Former IPI executive claims findings against her were influenced from within organisation

Former Irish Planning Institute executive director Orla Purcell has taken a defamation case against the 'Irish Examiner' over two articles published in 2023

When asked if she thought a report by EY had been 'improperly influenced' by the IPI's oversight committee, she replied: 'Yes, that’s what I think'. Picture: Collins Courts

A former senior executive at the Irish Planning Institute (IPI) has acknowledged that several findings were made against her in a confidential consultants' report regarding her conduct, but insisted that those findings were influenced from within the institute.

Orla Purcell, the former executive director of the IPI, was questioned repeatedly at the High Court regarding the contents of the confidential report, written by consultancy EY, which considered a series of allegations regarding her conduct in her role prior to November 2021.

Ms Purcell has taken a defamation action against the Irish Examiner concerning two articles by journalist Mick Clifford, published in January 2023, which reported upon a leaked copy of the EY report.

Ms Purcell claims that the allegations made in the confidential report were presented as fact in the published articles and that they damaged her reputation.

The Irish Examiner has denied the allegations and claims the articles were published in the public interest and comprised fair and reasonable publication.

Under cross-examination by John Fitzgerald, for the Irish Examiner, Ms Purcell was asked about some of the findings contained in the report which were detailed in the articles.

Asked if EY had said that an allegation — that Ms Purcell had altered a press release signed off by then IPI president Conor Norton without his knowledge — had been substantiated, she replied: “It’s not true.” She added: “That’s what EY put in the report.” 

The court would later hear from Mary MacMahon, who succeeded Mr Norton as president of the IPI in June 2022, that the EY report had comprised roughly 22 allegations and that there had been “substance” to about 13 of those.

Asked if she would acknowledge the truth that some of the allegations had been upheld in the report, Ms Purcell said repeatedly that “some allegations were upheld”.

Asked if it was true that EY had found her explanation — regarding an allegation that she had asked a subordinate at the IPI to create a false email trail indicating unhappiness with the performance of Mr Norton — as “not credible”, Ms Purcell replied that the finding had been made “on the instructions of the oversight committee”.

Asked in follow-up by Mr Fitzgerald if that allegation had been substantiated, Ms Purcell replied: “The report says that.”

Committee considered EY report

That oversight committee was convened to consider the findings of the EY report. When the confidential report was delivered, the committee recommended that a disciplinary process be initiated against Ms Purcell regarding the allegations EY said had been substantiated.

When Mr Fitzgerald suggested that Ms Purcell would have had a right of reply at that disciplinary meeting, she replied that “the hearing didn’t happen so I didn’t have a right to reply”.

She said the hearing did not transpire as she had taken carer’s leave in order to care for her mother. The disciplinary process itself was discontinued after Ms Purcell took voluntary redundancy from the organisation in November 2022.

Asked if she agreed that the EY report’s findings were not those of the oversight committee, Ms Purcell replied: “No.” 

Asked if she thought the report had been “improperly influenced” by the committee, she replied: “Yes, that’s what I think”.

Asked by her own counsel, Mark Harty SC, which allegations in Mr Clifford’s articles she took issue with, she replied: “For me, it looks like I was cooking the books.

“It looks like I was making up policy on my own agenda. 

Both of those insinuations are very damaging to my employment prospects. 

With respect to assertions by Mr Fitzgerald that the tone of emails she had sent both within the IPI and to PR consultant Nigel Heneghan were indicative of someone who had views on policy, Ms Purcell said they instead showed that she had been suggesting “media strategy” and “doing my job”.

Mr Fitzgerald asked Ms Purcell — regarding her assertion on the previous day of the case concerning the Irish Examiner articles that “so much of what they wrote was untrue” — what specifically she perceived to be untrue. 

She claimed the complainant cited by Mr Clifford was not a whistleblower, in her opinion, as he had specified, and disputed the number of IPI council members he said had resigned over a decision to grant her voluntary redundancy and also the perceived suggestion that she had sought to influence IPI policy.

When Mr Fitzgerald speculated that those complaints amounted to “very little” in the context of the totality of what Mr Clifford had written, Ms Purcell said: “I disagree.”

Asked if she still believes she is unemployable because of alleged errors in the two articles, she replied: “Yes.” 

The case continues.