Tribunal defence has cost €9m: O’Brien

MORE than €9m has been spent by businessman Denis O’Brien on legal representation at the Moriarty Tribunal, it emerged yesterday.

The telecoms tycoon expressed anger at the vast expenses he was forced to incur to defend his reputation at the long-running inquiry which, he noted, had itself cost an estimated €200m to date.

Mr O’Brien questioned the purpose of such lengthy proceedings when he reminded tribunal chairman, Mr Justice Michael Moriarty, that it was established in September 1997 as a matter of urgent public importance.

He claimed the voting public might have expected that the tribunal’s work would have been “done and dusted by 2007”.

Mr O’Brien also hit out at what he described as “the pervasive influence of hearsay, rumour and anonymous letters throughout the proceedings”.

He expressed concern at how people’s reputations and integrity had been irrevocably damaged by proceedings at various tribunals.

The tribunal’s indication that it would make findings based on “reasoned opinion” was profoundly unfair and unconstitutional, Mr O’Brien argued.

He also argued that the tribunal had failed to call several important witnesses to give evidence which would support his claim that Michael Lowry never had any role or beneficial interest in Doncaster Rovers Football Club.

The failure of the tribunal to call seven, named individuals who had periodically directly or indirectly fed information to its legal team “speaks volumes”, he said.

Mr O’Brien added that he was concerned that the tribunal would base its findings on material and information that its legal team had collected in private session which would be “completely and utterly unfair”.

Mr O’Brien said he had co-operated fully at all times with the tribunal by making available all relevant documentation in his possession or under his control, even though as a non-resident he was not obliged to do so.

He also cited 10 specific examples of what he described as the tribunal’s “lack of procedural fairness”.

They included the tribunal’s failure to disclose details of all its dealings with Persona, his rival for the mobile phone license.

Mr O’Brien also expressed his resentment at the fact that the tribunal had spent the past 10 years looking into his business and private affairs, especially his wife’s medical records.

He believed his constitutional rights to fairness and the protection of his reputation had been completely disregarded by both the tribunal and the courts.

The legal system for tribunals is “grossly flawed, grossly unfair and of little democratic effect or benefit in the way in which it has been developed in this country”, said Mr O’Brien.

He also claimed it was grossly unfair that High Court judges would adjudicate on legal challenges brought against colleagues who preside over tribunals.