The Supreme Court has refused to halt the prosecution of Liam Cosgrave on five charges alleging he corruptly received payments connected with votes on rezoning land at Carrickmines.
In a judgment delivered on 26 April 2012, Chief Justice Susan Denham dismissed Cosgrave’s appeal and affirmed the High Court’s order. The court held that the prosecution could proceed because it was not an abuse of process and there was no real risk of an unfair trial. It did not determine whether the allegations were true.
The charges concern alleged payments from Frank Dunlop: £2,000 in June 1992, £2,500 on 30 October 1997 and £4,500 on 23 December 1997. The prosecution alleges the money was an inducement or reward for votes on motions concerning the zoning of Carrickmines lands. Cosgrave denies receiving corrupt payments, according to the judgment.
Cosgrave argued that the State had evidence for the corruption charges when it prosecuted him in 2005 for Electoral Act offences, but did not disclose two Dunlop statements then. He said that, had he known about those statements, he might not have pleaded guilty to an electoral offence. He also argued that bringing the corruption charges later was unfair and prejudicial.
In 2005, Cosgrave pleaded guilty to a charge of knowingly furnishing a false or misleading donation statement. He was sentenced to 75 hours of community service in lieu of six months’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court distinguished that offence from the current charges, saying the earlier case concerned failing to declare a donation, while the current charges allege corrupt receipt of payments. It found the two sets of charges were not based on the same facts or offences of a similar character.
The court accepted that the State had a valid reason to wait before prosecuting Cosgrave for corruption: Dunlop was himself an accused in corruption proceedings and, the court said, could not be relied on as a prosecution witness against Cosgrave until his own case had been determined. Dunlop pleaded guilty to five charges in January 2009 and was convicted and sentenced in May that year. The Director of Public Prosecutions directed that Cosgrave and others be charged in June 2010.
The Supreme Court also held that the undisclosed March 2004 statement and a September 2004 draft statement did not require disclosure in the earlier Electoral Act prosecution, and that their non-disclosure did not establish abuse of process. It concluded that the delay was reasonable in the circumstances. The ruling addresses whether the trial may proceed, not Cosgrave’s guilt or innocence.