Mahon Tribunal: The retired chief superintendent who led the 1989 Garda investigation into planning corruption has defended the thoroughness of his work.
However, Chief Supt Thomas Brendan Burns conceded that he did not seek access to the bank accounts of George Redmond, Liam Lawlor or anyone else under investigation.
He did not interview Mr Lawlor as part of the investigation and although he did interview Redmond, he did not put a number of serious allegations to the former assistant Dublin city and county manager, the tribunal heard.
Mr Burns had operational charge of the investigation, which was prompted by allegations of planning corruption from a number of sources, including Mr Tom Gilmartin. His report cleared Mr Lawlor and Redmond of wrongdoing.
Redmond's name cropped up in at least six different allegations, the tribunal heard earlier this week. Gardaí were told Mr Lawlor was receiving £3,500 a month from Arlington Securities, payments Mr Gilmartin claimed were "blackmail money".
Mr Gilmartin also alleged that Mr Lawlor was withholding a £20,000 payment due on his purchase of a 5.5 litre Mercedes 560SEL from garage owner Mr Gerard Brady.
However, Mr Gilmartin refused to make a formal statement. Mr Burns said yesterday that if he had, it would have triggered further investigation.
Ms Patricia Dillon SC, for the tribunal, pointed out that Redmond had access to about £400,000 in cash, a multiple of his earnings at this time.
She asked if it hadn't occurred to the witness to request access to the bank accounts of Redmond, when he was the subject of serious allegations of bribery and corruption. If the gardaí had done this, they would have discovered the money.
Mr Burns said he was very cautious in his dealings with the official, and didn't want to leave himself open to libel allegations. "I could have asked him but I didn't and I didn't think it would have been right to do it," he said.
Ms Dillon pointed out that Mr Burns's report on his investigations stated that the allegations about Redmond had been "thoroughly investigated".
Mr Burns said they had, as far as he was concerned.
Ms Dillon then referred to the report's conclusion that Mr Lawlor's reputation emerged "unscathed". She asked why the investigation hadn't sought access to the politician's bank accounts.
Mr Burns said he didn't deem it correct to do this. He had no allegation from Mr Gilmartin, "none whatsoever".
He had to operate within the bounds of the law and he believed he had done so correctly.
In June 1989, Mr Burns interviewed Mr Brady about the Mercedes allegation. Asked if he had inquired of Mr Brady whether any money was due on the vehicle, he said he didn't. Mr Brady, when asked about the allegation involving a politician, told him there was no dispute.
Mr Brady has since told the tribunal that Mr Lawlor paid the £25,000 remaining on the purchase price of the car in February 1990.
Mr Burns said the first time he heard allegations about Redmond was in February 1989, when he interviewed two builders, Mr Peter Loughran and Mr Thomas McCaughey, who made allegations unrelated to those made by Mr Gilmartin.
Asked what steps he took in response to this reference to Redmond, he said he did nothing. He didn't think it was appropriate to take action.
Both men had declined to make a statement at that stage and they had offered no specific details.
Ms Dillon pointed out that Mr Burns's superior, Assistant Commissioner Hugh Sreenan, had spoken to Mr Gilmartin three times on the phone, yet at no time were the names of people who were figuring in corruption allegations mentioned.
Was this not bizarre, she asked the witness. Was it normal Garda technique not to mention names when investigating allegations of planning corruption?
Mr Burns said he didn't think it was bizarre. This was the way things were done. The simple way to proceed was for Mr Gilmartin to sit down and make a written statement containing all the details, but he hadn't done this.
Mr Burns said he "absolutely disagreed" with Mr Sreenan's belief that the reason Mr Lawlor was not interviewed was because he was a sitting politician.
"It made no difference to me who was involved - policeman, politician, judge or landowner," he replied.
