was going to go on to another topic, Sir. Would
28 it be fair to say perhaps half eleven on Tuesday?
29
15:26:02 30 CHAIRMAN: Yeah. Half eleven on Tuesday. And how long approximately more

www.pcr.ie Day 662
135
15:26:07 1 do you think you would have?
2 MR. QUINN: I would hope to finish with the witness by lunchtime.
4 CHAIRMAN: And then there is some cross-examination in the afternoon?
15:26:17 5
6 MR. QUINN: Mr. Sweeney --
8 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sanfey, Mr. Redmond and ....
15:26:21 10 MR. QUINN: I don't know how long Mr. Sanfey or Mr. Redmond are likely to be or
11 indeed Mr. Shipsey.
12
13 MR SANFEY: I won't have very much, Mr. Chairman. I think 15 or 20 minutes
14 at very most.
15:26:40 15
17
18 MR. QUINN: And I understand Mr. Redmond will be the same. So not before
19 eleven or do you want to say half eleven on Tuesday?
15:26:42 20
21 CHAIRMAN: Well we'll say not before half eleven.
22
23 MR. QUINN: Yes. Okay.
24
15:26:46 25 CHAIRMAN: Tuesday. Thank you.
26
28 TUESDAY, 4TH JULY, 2006, AT 11:00 30 A.M.
29
15:27:47 30

www.pcr.ie Day 662

Mahon Tribunal Transcripts June 2006

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mahon Tribunal Transcripts June 2006

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

09:54:25 1 THE TRIBUNAL RESUMED AS FOLLOWS ON FRIDAY,

2 2ND JUNE, 2006, AT 10:30 A.M.:

6 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Ms. Dillon.

8 MS. DILLON: Good morning, Sir.

10:36:17 10 Mr. Sean Haughey, please.

14 MR. SEAN HAUGHEY, HAVING BEEN SWORN, WAS EXAMINED

10:36:22 15 AS FOLLOWS BY MS DILLON.:

18 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Mr. Haughey.

21 current Dail; isn't that correct?

24 Mayor at one stage; isn't that the position?

27 involvement in the planning decisions made in connection with the Cherrywood

28 lands; isn't that the position?

29 A. That's the position.

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

8 or any individual or company associated with Monaghan or the Monarch Group,

9 whether a servant, agent, or otherwise. 3, any payment or benefit you may

13 And then you were asked some further questions.

19 therefore I'm not in a position to assist you or provide a statement in the

10:38:25 20 manner as sought. Isn't that right?

24 you didn't understand?

10:38:37 25 A. No, I understood the letter.

28 the Monarch Group; isn't that right?

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

4 to provide to the Tribunal information in relation to your contacts with

9 Tribunal now requests you to provide a detailed narrative statement regarding

18 A. That's the position, yes.

22 received any payments from it them. Isn't that the position?

10:40:21 25 Cherrywood, I didn't believe the letter in relation to payments by the -- by

27 for that to the Tribunal.

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

8 as outlining through its solicitor to Mr. Liam Guiera, yesterday, three

11 his own records and can confirm the same.

17 never had any dealings with Cherrywood.

18 Q. 12 Yes. But you --

19 A. I misunderstood the second part of your letter.

21 Properties or anybody associated with it isn't that the position?

27 MS. DILLON: Certainly, Sir. It's at page 1068.

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

2 capable of an interpretation. I know this has arisen before. I know the

3 intention was to get information in relation to payments. And I think most

6 But it is possible, I suppose, to interpret the letter as meaning only payments

10:43:10 10 capable of that interpretation.

12 MS. DILLON: May it please you, Sir.

14 In any event, at 8496, Mr. Haughey. Your solicitor is informed of the

16 supplied; isn't that right

28 Properties Services Limited.

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

10:43:59 1 yet in the system. (document circulated).

6 out. I always have them on hand in this Tribunal era.

8 you attribute a sum of 300 pounds to Mr. Philip Reilly?

11 you received. Yes. From the Tribunal.

10:45:03 20 Monarch Group; isn't that right?

22 any involvement in Cherrywood. It was only when it subsequently became clear

24 clarification, then I consulted my records.

27 1,000 pounds in June of 1989; isn't that right?

10:45:41 30 Mr. From Mr. Philip Monaghan?

Premier Captioning & Realtime Limited

3 A. I never saw that document.

7 Haughey, of a similar name, I only discovered that this week.

8 Q. 27 That's to be regretted. This letter would have been included in that

9 documentation. If you want to take a moment to consider it. That was