Tag Archives: High Court

Avalon House, Aungier Street, Dublin 2

Olivia Kelly, in The Irish Times, reports:

Businesses on Aungier Street, Dublin, are to take legal action to stop the opening of the State’s largest homeless hostel for rough sleepers at Avalon House.

The Peter McVerry Trust and the Dublin Region Homeless Executive intend to take over the backpackers’ hostel, above a branch of Starbucks cafe, and use it to provide emergency accommodation for 155 homeless adults.

A lease on the building has been signed by the trust, and the facility is due to open in January. However, local businesses say they will seek a High Court injunction to stop it going ahead.

Dublin businesses seek to stop 155-bed homeless hostel (Olivia Kelly, The Irish Times)

Rollingnews

Dublin City Coucil offices on Wood Quay, Dublin 8; Minister for Housing Eoghan Murphy 

Paul Reynolds, of RTÉ, reports:

Officials from Dublin City Council were aware and recommended that protection money be paid to two violent criminals so that council houses could be built in west Dublin in 2016 and 2017, the High Court has been told.

The court heard that three building firms working for the city council paid between €1,200 and €1,500 a week to Derek ‘Dee Dee’ O’Driscoll from Croftwood Grove and “his enforcer” David Reilly from nearby Croftwood Park to prevent the sites and construction staff from being attacked.

Over €250,000 in the men’s bank accounts has been declared the proceeds of crime and confiscated by the Criminal Assets Bureau, along with a mobile home and a horsebox.

Meanwhile…

Minister for Housing Eoghan Murphy was asked about the matter by Claire Byrne on RTÉ’s News At One

He said the first he became aware of the matter was this morning. He also said his department are trying to get the bottom of it “as quickly as possible”.

Meanwhile…

Eamon Melia tweetz:

Junior minister Catherine Byrne was told about criminals been paid protection money by DCC but didn’t tell her boss Housing Minister Eoghan Murphy. Says Eoghan Murphy, watch this space.

Council officials recommended building firms use services of violent criminals for protection (RTÉ)

UPDATE:

This afternoon.

Junior health minister Catherine Byrne was asked about the matter by Irish Examiner journalist Daniel McConnell at a Department of Health press conference concerning Budget 2020 (above).

Mr O’Connell put it to Ms Byrne that Sinn Féin TD Aengus O’Snodaigh has claimed he told Ms Byrne and the Government about the matter more than two years ago.

She said:

“I did know about the incident. It was highlighted in a newspaper around on the 19th or the 18th of December. I received an email into my office Christmas Eve, I didn’t see the email until the 29th.

“…I had rung the [Dublin] city council after I saw the incident happened and I was talking to officials and the local area officer told me that there had been an incident where there was intimidation and a JCB was burned out and the man who was driving had been injured.

“But he assured me that everything was fine and that the council were dealing with it and the guards were involved.

“After that, on the 29th, when I did receive, I looked at the letter, I read it. I was very concerned with what was in it. But I also noted in the letter that it also been brought to the guards’ attention at Clondalkin and other senior officials.

“And really, my job, at that stage, was finished because this was an investigation by An Garda Síochána.

“I suppose one of the things, I just want to make very clear, I totally condemn intimidation or extortion at any level, particularly in communities and particularly in vulnerable communities.

“Down through the years, Ballyfermot and Cherry Orchard has had problems, not only significant problems around drug issues but around criminal activity aswell.

“But I totally, totally condemn them. And I want to make that very clear.”

Watch back in full here

Rollingnews

From top: Ryanair pilots strike outside Dublin Airport last October; Fórsa’s deputy general secretary Matt Staunton, national secretary Angela Kirk, and head of communications Bernard Harbor outside the High Court this morning

Helen Coffey, in The Independent UK, reports:

A planned strike by Ryanair’s Irish pilots will not go ahead this week after a ruling from the Dublin High Court was issued this morning.

The Irish court said it would grant Europe’s biggest airline an injunction to prevent a 48-hour stoppage beginning on 22 August.

Justice McDonald said he would restrain the union “from directly or indirectly, organising, directing or endorsing their members to participate in a strike on 22 and 23 August 2019”.

Ryanair strikes: Irish pilots’ walkout scrapped after High Court ruling (Helen Coffey, The Independent UK)

Rollingnews

Former CEO of FAI John Delaney (second from right) on his way to an Oireachtas committee hearing last month

More as they get it.

Rollingnews


Ruth Morrissey and her husband Paul outside the High Court this morning

Orla O’Donnell, of RTE, reports:

Ruth Morrissey has won her High Court action over the alleged misreading of smear tests and the failure to tell her about it.

The 37-year-old and her husband Paul have been awarded €2.1 million in damages.

Ms Morrissey and her husband, Paul, of Monaleen in Co Limerick, sued the HSE and two laboratories – Quest Diagnostics and MedLab Pathology Limited.

It is the first such case to have been heard in full and to be the subject of a High Court judgment.

Terminally ill woman awarded €2.1m in smear test case (RTE)

Ms Morrissey spoke to reporters after the judgment.

At one point she said:

“What can I say, I didn’t think I’d be in this position because our Taoiseach told us none of us would have to go through this but unfortunately I’m one who had to. So I hope that’s a positive thing for the women who are left – that they don’t need to do this.

“To fight for what is there right to have a good life of what they’ve left.

I’d encourage every woman to continue on getting their smears because it’s very important even though it failed me but it does save many, many lives and it’s a screening programme that we need. The HPV [vaccine], if you’re eligible, please get it. This is not a cancer that you want.

“And I’d just like to thank this man here [Paul] for being my rock through everything.”

UPDATE:

UPDATE:

Vicky Phelan

In today’s Irish Times,  Health Correspondent Paul Cullen has an interview with Limerick mother-of-two Vicky Phelan – one year on from her High Court case where she settled a case against Clinical Pathology Laboratories Inc, Austin, Texas, for €2.5million.

Ms Phelan, who refused to sign a gagging order about her case, was diagnosed with terminal cancer following a cervical smear test error.

Following her case, it later emerged that more than 200 women diagnosed with cancer were not informed of an audit which revised their earlier, negative smear tests.

Mr Cullen reports:

“…Ms Phelan said the Taoiseach ‘just doesn’t get it’ in relation to fixing the problems that have arisen.

‘The classic example is him going on Six One News saying no woman would ever have to go into court, and look what’s happened. That’s still the case and not only that, the tribunal has not yet been established in order for that not to happen.

I don’t think he gets it at all. And it’s not just because he’s a gay man, I just don’t think he gets it.’

…’I think we got a lot of promises made at the time, not to shut us up but to “give them what they want quickly and get them off the pages”.

‘Until we have a situation in this country where people are held accountable for what they’ve done, these things are just going to keep happening and there’ll be another scandal,’ she said.”

Meanwhile, during an interview with Miriam O’Callaghan on RTE’s Today with Sean O’Rourke this morning, Ms Phelan apologised for and clarified her ‘gay man’ comment (above).

She said:

“I’m critical of the Government in general. I suppose, I think some of what I said was taken out of context and I would like to apologise to the Taoiseach for the comment in today’s article.

“What I said, I was trying to make the point that the issues faced by the women and their families are wide-ranging, they involve input from a wide range of players, from the Department of Health to the HSE, legal profession, the medical profession, and the Attorney General’s office to draft up this legislation.

“And basically any unwillingness or inertia on the part of one player can hold everything up and that is exactly what has happened over the last 12 months.”

Asked specifically what she was trying to say when she made the “gay man” comment, Vicky said:

“This is a women’s issue and it’s always about women, that was the point I was making. It wasn’t anything to do with the Taoiseach being gay, whatsoever. That was totally taken out of context.”

“We’ve seen it on a number of occasions over the last number of years, Miriam, between the different scandals that have happened to women. Bridget McCole, the Hepatitis C scandal…I think we have a very poor record and poor history in this country in dealing with women’s issues.”

Vicky Phelan criticises Varadkar for ‘unacceptable delays’ (Paul Cullen, The Irish Times)

Listen back to interview in full here

Rollingnews

From top: Ruth Morrissey and her husband Paul outside the High Court last July, Fianna Fail TD Niall Collins; Tanaiste Simon Coveney

This afternoon.

In the Dáil.

Fianna Fáil TD Niall Collins raised the nature of the questions put to terminally ill Ruth Morrissey, who has cervical cancer, by the HSE’s legal counsel in the High Court yesterday.

Ms Morrissey, who broke down in the witness box yesterday, is taking action over an alleged misreading of her smear slides in 2009 and 2012 taken under the CervicalCheck screening programme.

Yesterday was the 27th day of Ms Morrissey’s action.

Mr Collins said that last May, following Vicky Phelan’s High Court action, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar told RTÉ’s Six One News that, in relation to women affected by the CervicalCheck scandal, “what we propose to do is to offer mediation in every case, so that women can avoid having to go to court and the trauma of a court hearing”.

Mr Collins added:

“He went on to say ‘what we will do in this situation is the State will settle and pursue the lab later’, so essentially the State will be on the side of the plaintiff, on the side of the woman.

“Now late on Monday, Ruth Morrissey was summoned to the High Court for yesterday, where she was subjected to a pretty robust and traumatising cross-examination by counsel for the HSE.

“Her family are quite upset about it and I think it draws into question, seriously, the commitments which were given to the women by the Taoiseach, namely that mediation would be offered. So what I want to ask you is: are you the happy that the mediation process, which the Attorney General was to counsel the State Claims Agency, to enter into a meaningful way. Are you happy that that is happening?

“Are you satisfied that the women who have been failed in this regard are being treated sensitively and properly by the State Claims Agency and that proper mediation process is being engaged in?”

In response, Tánaiste Simon Coveney said he acknowledged the “difficulty and the heartache” that Ruth and her family, and that of the other women, have had to go through.

He said:

“The State’s only objective is to support those people as best we can. To try to keep people out of court and to assure that there are settlements that are fair, available to the women and families involved.

“That is why yesterday, on Leaders’ Questions, I announced the detail of the ex-gratia scheme which is being set up now under the chairmanship of a retired High Court judge. So that we can ensure that families and victims and individuals get the support that the State wants to make available to them.

“I don’t have the exact details in relation to the legal arguments around this case, deputy, so I’m slow to comment on a court case but I know certainly the policy direction from the Government is very clear here, to the State Claims Agency.

“We want to try to keep these cases out of court, so that people don’t have to go through what is an adversarial court system in relation to assessing the extent of claims and compensation.”

Ms Morrissey, from Limerick, was diagnosed with cervical cancer in 2014 and a recurrence of her pelvic wall cancer was diagnosed in February 2018.

Ms Morrissey and her husband Paul Morrissey have sued the HSE and the two US laboratories – Quest Diagnostics and Medlab Pathology Ltd.

Related: Telling woman of audit results would not have changed prognosis – consultant (Mary Carolan, The Irish Times)

 

Aoife Quinn and Seán Quinn Junior on their way to the Four Courts today

Today.

The first day of the case taken by businessman Sean Quinn’s five children against Irish Bank Resolution Corporation – centring on €2.34bn in loans given by the then Anglo Irish Bank to Quinn companies – began this morning.

The case is expected to last six months while 49 witnesses are expected to give evidence.

Sean Quinn’s €2.3bn in loans gambled with children’s future, court told (Mary Carolan, The Irish Times)

Rollingnews

A file photo of Joanne Hayes, from High Court website

Sean Murray, in The Journal, reports:

The woman who was wrongly accused of murdering a baby in Kerry in the 1980s has filed High Court action against the State, a year after she received an apology from the Taoiseach over her treatment in the case.

Joanne Hayes is set to sue over being wrongfully arrested and subsequently charged with the murder of ‘Baby John’, whose body was discovered on a beach near Cahirciveen in Kerry.

Joanne Hayes set to sue the State over her treatment in Kerry Babies case (Sean Murray, The Journal)

Previously: Throwing The Book At Them

Thirty Four Years Later

uusinessman Denis O’Brien going into the High Court this morning

This afternoon, in the High Court, businessman Denis O’Brien finished giving evidence in his defamation case against the Sunday Business Post.

Mr O’Brien is claiming he was defamed by the newspaper on March 15, 2015, when the then business editor Tom Lyons reported over six pages on an unpublished PwC dossier into Ireland’s banks which had been given to the then Taoiseach Brian Cowen in November 2008.

The newspaper reported that the PwC report revealed 22 men and their associated companies owed Irish banks €25.6billion when the property bubble collapsed.

Mr O’Brien was number ten on the list of 22.

One of Mr O’Brien’s complaints is that he was wrongly “lumped” in with a “gang” of “developer kings”.

He also disputes the figures which Mr Lyons attributed to Mr O’Brien and has said Mr Lyons should have rang him on the Friday before the article was published and asked him if he was “overstretched” or if he had “over borrowed”.

Mr O’Brien has claimed Mr Lyons never put these specific claims to him.

The jury in the High Court last week heard about a separate article Mr Lyons co-wrote with Nick Webb in April 2012, while he was working at the Sunday Independent, which was about a different PwC report on Anglo Irish Bank, and which Mr O’Brien also said contained incorrect figures.

The print article was headlined: “Anglo’s top 13 buccaneer borrowers.”

Mr O’Brien, on Thursday, told the court that he believed he had taken no action over this 2012 Sunday Independent article which revealed his confidential bank details.

On Friday, Mr O’Brien then told the jury that, contrary to what he had said the day before, his understanding was that his spokesman James Morrissey had actually engaged in lengthy correspondence with the Sunday Independent over the 2012 article and that he had, he believed, received an apology from INM’s then group managing editor Michael Denieffe.

But this morning, the jury heard this apology had nothing to do with the article co-written by Mr Webb and Mr Lyons in 2012.

Michael McDowell SC, for the Sunday Business Post, read out correspondence between Mr Lyons and Mr Morrissey ahead of the 2012 article in which Mr Lyons sought to get some information from Mr O’Brien to put into the article.

Mr O’Brien agreed with Mr McDowell that the response from Mr Morrissey was essentially a “get lost” response. But Mr O’Brien said it was “polite”.

Mr McDowell also read out correspondence between Mr Morrissey and Mr Webb after the article was published.

Mr Morrissey had criticised Mr Lyons in his correspondence to Mr Webb and claimed Mr Lyons had acted unprofessionally.

Mr McDowell said this amounted to an “attack” on Mr Lyons.

Mr O’Brien said: “No it was pointing out the obvious.”

He said it was “ridiculous” to pose questions about his banking in the first place as he was never going to give any answers.

Mr McDowell put it to Mr O’Brien that this represented the “height of hypocrisy”.

Mr McDowell said Mr O’Brien previously “went to some considerable length” in his evidence to say that the Sunday Business Post never contacted him about Mr Lyons’ story in 2015.

Mr McDowell asked how he could “reconcile” telling Mr Lyons and Mr Webb to “get lost” in 2012 with his criticism of Mr Lyons in 2015, saying the journalist didn’t contact him for comment – when Mr O’Brien would never have commented anyway.

Mr O’Brien said he was glad Mr McDowell mentioned the matter and again said Mr Lyons should have contacted him on the Friday evening before the Sunday Business Post article, and asked him specifically if he was “overstretched” and if he had “over borrowed”.

But when Mr McDowell asked him again if he would have responded to Mr Lyons, Mr O’Brien said: “The answer is no.”

Mr O’Brien said Mr McDowell was “mixing apples and oranges”.

Mr O’Brien said: “Why would any citizen of this country answer questions about their bank accounts?”

“Why would anyone discuss their private banking matters with a journalist… you’d want a bolt missing from your head to do that.”

He said it was “none of his business” and that if Mr Lyons asked him about this “visa card”, the answer would be the same: “It’s private”.

Going back to the 2012 Sunday Independent article, and the correspondence between Mr Morrissey and Mr Webb, in which Mr Morrissey accused Mr Lyons of being unprofessional and conducting himself in an unacceptable manner, Mr McDowell put it to Mr O’Brien that he was now “whinging” in the High Court claiming he had been defamed when he was “quite happy to defame somebody else in correspondence”.

Mr McDowell put to Mr O’Brien that he was accusing Mr Lyons of unacceptable and unprofessional behaviour because he didn’t put a specific figure [about his banking] to Mr O’Brien – a figure he never intended on confirming, denying or correcting.

Mr O’Brien replied: “That’s correct.”

Mr McDowell put it to the Mr O’Brien: “You’ve told the jury that you wouldn’t answer the question.”

Mr O’Brien replied: “Whether the number was right or wrong, I wouldn’t have answered it.”

Mr McDowell put it to Mr O’Brien that it was “utterly dishonest” of Mr Morrissey to defame Mr Lyons to his employers for failing to put an exact figure to Mr O’Brien when he knew Mr O’Brien wouldn’t comment.

Mr O’Brien said Mr Lyons got the wrong number and he shouldn’t have published any figure if it was inaccurate.

Mr McDowell put it to Mr O’Brien that he didn’t see the PwC report on Anglo Irish Bank which the Sunday Independent article was based upon.

Mr O’Brien confirmed this.

McDowell put it to Mr O’Brien that he then couldn’t have known if Mr Lyons quoted accurately from the PwC report or not. Mr O’Brien said: “No”.

Asked again why he believed Mr Lyons had been unprofessional in his conduct, Mr O’Brien replied: “Because he published the incorrect information.”

Asked again why he didn’t give any information to Mr Lyons, following on from his requests, Mr O’Brien replied: “Because it’s none of his business.”

Mr O’Brien repeated again that to ask about his banking affairs is “grossly unfair” and an “invasion of privacy”.

Mr O’Brien said whether the figure was right or wrong, he wouldn’t have commented on it.

Asking Mr O’Brien how wrong the Sunday Independent figure was, Mr O’Brien wouldn’t say and asked Mr McDowell if he was now trying to invade his banking details.

Mr O’Brien carried on refusing to tell Mr McDowell “how wrong” the figure in the Sunday Independent was.

He said: “I don’t mean to be rude but it’s my private banking matters. I have a right to privacy as a citizen, it’s grossly unfair.”

Mr McDowell further read out the response Mr Webb sent to Mr Morrissey in 2012 and into which he copied Declan Carlyle, who was an executive at INM at the time.

The jury heard Mr Webb told Mr Morrissey that his claim Mr Lyons had acted unprofessionally was “completely unacceptable” and that it was being rejected out of hand. Mr Webb said it was “baseless” and “defamatory” of Mr Lyons.

Mr Webb also said it was a “disgraceful slur” on Mr Lyons and he asked that Mr Morrissey “desist from disseminating this defamatory material forthwith”.

The jury also heard Mr Webb told Mr Morrissey that Mr Lyons had acted as he should have and it was he [Mr Morrissey] who gave “perfunctory answers”. Mr Webb asked Mr Morrissey if he’d like to send figures, they could run a clarification.

Mr O’Brien told Mr McDowell that he believed the latter comment was said “tongue in cheek”.

Mr McDowell asked Mr O’Brien if he had seen Mr Webb’s correspondence, in which he accused Mr O’Brien, via Mr Morrissey, of defaming Mr Lyons.

Mr O’Brien said he did.

Mr McDowell then asked Mr O’Brien how he then could have given evidence that he had got an apology from Mr Denieffe over the 2012 Sunday Independent article.

Mr O’Brien said: “Because Mr Morrissey told me that.”

Mr O’Brien said the correspondence in relation to Mr Denieffe was related to an entirely different matter. He said he had apologised to the court, that he was trying to be helpful last week and that he may have confused matters further – for which he was sorry.

Mr McDowell put it to Mr O’Brien that he must have known there was no apology over the 2012 article.

Mr O’Brien said that, last week, he said he wasn’t sure about the apology and that he had said he would have to check – which he has since done and that is why Mr McDowell’s solicitor had been contacted about the matter overnight.

Mr McDowell said that, far from INM giving an apology to him, they [INM] gave him “both barrels” over to the suggestion Mr Lyons had behaved wrongly.

Mr O’Brien said: “I’m saying to you there was another matter and other correspondence which led to an apology.”

He also again repeated that Mr Lyons had no right to ring anybody up and ask them about their private banking matters.

He said it wouldn’t happen in the UK and it shouldn’t have happened in Ireland.

He said it was “extraordinary that this journalist would be that ballsy” to ask about his banking and then, Mr O’Brien claimed, get the numbers “wrong”.

Mr McDowell put it to Mr O’Brien that he was refusing to divulge “how wrong” Mr Lyons was alleged to have been. He also said it was in the public interest to know about the insolvency of Anglo Irish Bank.

Mr O’Brien said it was his private business and said “we’re verging on voyerism, trying to find out what my banking details are, it’s not fair”.

Mr McDowell said the following to Mr O’Brien: “I’m going to put to you now that the fact that Anglo Irish Bank, at the time the PwC report was done, was hopefullsesy insolvent but pretending that it was solvent through the agency PWC report.

He added: “You were among the top 22 debtors of the Irish banking system at the time and one of the top 13 in Anglo Irish Bank, for which the taxpayer was going to carry the burden afterwards. Are you saying that that was an entirely private matter?”

Mr O’Brien said he was never a burden on any bank or IBRC, formerly Anglo Irish Bank.

He added: “I became a customer of IBRC in 1990. I’m not responsible for them going into liquidation.”

Mr McDowell said Mr Lyons believed, and still believes, that the Irish public deserved to know that a huge amount of indebtedness was concentrated on a small number of people.

Mr O’Brien said they were going to disagree on this.

At one point Mr Justice Bernard Barton intervened to say the jury needed to fully understand a point which was being made by Mr McDowell.

Mr McDowell told Mr O’Brien he made a very serious complaint against Tom Lyons and his professional conduct in a letter, for failing to put a figure to Mr O’Brien – a figure which Mr O’Brien has since claimed was wrong, without now telling the court how wrong it is.

And, Mr McDowell said, Mr O’Brien is now complaining that he wasn’t contacted in 2015, in relation to the Sunday Business Post article, even though he would have likely said ‘no comment’.

Mr O’Brien said his first complaint is that Mr Lyons should never have published any number and, secondly, the figure that he did publish was “absolutely wrong”.

Mr O’Brien went on to compare the Sunday Independent and Sunday Business Post articles and said it was totally different to be called a “buccaneer” [in Sunday Independent] as opposed to being referred to as a member of a “gang” [in Sunday Business Post].

Mr McDowell read out the Oxford dictionary definition of “buccaneer”:

“A pirate, originally one operating in the Caribbean. A person who acts in a recklessly adventurous and often unscrupulous way, especially in business”.

Mr McDowell continued: “Are you seriously saying ‘buccaneer’ in the Sunday Independent was more complimentary than ‘gang’ in the Sunday Business Post?”

Mr O’Brien said he was. He said ‘buccaneer’ is the name of a sporting club in Galway and “not a derogatory term in my mind”.

He went on to say there was “no comparison” between the two articles and to compare them was like comparing “chalk and cheese”.

Mr McDowell also listed Mr O’Brien’s property interests in Ireland, the UK, Portugal and Spain – following on from Mr O’Brien giving evidence that he is not a property developer but a property investor.

At one point, Mr O’Brien quipped that Mr McDowell knew more about his property interests than he did.

Mr McDowell said he was depending on information in the public domain and Google.

Returning to the 2015 Sunday Business Post article, Mr McDowell put it to Mr O’Brien that, in 2008, PwC prepared a report for the Irish Government in which they indicated, among other things, first of all that the banks were claiming to be in rude health.

Secondly, in the report, PwC put together a list of 22 – not 21, not 23 – of people who they said were the top borrowers from the Irish banks.

Mr O’Brien said: “We don’t know this because I’ve never seen the PwC report.”

He said the court is “naked here today” because Mr Lyons destroyed his copy of the report after publication of his article.

Mr O’Brien claimed PwC would also never have used the words used by the newspaper to describe him.

Mr O’Brien said the article was a “hatchet job” and became “more salacious” as it continued over a number of pages in the newspaper.

Just before Mr O’Brien finished giving evidence, the judge again asked Mr O’Brien if it was his position that he basically told the Sunday Independent to get lost in 2012.

Mr O’Brien agreed this was the case and said his banking affairs were none of Mr Lyons’s business.

The judge asked Mr O’Brien if he would have taken the same approach if Mr Lyons contacted him in respect of the Sunday Business Post article.

Mr O’Brien said it would have depended on the question.

He said if he was told he would be described as a property developer and someone who had a detrimental effect on the country, that he was “overstretched”, he would have said that wasn’t true.

Mr Lyons has started to give evidence this afternoon.

Asked by Mr McDowell if he [Mr Lyons] believed that Mr O’Brien could have “brought down the country” when he wrote his article in the Sunday Business Post in 2015, Mr Lyons said: “No that’s ridiculous, no individual could bring down the country. That’s just ridiculous.”

Of his story based on the 2008 PwC report in the Sunday Business Post in 2015, Mr Lyons told the jury it was something which was “incredibly serious”, of “huge public interest” and that the newspaper took the matter “very, very seriously”.

He also said the list was created by PwC and the sequence of people was put together by PwC.

Asked why the Sunday Business Post reported the names of the 22 borrowers and their indebtedness contained in the 2008 PwC report, Mr Lyons said: “We felt that this was demonstrative of the concentrated risk in banks.”

He said it showed the banks were lending too much to too few people.

Asked if this was his judgement or PwC’s, Mr Lyons said it was PwC’s.

In relation to Mr O’Brien’s view that his banking interests are his private affairs and not of public interest, Mr Lyons recalled that Mr O’Brien mentioned his credit card details but went on to say this is not what the Sunday Business Post was reporting on in 2015.

Mr Lyons said he “couldn’t care less if Mr O’Brien pays for Netflix or Sky”.

He said the PwC report was about “big picture numbers” and that the report was paid for by taxpayers which the Government “used to say we’re not in trouble, let’s go with the banking guarantee, everything’s fine”.

He said the context of the report was the biggest financial crisis in the world, not just the biggest financial crisis in Ireland.

Mr Lyons said he accepted Mr O’Brien’s view but, in his opinion, the PwC report was an “important document prepared by the State into what happened in the banks and public interest trumps one man’s opinion”.

Mr Lyons also said that he and his editor Ian Kehoe did have a conversation about whether or not they should have included Mr O’Brien’s name in the list.

He said: “But we said either it was in the public interest or it wasn’t. He [Denis O’Brien] was in there, we had to leave him in there.”

He said the debate over whether to publish Mr O’Brien’s name or not came about because “it’s fair to say, he sues a lot of journalists”.

Mr Lyons said there was a “fear factor there around him”.

But, he said himself and Mr Kehoe decided: “no, we’ve got to be brave here, we’ve got to include him”.

He said they couldn’t leave Mr O’Brien out and treat him as a special case over any possible fears that to include him would harm their future careers.

To further contextualise his point, Mr Lyons looked directly at Mr O’Brien when he said, by way of an example, this could have been a real fear if he were to ever potentially go back to work in either Newstalk or Today FM – radio stations which are both owned by Mr O’Brien.

Mr Lyons said the newspaper “reported faithfully” what was in the PwC report.

The court has heard that the banking inquiry, which was taking place at the time of the publication of the Sunday Businss Post article in 2015, requested of Mr Lyons a copy of the PwC report.

But, at this point, Mr Lyons had already destroyed it, to protect his source.

Asked if he was surprised when the inquiry asked him for the report, Mr Lyons said:

“It did surprise me. I had this suspicion they hadn’t got it. It was a gut instinct. But when it came out that they hadn’t got it, I was very surprised.”

The case continues.

Earlier: Like You Were Walking Onto A Yacht

Rollingnews