3 4 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Miss - Planning Tribunal

1
1 THE TRIBUNAL RESUMED AS FOLLOWS ON TUESDAY, 18TH NOVEMBER 2003
2 AT 11.00 A.M:
3
4 CHAIRMAN: Good morning, Miss Dillon.
5
6 MS. DILLON: Good morning, Sir. Mr. Liam McGlynn is the first witness to deal
7 with the 2,530 objections, after the second public display. The documents have
8 not been found. Mr. McGlynn will tell you he does not believe they will ever
9 be found. Mr. Liam McGlynn please.
10
11 MR. LIAM McGLYNN, ALREADY SWORN, WAS EXAMINED AS FOLLOWS
12 BY MISS DILLON:
13
14 Q 1 Good morning, Mr. McGlynn. Following a request from the Tribunal for the
15 objections or representations objecting to the change following the second
16 public display in relation to the subject lands, you conducted a search, is
17 that correct?
18 A Yes, I did.
19 Q 2 And can you outline to the Tribunal what searches you conducted and what the
20 fruits of your labours were, as it were?
21 A Well, I conducted a search in O'Connell Street yesterday, which was the offices
22 we occupied prior to moving to Swords, and there's only some remnants of
23 documents relating to the 1993 plan. The representations referred to are not
24 there, I suspect they have been discarded and we, shortly after the making of
25 the 1993 plan, the Dublin County Council was broken into three local
26 authorities, the Planning Department for Fingal would have moved from Irish
27 Life to O'Connell Street, we have moved from O'Connell Street to Swords, the
28 representations, as documents, are really only of historical interest once the
29 plan has been made. They have no bearing on the plan once the plan has been
30 made. So, probably we would have discarded them in an effort to reduce

2
1 documentation.
2 Q 3 If I could have page 583 please. This is an extract from the minutes of the
3 meeting of the 29th September 1993, Mr. McGlynn. And it refers to the lands at
4 Drumnigh, at this stage these are only Mr. Mahony's lands, you see there it
5 refers to 2,530 representations and in relation to the Station Road lands which
6 were the J R Bailey lands, there were only five representations and in relation
7 to the Coote lands, which have been voted on prior to this, there were 11
8 representations. Looking at that and considering the map and the location of
9 these lands, Mr. McGlynn, have you any view to offer the Tribunal as to the
10 source of these objections, a word that has been used here is a round robin
11 type representation.
12 A If memory serves, and I am only speaking from memory, I think it was one letter
13 which would have been signed by individuals but it was, in fact, the same
14 letter of objection and submitted 2,530 times.
15 Q 4 The same --
16 A You understand? It was a particular draft of a letter which was signed
17 individually and submitted by individuals but it was the content, if I
18 recollect, was the same in each one.
19 Q 5 So there would have been --
20 A With slight variations maybe.
21 Q 6 There would have been 2,530 letters?
22 A Correct.
23 Q 7 But it was the same letter?
24 A Correct.
25 Q 8 But there were 2,530 different signatures, so by saying a round robin, as I
26 understood it, what we would have been talking about here was a number of pages
27 stapled together with a submission at the top and everybody simply signed their
28 name.
29 A Well, that would be generally treated as one submission. It was only a
30 petition, signed by a number of people. If you receive a letter from an

3
1 individual you must take it as a representation even if it is exactly the same
2 as everyone else's. You would count it as an individual.
3 Q 9 Yes. And do you have any view on whether or not these objections might in some
4 way have been associated with the Baldoyle Racecourse lands?
5 A They probably would have emanated from that source because there was a great
6 deal of opposition to the rezoning of those lands to the 1993 plan.
7 Q 10 The Baldoyle Racecourse lands had fallen, as it were, in the first hurdle of
8 April of 1993?
9 A That's right.
10 Q 11 And these were representations, can you confirm to the Tribunal, that would
11 have been received only after the second public display?
12 A Yes.
13 Q 12 They would have come in after the display ceased in August 1993?
14 A Correct.
15 Q 13 And they would relate only to that display?
16 A Yes.
17 Q 14 Therefore, the Baldoyle Racecourse lands were not on public display during the
18 second public display.
19 A That's right, no, they weren't.
20 Q 15 Because they were not a change to Map 8?
21 A They remained as original.
22 Q 16 Thank you very much, if you could answer any questions that anybody else might
23 have for you, thank you.
24
25 THE WITNESS WAS CROSS-EXAMINED AS FOLLOWS BY MR. HOGAN:
26
27 Q 17 MR. HOGAN: Mr. McGlynn, Gerard Hogan for Mr. Mahony. Just one or two
28 questions arising out of what Miss Dillon put to you. You say this relates to
29 the second display
30 A Yes.

4
1 Q 18 These letters. But there has been evidence given, and specifically by Deputy
2 Wright on Friday, that there is 24,000 representations in respect of the entire
3 plan for the first showing, if I could call it that, up to April of 1993. The
4 entire of the Development Plan. And then there was 24,500 representations in
5 respect of the second public display.
6 A In relation to this map?
7 Q 19 No, in relation to the entire Development Plan?
8 A I am sorry, I haven't checked that figure. I can't --
9 Q 20 Well it's in the manager's report for, I think, December of 1993. If that's
10 correct, Mr. McGlynn, I want to test that with you, doesn't it suggest that the
11 firstly, there is a very, a relatively small number of quite original
12 objections in respect of the second display?
13 A Sorry, I don't follow.
14 Q 21 If there were 24,000 representations in respect of the first display, up to
15 April of 1993?
16 A Of the entire plan?
17 Q 22 Of the entire plan.
18 A I would have thought there would have been more than that.
19 Q 23 Those are the figures supplied according to the manager's report for December
20 1993. Perhaps we can get it out for you.
21 A I accept it.
22 Q 24 Could we have the last figure back as well please and put them on the same
23 screen. You see there that, Mr. McGlynn, that in the first paragraph, there is
24 24,000 representations in relation received by the planning authority.
25 A Yes.
26 Q 25 And then on the second display, there was 24,500 representations.
27 A I beg your pardon, I misunderstood what you said, I thought you said 2,500.
28 Q 26 Sorry, I thought I had said 24,000 but, in all events, there's 24,000 the first
29 time and 24,500 on the second occasion?
30 A Yes.

5
1 Q 27 Doesn't that suggest there was only five hundred or so original objections, new
2 objections.
3 A It's five hundred extra objections.
4 Q 28 Five hundred extra objections. And since we are speaking about a figure of
5 2,530 odd representations in respect of the Mahony lands, doesn't that strongly
6 suggest that those 2,530 or the vast bulk of them were generated in respect of
7 the events in March or April of 1993?
8 A I think from memory that's quite possible, yes.
9 Q 29 And don't we know that the amendment in respect of Mr. Fox's land only took
10 place on the day of the vote, on the 28th April 1993?
11 A Yes.
12 Q 30 So doesn't it suggest, therefore, that the vast majority of these
13 representations would have related to an original proposal which included Mr.
14 Mahony's lands and Mr. Fox's lands?
15 A I can't answer that question. I am sorry, I haven't checked that.
16 Q 31 With respect, Mr. McGlynn, and I am not seeking to put you in a difficult
17 position, but doesn't it follow from what you have just stated, because I think
18 you fairly acknowledge that the vast majority of these representations must
19 have been generated before April 1993.
20 A Yes.
21 Q 32 And that's one premise. The second premise is that we know that the amendment
22 in relation to Mr. Fox's lands was taken on the day of the vote itself, on the
23 28th April of 1993.
24 A Yes.
25 Q 33 Isn't that so?
26 A Yes.
27 Q 34 So, therefore, doesn't it follow that the representations, and unfortunately we
28 have no copy of them, but it follows inferentially they would have related to
29 objections to both Mr. Mahony's lands and Mr. Fox's lands.
30 A I could agree with you, but not having seen the representations myself, I can

6
1 only infer the same thing.
2
3 MS. DILLON: I don't wish to interrupt my friend but that the factual basis
4 for that proposition is incorrect for this reason, is that Mr. Mahony and Mr.
5 Fox's lands were never the subject matter of a proposed change in the first
6 display and therefore any representations that were received in relation to the
7 first display could not relate to Mr. Fox's and Mr. Mahony's lands. It must be
8 remembered that they were zoned agriculture and B and G until the draft plan
9 that went on display and therefore the fundamental premises that Mr. Hogan is
10 suggesting, that these representations relate to an an earlier display, cannot
11 be correct because Mr. Fox's and Mr. Mahony's lands only went on display on one
12 occasion and one occasion only and that was in July and August of 1993 after
13 the first vote.
14
15 Q 35 MR. HOGAN: Well, if that is -- if Miss Dillon is correct, Mr. McGlynn,
16 doesn't it suggest further that's these 2,530 representations didn't relate to
17 either the Fox and Mahony lands at all?
18 A No, they would have related to the Mahony lands. Which was the lands which
19 were rezoned in the 1993 plan and the proposal was to rezone those lands.
20 Q 36 Yes, but I come back to this, Mr. McGlynn, if as you said the vast majority of
21 these representations had to be generated originally before April of 1993, as
22 you fairly agreed, the first vote?
23 A No, I am sorry, we are talking about the second display of the plan and the
24 representations in respect of these lands would have come in in the summer of
25 1993, not April.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: They don't necessarily include any of the earlier 24,000 as I
28 understand it.
29 A No, they wouldn't.
30

7
1 CHAIRMAN: There may be some may be the same, in fact, 24,000 could be the same
2 or they could be not the same but repeated representations from the same
3 people.
4 A That's correct. We are only dealing with the report in relation to the second
5 display, when the vote was taken at the end of the year to rezone the lands so
6 it would have related only to the Mahony lands which were the subject of the
7 second display.
8
9 Q 37 MR. HOGAN: Well let's just test this further, Mr. McGlynn, again just to
10 explore this; could I look at 583 there on the right hand side. Now this is
11 the vote in September, isn't it? If we have 584 -- 583 and 584 together, that
12 will come here.
13 A Yeah.
14 Q 38 Now, you will see the following report by the manager which has, which had been
15 circulated was considered and it seems to be an extract from something that
16 happened in April, Mr. McGlynn, perhaps you can confirm that for us because
17 there's inverted commas here?
18 A It does relate, it's quoting from the minute in April 1993.
19 Q 39 Yes. So if that's correct, if it's quoting from a minute in April 1993, those
20 2,530 representations had to relate to April.
21 A Yes, I would accept that.
22 Q 40 And if that's so, it suggests two things; one is that it related to both the
23 Fox and Mahony lands because the amendment only -- the amendment deleting Mr.
24 Fox's lands only took place on the day of the vote?
25 A Well I regret, Mr. Hogan, I haven't seen the representations. I can't answer
26 that question, I'm sorry.
27 Q 41 But perhaps it's a matter for submission, Mr. Chairman.
28
29 Secondly, doesn't it also suggest that it was tied up in some way with the
30 Baldoyle vote if those representations were received in April of 1993?

8
1 A It would have arisen because from the original proposal in relation to the
2 Baldoyle and Portmarnock former racecourse lands, so this proposal would have
3 been, shall we say, the people opposed to that rezoning would have been aware
4 of this proposal and most likely objected to this proposal as well.
5 Q 42 Yes. And are you aware independently of this, of any objection on the part of
6 the local community to the rezoning of Mr. Mahony's lands as a thing in itself?
7 A No, I am not.
8 Q 43 Just I am reminded, Mr. McInerny my solicitor, I take it those 2,530
9 representations then relate to April?
10 A Yes.
11 Q 44 And therefore --
12
13 MS. DILLON: That is correct factually and the witness should be allowed to
14 explain that because it's not physically possible for these representations to
15 be received by the County Council until the second public display. The second
16 public display on these lands took place between the 1st July 1993 and the 4th
17 August 1993 and these representations were received after that or during that.
18 Therefore it is not correct and Mr. Hogan knows it is not correct to suggest
19 that these representations were received in April.
20
21 MR. HOGAN: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, the witness has just very fairly stated to me
22 that, having looked carefully at this, that these representations were received
23 in April but this is a quote from a minute in April.
24
25 MS. DILLON: It is correct that the quote is a quote from the minute in April
26 and it's referring to the minutes of the meeting at which the decision was
27 taken to rezoning those lands. It is not correct to suggest the words 2,530
28 representations relating to this change relate to April because the undisputed
29 planning evidence and uncontested in this case is in this module, it was after
30 the vote in April that these lands were put on public display as a change for

9
1 the first time and it's following that public display that these
2 representations were received. Now if I am in error on that, this witness can
3 correct that position.
4
5 JUDGE FAHERTY: Miss Dillon, do I take it that the statements in inverted
6 commas on the left-hand side, that's the manager's report
7
8 MS. DILLON: Yes and C 31493, as I understand it, is a reference to the minute
9 number at the meeting in April of 1993.
10
11 JUDGE FAHERTY: I take it this is the manager's report, it's not, as I
12 understand it, and I may be wrong, that that extract is not the extract from
13 the minutes, it's the extract in the manager's report
14
15 MS. DILLON: Correct, as I understand it.
16
17 JUDGE FAHERTY: Perhaps Mr. Hogan has a different view.
18
19 MR. HOGAN: I think, Mr. Chairman, the witness when I asked him in a question
20 two or three minutes confirmed looking at it carefully that this was something
21 that related to April, not September.
22 A My Lord, if I may explain. As I said originally, these 2,530 representations,
23 in my view, came in in respect of the second display. I am sorry if I said
24 April, I am wrong in that, they refer to the second display only because the
25 manager's report in this instance is related to that. The minute refers back
26 to the original meeting back in April, then it went on public display and this
27 is the manager's report and I'm sorry if I confused anybody.
28 Q 45 Well are you sure, Mr. McGlynn, because if we just go back to this, you see
29 following the report by the manager, which is 583 which had been circulated and
30 considered, you have inverted commas, you see that, left-hand side, then

10
1 there's the minute reference and then it says the date, 28th 4/1993?
2 A That refers to that minute of that meeting in April. And then it goes on to
3 give the 83 zoning, the 91 draft B, the amendment which is A1 under
4 consideration at the meeting, the representations and the manager's
5 recommendation to delete the amendment.
6 Q 46 You believe there was 2,530 representations received in the summer?
7 A Yes.
8 Q 47 I see. Well, but, in all events, these are the only representations that you
9 are aware of in respect of Mr. Mahony's lands in itself?
10 A Yes.
11 Q 48 And isn't it possible that those 2,530 representations really arise from
12 earlier objections that were made and were sent, if you are correct, were sent
13 in again because of the figures that we gave that we saw earlier about having
14 24,000 objections or representations for the first display and 24,500 for the
15 second display? It's very unlikely, is it not, that 2,530 new people objected
16 on the second display in respect of Mr. Mahony's lands?
17 A I would agree it's unlikely. They probably were a re-statement of the original
18 objections to the proposed rezoning of the Baldoyle lands but when the second
19 display occurred, these lands would have been included as a proposal and that
20 would have generated the representations.
21 Q 49 Thank you very much.
22
23 THE WITNESS WAS CROSS-EXAMINED AS FOLLOWS BY MR. MONTGOMERY:
24
25 Q 50 MR. MONTGOMERY: Giles Montgomery for the estate of Cyril Gallagher, deceased.
26 I have only one question. The document to your left on screen, the one dealing
27 with the 2,530 representations, can you give us an indication as to when that
28 document would have been prepared and typed?
29 A This report?
30 Q 51 The one on the left hand screen?

11
1 A Probably a couple of days before the meeting.
2 Q 52 Which meeting?
3 A This meeting that it was considered at, Chairman, it's not shown there, but I
4 think it would have been around late 1993?
5 Q 53 I am looking at the document which, on its face, indicates to me perhaps
6 incorrectly that it is a minute prepared subsequent to the meeting of the 24th
7 April of 1993.
8 A No, this minute here relates to the meeting, the special meeting of the County
9 Council which, I don't recall the date, but it would have been much later in
10 1993, this is the minute where the actual decision is made to rezone the lands,
11 so it would have been later, towards the end of the year.
12 Q 54 Then what is the significance of the two dates set out, one on the top of the
13 sheet and another halfway down?
14 A The first minute C/314/93, that would have referred back to a meeting of that
15 date.
16 Q 55 And when would that have been prepared? This is the point. I am putting it to
17 you, Mr. McGlynn, and I am not trying to confuse you or whatever, the point
18 that I'm trying to make to you is that this would appear to me that it was a
19 minute prepared contemporaneously with the holding of the meeting, it had to
20 be, presumably at the meeting there was a secretary taking notes?
21 A Oh yes.
22 Q 56 And if the secretary taking notes in dealing with minute C/314/93 and that
23 minute refers on its face to representations of the 28th April 1993, I find it
24 difficult to understand as to how at that meeting it can be said that those
25 representations weren't in place because if they are mentioned in the minute,
26 they had to be in place.
27 A No, sorry, just to give an indication of what occurs here. This report of the
28 manager would have related to the meeting that was being held, I think, later
29 in the year, as I said. The manager's report just sets out there the minute of
30 the previous meeting. Now, when a meeting is held by the council, a report is

12
1 prepared by the manager, it's submitted to the members, depending on the
2 decision of the members, it then goes into a minute. The minutes go back to
3 the members for confirmation and when they have been confirmed, they are then
4 recorded. Now, this is a confirmed minute, in other words, it has been back to
5 the members for confirmation and they accept it, so that would have happened in
6 respect of 1993. The report of 1993 would have gone to the members, they would
7 have discussed it, confirmed it, and the manager's referring back to this there
8 in the opening statement of his report in this case and then he goes on to deal
9 with, it is a somewhat fairly bleak report, there was not a lot of information
10 in it, but it does tell us what the zonings were, what the rezonings were
11 proposed, what the amendment proposed, the representations we got and the
12 manager's recommendation. Now, say, it is quite a short report but that would
13 have been the format. So what you are looking at here is a confirmed minute of
14 a meeting that took place.
15 Q 57 I fully accept that, Mr. McGlynn. The point I am trying to make is that it's a
16 confirmed minute of a meeting that did take place and I am putting it to you
17 that the minute is in respect of the meeting that was held on the 28th April.
18 It seems to be no other possible --
19 A No, that wouldn't be correct. I couldn't agree with you. The reason being, as
20 I said, I don't have the date of this meeting in front of me because I said I
21 think it was late --
22
23 JUDGE FAHERTY: 29th September, I think.
24 A Yeah, now this report would have been submitted to that meeting on the 29th
25 September and it refers to what occurred following the second display. The
26 minute at the top in 1993 refers back to a previous meeting and would have been
27 for the information for the members as to when this issue was dealt with last
28 and then it goes on to set out what the position is. That's the way the
29 manager's report would have been and there doesn't appear to have been any
30 changes to the manager's report.

1
13
2 Q 58 MR. MONTGOMERY: When this minute was being prepared in draft form and then
3 being circulated and then being returned to the manager for final endorsing, if
4 you wish, how long would that procedure take in the ordinary course of events?
5 A Well, the way it occurs generally, a meeting would occur on a particular day.
6 The minutes of those meetings would be submitted to the next meeting of the
7 County Council which would usually be a couple of weeks after. In this
8 instance they were having meetings quite regularly so it mightn't have been the
9 next one, it might have been the one after that possibly.
10 Q 59 Well, can you tell us or give us an indication as to what might have transpired
11 on the 28th April?
12 A Sorry, I would have to go and look at that minute. I presume what occurred was
13 this would have been as a result of the first display.
14 Q 60 And that's exactly the point I'm making. That the meeting of the 28th April
15 referred to the first public display and at that stage the representations were
16 in and that's why it's referred to in that minute?
17 A No, the representations in the first display would have to be considered
18 separately.
19 Q 61 Were there representations in respect of the first display?
20 A Yes, they would have been.
21 Q 62 But you don't have any knowledge as to whether they were in fact?
22 A They would have been, I can say definitely, yes, they would have been and the
23 plan would have gone out, the members would have discussed the representations.
24 Q 63 We all know where it goes.
25 A Yes.
26 Q 64 But the point I'm making, where it's shown on the minutes of the council how
27 many representations were made?
28 A It would have been shown in the minute that considered this map after the first
29 display, whatever meeting that was held, which I presume was in April.
30 Q 65 But presumably there would have been submissions made in respect of the draft,

14
1 the first draft?
2 A Yes.
3 Q 66 And how many of these were there?
4 A I think there was roughly the same, 2,500.
5 Q 67 So there was a similar amount of representations to both?
6 A Yes.
7 Q 68 And now they can't be found, either set?
8 A I am quite certain they have been discarded.
9 Q 69 Do you think it's a possibility or distinct possibility, in fact, the
10 representations were included from the first display and not the second?
11 A No.
12 Q 70 Thanks.
13
14 THE WITNESS WAS CROSS-EXAMINED AS FOLLOWS BY MR. KENNEDY:
15
16 Q 71 MR. KENNEDY: Mr. McGlynn, Martin Kennedy, solicitor for Mr. Wright. Mr. Sean
17 Barrett, when he gave evidence here, told us that when, after the second
18 display of the map in July and mid summer, that the manager's report that was
19 attached to or appended to the second display, this is a different point but I
20 think it's important to bring it out, it's analogous I believe to the objection
21 situation. He told us that the same manager's report was appended to the,
22 after the second display and went forward as the manager's report for the
23 motions when they came up in September and he was making the point, I think,
24 that that was somewhat unbalanced or unfair because Baldoyle had been taken out
25 of the picture completely. The motion for Baldoyle had totally failed. Do you
26 agree or would you know that the same manager's report was appended to the
27 motions that appeared for discussion and decision in September as was appended
28 to the motions that appeared in April?
29 A No, I am sorry, I would not know that, I would have no direct evidence to that
30 effect, I'm afraid.

15
1 Q 72 It's very good of you to put it like that. You would have no direct evidence.
2 Where is your direct evidence of new motions or new objections being compiled
3 by 2,530 people after the July display of the plan?
4 A Because it's stated in the manager's report.
5 Q 73 No, where is your direct evidence? Because that might be the same manager's
6 report that was there in April.
7 A I would have to say it would not -- well -- I can't answer that question
8 because I have no direct evidence as to what --
9 Q 74 Really you are speculating as a good civil servant would?
10 A I am using my experience as to what I think would have, or the procedure to be
11 followed would have been.
12 Q 75 Now, I am not trying to trap you in any way, just trying to get at what really
13 happened here because there's a lot of confusion about these objections being
14 actually repeated, but what were you doing, what was your role in the council
15 in 1993? How do you know what you are now telling us?
16 A I am basing this on my knowledge and experience of working in the Planning
17 Department. I was not in the Planning Department in 1993 and I suspect most of
18 the people who were at that time are no longer around. My only -- if you like,
19 my position as an official of the council.
20 Q 76 Now, I think the record would show, and again I know it's difficult when you
21 are giving evidence, and you were here earlier and you gave evidence of
22 information you were familiar with and you knew about but, in your direct
23 answers to Miss Dillon, you told us, and I am not suggesting you are trying to
24 mislead, that you had seen the representations and you told us that they had
25 been signed individually and that some of the representation letters had
26 slightly different wording. Now, that's one thing you said in your direct
27 evidence, you had been answering questions from Miss Dillon. Then you said,
28 and the record will show, on two separate occasions when you were being
29 cross-examined by Mr. Hogan and possibly Mr. Montgomery, you were acknowledging
30 that you had not seen the representations --

1
16
2 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Kennedy, I think what Mr. McGlynn, to be fair to Mr. McGlynn, my
3 understanding of what he said was that his recollection was that they were
4 separate representations which were much of the same wording but possibly with
5 slight differences.
6 A That's correct. That's what I did say. I did not say I saw them.
7
8 MR. KENNEDY: How could you say that, Chairman, if he didn't see them.
9
10 CHAIRMAN: Well explain, but I'm making clear what he said earlier. I didn't
11 understand him to say he was now speaking from a clear recollection of having
12 seen each of them, but that his recollection generally was that they were but
13 he can explain, you might just explain the extent or the degree of knowledge
14 that you had as to what you recollect.
15 A Just in relation to those, the -- when I spoke to Miss Dillon I was giving a
16 view what I thought they would be, I would be reasonably happy in my own mind
17 from memory and from experience that that would have been the format they took.
18
19 Q 77 MR. KENNEDY: This is experience of other objections, to do with something
20 completely different, is it?
21 A The generality of objections in relation to, sort of, most of the business we
22 conducted at planning tends to be --
23 Q 78 So you are not giving your evidence, which is what I think I am putting to you,
24 that you actually saw these representations?
25 A I have never seen them.
26 Q 79 You have never seen them?
27 A No.
28 Q 80 That's, in fact, what you said when you were cross-examined, you didn't
29 actually see them?
30 A No.

17
1 Q 81 And you don't know the style of wording?
2 A No.
3 Q 82 And you don't know if they were individual letters?
4 A No.
5 Q 83 Right, well it's very fair to clear that up. Do you find it a bit odd that
6 2,530, I am not clear on the exact numbers, confronting the Baldoyle
7 application, which was the main focus of objection and rightly so and the main
8 focus of concern of people around the Baldoyle Racecourse, that it was 2,530
9 objections and the very same number, when Baldoyle is completely taken out and
10 is there no more and the Mahony application is for 18 houses and 36 acres, one
11 house for every two acres. Baldoyle, I don't know what the density was but I'm
12 sure it was much greater, concrete jungle was the description being applied to
13 it. Why in the name of God were 2530 people objecting to 18 houses on 36
14 acres?
15
16 MS. DILLON: This witness can't answer that question.
17
18 Q 84 MR. KENNEDY: No, perhaps not. Just allied to that, there were 11 objections
19 and seven objections to the Coote and Bailey applications which were not too
20 far from Mahony. Really what I'm getting at, and I don't know that you can
21 help us through no fault of your own, nobody can prove that there were new
22 objections from the public after the July display, they were the very same
23 objections which were regurgitated and were there from the start.
24 A No, they may have been the same representations but they would have had to have
25 been resubmitted. We would not have carried over the first representations.
26 Q 85 You are here, I understood, as a witness for the council who was going to give
27 us some form of actual evidence, but you are really only speculating, isn't
28 that what you are doing, through no fault of your own?
29 A I am trying to assist the Tribunal as best I can.
30 Q 86 But through speculation and through experience of other styles of objections.

18
1 A Yes, I would say experience rather than speculation.
2 Q 87 Thank you very much.
3
4 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Redmond?
5
6 MR. REDMOND: I have no questions, Chairman.
7
8 MS. DILLON: If I could be allowed, Sir, to say --
9
10 THE WITNESS WAS RE-EXAMINED AS FOLLOWS BY MISS DILLON:
11
12 Q 88 As I understand it, Mr. McGlynn, Mr. Denis Mahony and Mr. Noel Fox's lands went
13 on public display between September 1991 and the 3rd December 1991 zoned
14 agriculture B and G?
15 A Yes.
16 Q 89 The first change that was proposed to the Fox and Mahony lands was on foot of a
17 motion prepared by the councillors and brought before a meeting of the 28th
18 April 1993?
19 A Yes.
20 Q 90 At that meeting, Mr. Fox's lands were deleted and it was proposed and agreed by
21 the council that Mr. Mahony's lands would be rezoned from agriculture to low
22 density residential?
23 A Yes.
24 Q 91 Once that was passed by the council, that needed change, isn't that right, on
25 the --
26 A Correct, it was a material change.
27 Q 92 And then it goes on display, Mr. O'Mahony's lands, as an identifiable piece of
28 lands for the first time between the 1st July 1993 and the 4th August 1993?
29 A Yes, part of the second display.
30 Q 93 And it's on display as a change?

19
1 A Correct.
2 Q 94 So if we could have map, I think it's 363, I may not be correct, it may be 364.
3
4 JUDGE FAHERTY: I think it might be 369.
5
6 Q 95 MISS DILLON: Thank you, Judge, 369. So what goes on display so the public can
7 comment on it during the period the 1st July 1993 and the 4th August 1993 in so
8 far as a portion of map 8 is concerned is that map and change 4 is Mr. Mahony's
9 lands.
10 A That's correct.
11 Q 96 Following that public display, there's a second display, the purpose of which
12 was to confirm or reject the earlier proposed zoning?
13 A That's correct.
14 Q 97 And it is to that meeting that the manager reports what representations or
15 objections have been received in the course of that display?
16 A Yes.
17 Q 98 And is that why the words -- page 583 please -- and just looking, it is this,
18 is the record of the minutes of the meeting of the 29th September 1993, Mr.
19 McGlynn, the confirming meeting and the lands are Drumnigh, they are change 4
20 on the map in front of you and the reference to change 4 on the minute of the
21 meeting is to Mr. Mahony's lands and I want to draw your attention to the words
22 2,530 representations objecting to this change.
23 A Yes, that's correct, they would have been received during or arising from the
24 second display.
25 Q 99 Right. And then if one looks at the minute of the meeting that's referred to
26 there in the manager's report, the first thing the manager identifies that
27 these lands were zoned B in the 1983 Development Plan which was then the
28 agriculture designation, is that right?
29 A That's correct, yes.
30 Q 100The 1991 zoning that had been proposed by the manager was B also?

20
1 A Yes.
2 Q 101Agriculture and the 1993 amendment zoning A1 house to the hectare was the
3 zoning proposed and passed by the councillors on the 28th April 1993.
4 A Yes.
5 Q 102And it was following that position, which is the last part of that part of the
6 report, that the matter goes on public display, as we have seen?
7 A Yes.
8 Q 103As the 1993 amendment?
9 A Yes.
10 Q 104The representations are received?
11 A Yes.
12 Q 105However they came to be received or whatever their basis may have been and what
13 the manager is saying is that there is, that those representations received in
14 the second display and they are objecting to this change?
15 A That's absolutely right.
16 Q 106Thank you, I don't know if that clarifies things.
17
18 THE WITNESS WAS CROSS-EXAMINED AS FOLLOWS BY MR. HOGAN::
19
20 Q 107MR. HOGAN: One question arising out of that. Are you suggesting that the
21 2,530 representations are, in effect, new representations, which hadn't been
22 made before in respect of this change?
23 A Yeah. They would have related solely that change because that change only went
24 on display in the second display so they could only relate to that.
25 Q 108But are you suggesting that 2,530 people who never made representations before
26 suddenly did it after April 1993.
27 A I can't answer that question.
28 Q 109Well, yes, I appreciate that, Mr. McGlynn, I thought we had agreed during my
29 cross-examination that given the figures for the overall representation of
30 24,000 initially and then for September, 24,500, that there was really

21
1 approximately only 500 new representations received for the second public
2 display.
3 A No, I couldn't agree with that because --
4
5 CHAIRMAN: That was never given. The evidence given seems to me to be quite
6 clear, that the 2,530 representations were new representations, they may be
7 from the same people as had earlier made representations, they may have been
8 simply copies of earlier representations, but they are new representations and
9 they are treated by the council as new representations.
10
11 MR. HOGAN: But the point that Mr. McGlynn, I understood to agree with me, was
12 that if we look at the manager's figures, this was pointed out by Deputy Wright
13 on Friday, there was 24,000 representations for the first display and 24,500
14 representations for the second display. Those are the figures given by the
15 manager overall and I understood the witness to agree with me when I first
16 cross-examined him that, firstly, 500 or thereabouts was the figure for new
17 representations.
18
19 CHAIRMAN: My understanding is that he didn't -- he can't be certain whether
20 they were completely new or the same people plus another 500. He simply
21 doesn't know.
22
23 MR. HOGAN: But he doesn't know. With respect, Mr. McGlynn, he doesn't know
24 anything about this, we are all asking him to infer from his experience.
25
26 CHAIRMAN: What he does know is that they were newly lodged representations.
27 Whether they were copies of old ones, relodged or completely new --
28
29 Q 110MR. HOGAN: Perhaps I could just ask Mr. McGlynn that. In the light of the
30 evidence that you have given and the questions that you have heard this morning

22
1 and the documentation that has been put to you, I suggest to you that it is far
2 more likely even if there was 2,530 fresh representations relodged for the
3 second display, that the vast majority of them related to objections that were
4 lodge for the first time
5 A That's quite possible.
6
7 THE WITNESS WAS CROSS-EXAMINED AS FOLLOWS
8 BY MR. MONTGOMERY:
9
10 Q 111MR. MONTGOMERY: I have one brief question. Mr. McGlynn, you are giving
11 evidence but your evidence is based primarily on experience and surmise. When
12 did you go to the Planning Department?
13 A 1997.
14 Q 112Did you ever see any of the documentation surrounding the minutes in relation
15 to this application?
16 A No, I would not.
17 Q 113So that, in effect, everything, all of the evidence you have given is purely in
18 the light or hindsight of your own experience?
19 A Yes.
20 Q 114If there were 2,530 new representations after the first public display, would
21 these representations have been circulated to the councillors?
22 A Yes.
23 Q 115And would it surprise you to know that none of the councillors who have given
24 evidence can remember getting them? In particular, Mr. Barrett and Mrs. Nora
25 Owen.
26 A They should have got them, shall I say. In my view it would have been a
27 requirement on the manager to circulate them and I would assume they would have
28 been circulated as normal.
29 Q 116As there would have been a similar requirement on the County Manager to ensure
30 that there was a different report attaching to his second meeting than there

23
1 was for the first. What I'm really saying, Mr. McGlynn, is it seems to me the
2 County Manager at the time submitted his report together with a notation in
3 relation to the submissions based on the first meeting, is that a possibility?
4 A It is a possibility, yes.
5 Q 117Thanks, Mr. McGlynn.
6
7 MR. HOGAN: Before Mr. McGlynn leaves the witness-box I think it would be
8 useful if we had a copy of the full manager's report, we have been all
9 endeavouring to draw inferences and perhaps ask this witness to speculate, if
10 we had a full copy of the manager's report, we may be able to solve some of
11 these quandaries that seem to arise.
12
13 CHAIRMAN: Is that available?
14
15 MS. DILLON: As far as I am aware, the information that the Tribunal has been
16 circulated to everybody but I will, following this request, check it out. But
17 I would like to make this point; There appears to be a fundamental error
18 underlying the cross-examination of my colleagues which is that these lands
19 could not, prior to the 28th April, have been the subject of any
20 representation by anybody because they were not on display for anything other
21 than green belt and agriculture and no change was proposed to them until the
22 28th April. And unless my friends dispute that, you know, that that is the
23 position. That is the factual position in relation to these lands and
24 therefore whatever was the reason for these submissions, the only change that
25 they could relate to was that which went on -- these lands only went on public
26 display once in relation to a rezoning matter and that was in August after the
27 meeting in April.
28
29 CHAIRMAN: Unless what's printed there is a complete error.
30

24
1 MS. DILLON: Unless what is printed there and what is printed in relation to
2 all of the minutes, absolutely, and now that the representations don't seem to
3 be available to us, that appears to be the position. Any suggestion from
4 anybody that these representations relate back to matters that happened before
5 the 28th April 1993 is ill founded because the factual position shows that
6 these lands did not go on display as a change or a proposed rezoning until
7 after the meeting in April and in the end of July of 1993.
8
9 MR. HOGAN: Well with respect --
10
11 MS. DILLON: The other point I should draw your attention to is the Irish
12 Times' report on the day following the September meeting which had been put to
13 Mrs. Owen because she was quoted in it, which is at page 607, in the Irish
14 Times report following the meeting of the 29th September, it referred to
15 "Referring to 2,530 objections to this scheme received by the council.
16 Mrs. Nora Owen of Fine Gael accepted that Portmarnock Community Association was
17 opposed to the rezoning" That was put to Mrs. Owen when she was here and she
18 accepted that position, so it appears the daily newspaper's contemporaneous
19 record on the day following the 29th September meeting also referred to 2,530
20 rezonings which would suggest that the figure is not in error and I am putting
21 it no higher than that.
22
23 MR. HOGAN: Mr. Chairman, if I might just respond briefly, firstly, so far as
24 the latter point is concerned, the documentation we have seen from the
25 Portmarnock Community Association appears to be dated April of 1993 and at a
26 time when they were aware, the circular from Mrs. Weberly, if memory serves me,
27 were sent to everybody seems to raise an objection to the Fox and Mahony lands.
28 The second point is, of course, contrary to the submission of Miss Dillon, with
29 respect, of course it would be possible these representations to have been
30 received and there's two distinct possibilities: One is that the people would

25
1 become aware after the motion was circulated on the 12th March and prior to the
2 vote of the 28th April and, secondly, that as Mr. McGlynn has fairly
3 acknowledged, this could well have been caught up in the slip stream of
4 objections to the Baldoyle Racecourse proposal and, in that context, I
5 respectfully ask the Tribunal to find out the number of objections that were
6 made to the Baldoyle Racecourse and whether there are copies of these.
7
8 CHAIRMAN: All right.
9
10 MS. DILLON: We are happy to undertake that exercise provided, if we conclude
11 today which, as the morning progresses, seems more unlikely with each passing
12 moment, but if we were to conclude today, would my friend be happy to provide
13 that information by correspondence rather than having to reconvene the Tribunal
14 in public?
15
16 CHAIRMAN: Well subject to, obviously, Mr. Hogan would be entitled to request
17 the Tribunal to reconvene a public hearing and it would be a matter for the
18 Tribunal then to make a decision based on that.
19
20 MR. KENNEDY: This is just a suggestion on my part, could we also ask the
21 counsel to produce the planning report submitted before the 8th April 1993
22 motion agenda and a distinct report we are led to believe he compiled and was
23 presented for the September meeting and I hopefully anticipate there will be
24 two separate reports.
25
26 CHAIRMAN: We can make --
27
28 MS. DILLON: We can make inquiry, as far as I am aware, all the information we
29 have has been furnished to my friends.
30

1
26
2 JUDGE FAHERTY: Mr. Kennedy, the manager's report or the planning officer's
3 report regarding the motion is already circulated, page 349.
4
5 MS. DILLON: That's correct.
6
7 MR. KENNEDY: It's the entire report.
8
9 JUDGE FAHERTY: I accept that but there's an extract from it, in any event.
10
11 CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. McGlynn.
12
13 THE WITNESS THEN WITHDREW.
14
15 Mr. Wright please.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

1
27
2 CONTINUATION OF DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MR. WRIGHT
3 BY MISS DILLON:
4
5 Q 118Can I ask you, first of all, Mr. Wright, about your contact with Mr. Noel Fox,
6 you had a meeting with Mr. Fox and Mr. Mahony in February of 1993, is that
7 right?
8 A I think it was, if I am correct, in Mr. Mahony's house.
9 Q 119Yes. What was the purpose of that meeting and what was discussed?
10 A My understanding, the invitation to the meeting --
11 Q 120Sorry, Mr. Wright, were you at the meeting?
12 A Oh yes.
13 Q 121Why do you start your answers, 'my understanding is', as if you weren't at the
14 meeting? If you just tell us what you remember of the meeting.
15
16 CHAIRMAN: Well I think he was going to explain his understanding as to why he
17 was invited to the meeting.
18 A Yes. Just making a point. I was invited by Mr. Mahony to his house and so at
19 some stage, I am not sure, but Mr. Fox attended the meeting at some stage.
20 Q 122What was the meeting about?
21 A Oh about the upcoming -- at that stage the maps after 93, we had started back
22 on the maps in relation to the Development Plan and I would have been
23 discussing the fact that Map 8 would have been coming on the agenda in the next
24 month or two.
25 Q 123Mr. Mahony told the Tribunal, and Mr. Fox did not disagree with him in his
26 evidence, that by that stage he had no concern about your handling of the
27 matter, that it was at some point after that meeting, as it came closer, he
28 seemed to place the meeting at being his concern developing in early March but
29 it was after that meeting, he had no concerns, he said, at that meeting in
30 February with you?

28
1 A No, at that stage, Miss Dillon, I wouldn't have known the exact date of when
2 Map 8 would be on the agenda, I would have been discussing what was needed to
3 be done in the context of Mr. Mahony. I would have been discussing, I suspect,
4 at that stage, we would have been discussing the possibility of somebody else
5 becoming involved in the file. I would have made the point, which I have done,
6 I think, in evidence and other people have suggested, I would have been making
7 the point that I would not be in the position to make contact with everybody
8 and that there was a need for somebody to come in and be part of the process in
9 supporting of the file, in other words, in promoting the merits of the file to
10 the various other councillors that were involved.
11 Q 124Do you disagree with Mr. Mahony at that date he had no concern about your
12 handling of the file and, as far as he was concerned, at that stage you were
13 still going to do the motion?
14 A I don't think the motion was even mentioned at that stage. But he would have
15 no concern, I agree with you.
16 Q 125It was, sometime after that meeting that Mr. Mahony became concerned about the
17 handling of the file?
18 A Yes.
19 Q 126On your behalf. When it came to the dezoning of Mr. Fox's lands, are you in a
20 position to tell the Tribunal who actually prepared the motion?
21 A I suspect, not suspect, Miss Dillon, I would suggest that both myself and the
22 two other local councillors involved, Councillor Kenny and Councillor Owen.
23 Q 127Do you recollect that?
24 A I do, I would have been, as I say, you are talking about the day itself?
25 Q 128I am talking about who prepared the motion to delete Mr. Fox's lands?
26 A That happened, the amendment you are talking about?
27 Q 129Yes?
28 A Yes.
29 Q 130On the 28th. Who prepared that motion?
30 A I would certainly, would have instigated the fact that Mr. Fox had no further

29
1 intention and Mr. Mahony had conveyed that to me.
2 Q 131Who got the motion typed?
3 A I am not sure of that.
4 Q 132Mrs. Owen certainly suggested to the Tribunal that she was instrumental in the
5 preparation of the motion, she said she was asked to sign the motion in the
6 party rooms?
7 A Yes, it may well have been the party rooms, in the environs of the council
8 itself.
9 Q 133That would suggest if Mrs. Owen was asked to sign the motion and she had no
10 recognise of preparation of it she didn't prepare the motion?
11 A I'm sure that's correct.
12 Q 134Who was the third councillor?
13 A Michael Kennedy.
14 Q 135He said that he was approached by Mr. Mahony to sign the motion and Mr. Mahony
15 disputes that.
16
17 MR. HOGAN: But in fairness to the witness, Mr. Kennedy, when he came to give
18 evidence accepted that he was probably mistaken in his recollection.
19
20 MS. DILLON: And certainly his date was incorrect, there was no issue on that.
21 He stated that 1991, but Mr. Kennedy certainly suggested to the Tribunal that
22 he prepared the motion.
23 A No, as I say, more than likely, my name is first on it there, if I am correct,
24 I haven't got it in front of me, but I think it is and it would have been that
25 I would have arranged the situation, that I had the information from Mr. Mahony
26 that Mr. Fox no longer wants to be part of the proposal.
27 Q 136So, are you saying, Mr. Wright, you organised for the motion to be typed?
28 A I am not sure of that. If you are asking me did I put this together, did I
29 promote it on the morning, yes, I have no problem saying that, and I would have
30 discussed it with my two colleagues locally.

30
1 Q 137That would be Mr. Kennedy and Mrs. Owen?
2 A Yes.
3 Q 138In terms of the actual preparation of the motion, are you more likely to have
4 been the person who prepared the motion?
5 A Probably would have been, it may have been typed in the council office itself.
6 Q 139Certainly Mr. Dunlop says he made a contribution to it and that he hand-wrote
7 the words 'excluding the lands highlighted in yellow' on to the motion, but he
8 says he did not get it typed and that is not a typescript he was familiar with
9 at that time?
10 A I am not sure but, I mean, I have no problem saying I was the one that would
11 have been supporting this amendment.
12 Q 140And is it more likely then, Mr. Wright, that you prepared it?
13 A It's quite possible.
14 Q 141And you had, I think you told us on Friday, no difficulty with those being
15 removed because the landowner didn't want his lands rezoned?
16 A You must remember at that stage the type of planning we were dealing with. The
17 plan was, the manager had decided, the planning authority had decided that
18 there would be no zoning, there would be no houses whatsoever in the electoral
19 ward of Malahide/Portmarnock, none whatsoever. So it was -- most of the
20 proposals emanated from individuals themselves, that was the only way the
21 process would allow it. But in the context of the area itself, for planning
22 reasons and other reasons I supported that and in the context of the ends, that
23 Mr. Fox did not want to proceed, it was deleted: I think he has given reasons
24 for that at that time, he has given reasons in evidence and so on.
25 Q 142I think, as far as you were concerned, what you told the Tribunal on Friday,
26 Mr. Wright, once Mr. Fox didn't want his lands rezoned, you were happy to run
27 with that?
28 A Yes, in what was there, yes.
29 Q 143If I could ask you about an entry in Mr. Dunlop's diary of the 21st September
30 1993, which is in the week and a half prior to the confirming meeting, at page

31
1 545. It will come on screen beside you. We will see there is an entry, 'Ring
2 GV", the date is the 21st September 1993, isn't it likely that may have been to
3 speak to you about the upcoming confirming meeting or --
4 A It may.
5 Q 144-- or it may have been the Mahony lands or it may have been other lands that
6 were also the subject of confirming meetings around that time?
7 A I couldn't tell you, that's being honest with you, I wouldn't be able to
8 recollect exactly what the discussion may have been. If there's every
9 possibility that the Mahony proposal would have been discussed.
10 Q 145The only common matter which you had an interest and Mr. Dunlop had an interest
11 in in September of 1993 was the Development Plan, isn't that right?
12 A Not correct, Miss Dillon.
13 Q 146You had other matters with Mr. Dunlop?
14 A As I mentioned Friday, there would be plenty of political activity going on in
15 relation that we may have discussed.
16 Q 147Well, did you have contact with Mr. Dunlop in September 1993 in relation to
17 matters that were coming before the council in the confirming meeting?
18 A I may have had, I may have had.
19 Q 148Do you recollect having such discussions?
20 A I am sure I would have discussed the proposal in relation to Baldoyle with Mr.
21 Dunlop before the September meeting. I'm sure I would have, but I can't say
22 for definite that was the exact date of it, but I would have discussed it, yes.
23 Q 149And if I could take you on to deal now, Mr. Wright, with the financial
24 transaction that we had commenced. The documents have been circulated to, all
25 of the relevant documents in relation to these transactions. In summary and in
26 fairness to yourself, Mr. Wright, most of the round figure transactions that
27 were the subject of inquiry by the Tribunal to you in advance of this module
28 are explained, you say, by a transfer of monies from your ICS Building Society
29 account across to your joint account, is that correct?
30 A Yes, and other accounts.

32
1 Q 150And other accounts. We'll go through them one by one but do you accept that
2 the Tribunal on the 18th October 2001 furnished you with a schedule of
3 unexplained lodgments of which the lodgments we're going to deal with form
4 part.
5 A That's the Tuesday before the Friday?
6 Q 151No, it's the 18th October 2001, you were furnished with a number of pages of
7 unexplained lodgments and you were asked for the sources of those funds?
8 A Yes.
9 Q 152Prior to October of this year, 2003, had you provided that information?
10 A No, I hadn't.
11 Q 153Is it the position that apart from the information that you have now provided
12 in relation to the lodgments that are the subject matter of enquiry in this
13 module, you have not yet furnished a reply to this correspondence?
14 A I am not sure of that. Not sure of the correspondence of the 18th October.
15 Q 154Do you recollect the correspondence when it was agreed with Mr. Kennedy, your
16 solicitor and the Tribunal --
17 A I know now --
18 Q 155You would provide rather than dealing with the earlier correspondence and the
19 bank statements, you would provide an explanation to the Tribunal for those
20 lodgments that had been identified by the Tribunal as unexplained?
21 A Yes.
22 Q 156That correspondence and the documentation was sent to your solicitor on the
23 18th October 2001?
24 A Yes.
25 Q 157And insofar as the lodgments relevant to this module are concerned, when they
26 were specifically identified to you in October, you furnished a reply within
27 three days, isn't that correct?
28 A Yes.
29 Q 158I am now asking you about the balance of that correspondence on the 18th
30 October 2001, have you yet furnished a reply?

33
1 A I haven't, yes.
2 Q 159When do you propose furnishing that information to the Tribunal?
3 A I suppose it should be done forthwith.
4 Q 160What steps have you taken between the 18th October 2001 and October 2003 to
5 comply with the Tribunal's request to furnish an explanation?
6 A I can only answer that on the basis I discussed it many times. I even had
7 discussions with accountancy firms in Malahide at the time and he makes various
8 suggestions that he felt it would be extremely difficult for any accountancy
9 firm to deal with it and, to be quite honest with you, I didn't reply. But, on
10 the basis of the information and the letter that related to this module, we did
11 our best within three days to deal with it.
12 Q 161That's my point exactly, Mr. Wright. If you were in a position within three
13 days to furnish information in relation to, I think, in excess of 10 or 12 or
14 14 lodgments, you were able to provide information in relation to 14 lodgments
15 within three days, together with, in most cases, back up documentation, isn't
16 that right?
17 A Correct.
18 Q 162If you are able to do that in relation to 14 lodgments in the previous two year
19 period, why were you not able to do it with the outstanding schedule?
20 A I regret that I didn't do.
21 Q 163That's not the question?
22 A I just didn't do it. Just I make the point, I suppose when the module that's
23 in front of me, it came in front of me, to use the phrase 'the gun put to your
24 head', we worked on it and worked on it quite hard to get the information, but
25 in the context you are asking me, no, I didn't reply.
26 Q 164And are you aware, it would have been explained to you, Mr. Wright, that the
27 purpose of asking you to supply that information is so that the Tribunal can
28 eliminate from dealing with in public matters that are inadequately explained?
29 A I can only answer, I say, I regret I didn't do it.
30 Q 165When do you propose to reply to the outstanding unexplained lodgments

34
1 correspondence, Mr. Wright?
2 A Forthwith, that's all I can say.
3
4 MR. KENNEDY: I am confused, what unexplained lodgments in the context of this
5 module?
6
7 MS. DILLON: Yes, it's the letter of the 18th October together with the
8 schedules attached to that. Mr. Kennedy has the correspondence.
9
10 CHAIRMAN: Could we just have that --
11
12 MS. DILLON: The letter and is it the -- it's in the brief, and the relevant
13 extracts that relate to this lodgment. Page 1458 please.
14
15 MR. KENNEDY: That's referring to something recent?
16
17 MS. DILLON: Included in those schedules that were attached to that letter
18 were lodgments that have been the subject matter of inquiry in this module,
19 that are relevant to this model and the point that I am making to Mr. Wright is
20 that when this module was imminent, he was in a position within three days to
21 reply to those inquiries that were relevant to this module but that the balance
22 of the request from the Tribunal of the 18th October 2001 remains substantially
23 outstanding.
24
25 MR. KENNEDY: I think Miss Dillon needs to be specific as to what is
26 outstanding, I think she's agreeing there's nothing outstanding in the context
27 of this module and if there isn't, let her tell us what is outstanding in
28 respect of a another module, we will certainly deal with it forthwith.
29
30 CHAIRMAN: Of course they should have been dealt with much earlier, but can we

35
1 identify for Mr. Kennedy what items that we are still seeking information in
2 relation to.
3
4 MS. DILLON: I am going to go through the lodgments one by one with Mr.
5 Wright, the 14 lodgments now, and insofar as he has provided an explanation,
6 that will also be dealt with now. But the issue of Mr. Wright's compliance
7 with the requests of the Tribunal or the orders for the Tribunal is a matter
8 between the Tribunal and Mr. Wright and it is relevant to this module that it
9 is only at the 11th hour, as it were, when the matter was imminent, that Mr.
10 Wright elected for whatever reason to provide the information relevant to this
11 module and I am simply asking when are we going to get the rest of it.
12
13 CHAIRMAN: All right.
14
15 Q 166MS. DILLON: If we move on to deal with the lodgments that are the subject
16 matter of, in relation to this module and the first lodgment is a lodgment on
17 the 26th March 1993, to your joint account, is that right
18 A Correct.
19 Q 167285 please. Now this is, I understand, your joint family account, as it were,
20 joint domestic current account?
21 A That's correct.
22 Q 168You were asked by the Tribunal to provide an explanation for that lodgment.
23 You had been asked, I think you accept, in 2001 but you were asked again in the
24 context of this module and again at page 1003, you said that this sum was
25 funded from your ICS account, isn't that --
26 A Yes.
27 Q 169And in support of that, you identified at page 913 in your ICS account a debit
28 or a withdrawal of 2,000 pounds?
29 A That's correct.
30 Q 170And the underlying documentation in relation to that, which was provided by

36
1 Bank of Ireland for ICS is at 1489. And that shows a withdrawal of 2,000
2 pounds, isn't that correct?
3 A Yes.
4 Q 171And the stamp on that is a stamp for Bank of Ireland in Malahide, isn't that
5 right?
6 A Yes.
7 Q 172Did you normally conduct your ICS business in the Bank of Ireland in Malahide?
8 A I think that's where the branch was at the time.
9 Q 173The ICS is a subsidiary of Bank of Ireland and would you normally have done,
10 conducted your business on the ICS account in the Bank of Ireland or had it a
11 separate office?
12 A I am not sure actually, 93?
13 Q 17493.
14 A Yes. I am not sure really.
15 Q 175I just draw to your attention --
16 A I know that.
17 Q 176-- that the stamp on the actual document, while the document is headed ICS, the
18 stamp is a Bank of Ireland stamp dated the same date?
19 A It may have been the branch was at that stage in that branch.
20 Q 177That's what I am asking you?
21 A But I am not sure.
22 Q 178You don't know.
23 A No.
24 Q 179The second transaction was a lodgment of 1,003.99 at page 302 please. And this
25 is a salary cheque from the Senate, isn't that correct?
26 A That's correct.
27 Q 180And you were able to produce the back-up documentation to that within the three
28 days of October of this year?
29 A Yes.
30 Q 181The 13th April 1993, there is a lodgment of 416.02 to the joint account, again

37
1 page 938 please, and you believe that is attributable to county councillor
2 expenses?
3 A I do, yes.
4 Q 182Or Senate expenses?
5 A Yes.
6 Q 183You do not have any back-up documentation in relation to that?
7 A It's not in front of me.
8 Q 184Well, your answer is at page 1004 and I don't think you provided any
9 documentation in relation to that. The entry you are looking at there is the
10 13th April 1993.
11 A I see it now.
12 Q 185The second transaction is the 30th April 2003 at 373 and this again is a
13 lodgment to your joint current account, you have provided a Senate salary
14 cheque in relation to that and you were also able to provide that in October
15 2003, isn't that right?
16 A That's correct.
17 Q 186The next transaction is the 1st June 1993, a sum of 768.46, the same account.
18 444 please and, again, I think you have provided a cheque and identified this
19 as being attributable to salary in relation to the Senate.
20 A That's correct.
21 Q 187On the 8 June 1993, 454, there is a lodgment of 2,000 pounds to the same
22 account, this is the joint account, is that right?
23 A Yes.
24 Q 188You identified the source of that being a withdrawal from the ICS Building
25 Society account, 1004, you will see there --
26 A Yes.
27 Q 189And in support of that, there's a withdrawal at 913 from your ICS account on
28 the same day, on the 8th June.
29 A Yes.
30 Q 190An the underlying documentation for that withdrawal is at 1491.

38
1 A Yes.
2 Q 191This is the actual withdrawal docket and again I just draw to your attention
3 the stamp on the ICS docket is a Bank of Ireland stamp in Malahide?
4 A Yes.
5
6 MR. KENNEDY: Before Miss Dillon moves on from that, could she call up the
7 lodgment docket of the Bank of Ireland and could we have the two documents on
8 screen?
9
10 MS. DILLON: Yes, the lodgment docket is 455.
11
12 MR. KENNEDY: What I want to draw to the attention of the Tribunal is that the
13 rubber stamp used by the cashier is identical in form and in the manner in
14 which it's applied to both dockets. It's applied upside down, at the same
15 angle, bears the same date and is the identical stamp and I assist the Tribunal
16 by pointing that out and it will be my view and Mr. Wright will say this,
17 clearly both transactions were conducted with the same teller at the same time
18 and it was undoubtedly a transfer from his ICS account to his joint current
19 account, as is the case with all of the other transactions from the Building
20 Society account to the other, and the witness could be called from the Bank of
21 Ireland in Malahide to deal with that if required, if there's any doubt about
22 that.
23
24 Q 192MS. DILLON: I had already drawn that to the witness' attention, if my friend
25 is finished, I'll continue with the direct examination.
26
27 The next transaction, Mr. Wright, is a transaction on the 11th June, page 939
28 please. This is a lodgment to an account you hold with two other parties of
29 1,224.28 which seems to be a lodgment for the purposes of dealing with an
30 interest because you will see there's an almost equal amount for interest dated

39
1 3 1/5/93. You are not in a position to provide any documentation to the
2 Tribunal in relation to that transaction but you believe it to be a cheque
3 drawn on the current account of a partnership that you are involved in, is that
4 correct?
5 A That's correct.
6 Q 193But you have not been able to locate the actual documentation.
7 A Not at this moment, no.
8
9 MR. KENNEDY: I don't like intervening again, Chairman, that's a transaction
10 from an account that relates to three people, not solely to Mr. Wright.
11
12 MS. DILLON: That's what I said. I said that. I said that to the witness.
13
14 MR. KENNEDY: To ask this witness to explain the source of that lodgment, it's
15 obvious what it is, but --
16
17 CHAIRMAN: He is being asked to explain the source of the lodgment. His
18 explanation is that it came from some sort of partnership, so that's fairly
19 clear.
20
21 MR. KENNEDY: Very clear, Chairman.
22
23 Q 194MS. DILLON: 1006, please, so that there's no ambiguity about this because Mr.
24 Wright has stated to the Tribunal his belief in relation to the source of this
25 lodgment. In your response in October of 2003, Mr. Wright, you said that you
26 believed that the source of this payment to be a cheque drawn on the current
27 account of the JPT Wright partnership I have identified in the preceding
28 explanation and to pay interest, as I have pointed out to you, and was part of
29 a cheque for 1,353 which I have asked the ICC bank to verify, is that your
30 position in relation to that matter?

40
1 A Yes.
2 Q 195And you were one of three holders of that account?
3 A Correct.
4 Q 196And you were one of three people involved in transactions in that account, it's
5 an equal partnership?
6 A Yes.
7 Q 197You would be involved in all transactions and matters in relation to that
8 account and equally the loan accounts in relation to that, isn't that correct?
9 A I would have no day to day involvement.
10 Q 198But you are one of the three people involved?
11 A I am.
12 Q 199Thank you. The next transaction is the 18th June 1993, page 468 please. This
13 is a lodgment to your credit card account, Mr. Wright, in the sum of 500
14 pounds. The bank have been unable to identify any documentation in relation to
15 the source of that lodgment and you have seen that in the documentation with
16 which you have been circulated, do you dispute that the bank can't find any
17 documents?
18 A No, I don't.
19 Q 200You yourself can't offer any definite explanation to the source of that
20 lodgment, is that right?
21 A I ... it's not up in front of me here.
22 Q 201I'll put up your explanation at page 1007.
23 A Yes.
24 Q 202You cannot offer any definite explanation as to the source of the lodgment, but
25 it may be a cheque issued to you by the JPT property partnership on the NIB
26 account and you were making further inquiries in relation to that lodgment?
27 A I think if further information is required, I can do that.
28 Q 203What you have stated there is I am making further inquiries in relation to this
29 lodgment, so presumably if you obtain further information you will furnish it
30 to the Tribunal?

41
1 A Most definitely.
2
3 MR. KENNEDY: Can I just assist, and it's not an interruption, further
4 information is available and well -- if I am allowed tell the Tribunal, the
5 belief is that a cheque has been identified bearing, I think, bearing I think
6 201 in number. Drawn, I think, in June of that year in favour of each of the
7 three partners, well, they each got individual cheques for 500 pounds each in
8 June of that year, drawn on JPT account at Malahide, National Irish Bank and
9 one of those cheques is now believed to be the one that was made out to this
10 witness is that lodgment. And that's been gleaned from handwritten financial
11 notes that one of the partners has kept and he had a good look through it again
12 and it came to light in the course of the last few days and can be produced
13 immediately. I have the original with me, Chairman.
14
15 CHAIRMAN: All right.
16
17 Q 204MS. DILLON: Are you aware of any of that, Mr. Wright?
18 A As of last night?
19 Q 205As of last night.
20 A Yes.
21 Q 206But I asked you had you found the documentation a few minutes ago that you were
22 making further inquiries and you didn't indicate, unlike Mr. Kennedy, in fact,
23 as late as last night you had done some reconciliation and had found the source
24 of these.
25
26 MR. KENNEDY: In fairness, Mr. Chairman, what he said in his statement which
27 was delivered in October was he was making further inquiries and he has made
28 those further inquiries.
29
30 Q 207MISS DILLON: The next transaction, Mr. Wright, is a lodgment of 1,000 pounds

42
1 on the 12th -- sorry the next transaction, I beg your pardon, is a lodgment on
2 the 5th July 1993 of 2,768.46, page 493 please, this again is a lodgment of the
3 joint account, is that right
4 A Yes.
5 Q 208Now, it's your belief that that lodgment compromises partly of a salary cheque
6 and partly by way of a 2,000 pounds withdrawal from the ICS Building Society?
7 A Yes.
8 Q 209And the lodgment docket for that is page 49. From this it can be seen the
9 total amount of the lodgment is 2,768.48, the stamp again is Bank of Ireland,
10 dated 5th July of 1993 and the withdrawal docket from ICS is at page 1493, this
11 is also dated the 5th July 1993, the sum is 2,000 pounds and the stamp is not
12 as legible as the previous ones, but it appears to be likely to be a stamp from
13 Bank of Ireland in Malahide. It's the other stamp, Mr. Kavanagh, is that
14 correct?
15 A Yes.
16 Q 210And you say it's your belief that that lodgment is compromised of 2,000 pounds
17 from your ICS account and the balance is by way of a cheque for which you have
18 produced vouching documentation?
19 A Wage cheque, yes.
20 Q 211Again you were in a position of providing that information within three days of
21 receiving a request from the Tribunal in October of this year this year, is
22 that right?
23 A Yes.
24 Q 212The next transaction is the 26th July 1993 as page 501, this again is a
25 lodgment of 1,500 to your joint account, you state in your explanation that you
26 withdrew 2,500 pounds from your ICS account on this day and you believe the
27 lodgment of 1,500 to have come from this withdrawal, you probably retained the
28 balance of the withdrawal of 1,000 pounds for other purposes. The lodgment
29 slip in question, the withdrawal slip is page 1495. And this relates to a
30 withdrawal of 2,500 pounds from your ICS account. Is that right?

43
1 A Yes.
2 Q 213And you will see underneath the cashier's stamp, which is again Bank of Ireland
3 and dated the 3rd July, the words "1,000", what looks like "/10 cash", do you
4 see that?
5 A Yes.
6 Q 214That would suggest, Mr. Wright, that you took 1,000 pounds in cash?
7 A Yes.
8 Q 215And that the 1,500 out of the 2,500 pounds withdrawal from the ICS went across
9 to the joint current account?
10 A Yes.
11 Q 216What did you do with that 1,000 pounds, can you recollect?
12 A I can't.
13 Q 217You have, I think, told the Tribunal in relation to the next transaction, which
14 is a lodgment to your credit card account, that that lodgment may have come
15 from this 1,000 pounds?
16 A It may well have done.
17 Q 218Are you speculating as to that?
18 A To the best of my ability.
19 Q 219Because the next lodgment is a lodgment on the 12th August of 1993 at page 506,
20 which is a lodgment of 1,000 pounds to your credit card account, isn't that
21 right?
22 A Yes.
23 Q 220And that lodgment is recorded on the 12th August, according to the statement
24 that's on screen, and the bank have no underlying documentation in relation to
25 that, you will have seen that documentation?
26 A Yes.
27 Q 221Insofar as you were asked to account for this lodgment, I think it might have
28 been from the 1,000 pounds you had taken from cash from the ICS account?
29 A Yes, and the dates vary in relation to the credit card as to how it's dated.
30 Q 222How would you have effected that, how would you have done that?

44
1 A In what way?
2 Q 223You have 1,000 pounds in cash from your ICS account, how do you pay 1,000
3 pounds in cash from your credit card?
4 A By lodgment.
5 Q 224There are no underlying documents available in this transaction? Could you
6 have lodged it in the bank, would you have gone to the bank to do it?
7 A More than likely, yes.
8 Q 225Which bank?
9 A Well, I am not sure, but more than likely the National Irish, but it could be
10 any.
11 Q 226And would you have done that on the 12th August?
12 A If I can see the documentation in relation to what I replied.
13 Q 227The documentation containing the date is on screen.
14
15 CHAIRMAN: He wants to see the --
16 Q 228I want to show him the date is coming from the statement and your explanation
17 is 1007.
18 A Yes.
19 Q 229Now that you have looked at it, Mr. Wright, are you suggesting in that reply,
20 first of all, that you made a 1,000 pounds cash lodgment to your credit card
21 account, you don't get credit for that for a week or so?
22 A That's the system, as I understand it. And I think it may well have been, it
23 depends where you lodge that, even at the moment I think there has to be four,
24 five, six days before it's brought through.
25 Q 230I am talking about a cash lodgment now.
26 A Yes.
27 Q 231We have seen from the earlier withdrawal of 2,500 pounds that you took 1,000
28 pounds in cash?
29 A Yes, correct.
30 Q 232You are saying that while you can't be definite about it, it's that 1,000

45
1 pounds withdrawal is possibly the source of the lodgment on the 12th August
2 1993.
3 A That's to my best belief, yes.
4 Q 233Coming to that belief, are you coming to it by virtue of having looked at the
5 documentation, seeing that you had made the withdrawal of 2,500 on that, that
6 occurred 10 or 12 days prior to the lodgment on the 12th August 1993?
7 A Well it seems logical to me on the basis of the withdrawal, the fact that there
8 was 1,500 into one account and there was 1,000 balance, yes, that's where I am
9 coming from.
10 Q 234The 1,000 balance though clearly is cash, isn't that right?
11 A That's correct, yes.
12 Q 235So did you keep the cash for sometime?
13 A I may well have done, yes.
14 Q 236Or you may have, you may not know where this one came from either, Mr. Wright?
15 A Well that's possible, Miss Dillon. That's possible. But in the context of the
16 date, 93, the withdrawal of 2,500, 1,500 being lodged, 1,000 in cash, it's my
17 best ability to say that's where the 1,000 came from.
18 Q 237I think you provided this information for the first time, I think, in October
19 of this year?
20 A That's correct.
21 Q 238I think the last transaction then is the 20th August 1993, and again it's a
22 lodgment at 510 please, a lodgment of 2,000 pounds again to the joint account.
23 The underlying document in relation to that lodgment, Mr. Wright, is at page
24 511. And then again the stamp is Bank of Ireland, Malahide?
25 A Yes.
26 Q 239And the withdrawal docket from -- the withdrawal docket for that has not been
27 furnished by the ICS to the Tribunal and therefore we are not in a position to
28 circulate it but, in fairness to Mr. Wright, we don't have the underlying
29 document in relation to that but it's clear from a perusal of your bank book,
30 page 913 please -- that on that date, on the 20th August 1993, there is a

46
1 withdrawal of 2,000 pounds, you can see it there even though the underlying
2 documentation is not available in relation to it and there is equally a
3 lodgment to the joint account.
4 A Yes.
5 Q 240The source of funds, Mr. Wright, that went into the ICS account, in general,
6 were they political contributions?
7 A In general, yes.
8 Q 241And if we could have 913 on screen please. The substantial lodgment that's
9 made to that account, that's funding the transactions we have been looking at,
10 is the lodgment of 20,550 on the 18th November 1992.
11 A Yes.
12 Q 242Thereafter then there is the lodgment which is the subject matter of dispute
13 between yourself and Mr. Dunlop, 7th October 1993.
14 A Yes.
15 Q 243All of the transfers that are seen occurs between the 26th March 1993 and the
16 20th August 1993.
17 A Yes.
18 Q 244That we've looked at that now.
19 A Yes.
20 Q 245The total amount of the transfers that you made across come to 9,500 pounds
21 from the ICS account to your joint account in that time?
22 A Yes.
23 Q 246Is it the position then that your political account or the account into which
24 these political donations were placed were funding your lifestyle or funding
25 your domestic account?
26 A No, Miss Dillon, most definitely not. Insofar as I have stated, at that time,
27 the only two accounts I had at the time, both the personal and the joint, I
28 used whatever account at the time for the day to day running of my political
29 expenditure, my office expenditure and that's the way it was at that time.
30 There was no cheque book related to the political account and basically, as I

47
1 say, the day to day office expenditure, the day to day political expenditures
2 were dealt with by either of those accounts and one played off the other.
3 Q 247But the account into which these funds were transferred, was it the joint
4 domestic account held with your wife?
5 A Yes, correct.
6 Q 248Out of which all the normal household outgoings and matters of that sort would
7 be paid?
8 A Yes.
9 Q 249So that the, in that period of time between the 26th March 1993 and the 20th
10 August 1993 you transferred 9,500 pounds across into that account?
11 A Yes.
12 Q 250The source of the funds that were used to pay for or finance those transfers
13 were the lodgments made in November of 1992, which you have described as
14 political donations?
15 A Yes, that's correct.
16 Q 251There was no election in 1992 other than the Senate election on which polling
17 was on the 1st February, completed on the 1st -- I beg your pardon, 1993.
18 Isn't that correct?
19 A That's correct.
20 Q 252So if we look at page 110, we see that polling had concluded in the Senate
21 election on the 1st February 1993. Which was the only election in 1993.
22 A Yes.
23 Q 253Is that correct there?
24 A Yes.
25 Q 254The heading 1992 and that polling was between the 30th December 1992 and the
26 1st February 1993?
27 A Yes.
28 Q 255Are you then saying between the 20th March 1993 -- the 26th March 1993 and the
29 20th August 1993, a year in which there was no election, you incurred 9,500
30 pounds worth of political expenses?

48
1 A Well that's quite possible, Miss Dillon, if you look at any full-time office
2 that I was running and I make the point that was the office that was being
3 there for 20 years now has never been subvented by any state funding, my
4 secretary is in the Dail and the secretaries that's employed in Malahide, the
5 funding in relation to the office and all activity in political life was dealt
6 with on that basis out of my own resources and the resources that people had
7 given to me. And basically that is the type of expenditure of running a
8 full-time office in today's, could be between 20 and 25,000 and at that time I
9 think you would be talking anything between 12 and 15,000 a year.
10
11 As I say, through the chair, that no -- at that time, right up to two years
12 ago, at that time there was no funding, state funding whatsoever in relation to
13 a political office that an individual would want to run themselves.
14
15 MR. KENNEDY: just to assist the Tribunal, Chairman, there is contained in the
16 Fianna Fail report and I think it's part of the brief, a typical election
17 campaign cost and constituency office operating costs which show a breakdown of
18 how those costs would have to be made up in that time. And it shows in respect
19 of election campaigns costing 11,400 and constituency office, 12,450.
20
21 CHAIRMAN: What document is this?
22
23 MS. DILLON: This is at page 835 and also a document at 836, if they could
24 both come up on screen. This is the constituency office operation costings, is
25 that correct?
26 A Yes.
27 Q 256This document was provided by you both to the Tribunal and to the Fianna Fail
28 inquiry?
29 A Yes.
30 Q 257There's nothing included there for salary, Mr. Wright.

49
1 A The only salary at that time, Mr. Chairman, was part-time.
2 Q 258Yes, but I understood you to say a few moments ago that you were paying a
3 salary, you were paying a secretary?
4 A Paying a part-time secretary.
5 Q 259Where is that in it?
6 A It's not included.
7 Q 260Out of what account was your part-time secretary being paid?
8 A Probably out of my own personal account.
9 Q 261Are you saying that that is the account from which she was paid or are you
10 speculating?
11 A Speculating at the moment.
12 Q 262You do not know out of which account you paid your secretary?
13 A A part-time secretary was paid.
14 Q 263In preparing these costings, are they an on annual basis so far as the
15 constituency office operations are concerned?
16 A We are going back to 1993. At the moment, I would say since 1997 onwards,
17 there's been a permanent part-time staff.
18 Q 264I am asking you the question, Mr. Wright, is the figure of 12,450 an annual
19 costing?
20 A It would be more now.
21 Q 265Is it based on an annual figure?
22 A Yes.
23 Q 266And for what period of time were you talking about when you were preparing
24 this?
25 A Over a year, an annual, yes.
26 Q 267Are you saying that is a 1997 figure or a 2000 figure when you provided this
27 information to Fianna Fail or are you saying it relates back to 1993?
28 A It would relate back to 1993, that's why there's no staff figure in there.
29 Q 268If that is an annual cost, I make this point, it's only a point to you, Mr.
30 Wright, that you in less than a six-month period transferred 9,500 pounds from

50
1 your ICS the account to your joint domestic account in circumstances in which
2 your annual running costs for running your constituency were 12,450?
3 A I accept that but in the context of an election, I may have used expenditure in
4 the Senate campaign, I would respond to the banks on the basis of when need be,
5 I would respond to a bank situation.
6 Q 269Are you saying that that, in fact, is what happened? That those lodgments from
7 your ICS account to your Bank of Ireland joint account were made as a result of
8 a request from the bank?
9 A No, not necessarily, I would know like, any monthly statement you would
10 certainly know and in the view of paying my accounts for the constituency out
11 of my own personal accounts. There was no other account there to pay out it
12 out, they were paid either out of my own personal account or out of the joint
13 account.
14 Q 270Is the position therefore in running your accounts and keeping your
15 constituency office, you will undoubtedly have available to you all the back up
16 records that show where you obtained the figures that are entitled
17 "Constituency Office Operation Costings"?
18 A I certainly would from 1997.
19 Q 271Do you have them from 1993?
20 A No, I have not.
21 Q 272Insofar as you have prepared this document and you say it relates to 1993, are
22 they based upon your best mental estimate as to what it would have cost and do
23 you have any documentation of any kind in relation to --
24 A No, the best estimate is the --
25 Q 273This is the figure that has come out of your head, Mr. Wright?
26 A To a certain extent I would be able to stand over.
27 Q 274Which figures would you stand over?
28 A We talk about promotion there. On an annual basis you could spend at least
29 what I have there and more, depending, and in the year we are talking about, in
30 1993, it had been a Senate election, I would have probably even more printing

51
1 costs than that.
2 Q 275Who was your printer?
3 A I had several printers.
4 Q 276Well name them. In 1993, who was your printer?
5 A I'll have to check that for you.
6 Q 277Can you not recollect?
7 A I can't, because at that time there was several printers involved.
8 Q 278More than five?
9 A No.
10 Q 279Less than five?
11 A Less than three.
12 Q 280And would you have paid them all by cheque?
13 A Not necessarily.
14 Q 281But if you were incurring these expenses out of your domestic account, they
15 would have been paid surely by cheque?
16 A Some of them yes.
17 Q 282Would you have paid any of these people by cash?
18 A Maybe, possibly, small amounts in the context of small printing but not
19 anything major printing in relation to the campaign itself.
20 Q 283Not in relation to the campaign itself?
21 A I am basically saying any major printing would be done, would be dealt with it
22 a different way, you are in a hurry to get something done, yes, and that
23 happens in an election time, believe me.
24 Q 284In relation to item 9 on that list, funding of draws,Dail visits, raffles --
25 you have a figure of 5 hundred pounds. In circumstances you were making
26 donation to say any local cause tied into your political career, would you have
27 made those donations on a cheque drawn on your account?
28 A I'm not sure of that, I may have on my person account. Either or.
29 Q 285Either or what, Mr. Wright?
30 A The only two accounts I would write cheques out of were the two accounts you

52
1 were talking about, either the personal or the joint account.
2 Q 286Yes, but the ICS account is not a current account?
3 A I accept that, I am talking about the joint account and the personal account.
4 Q 287So it would only have been, I am asking you would it have been your normal
5 practice to make donations by way of cheque?
6 A I would certainly pay my Dail expenses through a cheque, yes.
7 Q 288But in so far as the balance of them are concerned, would you have on occasion
8 made those donations or paid for those raffle tickets by way of cash?
9 A A limited number, yes. I would have had some, yes, the arrival of function,
10 yes.
11 Q 289They would have been by way of cash?
12 A Some of them.
13 Q 290And obviously when the money was transferred across from the ICS into the Bank
14 of Ireland into your joint account, that wasn't providing you with a source of
15 cash, is that right?
16 A That's correct.
17 Q 291Because the money has gone out of the Bank of Ireland joint account?
18 A Yes.
19 Q 292Insofar as you were paid 5,000 pounds in cash by Mr. Dunlop in November of
20 1992?
21 A Correct.
22 Q 293Did you lodge any portion of that money to any bank account?
23 A I can't recollect what happened there, Miss Dillon. I said that before to you.
24 Q 294Have you been --
25 A And at election time, you are working 20 hours a day.
26 Q 295Have you been able to trace any portion of that money into a bank account, Mr.
27 Wright?
28 A No, I haven't.
29 Q 296If we look at the campaign costings that you provided both to Fianna Fail and
30 to the Tribunal at 836, the figure there is 11,400 pounds in total. Is that a

53
1 1993 or a 2000 figure, Mr. Wright?
2 A I would have thought it's a 1993 figure.
3 Q 2971993 figure. Were all of these payments in the normal course made by way of
4 cash?
5 A Not always.
6 Q 298And staff, start with item 1 -- 750 pounds?
7 A Probably paid by cash, yes.
8 Q 299Printing, 1,500?
9 A Most likely by cheque.
10 Q 300Drops?
11 A By cash.
12 Q 301Food and subsistence?
13 A A mixture.
14 Q 302Advertising?
15 A More likely cheque.
16 Q 303And is that the same as the printing or promotion costs that were on the other
17 list?
18 A No.
19 Q 304Separate? Separate to that?
20 A Yes, paper ads and constituency ads, yes.
21 Q 305Rent for election premises. What premises were they?
22 A You would hire out premises for the election, a fortnight or three weeks to go.
23 Q 306I thought you had your own constituency office?
24 A There would be a Fianna Fail separate office as well.
25 Q 307And would Fianna Fail not be paying for that?
26 A Sometimes they would, more likely myself.
27 Q 308You would run two offices in the same constituency?
28 A In the context of the election most definitely. There was more than one
29 candidate on the same election ticket.
30 Q 309Is it the situation where those costs are concerned, typical election campaign

54
1 costs, did you prepare that list with the assistance of documentation?
2 A No.
3 Q 310Did you prepare that list as your best estimate of what you would have
4 incurred?
5 A Best estimate, yes.
6 Q 311And in relation to the campaigns?
7 A Yes.
8 Q 312I want to draw to your attention that on page 835, which deals with
9 constituency office operation costings, at item 5 you referred to temporary
10 staff, office, salary zero?
11 A Yes.
12 Q 313I thought you had said earlier that you paid a temporary secretary?
13
14 MR. HOGAN: Chairman, in fairness to the witness, there's a note at the bottom
15 of that page which ought to be brought to his attention.
16
17 MS. DILLON: Yes, it says "Temporary staff employed to back up election
18 campaigns" which is dealt with on the other sheet of paper dealing with typical
19 election costings and it's not included in this list, is that right?
20 A That's right.
21 Q 314I am just drawing to your attention that you say here you incurred no temporary
22 office staff and I had understood you to say earlier you did incur such a cost?
23 A Well look, the Senate election would have been on that year, in 1993.
24 Q 315Yes, what point are you making?
25 A I am making the point that in that year I would have had some expenses.
26 Q 316Which is covered, I suggest to you, on page 836 by the word "staff"?
27 A Yes.
28 Q 317If you could put the second page up, Mr. Kavanagh, side by side.
29 A Yes.
30 Q 318836 please. If we could have 835 and 836 side by side. Just to simplify it,

55
1 Mr. Wright, the constituency office operational costings, whether there's an
2 election on not an election, they are costs you say you incur every year?
3 A Correct.
4 Q 319They are done as your best estimate, what it would be cost you looking back at
5 1993 and you had very little in the way of back up documentation?
6 A That's correct.
7 Q 320OK. The typical election campaign costings relate to the cost of funding
8 campaigns and is, I assume, and correct me if I am wrong, over and above that
9 which you say you incur on an annual basis?
10 A No, it's not.
11 Q 321So does the election campaign costings incorporate the constituency office
12 operation costs?
13 A It would do. Where I talk about -- sorry -- promotion, you know, that's
14 obviously heavier in relation to an over all year, there are different cross
15 references there.
16 Q 322But in both cases insofar as you compile these list to assist the Tribunal and
17 the Fianna Fail inquiry, you did so on the basis of making your best estimate
18 of the matter?
19 A Yes, and working back from where we are today, yes.
20 Q 323But insofar as 1993 and around that period is concerned, you have not kept any
21 documentation records in relation to this matter?
22 A No.
23 Q 324And it is the position that you, insofar as rented your own premises is
24 concerned, you had your own office and have had for a considerable period of
25 time.
26 A Yes.
27 Q 325Miss Foley reminds me and she's quite correct, why did you select 1993 as the
28 year which you look at in terms of your costings and expenses?
29 A 1993?
30 Q 326Yes, you have told us these two calculations that are on screen are based on

56
1 1993 figures?
2 A Well if I said 1993, it could have been 1992, 1991, we were going back -- in
3 fairness -- at that time in the context of the Fianna Fail documents, we were
4 working our way back to the early end of the start of 2000. That was our best
5 shot.
6 Q 327Yes.
7
8 MR. KENNEDY: Chairman, maybe it's because of this window period we have been
9 told about going on during 1993.
10 A No, it's before that.
11
12 CHAIRMAN: This was for the Fianna Fail inquiry, Miss Dillon was wondering why
13 --
14 A I can only say, Miss Dillon, I may have had 1993 on my mind, in the context of
15 going back, in fairness, would have related back to 1991, 1992. It would have
16 in the context of the interview, the first interview I had with the party in
17 May of that year.
18
19 MS. DILLON: Thank you very much, Mr. Wright.
20 A Sorry, I may have said 1993 to them and -- it has been the one year we
21 mentioned all morning.
22 Q 328And thank you very much, sorry excuse me one minute.
23
24 CHAIRMAN: All right.
25
26 MS. DILLON: Miss Foley reminds me and again she's correct, I think it's
27 correct to say you continued your relationship with Mr. Mahony after the
28 rezoning, you met with Mr. Mahony and continued to know Mr. Mahony and be
29 friendly with him?
30 A Extremely, a personal friend, a confidant to a certain extent.

57
1 Q 329I have nothing further for, Mr. Wright, Sir.
2
3 CHAIRMAN: All right. Mr. Hogan, you might like to wait until two o'clock.
4
5 MR. HOGAN: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, absolutely.
6
7 CHAIRMAN: Two o'clock?
8
9 MR. HOGAN: I thought I had already given assent to that.
10
11 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED UNTIL FOR LUNCH.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

58
1 THE TRIBUNAL RESUMED AS FOLLOWS AT 2.00 P.M:
2
3 THE WITNESS WAS CROSS-EXAMINED AS FOLLOWS
4 BY MR. HOGAN:
5
6 Q 330Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, Deputy Wright, Gerard Hogan for Mr. Mahony. Can
7 I just take you back, in the first instance, to the events of February and
8 March of 1993, deputy?
9 A Yes.
10 Q 331I think you fairly said that the suggestion that Mr. Dunlop be retained came
11 from you?
12 A Correct.
13 Q 332And you knew Mr. Dunlop fairly well at this stage?
14 A I did, yes.
15 Q 333And do you know whether my client knew Mr. Dunlop?
16 A No, sorry you are asking me did he know him, he would only have known him by
17 reputation, as I mentioned before, a reputation as a very successful business
18 person in his own right and in the public relations, his background in
19 politics, basically he wouldn't have known him in any personal way.
20 Q 334Mr. Dunlop indeed was the public relations guru at the time it's fair to say?
21 A I think that would be very fair to say.
22 Q 335And he had a very high reputation in the City of Dublin?
23 A I think I stated in evidence before that he would have been welcomed into every
24 boardroom in the city at the time and was, most boardrooms at the time.
25 Q 336And would you also accept, Deputy, that from the perspective of my client, he
26 had understood that you were going to look after the rezoning matter for him?
27 A That's correct.
28 Q 337And that in the events that occurred, you explained probably sometime early
29 March, that you just simply couldn't handle it any more?
30 A I would have explained my workload as leader of the Senate at the time, in the

59
1 context -- in the whole process that was going on, over 5,000 plus
2 representations within the system, a level as I said last week as well,
3 genuinely 7 a.m. in the morning until 1 a.m. in the morning was the type of
4 pressure and phone calls that was coming. Not just to myself, other
5 councillors have given that type of scenario that was there at the time.
6 Q 338And Mr. Mahony has given evidence to the effect that he concluded that, first,
7 you simply wouldn't be in a position to do this for him; secondly, he wouldn't
8 be able to do it by himself and; thirdly, given the intricacies involved and
9 the lobbying that would be necessary and so forth, it would be necessary to
10 retain a professional person who would lobby the councillors for him and was
11 familiar with the ropes, so to speak, how to the manage the motions?
12 A That's correct, there was a 78 member council at that stage.
13 Q 339Now, I know the suggestion has been made by Mr. Dunlop that an improper payment
14 was made to you of 2,000 pounds in respect of, to procure your vote in respect
15 of the rezoning of my client's lands and I fully accept, Deputy, that you have
16 emphatically denied the allegation as strenuously as you can and against that
17 background, I want to suggest certain reasons to you as to why that allegation
18 is extraordinarily improbable. The first one is this, you were very friendly
19 with the Mahony family?
20 A As I stated in evidence, over 30 years. My father was a personal friend of Mr.
21 Mahony and on my father's early death, I became very friendly with Denis
22 Mahony -- Dano as he was known locally. And I would like to say, Chair, that
23 he not alone would be a personal friend but I would regard him as a confidant.
24 He was supportive of me throughout my career. We were on many many committees,
25 Mr. Hogan, in the community for the festivals, school funding, for charities of
26 every description, and Mr. Mahony and I would have shared those committees on
27 over 20 years.
28 Q 340Yes. So quite apart from the merits of the motion which I will return to, may
29 we take it your support for this motion was assured?
30 A Absolutely my word was given as early -- at the first discussion on these lands

60
1 in relation to my recommendation to wait for the Development Plan process. I
2 gave my word, probably three years before anyone else was involved in the file
3 as such. That I would be on the merits of the proposal, and I would be
4 supportive of it, that I would absolutely support it and I would sign a motion
5 if need be, which I duly did.
6 Q 341So may we take it you were always going to vote yes for this particular
7 rezoning motion?
8 A Both on its merits and on the basis I certainly would not give a word to
9 somebody and then pull back from that.
10 Q 342An indeed it follows from what you said, it's inconceivable really you could
11 ever have done anything other than to support Mr. Mahony and this particular
12 motion?
13 A That's correct, both for planning grounds and personal grounds.
14 Q 343And hurtful as I know it is even to discuss the matter, Deputy, but isn't,
15 doesn't that fact alone make it extraordinarily improbable that you would, so
16 to speak, ever have to be bribed to vote yes in respect of Mr. Mahony's lands?
17 A I stated here last week, I never asked for an improper payment from anybody,
18 anybody in my life. 15 years running a successful business in my own area. 20
19 years in public life. My integrity has never ever been questioned before and
20 the idea that I, in any shape or form, would ask, would ask for an improper
21 payment in the context of this file is hurtful and any allegation is hurtful.
22 But in the context of I living so closely to this family in Malahide, it really
23 hurts and it hurts the community in itself, that two personal friends are now
24 in the position they find themselves in.
25 Q 344Indeed that's fully accepted, Deputy. There's another reason that I want to
26 suggest to you as to why Mr. Dunlop's allegations are improbable. One of the
27 dates on which he says that he may have paid you 2,000 pounds in cash in the
28 Dail bar was on the 25th March 1993. He postulates two possible dates, one is
29 the 25th March and the other is the date in mid April of 1993, do you recall
30 that?

61
1 A I do, yes.
2 Q 345Could I ask you to take a look at 1488. Now, could I ask you to focus on a
3 withdrawal from the ICS on the 26th March, 1993.
4 A Yes.
5 Q 346Now, if Mr. Dunlop is to be believed, one possible date on which -- one of two
6 dates on which he paid you this improper payment was on the previous day, he
7 paid you 2,000 in cash. Now may I -- can I suggest to you, Deputy, one of the
8 many reasons why this is extraordinarily improbable is that on the following
9 day, you withdraw 2,000 in cash. Now, if you had of course -- if there had
10 been a lodgment, doubtless people would be raising questions about it, but you
11 actually withdrew 2,000 in cash the following day and if it is the case that
12 Mr. Dunlop, as he claims, paid you 2,000 in cash the previous day, you might
13 ask why would you be withdrawing a further 2,000 in cash the following day,
14 isn't that so?
15 A That's right.
16 Q 347Now, you are aware, aren't you, Deputy Wright, that Mr. Dunlop is somebody who
17 by his own admission has told lies to this Tribunal, isn't that so?
18 A That's correct, yes.
19 Q 348He has cavilled indeed I use the word perjury, somebody who tells a deliberate
20 lie to the Tribunal is somebody who commits perjury. He has accepted in every
21 material respect, so far as there's a different between my client's statement
22 and his, that my client's statement is factually accurate and he is a person
23 who again, on his own admission, has conspired to give false evidence to this
24 Tribunal and can I ask you, against that background, what do you have to say to
25 this allegation that you were somehow paid an improper payment to procure a
26 vote in respect of your friend's lands?
27 A It just didn't happen. It just never happened.
28 Q 349Now, Deputy, if we just move on to a number of other matters. Do you recall
29 the vote on the 29th September of 1993?
30 A I do, yes.

62
1 Q 350Now, I think it's common case that you voted at all stages in favour of the
2 Coote lands, the Bailey lands and the Mahony lands?
3 A That's correct.
4 Q 351And you voted for them in both April and September of 1993?
5 A That's right.
6 Q 352Now, isn't it the case that -- I'll come to the meeting in September of 1993 in
7 a moment -- but isn't it the case that there had been, the Development Plan at
8 this stage was very old, so far as Portmarnock was concerned?
9 A Absolutely. It took four years to complete this plan. It started mid 1990 and
10 at this stage we are into April, as you say, 2003.
11 Q 353So the pre- -- prior to the adoption of the Development Plan in 1993, which may
12 we take it that the pre-existing Development Plan was very much out-dated as
13 far as Portmarnock was concerned?
14 A Absolutely. Totally out-dated, it was ' 83 and I have to say for those in the
15 area, it was not a practice that we used Section 4 material contravention for
16 any major developments in our own area. We waited for the plan itself and my
17 record is clear on that. There were limited -- there were no major proposals
18 in the area so basically you are right to say, Mr. Hogan, it was 10 years since
19 somebody professional had a look at the situation in Portmarnock. There had
20 hardly been a house built in 17 years in the area and yet the proposal that was
21 in front of us that represented the area was that no house, no acre was to be
22 zoned in the Portmarnock area and that was the professional position at that
23 time.
24 Q 354That was the advice coming from the manager?
25 A Correct.
26 Q 355And without disrespect to the manager at the time, that was a rather
27 extraordinary position to take, wasn't it?
28 A I use the word the last time "Fundamentally flawed" And that was the position I
29 took from the start of that.
30 Q 356Now, Deputy, you will probably be aware indeed through listening for the number

63
1 of days that you have been here that the word 'rezoning' in this module and
2 doubtless other modules has acquired -- has been spoken of almost as if it was
3 an odious profanity and people almost wished to clear their breath no sooner
4 than they utter the word 'rezoning', but in fact there were many objectively
5 justifiable and excellent reasons why rezoning motions would be put down in
6 respect of the Portmarnock area, isn't that so?
7 A Absolutely and I think the position of the new County Manager and his new
8 planning team, the evidence that Mr. McGlynn gave ten days ago or a week ago
9 makes it quite clear that within four years of the plan that we dealt with,
10 where you had a senior management team saying not one house, not one house to
11 be built in Portmarnock. We then had a new management team come in and not
12 alone did they rezone Mr. Mahony's lands but rezoned Mr. Fox's lands, not alone
13 did they rezone it but they took the cap off it and went from one to two acres
14 to 12 to two acres.
15 Q 357And it's the case --
16 A Without any proposals. This was professional advice coming to the floor.
17 Q 358Perhaps we'll come back to 1993 in a moment. While we are on this point, it is
18 the case in 1998, 1999, the new management team, not only their own motion
19 proposed the density for my client's lands be changed and the cap be lifted,
20 you say, they also proposed the rezoning of Mr. Fox's lands, isn't that so?
21 A Correct.
22 Q 359And they also proposed, I think I am right in saying, Miss Coote's lands and
23 perhaps even the Bailey lands?
24 A Correct.
25 Q 360And that there was, so far from 2,530 objections to these developments, there
26 was not a single objection so far as can be ascertained to these changes in
27 1998-1999, isn't that so?
28 A Yes.
29 Q 361What does that say to you about the wisdom of the actions that you took in 1993
30 as compared with the professional managerial advice that was available to you?

64
1 A I would like to think that I had a different vision. I had been full-time in
2 politics for 10 years in the area. I had been running a full-time office in my
3 own town in Malahide. I had been running a weekly office at the post office in
4 Portmarnock. I knew what young people wanted, I knew what people wanted in the
5 area. That they wanted an opportunity to live in Portmarnock, to live in
6 Malahide at the time and this was not being afforded to them, in my
7 professional opinion at the time, who were elected and within the eight years
8 that we are talking about, I stood four times in the area and thankfully the
9 people have recognised the work I have done.
10 Q 362Yes. And isn't it also the case, Deputy Wright, that Mr. Mahony had given a
11 solid reason why his particular lands were to be rezoned and, just to remind,
12 the reason he advanced to various councillors he met at the time was
13 Portmarnock was in need of more housing and this would give people an
14 opportunity to trade up and to buy better housing in the Portmarnock area and
15 still to remain in Portmarnock?
16 A Correct.
17 Q 363And what do you think of that particular reason?
18 A I had the opportunity in the late '80s, '85-'87, in the position as Chairman of
19 the Malahide Community Council, we decided to employ a town planner and we
20 employed Mr. Patrick Shaffrey and he had an extensive report in the area and
21 one of the main thrusts in the report, that it was important for any area like
22 Malahide at that time together and I equate both towns together, much the same,
23 that you should afford and people should be given an opportunity of trading up
24 within its own area. That's for whatever reason, for economic reasons, for
25 good -- wanting to stay living in the Portmarnock area and this was affording
26 people a chance and when one sees at the moment, Chair, one of the main sales
27 at the moment are internal in all the housing that's going on, there are a
28 thousand house permissions granted since the 1997/98 plan and quite a
29 substantial amount of those are people within the area, trading up and down and
30 whatever suits people at the time.

65
1 Q 364Can I come back again to the events of 1993? We have heard it is the function
2 of councillors is a reserve function, isn't that so?
3 A Yes.
4 Q 365What weight would you give to the views of the manager ordinarily?
5 A Well, let me put it this way, there was one motion put down by a councillor to
6 rezone land in the 1998 plan. It was dealt with in a two-way process, that we
7 discussed in a reasonable way as to what both the elected members and what the
8 professional people felt and it has worked extremely well as against the 1993
9 plan unfortunately.
10 Q 366Now, I am going to come to that in a moment. I think there was upwards or in
11 or about 50 motions to rezone considered at the special meeting on the 29th
12 September 1993. And I am going to take you through that briefly in a moment.
13 Is it the case really that what you are telling the Tribunal is that one of the
14 reasons for these rezoning motions that were prompted by councillors'
15 initiative was that, without any disrespect, the unreality of the manager
16 himself?
17 A That's extremely well put.
18 Q 367Now, isn't it also the case, there was a block on the council who were
19 ideologically anti-rezoning?
20 A Still there, and still there.
21 Q 368You might not agree with it but it's a respectable point of view.
22 A Correct.
23 Q 369And there are people, there are councillors who are elected on an anti-rezoning
24 ticket as is their democratic fundamental right?
25 A Yes.
26 Q 370Isn't that so?
27 A Yes.
28 Q 371And they vote, and certainly in this period they voted anti-rezoning come what
29 may, isn't that so?
30 A Correct.

66
1 Q 372More or less?
2 A Yes.
3 Q 373And what I would suggest to you is that we have heard evidence from councillors
4 such as Councillor Coffey, Councillor Devitt and a variety of other councillors
5 who said they were unashamedly pro-rezoning at least in the context of the 1993
6 plan and that was their political platform and they stood for it?
7 A I would like to use the word, my position would be absolutely clear I was
8 absolutely pro-investment, pro-jobs, pro-community facilities, and pro-houses
9 and I have stood on that ticket for 20 years.
10 Q 374And of course none of that was going to happen if you had got a Development
11 Plan for Portmarnock which doesn't propose a single house to be built, isn't
12 that so?
13 A Or a single job, or a single community facility.
14 Q 375But, in all events, you would say there was a block on the council, not
15 necessarily confined to Fianna Fail, who were by and large in favour of, from
16 your perspective, a more realistic pro-investment perspective on rezoning?
17 A Yes.
18 Q 376Isn't it an equally tenable and perfectly legitimate position to have and it's
19 one you share?
20 A Absolutely.
21 Q 377And it's by no means confined to your party, isn't that so?
22 A That's correct.
23 Q 378Now, there was no suggestion, was there, that councillors should abstain from
24 discussing these matters in public?
25 A No.
26 Q 379There was no suggestion that councillors shouldn't give interviews to the press
27 about rezoning matters?
28 A No.
29 Q 380Obviously not. There was no suggestion that councillors should in some way act
30 as judges or as judges would or might in respect of rezoning applications,

67
1 isn't that so?
2 A That's correct.
3 Q 381These were decisions where people made their own political judgments, come from
4 different political perspectives, isn't that the essence of the rezoning?
5 A It's one of the two reserve functions that councillors have it, it and the
6 estimates.
7 Q 382Can I take it, just take the estimates for a moment, you have got to vote as
8 every Dail deputy has to vote from time to time on estimates motions placed
9 before the Dail for its consideration by the government, isn't that so?
10 A Yes.
11 Q 383And, again, some people have a particular -- there's various political
12 perspectives in the Dail, we can go into that, it's well known, isn't that so?
13 A Yes.
14 Q 384And some people would want more public money to be spent, that's a perfectly
15 legitimate point of view, and other people are in favour of less public money
16 being spent, isn't that so?
17 A Yes.
18 Q 385And people are elected on that particular ticket to the Dail?
19 A Yes.
20 Q 386It's been called a 'numbers game' but, in fact, another word for it is
21 'democracy'?
22 A Yes.
23 Q 387Isn't that so?
24 A Yes.
25 Q 388And people vote on these matters according to their own political judgment?
26 A Correct.
27 Q 389Whether it's estimates in the Dail, whether it's estimates at local
28 authorities, whether it's rezoning, isn't that so?
29 A Correct.
30 Q 390And these are functions which are discharged by politicians and, with great

68
1 respect to the Tribunal, heaven forbid they would ever be discharged by judges,
2 judges don't have that function in our Constitution, do they?
3 A No.
4 Q 391That function is designed by the Constitution to political, directly elected
5 political representatives, isn't that so?
6 A Yes.
7 Q 392Now, can I take you now to 569. Now, I am going to take you quickly through a
8 series of documents, Deputy. The first of these is recording minutes of the
9 meeting of the 29th September 1993. You see that?
10 A I do, yes.
11 Q 393And records who was present and who wasn't?
12 A Yes.
13 Q 394Now, the suggestion has been made, and I'll come to this documentation in a
14 moment, Mr. Deputy, but the suggestion has been made that there was three
15 rezoning votes on the day of the 29th September of which the Mahony lands was
16 the third. And that suggestion has been made in this Tribunal. And I hope to
17 demonstrate to you that, in fact, that's not quite so, that if one looks at it,
18 there was approximately 50 rezoning votes on that day, does that accord with
19 your recollection?
20 A Yes.
21 Q 395And you can certainly confirm that there was more than three votes on that day,
22 isn't that so?
23 A Yes, yes.
24 Q 396And I am also going to suggest to you that the numbers present for the votes
25 varied dramatically?
26 A Very much so.
27 Q 397And the votes in the middle tended to have more members, the votes at the end
28 tended to have less members?
29 A Yes.
30 Q 398Does that accord, does that happenstance accord with your recollection of what

69
1 was happening at these meetings at the time?
2 A It would, not just at these meetings, but regular council meetings, in relation
3 to --
4 Q 399Of course it's the case that the council was under enormous pressure to produce
5 the Development Plan and hence these enormously lengthy meetings and frequent
6 numbers of them had to be scheduled at this time, isn't that so?
7 A I believe so, yes.
8 Q 400Now, many other councillors have given evidence to this Tribunal to the effect
9 that it simply wasn't possible, or physically possible for councillors to be
10 present at every single vote?
11 A It wouldn't be possible for somebody, maybe a school teacher, maybe somebody
12 running their own business. Somebody with a family. It just wasn't possible.
13 10 a.m. in the morning maybe to 10 or 1 to 10, three days week. It wasn't
14 possible.
15 Q 401We know at 606, which is the end of this documentation, that the meeting
16 concluded at 5.28 p.m. Does that give you any indication -- it doesn't say,
17 oddly enough, when the meeting started, would you have any idea when the
18 meeting might have started?
19 A I would have thought if we dealt with 50 issues, certainly it was an early
20 morning, but I can't --
21 Q 402And, indeed, the documentation appears to bear out, Deputy, that there were
22 motions at which several councillors, perhaps eight, nine, 10 councillors,
23 contributed from time to time?
24 A They were meant to be only three minutes but that's -- strayed.
25 Q 403Even, for example, if six councillors spoke and they each were, say, three
26 minutes, we are talking about an 18-minute delay in itself between the tape
27 taking of the motion and the actual vote?
28 A Yes.
29 Q 404Even the vote itself would take presumably the best part of five minutes?
30 A There would always be a break, you know, three minutes or five minutes before

70
1 you vote, after the chair had put the motion to the floor.
2 Q 405Now, the suggestion has also been made -- I am going to take you through the
3 documentation in a moment -- but the suggestion has also been made, inference
4 has been sought to be drawn that, in fact, some councillors were present for
5 some votes and not for others and I don't know whether you have been here,
6 Deputy, to hear me point out, for example, that Councillor Laing, who was not
7 before this Tribunal, voted yes to the rezoning of my client's lands in April
8 1993 and voted no in September of 1993.
9 A Yes.
10 Q 406Another example of one -- I don't want to weary you, Deputy Wright, and I can
11 take you through any number of examples, but another one is Councillor Cait
12 Keane happened to be present for the votes on the Coote lands which she voted
13 in favour, she voted against the Bailey lands and even though it had been
14 canvassed by my client in April 1993, she simply wasn't present for the Mahony
15 lands?
16 A Yes.
17 Q 407You wouldn't draw any sinister inference from that?
18 A None whatsoever, just pressure of their daily life.
19 Q 408Yes. And again now if we can then look to 570, we see the first of the motions
20 before the council on that day. It was the Monks Meadow in Carrick Hill?
21 A Yes.
22 Q 409If we go to 577 we see this was defeated by 16 to 11, in other words, the
23 original rezoning stands and, by my calculation, there was 31 councillors
24 present on that day at that time and then 572, we have Kinsealy and again, the
25 rezoning is carried with 36 councillors present. 573, another Kinsealy vote
26 and it's carried by 19 to 15 with 36 councillors present at 573, do you see
27 that?
28
29 MS. DILLON: I think my friend should point out these were all on map 7. They
30 are not on the subject map.

1
71
2 CHAIRMAN: I think Mr. Hogan is just --
3
4 MS. DILLON: I understand the point he is making, yes, Sir, but it is a
5 different map.
6
7 CHAIRMAN: It's for comparative purposes.
8
9 MR. HOGAN: Whether it's on map 7 or map 27 is, with respect, entirely
10 irrelevant to the point I was seeking to make and I could take you through a
11 whole series of these, Deputy, and I won't weary you or the Tribunal with those
12 but again, moving to 577, that was in respect of a vote on Auburn in Malahide
13 Road, improvement of walkway and, again, the manager's report is defeated by 26
14 votes to five. By my reckoning there was 32 people present at that stage. The
15 members present has gone up and gone down at this stage and then we come to
16 page 579, 580,and this was the Coote lands and there was 44 -- can we have 580
17 please. This was the tied vote, 21-21. The Chairman casting his vote against
18 the rezoning but 44 councillors were present at this point.
19 A Yes.
20 Q 410And then we have the Bailey lands at 581, and one sees that the Bailey rezoning
21 was defeated by 26 to 20, with three abstentions, so there was 49 councillors
22 present.
23 A Yes.
24 Q 411And then we come to 584 which is my client's lands, and it was 28 to 24 in
25 favour of the rezoning and 53 councillors were present, isn't that so?
26 A That's right.
27 Q 412And then we will just move on, there's a whole series of other votes, but if we
28 can just take, by way of example, 592, 593, we have a change of zoning at Howth
29 House and that particular motion carried by 29 to 1 and two abstentions so 32
30 people were present.

72
1 A Yes.
2 Q 413And then if we go to, starting at 596 and 598, 597 if I might, you will see
3 this is Shielmartin Road in Howth, another rezoning motion and it's 26 to 22 so
4 the dezoning motion is carried and four abstentions, so there's 53 councillors
5 present for that. Isn't that so?
6 A Yes.
7 Q 414And then we go to 603 and 604, we have a dezoning motion in respect of the
8 airport in Santry and that's defeated by 18 votes to 10 with six abstentions.
9 Then there's 34 councillors present at this stage.
10 A Yes.
11 Q 415And then that is, in fact, the final vote on the day and then there is a
12 discussion at 605 and 606 about the change of zoning at the Cloughran site
13 north of the motorway that's deferred to the next meeting and the meeting
14 finished at 5.28 p.m.
15 A Yes.
16 Q 416That's likely to be the record of the votes and attendances and discussion in
17 summary form over an entire day?
18 A Yes.
19 Q 417Would you seek to draw any inferences from the fact that the number of
20 councillors went up and down in the variegated pattern I have just outlined to
21 you?
22 A I wouldn't, and I also make the point that even those who were voting against
23 and more, extra people come in with a view of voting against proposals and
24 extra people arrived with a view of voting for proposals. It wasn't one way of
25 people arriving -- if you look at the trend, you will see in the context from
26 the Station Road and Bailey site, that more people voted against the Mahony
27 file than voted against those two sites.
28 Q 418Yes. Now, can we just then take a look at 607 please. This is the Irish
29 Times' account the following day. I am going to ask you one question about it.
30 Just if we scroll down, focus on the third and fourth paragraphs there. And

73
1 you will see I am just going to read a particular passage for you, Deputy, and
2 then ask you to comment on it, "In the Baldoyle/Portmarnock area the core
3 rezoning group compromising Fianna Fail, several Independents and a varying
4 number of Fine Gael councillors was beaten by the casting vote of the Chairman,
5 Mr. Pat Rabbitte TD, on a proposal to rezone 10 acres of agriculture land at
6 Station Road, Portmarnock." That's the Coote lands and again we know the Coote
7 lands as was presented from the journalist's perspective as if some odious or
8 sinister motion was put down but, of course, we know that three or four years
9 later the new manager, entirely of his own volition, proposed the rezoning of
10 these self same lands?
11 A If it's absolutely totality at the highest density.
12 Q 419And then a proposal to allow housing on a nearby five acre site was also
13 defeated, this is the Bailey site, isn't that so?
14 A Yes.
15 Q 420And, again, this is presented as a great victory for the environment or
16 something to this effect but, again, we know that the manager proposed, the new
17 manager proposed the rezoning of this self same site in 1998?
18 A Yes.
19 Q 421And then we have, "However, the council ignored planner's advice and voted to
20 sanction the rezoning of 30 acres of Drumnigh for 12 houses." This is the
21 Mahony lands, isn't that so?
22 A Yes.
23 Q 422"Referring to 2,530 objections to this scheme received by the council,
24 Mrs. Nora Owen TD of Fine Gael accepted that the Portmarnock Community
25 Association was opposed to the rezoning. However she said the association had
26 told her at a recent meeting that there should be some new low density luxury
27 housing in the area for local people who wanted to move up." That of course
28 was one of the proposals involved in my client's rezoning application.
29 A Correct.
30 Q 423Two other proposals had been defeated, the council should pass this one, she

74
1 said. I know she's an erstwhile political opponent of yours, Deputy, but what
2 would you have to say about the rationale proffered by Mrs. Owen for her vote?
3 A I am quite confident, as I stated before, and I attended all the public
4 meetings, I don't want to regurgitate what was dealt with this morning, but I
5 can genuinely tell you that the main issues at the various meetings in the
6 hotels was related to the racecourse lands, not relating to the proposal of the
7 that was in front of us and I am quite confident of that. I reiterate I was
8 full-time in the area. I did not, as Mrs. Owen has said in evidence, meet any
9 hostility in relation to that proposal that we were dealing with in the context
10 of the type of suggestion here.
11 Q 424Yes, and that has been the consistent evidence I think of all the councillors
12 who say that none of them can recollect any certain significant level of
13 opposition to the proposal in respect of my client's lands?
14 A That's correct. I think Councillor Kennedy would have been a member of the PC
15 at the time, he would have made it clear that was his view as well at the time,
16 that was the position and I think it's fair to say if we move on again just
17 because it is important, it's the same people, the same residents in the area.
18 When the manager in 1998 dealt with the lands, there were no objections.
19 Q 425Yeah. And what does that suggest to you as to whether, in fact, there was
20 2,530 objections or individual objections?
21 A I have stated my strong views on that. I genuinely believe and I am sorry that
22 the evidence is not here today, it would certainly seem, in my view, the same
23 letter was reproduced after the display and I would be, unfortunately we will
24 never, as I understand this morning, we are not going to see that evidence but
25 it is my strong view that those objections, and I know from the meetings, 300,
26 400, 500 people attending the meetings in the hotel, I know the issues, the
27 issues were the lands between Portmarnock and Malahide and the lands between
28 Portmarnock and Baldoyle.
29 Q 426And, indeed, judging by this press report, the Portmarnock Community
30 Association seems to view with equanimity the proposal to rezone my client's

75
1 lands?
2 A Yes.
3 Q 427And I just want to ask you one further question arising out of that; you see in
4 the penultimate paragraph there, however, "The council ignored planner's advice
5 and voted to sanction the rezoning of the 30 acres at Drumnigh" and in the
6 light of what you told us, Deputy, any rezoning whatsoever that took place
7 either in April or in September of 1993 would have been in the face of the
8 manager's advice because, as far as he was concerned, Portmarnock was going to
9 remain a town which was not developed in any way whatsoever, isn't that so?
10 A As an absolute position and I strongly feel, just on a political point, it's,
11 in my view, those decisions of 1993 would be part and parcel of the housing
12 crisis we faced in our area for five, seven years.
13 Q 428Thank you very much, Deputy.
14
15 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Montgomery?
16
17 THE WITNESS WAS CROSS-EXAMINED AS FOLLOWS BY
18 MR. MONTGOMERY:
19
20 Q 429MR. MONTGOMERY: Giles Montgomery for the estate of Cyril Gallagher,
21 deceased. Deputy, you told us this morning that when the matter was first
22 discussed with Denis Mahony in 1991, I think you said to us that you discussed
23 the matter with the late Cyril Gallagher.
24 A That's correct.
25 Q 430What form of discussions would this have been, would it have been lengthy,
26 would there have been a lot of consideration given?
27 A I would have given him an overview of where I was coming from in relation to
28 the area. Not just in that file, Chair, I would have mentioned the limited
29 number of proposals I was putting my name to and, out of courtesy, we obviously
30 knew each other extremely well. He would have been regarded as one of the

76
1 senior members in the party for the length of office that he held and, also, I
2 would be looking forward to ensuring that he was aware of the proposal I was
3 putting my name to.
4 Q 431Would he, in the context that you just described, would he have automatically
5 agreed with you or would he have considered the matter?
6 A I have no doubt he was in support of the proposal, no doubt whatsoever.
7 Q 432Tell me, Deputy, how well did you know Cyril Gallagher?
8 A Extremely well.
9 Q 433For how long a period?
10 A I am just trying to remember when the late Cyril died, but 15 to 16 years
11 politically, but I would have known him before that as well as a person in the
12 area.
13 Q 434Could you give the Tribunal a picture of the type of man he was, the man is not
14 available unfortunately and nobody has been able to tell the Tribunal the sort
15 of man he was.
16 A First of all, an extremely loyal friend, a man that came from very humble
17 beginnings. Very strong ethos of Fianna Fail and that's in the context of,
18 would always support the party position. I think he never went outside of that
19 in his whole career, even though he had some very difficult times and I say
20 that, Mr. Chairman, that he had a view in the early '80s that he should have
21 been the candidate and I actually came in over his head to be the candidate and
22 yet he had the ability to always remain a very personal friend of mine, even
23 though in his mind that this, as he saw it, upshot arrived in the political
24 system to take what he believed he was entitled to i.e, that he would be on the
25 ticket on the 81 election and it was decided by others within the party I
26 should be the person.
27
28 But even allowing for that, we were personal friends right through, and I can
29 just say to you there's one piece of evidence I remember in relation to
30 Mr. Dunlop when he was asked, I think, by Miss Dillon in relation to the

77
1 signing of the motion, I think Cyril asked is GV supporting it and that's where
2 he would have come from. He would have been on the basis that he would be
3 supporting, as had been said, a motion being put forward by the local person
4 and he certainly would have had difficulty in supporting or signing anything
5 that was outside the support of those in the area.
6 Q 435Was he an extravagant man?
7 A Absolutely not. Absolutely not. He enjoyed a glass of whisky.
8 Q 436So a man of modest means with a modest lifestyle?
9 A Very much so.
10 Q 437A man of integrity?
11 A Yes.
12 Q 438A man who had given you his word in 1991 was unlikely to change it in 1993?
13 A Not a chance, Mr. Montgomery, not a chance.
14 Q 439The reason I am indulging this line of examination, Deputy, is that I put it to
15 Mr. Dunlop that the late Mr. Gallagher would not require any form of lobbying,
16 that he was always committed to the project, would you agree with my
17 contention?
18 A Absolutely.
19 Q 440I put it to Mr. Dunlop that not alone would he not need lobbying, he certainly
20 wouldn't need paying, would you agree with that?
21 A Absolutely.
22 Q 441Mr. Dunlop then went on to say that he paid him a thousand pounds and when I
23 asked him why a thousand pounds, Mr. Dunlop said that that was what
24 Mr. Gallagher had asked for. Could you comment on that?
25 A I am not in a position to, obviously.
26 Q 442The likelihood of it?
27 A It would not be the Cyril that I know.
28 Q 443Thank you very much.
29
30 CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

1
78
2 THE WITNESS WAS CROSS-EXAMINED AS FOLLOWS BY MR. REDMOND:
3
4 Q 444MR. REDMOND: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Mr. Dunlop. Could I start by
5 proposing to you, Deputy Wright, the following suggestion: That at crucial
6 times your recollection of events has let you down as the evidence over the
7 last few days has shown? Would you accept that contention?
8 A No.
9 Q 445You would not.
10 A No.
11 Q 446So, insofar as your recollection at a private meeting with the Tribunal ran to
12 a recollection that you had received donations no greater than 2,000 pounds,
13 that is and remains an accurate recollection?
14 A At that meeting, the meeting that I described to the Tribunal, that within four
15 days of being asked to attend a private meeting, I did. A meeting that I
16 understood, Mr. Redmond, that would deal with the only correspondence that I
17 had received at that time from the Tribunal.
18 Q 447Let's not bandy words, Deputy Wright. Your recollection that you had received
19 no more than 2,000 pounds was wrong?
20 A At that time, yes.
21 Q 448It always was wrong, Deputy Wright. If you have acknowledged receipt of two
22 payments of 5,000 pounds, a recollection at any time that you had received no
23 more than 2,000 pounds was wrong, do you accept that?
24 A I accept at that time in answering the questions that were asked me of without
25 notes, that I asked for more time to get answers.
26 Q 449Well, let's deal then with the situation where you had more time to prepare
27 your answers. Were you prepared when you attended the Fianna Fail inquiry?
28 A As best I could, yes.
29 Q 450As best you could?
30 A As best I could.

79
1 Q 451Why did you not tell the Fianna Fail inquiry that you had received a payment of
2 2,000 pounds from Ballymore Homes?
3 A I had asked Ballymore Homes at that time, and they will confirm this, that
4 their records at that time did not have any donation to me, it was only after
5 further inquiries into it that they made that available to me.
6 Q 452Did you at any time inform Fianna Fail that you had received 2,000 pounds from
7 Ballymore Homes?
8 A Not insofar that the Fianna Fail inquiry was over at that stage and all the
9 papers had been sent down to the Tribunal itself.
10 Q 453Did you at any stage --
11 A And I have to, sorry, Mr. Redmond, and I haven't been asked this or any other
12 question in relation to my, that enquiry.
13 Q 454That would perhaps answer the next question I have for you. You intimated to
14 Fianna Fail "I may have received a payment from Chris Jones", but you weren't
15 sure and you would get back to them, you didn't I presume?
16 A No.
17 Q 455Have you made any effort to determine whether you did get a payment from Chris
18 Jones?
19 A Through his company.
20 Q 456Have you got an answer?
21 A No, they said it was private but I am quite convinced that it was a private
22 donation from Mr. Jones himself.
23 Q 457And have you made any attempt to contact Mr. Jones?
24 A Informally at race meetings, yes.
25 Q 458And have you got any response to your query as to whether he gave you a
26 political contribution?
27 A No.
28 Q 459Has he refused to answer the question?
29 A No, he hasn't.
30 Q 460How then, if you informally having inquired whether or not he made a political

80
1 donation to you, are you still here without an answer?
2 A I just am, Mr. Redmond.
3 Q 461Are you in a position to recollect what Mr. Jones said to you when you asked
4 him to confirm whether or not he had made a political donation to you?
5 A He said that he would reflect on it and come back to me.
6 Q 462He never came back to you?
7 A No.
8 Q 463You never followed it up?
9 A No.
10 Q 464When was the last time you met him?
11 A About a year and a half ago, I'd say, about a year ago.
12 Q 465Did you ask him at that time?
13 A I didn't.
14 Q 466So you had given up at that stage of finding out?
15 A At that stage, yes.
16 Q 467You also told the Fianna Fail inquiry that you set up a separate political
17 account to which political donations were lodged, isn't that right?
18 A That's right.
19 Q 468You didn't tell them, however, about lodgments to other accounts, isn't that
20 right?
21 A That's correct, at that time, yes.
22 Q 469You told them that you had opened an NIB account in 1995, and yet on the 31st
23 May 2000, you told the Tribunal that you had opened it in 1996, a small error
24 but one, I would suggest, Deputy Wright, showed an extra cavalier attitude with
25 which you approached the Fianna Fail inquiry?
26 A I took the Fianna Fail inquiry very, very serious, Mr. Redmond.
27 Q 470Well you have already given evidence that prior to giving evidence to the
28 Fianna Fail inquiry, you had a meeting with my client, Mr. Dunlop, and you put
29 to him a suggestion that he had made a payment of 3,000 pounds in October of
30 1993. You then make a written submission with lengthy appendices confirming a

81
1 payment from Mr. Dunlop in summer of 1993, is that not at least sloppy?
2 A It could be described as that, yes.
3 Q 471And what does sloppiness come from, if it doesn't come from lack of attention
4 to detail? How seriously were you taking the Fianna Fail inquiry, Deputy
5 Wright?
6 A Extremely serious.
7 Q 472When you take something extremely seriously, do you not tend to take care and
8 time over it?
9 A You do one's best to do that, yes, Mr. Redmond.
10 Q 473Do you accept that you failed to do it in this case?
11 A I think the party has made a position on my evidence.
12 Q 474I am not interested in what the party views your evidence as, I am asking you,
13 Deputy Wright, for your own judgment on your own evidence.
14 A I did the best I could at the time to make sure all the evidence was there.
15 Q 475Would you accept Deputy Wright your best isn't good enough?
16 A At times it certainly isn't.
17 Q 476Bringing that theory up to date, the evidence that you have given to this
18 Tribunal, it arose out of questions that were put to you by Miss Dillon, had
19 been your proposed annual costs of running a constituency office and the
20 proposed costs of an election and your annual figure for running your
21 constituency office was 12,450 pounds per annum or if we can't be certain it
22 was per annum, it was roughly what it cost in 1993 or possibly in 1992 or
23 possibly in 1991. That's how far the evidence we got on that, isn't it?
24 A That's correct, yes.
25 Q 477Where did those figures come from?
26 A Just a projection back on the costs that would be there at the moment.
27 Q 478Is it fair to say you made them up?
28 A We would have been brought back on the kind of costs that are there at the
29 moment.
30 Q 479What analysis did you carry out in order to arrive at those figures?

82
1 A Just basically the expenditure I have at the moment.
2 Q 480At the moment?
3 A The expenditure of the last four or five years in my office that are there, and
4 the records are there for that. They would be there from 95.
5 Q 481So you made a guess back to 1993. You didn't feel that it was necessary or
6 prudent to advise the Fianna Fail inquiry that this was guesswork on the basis
7 of current figures that you were extrapolating backwards?
8 A It would have been stated on that basis.
9 Q 482It appears nowhere on the appendix you prepared?
10 A I would have given that was our best judgment at the time.
11 Q 483You didn't say that on the appendix?
12 A But I may well have done so in conversation with those who interviewed with me.
13 Q 484It doesn't see fit to report on.
14 A They obviously accepted the figures.
15 Q 485Are you saying for definite, Deputy Wright, you informed the Fianna Fail
16 inquiry that those figures were based on 1995 figures spread backwards?
17 A Probably 2000 figures spread backwards.
18 Q 486Moving back then to the early period 1991, 1992 and 1993, a time when you say
19 you had an average expenditure of 12,450 pounds, you lodged the sum of 20,550
20 pounds in cheques to your ICS building account, are you familiar with that
21 figure?
22 A I am indeed.
23 Q 487As we sit here today, and correct me if I am wrong, your best guess in relation
24 to that lodgment is the 2,000 pounds from Ballymore Homes might be part of
25 that, you think that the 5,000 pounds from Owen O'Callaghan is likely to be
26 part of that, what about the rest? Where does it come from? Who gave it to
27 you?
28 A That's the position we are in at the moment.
29 Q 488Before Miss Dillon gets overly concerned, I am quite happy if a list was done,
30 I am not interested in the matter being circulated, I am however very

83
1 determined to get some accounting from Deputy Wright for that sum of money.
2
3 MR. KENNEDY: Chairman, if Mr. Redmond had read the papers fully, I think
4 there is an explanation contained as to some of, the rest of the money that's
5 in that account.
6
7 MR. REDMOND: Chairman, I would also be grateful if Mr. Kennedy would allow
8 Deputy Wright to give his own evidence and not be trying to do it for him.
9
10 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Wright, you can answer the question that you have been asked in
11 relation to the 20-odd thousand from your memory. Can you indicate how it was
12 made up?
13 A I can't, Chair. And I can't on the basis too, even though it may say cheques,
14 there may well have been some cash in that. There may well have been.
15
16 MR. REDMOND: So I can take it then, Deputy Wright, you cannot at this remove
17 explain to the Tribunal the origin of the 20,550 pounds?
18 A That's correct.
19 Q 489You did, however, in answer to questions from Miss Dillon go on to say that the
20 5,000 pounds from Mr. Dunlop was not included in that 20,550 pounds and you
21 went on to say that there was even further cash donations averaging at least
22 another 5,000 made up of fives, twos and threes in terms of hundreds. Do you
23 recollect that?
24 A I do, yes, I do.
25 Q 490Now, we have 10,000 pounds in cash and we have, according to bank figures,
26 20,550 in cheques, so we have over 30,000 pounds in political donations?
27 A As I rightly say to you in the last moment there, it may well have been the
28 full 20 is not in cheques, for all I know. I have no record of that.
29 Q 491Did you make an inquiry in relation with your bank why they would have written
30 down cheques if there was a possibility of there being cash?

84
1 A Not that I am aware of.
2 Q 492Do you have any explanation why you didn't bother to inquire?
3 A No, I haven't.
4 Q 493You have also, on a number of occasions in evidence, Deputy Wright, indicated
5 that there was no legislative requirement for you to keep any records?
6 A At that stage.
7 Q 494At that stage. Now, is that a conclusion you have reached yourself or have
8 you reached that conclusion on the basis of advice from somebody else?
9 A Probably my own conclusions, I understood the only legislation came in in 1997.
10 Q 495Now in 1997, what legislation came in?
11 A The Standards in Public Office.
12 Q 496And is it your contention that prior to the Standards in Public Office
13 legislation, there was no requirement for you to keep any record of political
14 contributions or political donations?
15 A I am not aware of any legislation, no.
16 Q 497If I was to put it to you that you were under an obligation to make capital
17 acquisition tax returns to the Revenue and get a ruling from the Revenue that
18 you were entitled to take those monies and treat them as tax-free, what would
19 you say?
20 A I would say, as I understood, that that was the norm in accountancy practice at
21 the time.
22 Q 498You have just intimated, Deputy Wright, you drew this conclusion on your own,
23 are you now saying you draw this conclusion from what you describe as
24 accountancy practice at the time?
25 A That's to my best ability at the moment.
26 Q 499Did you discuss political donations and contributions in the early 1990s with
27 any accountant?
28 A No.
29 Q 500How then, are you familiar with accountancy practice in relation to the
30 treatment of political donations or contributions?

85
1 A I always understood, Mr. Redmond, that political donations were dealt with on
2 that basis.
3 Q 501How did you reach that understanding?
4 A My own summation, that's all.
5 Q 502What did you summarise?
6 A That political donations were dealt with that way by the Revenue.
7 Q 503Did you ask the Revenue?
8 A I didn't, Mr. Redmond, no.
9 Q 504So, you made no effort whatsoever to make any returns to the revenue from the
10 period 1991 to 1997?
11 A No, on the basis that I was running a full-time office there at the time, I had
12 been involved in four elections in the early 1909s, from 1991, 1992, 1993,
13 1999. And a by-election in 1998.
14 Q 505Sorry, I'll have to try and interpret your answer, Deputy Wright, and you can
15 correct me if I am wrong; are you suggesting you didn't make returns to the
16 Revenue because you were too busy fighting elections?
17 A No, based on the basis I understood that political donations would be dealt
18 with that way.
19 Q 506You were a deputy in the year 2000, isn't that correct?
20 A Yes.
21 Q 507So you would have been a deputy in Dail Eireann during the discussion of the
22 Finance Bill which ultimately became the Finance Act of 2000?
23 A Yes.
24 Q 508Do you have any recollection of the debate?
25 A No.
26 Q 509So you have no recollection of amending legislation to the capital acquisition
27 tax legislation which would have dealt with the situation we are dealing with
28 here and now?
29 A No.
30 Q 510I would put it to you again, Mr. Deputy Wright, this is another example where

86
1 your recollection has let you down at a crucial time, do you accept that?
2 A I am not sure what your point is.
3 Q 511My point is that it is a crucial debate, the Finance Bill, it is even more
4 crucial when it deals with political donations to politicians and you don't
5 remember it.
6 A That's correct.
7 Q 512Now, you have finally acknowledged after a series of statements have been given
8 to Tribunal, that it was you that introduced the topic of Frank Dunlop to Denis
9 Mahony.
10 A That's right.
11 Q 513And you say in answer to Mr. Hogan's questions that you knew Mr. Dunlop by
12 reputation, isn't that right?
13 A That's correct.
14 Q 514Tell me about his reputation.
15 A Mr. Dunlop's reputation at that time, the reputation that I would have known,
16 Mr. Dunlop was, as I mentioned before, a person that had served under four
17 Taoiseach, Mr. Dunlop that had moved from the public sector into the private
18 sector. Had moved very successfully in the private sector. Mr. Dunlop who had
19 been supportive of my own career. Mr. Dunlop at that time in the early 1990s
20 was extremely involved in the 1992 election with Fianna Fail at the time.
21 Q 515What did you know about him as a lobbyist?
22 A I would have known Mr. Dunlop to be, as I say, a successful business person and
23 the experience that he had in the public sector, in my view, he was an ideal
24 person that would be able to deal with the situation which faced Mr. Mahony.
25 Q 516When did you first deal personally with Mr. Dunlop?
26 A I would have met Mr. Dunlop in the early '80s.
27 Q 517When did you first deal with him on a lobbying basis?
28 A Probably either the late '80s or early '90s.
29 Q 518Your own evidence, Deputy Wright, confirms that when Mr. Dunlop made a payment
30 to you in the Dail bar, 2,000 pounds in a newspaper, it didn't strike you as

87
1 remotely odd because that was the way that Mr. Dunlop did business. Tell me
2 your recollection as of 1991 as to precisely how Mr. Dunlop did business. They
3 are your words, Mr. Wright, I have to call on you for an explanation?
4 A Sure. Mr. Dunlop was a very professional person in his own right. Mr. Dunlop,
5 in my view, was seen at that time as a very successful business person.
6 Mr. Dunlop had been extremely involved in the public sector. Had dealt with
7 people at the highest level, he had been dealing with Taoiseach and had been
8 dealing with Ministers and had been dealing with the party at the highest level
9 as well. That is the Mr. Dunlop I knew at that time.
10 Q 519And because he had dealings with these people at this level, you presume that
11 the handing over of cash in envelopes inside a newspaper was the way he did
12 business, is there a connection between those two comments?
13 A I did not, Mr. Redmond. Mr. Dunlop, as I say, in 1991 when he made that
14 donation to me related to the 1991 local elections.
15 Q 520I'll return to this again briefly, Mr. Wright, to see can we get any further.
16 You knew the way he did business and, as far as you were concerned, there was
17 nothing untoward about him putting 2,000 pounds in an envelope in a newspaper
18 and passing it to you to the Dail bar, correct?
19 A Not when somebody was supporting me as he was at the time. Just as other
20 people were at the time. Somebody supporting me politically, somebody that
21 wanted me to do well in the 1991 elections, in the context of the 1992
22 elections coming up in the following year. Not in that way, no, I took it in a
23 genuine way as a political donation to the 1991 election fund.
24 Q 521Again, Deputy Wright, I want to bring you back to your words in answer to
25 Miss Dillon; you were asked was it not an odd way to receive a political
26 contribution for a local election and you said no, that was the way that
27 Mr. Dunlop did business. So as of the day you were paid by Mr. Dunlop on your
28 own evidence, you were aware that he did business in a particular way. I am
29 trying to get to the bottom of that. What particular way did Mr. Dunlop have
30 of doing business that left you with no element of surprise as to the manner in

88
1 which he decided to support your local election campaign in 1991?
2 A There was no element of surprise that I met Mr. Dunlop where I met him. I
3 would have met him on many, many occasions in the Dail bar. That is what I
4 meant by that. It was put to me, I think, by Miss Dillon at the time, the
5 location so forth, my view at the time, I would have been meeting him on a
6 regular, regular basis throughout the time that he was in there as both a
7 public servant and when he went into private business, he would use the Dail
8 bar, not just for me but for many other people.
9 Q 522One of the things which has not been touched upon which has been so well
10 canvassed in relation to other parties is the speech of Minister Smith in May
11 of 1993. Do you remember that?
12 A I do indeed, Mr. Redmond, yes.
13 Q 523You are aware of the fact that Mr. Dunlop is heavily involved in lobbying, you
14 are aware of the fact that he has a singular number of projects effectively on
15 the boil with a view to the 1993 Development Plan and you hear the Minister's
16 speech. Are you horrified by it?
17 A I immediately made contact with the Minister, Mr. Redmond. I sought a meting
18 with the Minister with several other councillors.
19 Q 524And I don't particularly want to go into the details of the your meeting with
20 the Minister, but did alarm bells not start to go off in your head at that
21 stage about political donations from Mr. Dunlop, probably one of the best known
22 lobbyist in the field?
23 A That had no part of the speech whatsoever.
24 Q 525So nothing in his speech started to make you nervous about the manner in which
25 lobbying was being conducted in the year 1993?
26 A Not to me at that time, Mr. Redmond, on the basis of my experiences, no. But I
27 did obviously ask the Minister to meet with servants on the basis that the
28 speech itself and the various phrases that he used.
29
30 MR. HOGAN: I think, Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Redmond is alleging that there's

89
1 anything in Mr. Smith's speech in May 1993 which is suggestive of the fact that
2 bribery was taking place at the behest of Mr. Dunlop, that should be put to the
3 witness.
4
5 MR. REDMOND: Might I be heard on that briefly, Mr. Chairman?
6
7 CHAIRMAN: Yes.
8
9 MR. REDMOND: I do not intend to waste the Tribunal's time in referring at
10 any length to the Minister's speech. Deputy Wright is more than familiar with
11 the Minister's speech. Indeed he has confirmed he made contact with the
12 Minister in the aftermath of the speech. I would be grateful if Mr. Hogan
13 would confine his interruptions to ones which are accurate and pertinent. I am
14 trying to deal with this matter as briefly as possible and I do object to being
15 interfered with in this manner when this is a Tribunal witness.
16
17 CHAIRMAN: Well Mr. Hogan isn't interfering with you, Mr. Redmond, he is simply
18 seeking clarification of the basis on which you are putting this to Mr. Smith.
19 Perhaps Mr. Wright might explain what he or might tell us what he recalls
20 Mr. Smith's speech being about in broad terms.
21 A It was a major speech made by, if I am correct, he was the then Minister for
22 the Environment. I think one of the things was on at the time was the
23 suggestion that because of lack of services, that lands were being rezoned at
24 cost to the state and he used infamous phrase 'debased currency'. I have to
25 say, if I can, through the Chair, that many of the Minister's speeches relate
26 back to a local authority, it is quite possible -- I have no evidence of
27 this -- it's quite possible the Minister's office may well have taken the same
28 view of the then management of the local authority, which had the same view
29 because no services, no zonings, and whilst the one line in Minister Smith's
30 speech is there, the overwhelming thrust of the speech was on the fact that

90
1 lands were being zoned without services and what the cost to the state would
2 be.
3
4 Can I just, sorry, Mr. Redmond, if I can through the Chair, I resented and the
5 Minister is well aware of that in the context of a global statement of the
6 phrase that he used. And I told him that at the time. I had not experienced
7 the type of scenario that he painted.
8
9 MR. REDMOND: Can I give you one quote from Minister Smith and ask for a
10 comment. Perhaps it will assuage Mr. Hogan's concerns.
11
12 "The stage has now been reached where zoning has become a debased currency in
13 the Dublin area where even desirable changes in zoning may be tarred with the
14 same brush as those which arrive on the promptings of individual land owners or
15 developers."
16
17 Did you have a concern about that statement?
18 A That is the reason I went to see him and I make the point that I genuinely
19 believe that his officials in the Department of the Environment may well have
20 held the same view at that time that was held at the local authority, that
21 because of no services, there should be no zonings. I believe that was wrong
22 and I made that point to him.
23 Q 526Were you familiar with the press coverage at the time?
24 A I certainly was, yes, Mr. Redmond.
25 Q 527And if you were to summarise your recollection of the press coverage, what
26 would it be?
27 A I think Mr. Hogan earlier on gave a flavour of what the press coverage was at
28 the time. Unfortunately for those of us that were in support of investment and
29 variations, the only comment in the media was a negative comment.
30 Q 528Did you believe at the time that there was any corruption in the processing of

91
1 the Development Plan for 1993?
2 A I was aware of the various Garda inquiries. I had not experienced the type of
3 comment or scenario that you are painting at the moment. I personally had not
4 experienced that. I was aware, as you say, of media and I was obviously aware
5 of the Garda.
6 Q 529Would it be fair to say, Deputy Wright, that at the time and leading up to the
7 material time of December 1993, that you were not satisfied that there was any
8 corruption in the rezoning or development process?
9 A Sorry, just say that again, I missed the first point.
10 Q 530Were you satisfied in the run up to December 1993 when the County Development
11 Plan was ultimately approved, were you satisfied from, say, January 1993 to
12 December of 1993 that there was no corruption in the development process?
13 A They were the experiences that I experienced at the time. And hence when I
14 voted for the Tribunal's, both in its first Terms of Reference and the
15 extension, I never, in my mind, did I believe that anything I had done in my 20
16 years would lead to anyone making any accusation to me.
17 Q 531If we can move aside then from perhaps the emotive concept of corruption to the
18 somewhat more mundane. I want to talk to you about the organising of
19 representations and the organising of motions. In response to a query from
20 Miss Dillon in relation to whether or not you perceived anything untoward in
21 organising representations, your response was "It happened every day". I put it
22 to you, Deputy Wright, that's not a satisfactory answer and I'll explain why.
23 If something is wrong, it doesn't matter how many people are doing it, would
24 you accept that as a premise?
25 A I absolutely do.
26 Q 532Is it your contention that the organising and submission of representations by
27 members of County Council is and was an acceptable practice?
28 A At that time, Mr. Redmond, with 5,000 various people out there, individuals
29 that I knew, what I was answering the question to Miss Dillon, in my own, what
30 I had done myself, I was speaking on what I believed; that if an individual

92
1 came to me without naming them and they are there as to who I would have dealt
2 with on the day in question. If they, for instance, had no resources or
3 otherwise, I did not see it wrong once I believed, and Miss Coote's lands is
4 one that I mentioned to Miss Dillon, that very piece of ground, I with other
5 people put that together because I believed it was the proper place for
6 planning at the time and I so voted when the motion came toward. The lack of
7 knowledge, Mr. Redmond, of people at the time was absolute. There was no
8 knowledge out there of the system with the individuals at that time.
9 Q 533You have, on a number of occasions in giving evidence, used the word "File".
10 Now, you say you had a file in relation to Mr. Mahony's lands and you have
11 given evidence that that file constituted a motion, a map and a brochure?
12 A Yes.
13 Q 534Who prepared the brochure and what was contained in it?
14 A To my best knowledge, an architect, a local architect, not Mr. Hogan.
15 Q 535Not Mr. Hogan?
16 A This is the brochure now?
17 Q 536Yes?
18 A Not Mr. Hogan.
19 Q 537And what was contained in this brochure?
20 A It was a brochure of a type of development that Mr. Mahony would like to see
21 happen on it, a low density housing development.
22 Q 538Were there mock up drawings, were there plans, no?
23 A No plans, basically montages and some colour.
24 Q 539And armed with this file, you have given evidence that you went to a number of
25 your colleagues to speak to them about this particular motion?
26 A I didn't have to make any presentation to my colleagues other than my own
27 verbal presentation. I was also being supported by my colleague who was with
28 me at the time.
29 Q 540If you didn't need the map or the brochure, why did you keep the file?
30 A The only reason a file was kept at the time was just ongoing, when you were

93
1 dealing with the best part of 5,000 different representations, obviously you
2 weren't dealing with them all, but at the time all that was in the file was the
3 brochure, was the proposal and probably a map.
4 Q 541Why did you need a file? This was Mr. Mahony's lands, the Wrights and the
5 Mahonys had been friends for upwards of 30 years, you know the lands
6 intimately, you only needed to make oral representations to your colleagues,
7 why do you need any documentation?
8 A It was just a file there, that's all it was. There's no big --
9 Q 542There's no dispute, Deputy Wright, about the existence of the file, what I am
10 asking you is why you felt you needed it?
11 A Because you were dealing with anything up to 1,500 probably proposals at the
12 time.
13 Q 543Are you suggesting no matter how many proposals you were dealing with, you
14 would have forgotten your old friend, Mr. Mahony's lands?
15 A I certainly did not.
16 Q 544You didn't need a file to jog your memory in relation to this development?
17 A My support was there from 1991.
18 Q 545We'll be coming to that shortly, Deputy Wright. I am asking you if you didn't
19 need a file to jog your memory, why did you maintain one?
20 A I probably held a file on the basis that I was the proposer, that I would be
21 proposing it and also to, as well, if somebody asked any question in relation
22 to it, as most of my colleagues have stated, that, in general terms, that they
23 would support the individual proposer from the locale of the area. But
24 remember, we were dealing with a 78-member council, we were dealing with people
25 from the far side of the mountains back to Balbriggan, if somebody asked me
26 what was there and there may well have been colleagues who would have liked to
27 have seen what Mr. Mahony had in mind.
28 Q 546To how many of your fellow councillors did you make oral representations?
29 A How many would I have spoken to?
30 Q 547Yes?

94
1 A I would have done my best to speak to most of them. There was 24 of us at the
2 time, Mr. Redmond, I think it was 24.
3 Q 548Would you be in a position to make a list of those 24?
4 A I would have spoken, as I say, I would have done my best to speak to the 24.
5 Q 549What do you mean by the 24?
6 A If I am right, there was 24 Fianna Fail councillors at the time. I may be
7 wrong in that.
8 Q 550So you spoke only to the Fianna Fail councillors?
9 A In the context of this one, yes. It had the support, as you are aware, of my
10 colleague and it also had the support of then Councillor Deputy Owen.
11 Q 551It was, for want of a better phrase, it was submitted on your behalf by your
12 solicitor, that the filing of a motion was a very simple thing requiring a
13 single signature, do you agree with that?
14 A I do.
15 Q 552For the sake of your 30-year-old relationship and the friendship between the
16 Wright and Mahony family, why couldn't you simply have lodged the motion on
17 time?
18 A It may well have been, as I gave in evidence to Miss Dillon, that when
19 Mr. Dunlop was brought in for his professional advice and his professional
20 expertise, that it may have fallen between two stools that in relation to at
21 that time, I understood Mr. Dunlop would do it and when it came to the time
22 itself, I may well have said because of the commitments in business that I was
23 doing, because I didn't see that it would be a great hindrance to a person that
24 was brought in professionally to put together that motion, knowing Mr. Redmond,
25 that I was an absolute signature to the motion so all it meant was a map being
26 produced, six to seven sentences of copy and that would have lodged, that was
27 what was asked to be lodged.
28 Q 553But that's what continues to puzzle me, Deputy Wright. You had the map, you
29 had the brochure, you knew what was involved, why didn't you simply do it? Why
30 is it that you ended up putting some distance between you and the motion as

95
1 filed?
2 A I didn't put any distance. I signed the motion. And had given a commitment
3 from early '91 or early '90 that would be the signature of Mr. Mahony's motion
4 and I never deviated from that in any shape or form.
5 Q 554That brings me to another issue, Deputy Wright. You decide in 1991 you were
6 going to support this development. Now Mr. Hogan addressed with you a number
7 of issues in relation to your quasi judicial function in relation to the issue
8 of rezoning --
9
10 CHAIRMAN: Well --
11
12 MR. HOGAN: I never used that term.
13
14 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hogan doesn't like that term.
15
16 MR. HOGAN: I never used it.
17
18 MR. REDMOND: Nonetheless, Deputy Wright.
19
20 MR. HOGAN: It's not my own personal predilection, I am submitting it's
21 legally unsound.
22
23 Q 555MR. REDMOND: Nonetheless, Deputy Wright, when it came to making this
24 decision on the Development Plan, this decision on the Development Plan, it's a
25 very serious thing to do, isn't it, it's one of the most important reserved
26 functions that you have?
27 A Very much so, especially when you know within a year you will be standing in
28 front of the people that will either be electing you or will not.
29 Q 556Upon what should that decision be based?
30 A Sound planning grounds, a belief that what was being proposed was in the

96
1 interests of the area.
2 Q 557That's it? Do you want to add anything to that?
3 A You are asking me on what criteria would you use.
4 Q 558Correct?
5 A Absolutely, I go back again to say to you that I fundamentally believed what
6 was proposed for the area was wrong and I took that position consistently in
7 voting for all the files in the area, both immediate and to the left and right
8 of it.
9 Q 559Can I take it, Deputy Wright, that your evidence before this Tribunal today in
10 exercising this extraordinarily important function, it is based upon good
11 planning and what is right for the area?
12 A And plus, obviously, in the context of friendship, of course that comes into
13 play. I would be less than honest in that, Mr. Redmond.
14 Q 560Right, because that's the two other items you raised on the previous day giving
15 evidence. You said that you had basically made your decision on the grounds of
16 friendship and on the grounds that you had given your word. And are you
17 seriously contending that they are appropriate basis, as a public
18 representative, upon which to reach such a decision?
19 A I have answered you directly today in what I have just said to you. Sorry I
20 answered you today, Mr. Redmond, if you remember that good planning grounds was
21 the main thrust of where I come from.
22 Q 561That's the main thrust, is there anything else on which your decision is based?
23 A I just answered you, of course I take into consideration people that I knew and
24 advised them and so forth, yes.
25 Q 562Mr. Mahony gave evidence that he was of the understanding that this particular
26 matter was too much for you to handle, do you have any observations to make in
27 relation to that?
28 A That's his evidence.
29 Q 563Do you disagree with it?
30 A I just say to you, as I said to you before, at that particular time, I had just

97
1 been reappointed, appointed Senator and also reappointed as leader of the
2 Fianna Fail group and leader of the Senate itself and I may well have been at
3 the time, that I was concerned that I may well have been too busy at the time
4 to do it but I had a view that Mr. Dunlop was now part of the process,
5 Mr. Dunlop was professionally employed now by Mr. Mahony to promote this file
6 and I would have thought that that process of producing the map and the motion
7 would be dealt with knowing that I would sign it forthwith.
8 Q 564Moving on now to the issue of the 3,000 pounds, Mr. Dunlop has given evidence
9 that he gave you either 2,500 or 3,000 pounds in cash in the course of the 1993
10 Senate elections and you have said finally as of October of this year,
11 absolutely no, it was October. That ties in with a lodgment to a building
12 society account of the 7th October.
13 A Mr. Dunlop has alleged that I took an improbable payment in relation to this
14 file, which I absolutely emphatically deny.
15 Q 565Deputy Wright, can we just stick to the question that was asked. We are now
16 talking about the 3,000 pounds which is separate from the 2,000 pounds that was
17 paid to secure your support as per Mr. Dunlop's evidence so let's -- we'll deal
18 with all of the payments in due sequence -- right now I want to deal with the
19 3,000 pounds. It would appear that the primary difference between you and
20 Mr. Dunlop is that Mr. Dunlop will say that, or has said that this money was
21 paid in the course of the 1993 Senate election and you are saying that it was
22 paid in early October 1993.
23 A Unfortunately, Mr. Redmond, for me, Mr. Dunlop is saying that I took an
24 improper payment in relation to this file. Which I emphatically deny.
25 Q 566That's the 2,000 payment I promise you we will come to in a moment, I am
26 dealing with the 3,000 pounds you say was paid in October and Mr. Dunlop says
27 was paid in the course of the 1993 Senate election so can we stick with that
28 payment for a moment, is that OK?
29 A Yes.
30 Q 567Stick with that for a moment. That 3,000 pounds, it took you until October of

98
1 this year to conclude that a lodgment to a building society account in the sum
2 of 3,000 pounds was one and the same payment. Can you confirm one thing: Was
3 Mr. Dunlop the only person to make a political contribution or donation to you
4 in the calendar year 1993?
5 A I can't answer that. Just say that again, you are asking me --
6 Q 568Was Mr. Dunlop the only person who made a political contribution to you in
7 1993?
8 A No, sorry.
9 Q 569There were others?
10 A Yes, indeed.
11 Q 570How many others?
12 A I don't actually --
13 Q 571Do you know how many?
14 A I don't.
15 Q 572So there would have been, presumably, some of these people, unnumbered, given
16 you unknown amounts and some of them would have been in cash.
17 A That's possible, especially with the Senate election at that time.
18 Q 573Yes, and you have further confirmed that at that time, it was more common for
19 political donations to be in cash than by way of cheque?
20 A It was 'Even Steven', yes.
21 Q 574So what makes you so adamant that the 3,000 pounds lodged to the building
22 society account in October 1993 came from Mr. Dunlop when it could be from an
23 unknown person as part of an unknown amount sometime in 1993?
24 A It's my recollection that the payment took place where I suggested it took
25 place and at that time in September/October.
26 Q 575You also gave evidence -- well, you made a statement to the Tribunal that you
27 regarded betting as your hobby and you went on to describe it generating an
28 income of close to 10,000 pounds presumably per year; in a satisfactory year,
29 it generated an income of close to 10,000 pounds?
30 A It wouldn't be per year, far from it.

99
1 Q 576And you said "but in others years I would be lucky to break even". How did
2 you do in 1993?
3 A I couldn't tell you.
4 Q 577How did you do in 1992?
5 A I couldn't tell you.
6 Q 578How did you do in 1991?
7 A I couldn't tell you.
8 Q 579Any one of those years could be a ten grand year, couldn't it, on the basis of
9 your absence of recollection so you could have had a significant amount of cash
10 literally washing about the place, that three grand could have been from a
11 horse race, could it not, on the basis of your strength of recollection?
12 A No.
13 Q 580Why?
14 A Because I don't lodge that sort of situation, it's normally a cash situation,
15 if I was having a bet or going to a race meeting.
16 Q 581You draw a distinction between gambling winnings and political contributions,
17 that political contributions should be lodged but gambling winnings should not?
18 A It all depends what way I operate, I have changed the way I operate at the
19 moment.
20 Q 582Could you enlighten us, does everything get lodged now?
21 A No.
22 Q 583I have to put it to you, Deputy Wright, this the year 1993, you have a number
23 of absences of recollection in relation to finance such that it is hard to be
24 certain of the level of credibility that can be attached to your contention
25 that that 3,000 pounds was paid in October and not in the course of the Senate
26 election?
27 A I have answered every question here this morning to the best of my ability in
28 relation to lodgments or otherwise.
29 Q 584Mr. Dunlop would not have been particularly happy with you when you voted
30 against Baldoyle, would he?

100
1 A He probably wouldn't have been.
2 Q 585Do you remember whether he was pleased with you or not?
3 A Initially, no, but it moved on from there. I have never had any major
4 discussion after that, the initial reaction obviously would have been of
5 disappointment but thereafter in relation to Mr. Dunlop, I would regard as a
6 normal relationship.
7 Q 586And presumably it recovered to such an extent that you are happy to tell the
8 Tribunal that after voting against Baldoyle, he was still going to give you
9 3,000 pounds in cash towards defraying of expenses?
10 A Correct.
11 Q 587And there's no election in sight at that time?
12 A Mr. Dunlop was well aware of the constituency office and the way I operated in
13 my area, and would have referenced to it many times.
14 Q 588Mr. Dunlop has said that he was well aware of the cost of elections which is
15 why he gave 5,000 pounds in November of 1993, why he says he gave you between
16 two and a half and three for a Senate election, he is quite happy to confirm he
17 gave you money during election campaigns.
18 A Yes.
19 Q 589What he refuses to accept out of the blue, out of the goodness of his own
20 heart, would give you 3,000 pounds in October 1993 towards constituency
21 expenses.
22 A The phrase he used was both defray Senate expenses and constituency office.
23 We wouldn't have seen each other in the month of August.
24 Q 590That's another thing I want to come to. Again you have a poorest recollection
25 in relation to events in 1993, but you have a clear and distinct recollection,
26 as you were handed in the context of an election 3,000 pounds in an envelope by
27 Mr. Dunlop, he says this is towards your electoral and constituency expenses.
28 A He used the word 'Senate election'.
29 Q 591Senate election and constituency expenses, and you remember that?
30 A I remember that.

101
1 Q 592What colour jacket was he wearing?
2 A I couldn't tell you.
3 Q 593It's interesting you have a recollection of something which is very convenient
4 in relation to the allegation you make about the 3,000 pounds?
5 A I can only give the facts as I know them.
6 Q 594It appears that you acknowledge receipt of 10,000 pounds from Mr. Dunlop and
7 Mr. Dunlop says that he gave you 12 and a half effectively during the same
8 period, so you are only two and a half apart. Due to your failure to keep
9 records, due to your failure to identify or inability to identify people who
10 made donations to you in 1993, is it possible there's another 2,500 out there
11 Mr. Dunlop made to you by way of a donation for one reason or another you
12 simply don't remember?
13 A Absolutely not.
14 Q 595What makes donations from Mr. Dunlop stand out above all others?
15 A Because we are here today to answer on that basis.
16 Q 596So if somebody else was giving evidence, you might have a different
17 recollection of 1993?
18 A Indeed not, indeed not. I answered to the best of my ability all the questions
19 this morning to relation to the module.
20 Q 597In relation to the actual motions themselves, I may have misunderstood you, was
21 I correct in understanding that you actually put forward the motion for
22 Mrs. Coote?
23 A Did I propose it?
24 Q 598Yes.
25 A I seconded it.
26 Q 599Did you sign the motion?
27 A I would have done that.
28 Q 600Is that one of your files?
29 A No, it's not.
30 Q 601You say there were two members of council who took it on. That was the phrase

102
1 you used.
2 A My local councillor colleague and I signed that motion.
3 Q 602You and a colleague took it on?
4 A In that context, yes.
5 Q 603Well, let's explore the context briefly, how did you take it on? This person
6 you describe as not knowing what was going on?
7 A Mr. Kennedy would have a map in relation to that and would have asked me to
8 sign the motion.
9 Q 604And did you lobby your fellow councillors?
10 A Once it was it, course I did.
11 Q 605Do you remember who they were?
12 A I would have asked most of them, as I would always do, anything that I propose
13 myself, the limited number of those I did propose. Of course I would have
14 asked my party to support it.
15 Q 606Was this a normal way of doing business, championing a particular development?
16 A No.
17 Q 607So Mrs. Coote's development was exceptional?
18 A Yes, and her circumstances, yes.
19 Q 608So was Mr. Mahony's development exceptional?
20 A No.
21 Q 609Conceptually can you help me understand the difference between what you did for
22 Mr. Mahony and what you did for --
23 A Because Mr. Mahony had the ability to employ a professional person that would
24 promote his file. Mrs. Coote certainly hadn't got those resources.
25 Q 610Was I right in hearing you when you gave evidence with a certain amount of
26 pride that she's now a millionaire several times over?
27 A By the latest plan on the County Manager, on the best professional planning
28 advice, yes, Miss Coote did.
29 Q 611In relation to these particular motions, was it normal practice for you to
30 lobby fellow councillors?

103
1 A If I signed them. If I signed the motion, yes.
2 Q 612And were you on occasion lobbied by other councillors?
3 A Of course I would.
4 Q 613And this would be across political lines?
5 A Absolutely, within our own party.
6 Q 614Absolutely, within our own party?
7 A Absolutely, within our own party there would be, if somebody proposed a motion,
8 yes, he or she would certainly ask for your support.
9 Q 615Speaking with dealings with fellow councillors, did you discuss this Tribunal
10 when it was set up with your fellow councillors?
11 A I would have discussions but not in the context of any evidence. But certainly
12 of course the media coverage on it, yes, I would have.
13 Q 616And did any of your fellow councillors discuss Mr. Dunlop or their dealings
14 with Mr. Dunlop with you?
15 A Not with my dealings, no.
16 Q 617In all of the discussions you had, Mr. Dunlop's name is curiously absent?
17 A In my evidence it never came up or what I would be giving in evidence. Of
18 course Mr. Dunlop's name came up.
19 Q 618Mr. Dunlop's name came up in the conversations you had with your fellow
20 councillors?
21 A Yes, in general terms.
22 Q 619And what was said generally about him, by you?
23 A I had very limited things to say. As I said earlier on in my evidence, the
24 only people that I have discussed my evidence with to the Tribunal is my legal
25 office and my close family friends, or close family I should say.
26 Q 620And at that time, what did you have to say about Mr. Dunlop?
27 A What time are we talking about now, Mr. Dunlop?
28 Q 621When you were discussing this Tribunal with your fellow councillors?
29 A I want to make sure that the best -- sorry, I thought you were talking about
30 discussing with my solicitor.

104
1 Q 622I would never ask about discussions with your solicitor.
2 A Sorry, I misunderstood you.
3 Q 623So when you had discussions with your fellow councillors about Mr. Dunlop, what
4 did you have to say?
5 A I had nothing to say in relation to my own evidence in relation to Mr. Dunlop.
6 In general terms the discussion took place.
7 Q 624Let's just deal with the general terms. Did you have anything to say about
8 Mr. Dunlop?
9 A No.
10 Q 625No. Was anything said to you which led you to have concerns about any dealings
11 you might have had with Mr. Dunlop?
12 A No, indeed not.
13 Q 626Was anything said to you by your fellow councillors that might have led you to
14 have concerns about donations you might have received from Mr. Dunlop and how
15 those donations might be perceived?
16 A Absolutely not.
17 Q 627Were you in the County Council chamber when Trevor Sargent had the famous
18 cheque-waving incident?
19 A Yes, I was.
20 Q 628And when your colleague, Senator Lydon, shall we say, attempted to take the
21 cheque from him, you were there for that?
22 A I was, yes.
23 Q 629When did that happen?
24 A I am not sure of the dates.
25 Q 630In the context of these particular votes, in this particular module?
26 A I am not sure, sorry, Mr. Redmond, I remember the incident all right.
27 Q 631And what did you make of that incident?
28 A The fact that he -- what way are you asking me that?
29 Q 632This incident happens where Trevor Sargent has a cheque and he is waving it and
30 he is saying "did anybody else get one of those?" and he is then accosted by

105
1 Senator Lydon who attempts to take the cheque from him, you observe all of
2 this, what was your reaction?
3 A I thought it was a political situation that Trevor was trying to bring to the
4 front.
5 Q 633What was he bringing to the front?
6 A That he had received 100 pound.
7 Q 634And you think that was it? You don't think that perhaps there was something
8 else to all of this?
9 A I think, my understanding is that following that, the Gardai had conversations
10 with Mr. Sargent from that.
11 Q 635Would it be fair to say, Deputy Wright, on the basis of the answers you have
12 given this Tribunal, that you have managed to sail through your political
13 career without ever once being touched by or made aware of corruption?
14 A I have answered the question earlier on, I was well aware of the Garda inquiry,
15 I was well aware of the media coverage but, in my own experience, in my own
16 experience which I can answer for, no, I had never experienced that.
17 Q 636You had no personal dealings which could possibly be described as corrupt.
18 Were you aware of or had you been made aware of dealings by any other
19 councillors?
20 A No, I had never been -- I had never had any dealings that would lead me to
21 answer that.
22 Q 637So, in fairness to Mr. Deputy Wright, what you are saying is at all material
23 times, you were completely unaware of any wrongdoing or corruption or bribery
24 at County Council level?
25 A Where you are dealing with planning, there's always rumours.
26 Q 638And did those rumours involve Mr. Dunlop?
27 A Media speculation, yes.
28 Q 639So you were aware that there were at least rumours attaching to Mr. Dunlop?
29 A But I can only speak for my dealings with Mr. Dunlop.
30 Q 640In relation to your dealings with Mr. Dunlop, the meeting you had with him, you

106
1 say that you met him after he was giving evidence in April 2000 and before the
2 beginning of the Fianna Fail inquiry in May.
3 A That's correct.
4 Q 641Are you aware what happened Mr. Dunlop in April 2000 when he was giving
5 evidence?
6 A Yes, I am.
7 Q 642What happened?
8 A My understanding is Mr. Dunlop changed his evidence.
9 Q 643You have no recollection of the fact that he collapsed, and I mean that in a
10 physical sense, sorry?
11 A I knew he was physically unwell I think before lunch or maybe after lunch.
12 Q 644Yes, and that as a result he was given a lengthy adjournment in relation to his
13 evidence and he took himself off for medical care etc. and it's during this
14 period that you say you had your meeting in the Merrion Hotel.
15 A Yes.
16 Q 645Were you aware of the fact that he wasn't well at the time?
17 A At that stage, no, I wasn't. I knew it had happened at the time of the
18 evidence itself. No, I wasn't. I had had no contact at that stage with him.
19 Q 646Because it would appear unusual that somebody who is unwell would go out of
20 their way to have a meeting in the Merrion Hotel when they could easily have
21 had it at another time.
22 A I can only say, Mr. Redmond, that I asked Mr. Dunlop to meet me and he did.
23 Q 647You were certain it was in that window in the Merrion Hotel?
24 A Yes, I am, in the Merrion Hotel.
25 Q 648How did you make contact with Mr. Dunlop to arrange that meeting?
26 A By phone.
27 Q 649Where?
28 A I would have rung his office, I understand.
29 Q 650He wasn't in his offices?
30 A Well I can only just tell you that's where I would have rung him.

107
1 Q 651Did you speak to him personally?
2 A Ah, yes.
3 Q 652Having phoned his office?
4 A Yes.
5 Q 653And that's your recollection of the organisation of that meeting?
6 A I haven't got a home number so --
7 Q 654Thank you, Mr. Wright.
8
9 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Kennedy, do you want to ask any questions?
10
11 MR. KENNEDY: I do, Chairman.
12
13 THE WITNESS WAS CROSS-EXAMINED AS FOLLOWS BY MR. KENNEDY:
14
15 Q 655Mr. Wright, I think the first contact you had with this Tribunal was a letter
16 received in March 1998 which was accompanied by a form of questionnaire, do you
17 remember that?
18 A I do, yes.
19 Q 656I think that was in the overall context of a number of items that were
20 detailed. I think it's probably common case and the Tribunal has a record that
21 you responded to that on the 21st April, just over a month after receipt of it,
22 you responded to it. Would you say you answered it to the best of your
23 ability?
24 A Yes.
25 Q 657The following year you were sent a letter yourself to your home address by the
26 Tribunal and the letter dated, I think, the 24th February which you would have
27 received yourself on the 25th or 26th February. That was giving you a certain
28 invitation. How did you deal with that letter, what did you do?
29 A Sorry?
30 Q 658You received a letter inviting you to attend the Tribunal?

108
1 A I went straight to yourself and suggested we should do as requested on the date
2 in question.
3 Q 659It was a date specified at the bottom of that letter and you present yourself
4 on that date within a matter of days?
5 A Yes, correct, I think about four day's notice, maybe longer. Quite short.
6 Q 660And you came quite voluntarily, unprepared, no notes, and we simply submitted
7 to interview by Mr. Hanratty, Miss Dillon and I think there was a Miss Coghlan
8 there as well, if I remember the name correctly, and that interview lasted for
9 about a minimum of two hours. It went on for the afternoon, that you can
10 recall?
11 A Yes.
12 Q 661During that interview, and I think it's been fairly accepted by Miss Dillon,
13 that you acknowledged that you had received payments from Mr. Dunlop?
14 A That's correct.
15 Q 662And Mr. O' Callaghan's name also came up during the course of that interview?
16 A Yes.
17 Q 663And you didn't deny that you got any payment from Mr. O' Callaghan? And in
18 fact it's obvious from a reading of the entire interview that you accepted that
19 in some shape or form, not directly from Mr. O' Callaghan personally, but
20 perhaps from somebody on his behalf or from one of his companies, you might
21 have received a payment. I think that was the context of how far you went at
22 that time in relation to the O'Callaghan situation. Would you agree with that?
23 A Yes, I do.
24 Q 664That was March of 1999, and that interview finished with you indicating that
25 you would make some inquiries about the planning situation and provide some
26 further information and you didn't do that in the short or even medium term?
27 A No.
28 Q 665The following February, the following year, you received a transcript of that
29 interview.
30 A Yes.

109
1 Q 666Do you recall that?
2 A Yes.
3 Q 667You got it personally, it wasn't sent to your solicitor. That was in, I think,
4 February of 2000?
5 A That's right.
6 Q 668And by the following May, because events evolved in a certain manner, you had
7 made, you had submitted to two interviews by Fianna Fail and you had delivered
8 a written statement to the Tribunal on the 31st May of the year 2000, is that
9 correct?
10 A Yes.
11 Q 669And while there may be cosmetic differences in what you were saying to both
12 Fianna Fail and the Tribunal, but it's undoubted that in both documents you
13 acknowledged in writing the full extent of all contributions that you had
14 received and you have not varied the information given in the Fianna Fail
15 inquiry or in the statement, the first statement you gave to the Tribunal in
16 any fashion; you acknowledged all of the payments that you received, isn't that
17 correct?
18 A That's correct, yes.
19 Q 670Now, the extent of the criticism that I understand has been levelled against
20 you is that you delayed in identifying particular sources of lodgments and you,
21 I think, have acknowledged that there was some delay on your part?
22 A I have, yes.
23 Q 671Could you tell the Tribunal your recollection of, as you recall it, and there
24 is correspondence to verify it, so that you can perhaps explain it yourself.
25 There was correspondence received from the Tribunal following your initial
26 statement seeking financial information?
27 A Yes.
28 Q 672Could you summarise, in your own words, what you were presented with by the
29 Tribunal? In terms of documentation seeking financial information.
30 A I think the best part of three to four major folders in relation to 20 years of

110
1 accounts. Which was just --
2 Q 673It was an enormous amount of detail?
3 A Yes.
4 Q 674And just to satisfy perhaps Mr. Redmond, he questioned you quite vigorously in
5 terms of you not disclosing at that time the full extent of the monies that you
6 had lodged into your ICS Building Society account. There was a figure lodged,
7 in fact, just for the record, Chairman, and it's obvious from the book itself,
8 the actual lodgment amounted to 20,050 pounds, not 20,550 pounds, so we have
9 saved 500 pounds there straightaway or explained it away. But you did in your
10 statement of the 31st May to the Tribunal and it's -- that's the first
11 statement that you gave -- in endeavouring to explain the make-up of the 20,050
12 you mentioned, if we can call it up, it's the statement where you made
13 reference to individual lodgments from a number of sources. Do you recall
14 that?
15 A I do, yes.
16 Q 675I'll just try identify the number of that statement and the appropriate date.
17 It's the first statement of the 31st May, the last page. 1422, I believe.
18 Well I can understand why Mr. Redmond couldn't, I apologise to Mr. Redmond,
19 it's actually blanked out, but you did identify and I am sure somebody has seen
20 it, within the Tribunal environs, but you did identify and put names on where
21 you thought a fair amount of the rest of the money came from. It doesn't
22 relate to this module, so I apologise again to Mr. Redmond, it's not actually
23 what he will be seeing but it's in the actual original statement. In that
24 statement at paragraph 3 on that page you are looking at, you also made
25 reference to the Irish Permanent account of which some play has been made
26 because it's another account into which you lodged political donations, but you
27 did declare that openly at the time as existing, isn't that so?
28 A Correct.
29 Q 676You also, in the course of the Tribunal asking you for your cooperation, not
30 always promptly, but you did return all authority letters that were required to

111
1 allow the Tribunal to access your bank and your financial records.
2 A Yes.
3 Q 677Isn't that so?
4 A Yes, absolutely.
5 Q 678But you accept that there was some delay in your returning those letters?
6 A Yes.
7 Q 679Now, Miss Dillon in her cross-examination understandably criticised you for
8 your delay in explaining sources of lodgments that eventually came to be
9 slimmed down, shall we say, in October of this year and you I think
10 acknowledged that there was delay on your part?
11 A Yes, I have.
12 Q 680But do you agree that initially the request for the sources of that, of those
13 lodgments, were part of the original documentation that you got that was
14 voluminous?
15 A Yes, indeed.
16 Q 681That you have gone through that at the time you got it, would you have been
17 interested in looking at or were you overcome with the volume of paperwork you
18 were presented with?
19 A Basically overcome.
20 Q 682And you didn't do anything about it in the short or medium term?
21 A No, I had just had four elections in the year, a by-election in 1998, it's
22 em --
23 Q 683Now, if I could, there was certain correspondence passing between the Tribunal
24 and yourself during 2001 and if I could ask for page 1458 to be called up, it's
25 a letter from the Tribunal to ourselves. Now in that, Susan Gilvarry, the
26 solicitor for the Tribunal, is referring again to unexplained lodgments, what I
27 want to point out, Chairman, is in the brief that I have received at page 1459,
28 if that were called up, is a single page of what, in fact, and I suppose the
29 one that's been given most attention is the figure of 3,000 pounds that appears
30 there on the second line dated 7th October 1993, but I have to point out to the

112
1 Tribunal, and I do so fairly strongly without endeavouring to upset anybody,
2 that the letter, the original letter of the 18th October was not, the enclosure
3 was not that single page, the enclosure was rather this document, Chairman,
4 (Counsel indicates lever arch file) which had ten sections in it and was asking
5 Mr. Wright, there was a summary page at the front and it was asking Mr. Wright
6 to again try to deal with unidentified lodgments totalling a seven-figure sum.
7 So there's an impression given in the brief that the only enclosure with the
8 letter of the 18th October is that single page. That is not the case and I
9 wonder if --
10
11 MS. DILLON: In the interests of clarity, it's agreed that the document that
12 was sent to Mr. Kennedy on the 18th October was a document numbering several
13 pages. I have put it to this witness on at least six occasions that he
14 received lead schedules of unidentified lodgments on the 18th October and the
15 relevant one that's relevant to this inquiry is the one that was put on screen.
16 But I had asked him and, in fact as late as this morning, asked him when he was
17 going to deal with the balance of that list which remains unexplained. So
18 there was never any hidden inference that it was a solitary page and I do, in
19 fairness to myself, object to Mr. Kennedy suggesting that I ever put that.
20
21 MR. KENNEDY: Well, I don't mean any disrespect to Miss Dillon, I found her
22 most helpful and anybody else we had to deal with in the Tribunal. I think
23 anybody reading the brief, unless it's absolutely nailed down, just might get
24 the impression, irrespective of what's being said in evidence, because not
25 everybody concentrates.
26
27 CHAIRMAN: I think we were aware there were certainly additional pages so but
28 anyway, we note what you --
29
30 Q 684MR. KENNEDY: The reason I raise that is that following the receipt of that,

113
1 there was an exchange of correspondence which Miss Dillon has brought to the
2 Tribunal's attention yesterday, I won't go into it in detail but I think would
3 you agree that that correspondence achieved a situation where the vast bulk of
4 those unexplained lodgments received in October 2001 were satisfactorily
5 explained and that the bulk of it related to the account we have heard of
6 earlier, the account relating to the property partnership that you are involved
7 with with a number of individuals, a legitimate endeavour and the bulk of those
8 lodgments related to that endeavour, is that the case?
9 A That's correct.
10 Q 685Yes. This line of questioning, Chairman, is to explain the alleged delay which
11 we accept up to a point, but we think it's an understandable delay in the
12 context of the vast amount of documentation that have been received.
13 Eventually, Mr. Wright, in early October after, I think, a hearing date for the
14 commencement of public hearings for this session was announced, you got a
15 further questionnaire or list of unexplained lodgments to deal with and they
16 total, I think, 13, possibly 15. How did you deal with those?
17 A Hopefully as promptly as possible, I think they were dealt with within three
18 days.
19 Q 686Yes. We have heard about those?
20 A Yes.
21 Q 687And just deal again with how you explained the 3,000 pounds lodgment on the 7th
22 October?
23 A Basically, I absolutely, confirming that that payment was made to me late
24 September, early October.
25 Q 688So there was a date association presumably in your mind.
26 A Yes.
27 Q 689And I have indicated to Miss Dillon earlier, Chairman, that one of the other
28 smaller lodgments, the 500 pounds that ended up in the National Irish Bank
29 credit card, there is a documentary explanation available for that and I am
30 going to send that to her in correspondence. So, in effect, you have explained

114
1 all of her queries. I think there's a slight question mark over a thousand
2 pounds that was part of a withdrawal you made from Bank of Ireland and that you
3 say ended up in your National Irish Bank credit card account.
4 A Yes.
5 Q 690And the National Irish Bank has a branch in Malahide which is immediately
6 across the street from the Bank of Ireland, isn't that correct?
7 A That's correct. I may not necessarily have lodged directly, it may have been a
8 day or two later.
9 Q 691And I think the actual procedure to do with all of the other transactions from
10 the Building Society account into your joint personal account or indeed
11 elsewhere were all conducted in the Bank of Ireland branch at Main Street in
12 Malahide?
13 A Yes, that's correct.
14 Q 692Just briefly, the Merrion Hotel meeting which has resurrected itself a number
15 of times, your evidence I believe is that you are in no doubt that that meeting
16 took place after Mr. Dunlop's evidence here?
17 A Yes.
18 Q 693In April or May?
19 A Yes.
20 Q 694And you have given your explanation as to why you met?
21 A Yes.
22 Q 695Mr. Wright, you have been involved in politics for a long time?
23 A Yes, 20 years, yes. On a full-time basis, 20 years.
24 Q 696And as well as receiving political donations during that period of time, you
25 have also been involved in a number of other endeavours, I think you were chair
26 of what was known then as the Malahide Festival for a continuing period of five
27 years?
28 A Yes, that's correct.
29 Q 697And that was in the late 1980s, I believe, from, say, mid '80s to about 1990,
30 you chaired.

115
1 A Yes, the early '80s.
2 Q 698And what was that all about?
3 A It was basically, a community-based festival relating to school building
4 programmes.
5 Q 699I believe you raised substantial sums of money?
6 A I would have been involved, yes, with a lot of other people. Yes.
7 Q 700Coincidentally or otherwise you ran a golf classic for the benefit of Fianna
8 Fail in September 1993?
9 A Yes.
10 Q 701This year that's been given a lot of attention and that's well documented in a
11 specific account in National Irish Bank and that raised a total of about 13,000
12 pounds?
13 A That's correct.
14 Q 702And you submitted 10,000 pounds of that to Fianna Fail?
15 A To headquarters, yes.
16 Q 703By mere coincidence, I point out is the same amount of the most substantial
17 donation you ever got in your career, the two individual sums of five a year
18 previously.
19 A Yes.
20 Q 704Isn't that right?
21 A Yes, that's correct.
22 Q 705And the balance was divided between two local Vincent de Paul societies.
23 A That's correct.
24 Q 706In the context of the Baldoyle project that Mr. Dunlop, which you freely
25 acknowledged, had an involvement in, I think he arranged a meeting for you to
26 go to, I think, Davys on the 25th or 26th March of 1993?
27 A I do remember that.
28 Q 707What was your expectation about that meeting?
29 A Basically I understood, Mr. Chairman, that I was going to a briefing at Davys,
30 that where other individual councillors would be there to discuss Mr. Dunlop's

116
1 proposals in relation to the proposed development at Baldoyle but as it
2 happened I was to be the only individual councillor at that particular meeting
3 with various senior executives of Davys at the time with Mr. Dunlop and the
4 meeting just took on board the whole proposals that were there at the time. It
5 afforded me an opportunity for me to give my views on the lands in question and
6 what type of expectation or guarantee or otherwise that would only lead to
7 support in the area for those lands, well aware of the fact that two and a half
8 thousand objections were there in relation to those lands at the time. I
9 outlined the difficulties that would be in it but, at the same time, that if
10 various contractual arrangements were made in relation to the community with
11 the various community organisations and sporting clubs, the absolute commitment
12 of a green belt barrier between Baldoyle and Portmarnock and Portmarnock and
13 Baldoyle, that that type of proposal would have some merit.
14 Q 708But that wasn't forthcoming?
15 A No.
16 Q 709Just on the date itself of that meeting, that is one of the two dates that
17 Mr. Dunlop has suggested, he has given an either/or situation, but that's one
18 of the two dates in which he alleged he made this corrupt payment, the day
19 after you made your withdrawal from your own account in Malahide, but there was
20 a specific reason for you meeting Mr. Dunlop, it was in Davys meeting context?
21 A Yes.
22 Q 710You have been described as sloppy in your financial dealings, Mr. Wright, who
23 of us are perfect, would you agree?
24 A Yes, I certainly would agree in my own position.
25 Q 711You were not an expert on CAT?
26 A No, I am not.
27 Q 712I think in your, just to remind the Tribunal, in your general evidence where
28 specifically you said that at the time of what we are here discussing, do you
29 remember there was no regulation, there was no formal procedures, there was no
30 legislation as to how politicians or councillors would behave in terms of how

117
1 they might, in what circumstances they should or shouldn't accept political
2 donations, isn't that right?
3 A There was no regulations, it was informal how it was dealt with, what support
4 you got, whether it was in relation to funding or other means of help.
5 Q 713But unlike perhaps others, Mr. Wright, you in fact had what we might call a
6 quasi political donations account into which you actually lodged your political
7 donations?
8 A Yes.
9 Q 714Isn't that right?
10 A Yes, I did.
11 Q 715And you never made any attempt to conceal those accounts?
12 A No, not to the Tribunal, no.
13 Q 716Do you have an overseas account, Mr. Wright?
14 A No, I do not.
15 Q 717Could you comment briefly on this continuing dilemma about the level of
16 objection that was confronting the Mahony motion when it came before the
17 chamber in September in 1993?
18 A I can only give what I have already stated on several occasions to the Chair,
19 that it is my absolute belief that the level of objections that are in the
20 minute in no way, in my view, related to the feelings on the ground in relation
21 to the Mahony lands. And I say that on the basis of being full-time in the
22 area, full-time officer of the area itself. I strongly believe that it related
23 to the bigger project of the development of the Baldoyle Racecourse.
24 Q 718Mr. Wright, I have one final question for you, why do you believe or have you a
25 view as to why Mr. Dunlop made the allegation that he has made that you have
26 vehemently denied? Which is the allegation he paid you a sum of 2,000 pounds
27 in respect of the Mahony motion and he went so far as to say in his evidence
28 you asked for that and had you asked for 8,000 pounds, he would have paid it to
29 you.
30 A Just let me repeat again what I said at the initial stages of my evidence, is

118
1 that I never ever ever asked for an improper payment of Mr. Dunlop or anybody
2 else in my 20 years of public life. I repeat again, I never sold my vote to
3 anybody or any project. I can only speculate in relation to why Mr. Dunlop may
4 be saying what he is saying at the moment is that maybe to boost his own
5 credibility that he has to do damage to other people.
6 Q 719Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Wright.
7
8 MS. DILLON: I have a number of questions arising out of that just to --
9
10 CHAIRMAN: All right.
11
12 THE WITNESS WAS RE-EXAMINED AS FOLLOWS BY MISS DILLON:
13
14 MS. DILLON: Just arising out of that, I don't know if the stenographer needs
15 to be changed, if the stenographer requires a break or not. I won't be very
16 long.
17
18 CHAIRMAN: That's fine.
19
20 Q 720It's the position, Mr. Wright, that Mr. Dunlop always paid you in cash?
21 A That's correct.
22 Q 721It's the position that you never refused any of the money that Mr. Dunlop paid
23 you?
24 A I always took it on the basis of what it was, yes.
25 Q 722OK. It is also the position that with the exception of the 14 queries you
26 answered in October, there are still outstanding to the Tribunal the queries
27 that were attached to the letter of the 18th October 2001, isn't that correct?
28 A I would have given a commitment to deal with that.
29 Q 723And that of the three or four folders that you received over two years ago,
30 other than the 14 queries you dealt with in October of this year, you have not

119
1 furnished any of the information sought?
2 A That's correct.
3
4 MR. KENNEDY: Chairman, that's not true. I mean, Mr. Wright explained away
5 the vast bulk of the unidentified lodgments that were revealed in those four
6 arch lever folders and that was done in agreed correspondence between the
7 Tribunal and myself. So that's a very inaccurate point to put to the witness.
8
9 CHAIRMAN: What percentage of the queries were dealt with?
10
11 MS. DILLON: I can open the letter, I have already opened it to you in which I
12 think at one stage in relation to one bank account, out of 170 queries, I think
13 two have been answered. But the correspondence and Mr. Kennedy's familiar with
14 the correspondence, some of the queries but in certainly a minority, there is
15 now a suggestion that certain transactions on the JPT account can be dealt with
16 or explained and that may very well be the case.
17
18 MR. KENNEDY: That's very clear from the correspondence that was dealt with
19 and it's wrong to suggest that there was a major number of queries outstanding.
20 There are not. There's certainly nothing outstanding to do with Mahony and
21 there's very little outstanding to do with anything else.
22
23 MS. DILLON: I'll confine it to Mahony, Sir, in ease of, in relation to that.
24 It is the position, Mr. Wright, that in October of this year, you received 14
25 financial queries that relate to this module which you dealt with in three
26 days, isn't that correct?
27 A Yes.
28 Q 724They had not been dealt with prior to that time?
29 A That's right.
30 Q 725The queries have been outstanding since, at the latest, the 18th October 2001?

120
1 A That's right.
2 Q 726Can I also ask you to confirm the position that in relation to all of the
3 monies that were paid to you by Mr. Frank Dunlop, you kept no note, record or
4 document in writing in connection with those payments at any stage?
5 A No.
6 Q 727Right. Can I ask you, did you ever discuss with any other councillor whether
7 they had been in receipt of any other money from Frank Dunlop?
8 A No.
9 Q 728Did you ever discuss with any other person other than Mr. Dunlop that
10 Mr. Dunlop was a cash supporter of yours?
11 A No.
12 Q 729Why not?
13 A Say that again.
14 Q 730Did you ever discuss with any other person other than Mr. Dunlop that Mr. Frank
15 Dunlop was a cash supporter of yours?
16 A I would have no reason to discuss that with him.
17 Q 731So is it the position then that outside of this Tribunal, Mr. Wright, the only
18 other person that you ever discussed receiving cash from Mr. Dunlop was with
19 Mr. Dunlop?
20 A No, the Fianna Fail Tribunal.
21 Q 732And the Fianna Fail Tribunal. But let's say pre-2000, the only people who
22 knew prior to 2000 or prior to the setting up of this Tribunal in 1997, Mr.
23 Wright, is it correct to state that the only people who knew you had received
24 significant sums of money from Frank Dunlop in cash were yourself and Mr. Frank
25 Dunlop?
26 A I would suggest that's right, yes.
27 Q 733And why was that, Mr. Wright?
28 A Well, my family would know that --
29 Q 734Who in your family knew that Mr. Dunlop paid you cash?
30 A Those that are involved with me in the election.

121
1 Q 735Who knew?
2 A That I got a cash payment?
3 Q 736That you got cash payments from Frank Dunlop.
4 A In the context of the three payments that we are talking about.
5 Q 737Without going into what the payments were for, Mr. Wright, who knew prior to
6 1997 that you got cash payments from Frank Dunlop?
7 A I don't want to name a member of the family.
8 Q 738Why not?
9 A I just don't want to, I'd prefer not to.
10 Q 739Why not, Mr. Wright?
11 A Well I can, my brother would have known.
12 Q 740That Mr. Dunlop paid you cash?
13 A Yes.
14 Q 741Who else?
15 A I don't know, whether my wife would know.
16 Q 742Do the people who worked in your constituency office at election times know?
17 A Some of them may have, yes.
18 Q 743Who knew?
19 A I don't know.
20 Q 744Who did you tell?
21 A I didn't discuss that, Miss Dillon, with people.
22 Q 745Why not?
23 A I just didn't.
24 Q 746All right. Did you have any mechanism, Mr. Wright, of recording cash, the
25 receipt of cash payments?
26 A No.
27 Q 747From anybody?
28 A No.
29 Q 748Is your only mechanism of recording political donations made by way of cheque
30 lodgments in your bank accounts?

122
1 A At this stage, but in the early 1990s, I have may have cashed cheques at that
2 stage. It was very irregular and very unregulated.
3 Q 749Something Mr. Kennedy asked you, can you just confirm you did in fact have a
4 meeting with Mr. Dunlop on the 25th March and a second meeting on the 26th?
5 A The Davys' meeting.
6 Q 750Prior to that on the 25th?
7 A I know I had the Davys' meeting, what date it is, I am relying on you.
8 Q 751If Mr. Dunlop's diary records a meeting with you on the 25th March, do you
9 dispute it took place?
10 A I can't, I have no recollection.
11 Q 752Do you dispute it?
12 A I have no recollection of having the meeting with him but I know I had a
13 meeting in Davys with him.
14 Q 753Well, if you accept the diary entry in relation to Davys --
15 A I am not -- I know I had a meeting in Davys with Mr. Dunlop and other members.
16 I can't remember if I had a meeting the day before.
17 Q 754And similarly the entry in relation to the 19th April, there's an entry in
18 there, Mr. Dunlop's diary, do you dispute it?
19 A I can't dispute the entry, I can't say what the entry is for.
20 Q 755Can you just confirm again in case there's any lack of clarity about it that,
21 it was in October of this year that you confirmed for the first time that you
22 had received 3,000 pounds from Mr. Frank Dunlop in October of 1993?
23 A Yes, to the Tribunal itself.
24 Q 756And that it was in October of this year you confirmed for the first time that
25 that payment took place outside the offices of Dublin County Council?
26 A I would have told the Fianna Fail Tribunal.
27 Q 757That it was the first time that you confirmed to the Tribunal that funds were
28 lodge to the ICS Building Society?
29 A Yes.
30 Q 758And that it was an unexpected payment?

123
1 A Yes.
2 Q 759That you had made no arrangements in relation to it?
3 A No, we would have known meetings were on, we were back meeting at that time in
4 September.
5 Q 760I was asking you to confirm that was the first occasion which you informed the
6 Tribunal of those four pieces of information?
7 A Yes.
8 Q 761And that notwithstanding your meeting in the Merrion Hotel with Mr. Dunlop,
9 whenever it may have happened, in your correspondence after that meeting with
10 Mr. Dunlop and before October of this year, you told the Tribunal you did not
11 know where or when that 3,000 pounds was --
12 A I can't understand why that's in correspondence, the basis you would have known
13 is from the evidence from the Fianna Fail Tribunal.
14 Q 762Do you confirm that what was told to the Tribunal on your behalf between those
15 two dates, you did not know when or where that 3,000 pounds was paid?
16 A Yes.
17 Q 763Thank you. Mr. Wright.
18
19 MR. KENNEDY: I think he did say when he got it, Chairman.
20
21 MS. DILLON: He said --
22
23 MR. KENNEDY: He said 1993.
24
25 MS. DILLON: He said he did not know when in 1993 he got paid or where he got
26 paid. I can open the letter.
27
28 CHAIRMAN: That's, I think, what he said.
29
30 MR. KENNEDY: There are references in statements that he made in the summer of

124
1 1993. So I think it's unfair, certainly he had flagged sometime during 1993 in
2 statements he provided to the Tribunal.
3
4 MS. DILLON: Just so that there's no ambiguity about it and I am not accused
5 of misleading the witness, it's a statement dated 6th February 2001 signed by
6 Thomas Wright, page 1444 please. And the statement is page 1442 and the
7 relevant paragraph is under subheading 1 and it's in relation to the 3,000
8 pounds and what was stated by Mr. Wright himself and signed by him on the 6th
9 February 2001, "The 3,000 pounds paid to me by Mr. Dunlop in 1993 was paid to
10 me in cash. At this time I cannot recall" -- which is the 6th February 2001
11 -- "I cannot recall the precise date of the payment nor can I say where I was
12 paid this money but I do know that it was paid as a political donation towards
13 my election campaign at that time." And at that time the election campaign was
14 February, closing date was the 1st February 1993 for polling in the Seanad
15 election. Just so that there's no -- it's clear.
16
17 CHAIRMAN: All right. Mr. Wright, I just want to raise one matter with you.
18 Insofar as your political history goes, Mr. Dunlop would have been, as I
19 understand it, outside of your immediate family, would have been possibly your
20 largest political contributor in terms of money.
21 A Yes.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: And in the early 1990s, 1993, up to 1993, looking back on it now,
24 looking in hindsight, would you see anything improper about accepting money, I
25 am talking about the money that you accept you got from him as by way of
26 political contribution, would you see anything inappropriate about taking money
27 from an individual whose only interest, as we understand it in you, other than
28 the fact that you both shared a similar political platform or rather similar
29 political interests, but that the only interest he had in you was or could only
30 have been in relation to your usefulness to him in supporting motions and so

125
1 on. Did you not see that as being the real reason why he was being generous
2 with you?
3 A Not at that time, Chairman.
4
5 CHAIRMAN: And looking back in hindsight, would you --
6 A Yes.
7
8 CHAIRMAN: Would you now accept --
9 A Yes.
10
11 CHAIRMAN: I am not pressing you to accept
12 A I am, I think legislation and other things have moved on in relation to
13 payments.
14
15 CHAIRMAN: That he had no other interest in you other than you shared the same
16 political ideas.
17 A Well I'd only say, Chair, if I can, that he certainly had an interest and
18 expressed it, that especially at the 1992 election that I would be elected.
19
20 CHAIRMAN: Did you see a connection between his generous support and the --
21 A Not in an improper way, Chairman.
22
23 CHAIRMAN: Leaving aside for the moment anything which might suggest that you
24 sat down and did a deal or that your vote was bought, but did you not see
25 anything at that time to connect what Mr. Dunlop was giving you and prepared to
26 give you and the extent of his generosity on the one hand and the fact that he
27 would expect you to support or seek your support in relation to particular
28 motions?
29 A It never came down to particular motions, but I am sure he had an expectation
30 but can I say through the Chair, my position as has been highlighted today, if

126
1 you look at my record, my position was one of absolute support for development,
2 for investment, you know, that's where I came from, that was my absolute public
3 position at the time that I did support development to the best of my ability
4 at the time and what was proper. So I was well flagged, Chair, as in where I
5 stood for in relation to promoting, supporting a development in the county.
6
7 CHAIRMAN: All right.
8
9 JUDGE FAHERTY: Deputy Wright, you were a friend of Mr. Mahony's for about 30
10 years?
11 A That's correct.
12
13 JUDGE FAHERTY: Just a general question. In relation to you were fairly
14 active, as opposed from just voting, and I have heard the reasons given that
15 you supported low density development of these lands at the time, you were
16 actively involved, as we have heard in the submission, and in promoting the
17 motion and in talking to the others?
18 A Yes.
19
20 JUDGE FAHERTY: Given that you were a friend of long standing, did you worry at
21 all about perception, in that you were promoting the zoning of Mr. Mahony's
22 lands?
23 A I can only answer that that I stood in the 1991 election where it was well
24 known that I was supporting that motion and I topped the poll in the locale. I
25 hear what you are saying, no, I didn't.
26
27 JUDGE FAHERTY: Well as I understand the election was in June of 1991, the
28 submission would not have gone in until December of 1991, isn't that correct?
29 A That's correct.
30

127
1 JUDGE FAHERTY: So in fact --
2 A But the '92 election came on straight after, in the height of the plan was
3 right in the 1992 election.
4
5 JUDGE FAHERTY: Could I just put it this way, perhaps if I asked a somewhat
6 hypothetical situation, if it had been your relation or first cousin that was
7 wanting the land rezoned, would you have become as actively involved in it,
8 Deputy Wright?
9 A No.
10
11 JUDGE FAHERTY: Why not?
12 A Well, there's a record there, there are guide lines in relation to family.
13 There's one file in Malahide I stepped back from, I did not vote on a family
14 file in my own area.
15
16 JUDGE FAHERTY: I understood there were occasions when councillors would not
17 vote because of some connection?
18 A Yes, and I stepped back from, there's one particular file right before that
19 meeting on the 27th. I didn't see it improper, not to use improper or the word
20 perception, the perception of that because I would like to think I judged at
21 both, and I tried to answer that today, judged at both on the planning criteria
22 and the obviously the friendship is in the background and I would be less than
23 honest if I said the friendship wasn't there, but I would like to think I
24 supported on the basis that I felt it was right for the area.
25
26 JUDGE FAHERTY: Back in 1991 when you had commissioned the submission on behalf
27 of Mr. Mahony from Mr. Edward Hogan, why didn't you simply refer Mr. Mahony to
28 Mr. Edward Hogan or indeed Mr. Edward Hogan to Mr. Mahony?
29 A The main reason I would have tried to explain, Mr. Hogan would have very little
30 experience and certainly wouldn't have known any councillors. The reason

128
1 Mr. Dunlop was brought in, on the basis of expertise in public relations,
2 expertise in local government, expertise in public service and an expertise of
3 a successful company. Mr. Hogan wouldn't have known anybody. I don't mean to
4 say that but when we go back to 1993, Mr. Hogan would have had no contact with
5 councillors at that stage.
6
7 JUDGE FAHERTY: I understand that was indeed Mr. Hogan's evidence but Mr.
8 Hogan, as I understand it, was commissioned on the basis of an expertise that
9 he put forward a submission.
10 A Yes.
11
12 JUDGE FAHERTY: He was advocating low density residential zoning or putting the
13 case for that and my question to you is we know that Mr. Mahony was not without
14 means in 1991, why didn't you tell Mr. Mahony simply to procure his own planner
15 or indeed refer Mr. Edward Hogan to him, in a professional context?
16 A I accept that, I think in evidence you will see in the transcript I actually
17 did say that there were discussions as to who should be brought in, architects
18 were talked about and Mr. Mahony knew other architects outside of Mr. Hogan so
19 that was discussed, I accept that. But it came down on the basis of that
20 Mr. Dunlop had the expertise.
21
22 JUDGE FAHERTY: Well that was two years down the line. I was talking of what
23 was happening in 1991 when the representations were going in.
24 A But, Judge, you must remember that lay dormant more yearly two years. The
25 file lay dormant until 1993.
26
27 JUDGE FAHERTY: Who prepared the brochure that was on Mr. Mahony's file?
28 A My best recollection, Mr. Sean McMullen.
29
30 JUDGE FAHERTY: That was the architect, is that correct?

129
1 A He was an architect in the area at that time.
2
3 JUDGE FAHERTY: At whose instigation?
4 A I thought Mr. Mahony. I think Mr. Mahony in cross-examination respected that
5 at the end of that. There was a brochure.
6
7 JUDGE FAHERTY: You were also acting, promoting the Coote lands for rezoning?
8 A Very much so.
9
10 JUDGE FAHERTY: Was that with Mr. Michael Kennedy?
11 A Yes.
12
13 JUDGE FAHERTY: Was there any brochure prepared for the Coote lands?
14 A I explained, Judge, Miss Coote had no resources, none whatsoever, she was a
15 widowed person, in tragic circumstances.
16
17 JUDGE FAHERTY: I understand that. In terms of the submission, were there
18 representations made in relation to her lands, was there a representation made?
19 A Did I look for support?
20
21 JUDGE FAHERTY: No, who made the representations?
22 A I think it was just a motion asking it be dealt with. The wording basically
23 outside of one or two issues, the same wording would be for every motion,
24 standard motion, bar A1 or industrial or otherwise.
25
26 JUDGE FAHERTY: Did you at that point think there ought to be some sort of
27 further promotion done of Miss Coote's lands, if you were pro-development in
28 the area?
29 A Well what I did, to the best of my ability, was to ensure that my party knew,
30 my support and obviously Michael Kennedy will answer for himself, but he would

130
1 have asked for the same type of support as well.
2
3 JUDGE FAHERTY: You said to Mr. Hogan, I think, in cross-examination that the
4 decision or you agreed with him it was a political judgment you exercised in
5 deciding whether or not to vote for zoning?
6 A Yes, oh very much so.
7
8 JUDGE FAHERTY: Mr. Dunlop has told us in earlier modules that there was a whip
9 system in operation in relation to votes in the council, do you agree or
10 disagree with that evidence?
11 A I absolutely disagree, there was not, but I can assure you that the party,
12 within our own party, everybody would be fully aware of who was supporting
13 something in their own locale area but nobody was whipped in and that reflects
14 the fact that you will see on several occasions, individuals, just for their
15 own reasons, could not be there.
16
17 JUDGE FAHERTY: But I understood your evidence, you personally, in relation to
18 these lands, spoke to 24 Fianna Fail councillors?
19 A Of course I would, yes, and I would have had months to do that. In other
20 words, I would have known when it was coming on the agenda and I certainly
21 would have used the opportunity to say to them that I fully support it and you
22 would be hoping your colleagues would follow suit. Certainly I didn't twist
23 anyone's arm.
24
25 JUDGE FAHERTY: Mr. Kennedy has told us in his evidence when he was asked to do
26 walk the lands with him, sometime prior to the vote he said he gave no
27 indication to Mr. Mahony about how he would vote ultimately, but you had no
28 compunction about letting Mr. Mahony's knowing your views?
29 A None whatsoever, it reflects back, Judge, if you remember, Mr. Kennedy signed
30 the amending motion as well.

1
131
2 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes. Just my final question, the money you got in November
3 1992, it's been raised here in terms of two large donations to what you say
4 was, I think, the general election campaign was on in 1992, do you
5 physically -- do you remember, Deputy Wright, in the terms of the 5,000 cash
6 you got from Mr. Dunlop, what you physically did with that cash?
7 A If I remember correctly, Judge, I put that into, not a safe, but a drawer there
8 at the time and I was going out canvassing. I went directly out canvassing
9 and did not open it.
10
11 JUDGE FAHERTY: You don't seem to recall what you did with that money
12 thereafter?
13 A I am not sure, genuinely not sure, it may have been held in some part or used
14 for various expenditures at the time. Or it could have been lodged in some
15 shape or form, but I haven't an absolute position on that.
16
17 JUDGE FAHERTY: Just my final question, when you went to sign the amending
18 motion on the 28th April, yes, to delete Mr. Noel Fox's lands, were you
19 friendly with Mr. Fox?
20 A I was, yes.
21
22 JUDGE FAHERTY: And did that friendship then colour your approach to whether or
23 not you would support that deleting motion?
24 A Not really. I had been informed by Mr. Mahony, if I am correct in saying, that
25 Mr. Fox had no further desire to be part of the motion.
26
27 JUDGE FAHERTY: Yes, but it was your, you have told us that you were promoting,
28 actively promoting the zoning of the lands on proper planning. You say in
29 light of the failure of the manager to move basically in relation to the
30 Development Plan.

132
1 A Yes.
2
3 JUDGE FAHERTY: Why then would you willy-nilly concede to somebody dropping
4 their, wanting their lands deleted from the motion if you felt so strongly
5 about it?
6 A The only answer I have to you there is that the only way anything was happening
7 was through the public representatives, through the council at the time and
8 when it became known to me that he did not want to be included, I just dealt
9 with him on that basis.
10
11 JUDGE FAHERTY: But why did that mean -- why did that inform you? That's what
12 I want to know. Why would you, if you believed that the area needed the
13 housing, simply cede to Mr. Fox's wishes?
14 A Probably on the basis of the first question you asked on a friendship basis
15 that I just --
16
17 JUDGE FAHERTY: So both in relation to Mr. Mahony and Mr. Fox, some of your
18 activities was based on your friendship with both?
19 A Some of it, yes. But in planning terms, I had a view as well.
20
21 JUDGE FAHERTY: Very well, thanks very much.
22
23 JUDGE KEYS: I have just one question, do you believe that if Mrs. Coote or
24 even the owner of the Bailey lands were in a position to engage Mr. Dunlop, in
25 all probability they would have been successful in their motion to rezone their
26 respective lands?
27 A I think it would be fair to say, Judge, that Mr. Dunlop was a very effective
28 business person, yes.
29
30 JUDGE KEYS: Do I take it 'yes' is the answer to that? Does that not lead to

133
1 the situation where there's a flaw in the system whereby you had at the time a
2 situation where you didn't engage a professional lobbyist, that the chance of
3 rezoning lands, your chances were, not that it couldn't be done, you would have
4 great difficulty in rezoning your respective lands?
5 A I wouldn't use the words 'great difficulty', but certainly there was no doubt
6 if you have somebody professional promoting something, it certainly did -- well
7 I think I would like to think that unfortunately for the two files that you
8 have mentioned, if time had been reversed so in some shape or form, I suspect
9 would have been passed, it was only beaten on a casting vote.
10
11 JUDGE KEYS: Isn't this wrong, you have a number where you have to engage a
12 professional lobbyist to try get your lands rezoned, there's something so wrong
13 with the system or something was wrong within the system --
14 A Yes, that was after four years at this stage. I mean the system -- the plan
15 had gone on for four years nearly at that stage.
16
17 JUDGE KEYS: I can understand that, were you as enthusiastic in pushing for
18 rezoning of the Coote lands and the Bailey lands as of the O'Mahony lands?
19 A Very much so.
20
21 JUDGE KEYS: And yet you weren't able to lobby enough councillors among
22 yourselves in the same party on the basis that you all felt that rezoning was
23 necessary to the area because you wanted people to trade up. You still were
24 not in a position to secure enough colleagues to vote in favour of the Coote
25 motion and the Bailey motion?
26 A Well unfortunately --
27
28 JUDGE KEYS: In order to have it carried?
29 A The file got passed in March of 1993, then it failed in September. So I was,
30 if you are asking me why wasn't I -- they were successfully passed at that

134
1 stage.
2
3 JUDGE KEYS: It's just because I mentioned earlier on the inconsistency of the
4 voting pattern where you have lands which are very suitable, I understand
5 because of the number of meetings and the availability of councillors and all
6 of that, it seemed extraordinary that you had a system where you had to really
7 go and get a professional lobbyist to ensure that there would be a good chance
8 of your lands being rezoned, isn't that so; that seems to be the situation?
9 A To a certain extent.
10
11 JUDGE KEYS: The position at the time. Thank you very much.
12
13 THE WITNESS WAS RE-CROSS-EXAMINED AS FOLLOWS BY MR. HOGAN:
14
15 Q 764MR. HOGAN: Just one question arising out of that, I, in respect of Mr. Fox,
16 he was the landowner and irrespective of how the lands were zoned, if he didn't
17 elect to develop the lands, there would be no planning permission.
18 A That's correct.
19 Q 765Isn't that also material?
20 A Yes.
21
22 MS. DILLON: That concludes the -- thank you, Mr. Wright.
23
24 THE WITNESS THEN WITHDREW.
25
26 CHAIRMAN: That concludes this module.
27
28 MS. DILLON: I understand that it's normal to set a date for submissions. I
29 would have thought that the submissions in this module would be net, I think
30 the issues that are now in dispute have resolved themselves possibly to three

135
1 or four, as I would see it, though my colleagues behind me may not agree with
2 me. And I understand there's normally a date set to give an indication as to
3 how long for the receipt of submissions if people wish to make submissions.
4
5 CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think in the previous modules we said, or at least the
6 Tribunal indicated that it would write to the parties when an appropriate time,
7 when it was appropriate to seek submissions.
8
9 MR. HOGAN: Mr. Chairman, just arising out of what Miss Dillon said, I think
10 it would be helpful if Miss Dillon would be indicate what she now considered to
11 be the three or four issues that arise.
12
13 MS. DILLON: I am not going to do Mr. Hogan's job for him. I am sure Mr. Hogan
14 will disagree with my views so he can deal with the matter himself.
15
16 CHAIRMAN: I think that is a matter to be dealt with as part of the
17 submissions.
18
19 MR. HOGAN: May it please you, Sir. There's just one --
20
21 MS. DILLON: I want to take an opportunity to thank all my colleagues for
22 their assistance in the course of the module, but we will write to everybody
23 and let them know when the submissions should be received by. We are resuming
24 tomorrow week with the next module.
25
26 CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Wright, and thank you to everybody.
27
28 MR. HOGAN: Mr. Chairman, before you rise, just one further matter, on behalf
29 of my colleagues, I am sure they will reciprocate to Miss Dillon for her
30 contribution. Just one submission, I would respectfully request that the

136
1 Tribunal would adjudicate on this module as quickly as is convenient to the
2 Tribunal. Now, I appreciate -- I understand perhaps an alternative ruling has
3 been given by the Tribunal but those are my instructions to make that request.
4
5 CHAIRMAN: Well we would share that anxiety and we will certainly do so as
6 quickly as possible, but we can't do so in the immediate future.
7
8 MR. HOGAN: I appreciate that and I am very much obliged.
9
10 THE TRIBUNAL THEN ADJOURNED UNTIL WEDNESDAY,
11 26TH NOVEMBER 2003.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30