A civil service whistle blower who raised allegations of wrongdoing at the Banking Inquiry has been described as an "unreliable historian."

The report of a senior counsel into the claims finds that there was "no basis" for many of the allegations raised by the whistleblower.

The whistleblower claimed that certain witnesses were given deferential treatment - but senior council Sean Hogan said the whistleblower had not been able to distinguish between facts and surmise, and asserted he was an "unreliable historian."

"Although a trained lawyer, the confidential informant did not understand and could not be brought to understand the nature of an Irish parliamentary inquiry or [their] constitutional and legal framework," found Mr Hogan.

He describes how the informant's perspective became so "distorted" that any divergence from his point of view "could only be explained by an inference or suspicion of corruption."

Mr Hogan concludes that there is "no substance whatsoever in any of the allegations."