Solicitor ‘totally wrong’ to suggest Lowry was involved in Doncaster deal

AN English solicitor said he was “totally wrong” to have suggested in a letter that former Fine Gael minister Michael Lowry was involved in the purchase of Doncaster Rovers football club in 1998.

Christopher Vaughan told the Moriarty Tribunal yesterday that the letter implicating Mr Lowry in the purchase of the club by a company controlled by businessman Denis O’Brien was never actually sent because it was “a nonsense”.

The letter referred to Mr Lowry being “totally involved” in the deal.

The inquiry is investigating possible business links between Mr Lowry and Mr O’Brien as part of its long-running investigation into the awarding of the state’s second mobile phone licence to the ESAT consortium in 1996. Mr Lowry was minister for transport, energy and communications at the time.

Yesterday’s hearing was largely taken up with tribunal counsel, Jerry Healy, reading out various documents detailing correspondence and meetings between the inquiry and Mr Vaughan. His barrister, Stephen Nathan, complained repeatedly that direct questions were not being put to Mr Vaughan.

The tribunal heard that the Northampton-based solicitor had observed on one occasion that he had difficulties in knowing who Kevin Phelan — an agent who acted separately for both Mr Lowry and Mr O’Brien — was representing at any one time.

Mr Phelan, a businessman based in the North, was involved in instructing Mr Vaughan on the Doncaster deal, as well as the purchase of property in Mansfield by Mr Lowry. Mr Vaughan said he believed it was not unexpected that he became confused between the involvement of Mr Phelan and Mr Lowry in various deals. “It was a simple error or lack of concentration,” he said.

However, Mr Healy pointed out that Mr Vaughan had remarked shortly after he had first written the letter in September 1998 that he did not think he was mistaken about Mr Lowry’s involvement in the Doncaster Rovers deal.

Mr Vaughan recalled that he had gained the impression from a meeting with Mr Lowry and Mr Phelan a few days earlier that the Tipperary TD had the power to progress the deal which had run into a number of problems. He had appeared as “a lifesaver.”

The solicitor claimed that he had put down Mr Lowry’s role to “some political ego trying to attach his name to a successful venture”. However, he stressed that the politician had never given him any instructions in relation to Doncaster.

He mistakenly believed the meeting had been arranged to discuss Doncaster but realised it was about the Mansfield property.

Mr Vaughan pointed out that the error had probably occurred because Mr Phelan had opened out the discussion about the Doncaster deal in front of Mr Lowry.

Mr Healy expressed surprise that notes drafted by Mr Vaughan following the meeting concerned Doncaster but not Mansfield given the latter project was the main purpose of his meeting with both men.