The High Court has refused Liam Cosgrave’s application to stop a prosecution alleging that he received corrupt payments linked to rezoning land at Carrickmines. The court’s decision concerned whether the prosecution could proceed; it did not determine the five charges.
Cosgrave had earlier pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly making a false or misleading declaration about donations under the Electoral Act 1997. He received 75 hours of community service in 2006. In 2010, he was charged with five alleged offences of receiving corrupt payments from Frank Dunlop in 1992 and 1997, contrary to the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act 1889, as amended.
Cosgrave argued that the later prosecution was unfair and oppressive because the authorities had the relevant evidence before his earlier case, statements from Dunlop had not been disclosed, and he believed his guilty plea would conclude proceedings arising from Dunlop’s allegations. He also relied on the passage of time and legitimate expectation.
The court noted that a statement by Dunlop dated 24 September 2004 was a draft and found there was no obligation to disclose it. It was not satisfied that the 16 March 2004 statement had to be disclosed in the earlier case, which concerned an Electoral Act charge rather than corruption charges. The judge also found that the allegations in the statement had been put to Cosgrave during a 2004 Garda interview, where he denied receiving a corrupt payment.
The judge rejected the claim that non-disclosure represented that no further charges would follow. The court found no promise or representation by the prosecuting authorities that Cosgrave would not face other proceedings. It also held that his belief that the earlier plea would end all proceedings based on Dunlop’s allegations was not reasonable without a clear indication from the Director of Public Prosecutions.
On delay, the court accepted that the prosecution had been held up while Dunlop gave evidence to a tribunal of inquiry. The judge described the resulting delay as excusable and said it did not justify prohibiting the trial. The court therefore refused the relief sought. The ruling left the current charges to proceed; it did not decide whether Cosgrave was guilty or whether the payments were made.