Tag Archives: Moriarty

TribunalMichael Lowry found out this week that the chairman of the Moriarty Tribunal has ordered him to pay two thirds of his legal costs which could run to €5million.

In light of this, he gave an interview to Fergal Keane, for Radio RTÉ One’s Drivetime tonight.

Michael Lowry: “Last Monday, my solicitor received communication from the tribunal, granting me one third of the total cost involved in our involvement in the Moriarty Tribunal and I had legal advice and we intend immediately to instigate a comprehensive legal challenge in the Irish courts and, if necessary, to the European courts. I was surprised with the content of the communication we received. The chairman of the tribunal has accused me of delaying and misleading and frustrating the tribunal’s workings. And, as far as we’re concerned, that is unfair, it is unjust and it is wrong. And it is indeed pathetic and lame excuse from the tribunal to apportion blame to me for delaying the tribunal because as far as I can see this is a blatant attempt to justify the excessive length of the tribunal. And, you know, the tribunal itself became a marathon, it was moving at an appallingly slow pace and that wasn’t due to our lack of co-operation, it was down to the tribunal’s own incompetence and inefficiency.”

Fergal Keane: “What size is the bill you’re facing?”

Lowry: “Well, let’s not quantify it. What happened Fergal, is that you make an application in principle for your costs so we now have to put together all of these various costs and put them before the taxing master and agree what the figure is but I’m obviously appealing to the courts and I’m told by my legals that there’s optimism that we’ll be successful, as there is considerable legal precedent in Supreme Court rulings, allowing costs to be granted on appeal in similar circumstances to my own.”

Keane “Yeah that happened in the Flood Tribunal, in the Planning Tribunal, people who were denied their costs were subsequently awarded all their costs.”

Lowry: “Yes, and there is also a Supreme Court ruling there which states clearly that tribunals can hold an inquiry, that they can form opinions and publish findings. But a tribunal has no power in law, to take punitive action against a witness to a tribunal. And, in this case, by denying me costs, the tribunal is effectively taking punitive financial action against me. And we would certainly be appealing that to the courts. The tribunal is reducing my legal costs for the mobile licence module, on the grounds that I wasn’t central to the inquiry. Now it defies all logic, common sense and any reason for the tribunal to now suggest that I was effectively nearly a casual bystander. I was the principle defendant.”

Keane: “So you had a lawyer present through all of that?”

Lowry: “Yes. There wasn’t a day passed during that 11 years that the licence was being examined that I didn’t receive a box of documents, that I didn’t receive correspondence or communications from the tribunal. It was absolutely essential for me that I had legal representation everyday at the tribunal. So, effectively, what the tribunal is now saying to me is that ‘I wasn’t actually needed at the tribunal’ and that the target of that tribunal would appear now to be the officials in the department of communications and finance and, in general, the civil servants. And you know again, as I referred to at the time, it was absolutely astounding that the chairman ignored the evidence that was given by 17 senior civil servants, by people out of the Attorney General’s office, by numerous independent witnesses who said that I had no involvement in the licence process and I didn’t at any time attempt to interfere with it. So here he comes now and he says to me that, after 11 years of I cooperating with the licence module, and in his findings he’s saying that we cooperated 100% with him in relation to the licence module, but at the same time he’s saying he’s only going to give me a third of the costs involved in that. So obviously…”

Keane: “Those costs are being estimated at I think anywhere upwards of €5million, that’s the bill that you’re facing. Can you afford that?”

Lowry: “Well, you know, obviously, we’re appealing the decision of the tribunal to the courts, there’s precedent for making a successful application to the courts to overturn the ruling of the tribunal, we’re going to proceed to do that. We’re confident that we’ll get a positive outcome. So you know if that doesn’t arise, the other situation then is obviously there are people out there who have been, my legal team in particular who’ve been very supportive and who’ve been very patient, and from our perspective we’re determined to ensure that, through this court action, we will get the costs order overturned and recover our legitimate costs.”

Listen back here

Michael Lowry to mount legal challenge against Moriarty Tribunal (Irish Examiner)

Graham Hughes/Photocall Ireland

KennyDail

MartinDail

Taoiseach Enda Kenny responds to questions concerning that Michael Lowry phone call from Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin in the Dáil minutes ago..

Enda Kenny: “The transcript that was handed in. I agree with you. If any further information is of relevance well that should be forwarded to the appropriate authorities aswell. Whether there’s validity or veracity in all of what was contained in the transcript, that’s not for me to judge. This house set up the Moriarty Tribunal to deal with a number of specific issues. And, as you’re aware, once the tribunal is set up, the house has no further function in determining the outcome of the tribunal, which in this case was reported by Moriarty two years ago.”

Micheál Martin: “Taoiseach, no-one has denied the veracity of the transcript. Nobody. So it seems to me, the transcript stands as a bona fide conversation between Mr Lowry and between Mr Kevin Phelan. I’ve already referred to the documentation that Senator David Wilson received, which details over 60 meetings that occurred between Deputy Lowry and Mr Phelan, in relation to the Doncaster deal, or another, sorry, in relation to the Doncaster deal. But it’s not for us to judge those, that particular documentation.
But suffice to say, Taoiseach, but that there’s enough new material there for this house to revisit the issue. The tribunal was established by way of motion to the house, from the then government, on subject to amendments from across the house. You know what I’m saying, when I ask you would you facilitate a re-examination of this by Moriarty.
Will you bring a motion to the house on this specific issue? Because does it not concern you, Taoiseach? And it does concern me. And you made comments about others, and they may be valid but what’s before us now, Taoiseach, what’s before us now, is material that’s emerged in the public domain, which, at the very minimum casts doubt about the level of cooperation that was afforded to the tribunal, that casts doubt over the truthfulness of the evidence that was provided to the tribunal. And it is material that the chairman did not see, prior to him coming to his conclusions.
Does that not concern you? That a tribunal established by the Oireachtas may have been fatally undermined? May be hindered? That people were having discussion in advance about people who knew was giving evidence, who wasn’t giving evidence, who wouldn’t be turning up, who would be turning up, what they would be saying. I mean these are very fundamental issues that go to the heart of what we should be involved in, in this chamber, and in this Oireachtas. And it is..you have a huge majority here, I’ve no doubt you’d have the full cooperation…”

Ceann Comhairle: “Question please, Deputy.”

Martin: “And the very basic question is will you bring a motion to the house to invite the chairman of the tribunal to examine the new material that has come into the public domain and to re-examine this particular issue?”

Kenny: “Well, I have no intention of reopening the Moriarty Tribunal or any other tribunal that is reported to the house. I’m not sure whether you’re…I didn’t realise that you seem to be amnesiac in some respects here. Because there were other claims made at other tribunals about the extent of information and knowledge of veracity over what was given at the tribunals. Obviously when somebody goes before a tribunal, they take an oath to tell the truth. Now, if there is information out there, that somebody has access to, well then I would suggest that they would bring that information to the appropriate authorities, Deputy Martin.”

Previously: “Denis, Myself, Baldy.”

Dear Mr Lowry, Please Answer The Following (Conor Ryan, Irish Examiner)