Irish Examiner defamation case: 'Incorrect' to suggest committee dictated investigation findings 

Irish Planning Institute’s former executive director claims allegations made about her in an EY investigation report were presented as fact in two published articles and damaged her reputation

Orla Purcell has brought a defimation case against the 'Irish Examiner.' Picture: Collins Courts

A member of a committee which liaised with a consultancy regarding its investigation of allegations against a senior executive of the Irish Planning Institute (IPI) has said it is “incorrect” to suggest that that committee dictated what the findings of the investigation were.

Sarah Newell, head of housing delivery with Limerick City and County Council and a former member of the IPI’s 12-person governing council, told a High Court defamation hearing that she had been secretary of the oversight committee set up by the IPI to administer an investigation by consultants EY into the conduct of the institute’s former executive director, Orla Purcell.

The defamation action against the Irish Examinerhas been taken by Ms Purcell, who claims that allegations made about her in the EY investigation report were presented as fact in two published articles on the matter — written by senior journalist Mick Clifford — 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.

Ms Newell told the hearing on Friday that the oversight committee had consisted of the seven members of the council who had not been the subject of allegations to be covered by the EY investigation, which resulted from a complaint made to the IPI’s then president, Conor Norton, by its policy administrator, Michelle Ball.

She said that about 15 meetings of the oversight committee were held remotely — due to the then ongoing covid pandemic — after the committee was first set up on November 19, 2021. 

She said that a draft report of EY’s findings was delivered to the oversight committee on January 13, 2022, in which six allegations of misconduct on the part of Ms Purcell had been substantiated.

She said that seven further allegations were also substantiated, but that they had related to governance matters and therefore it would not have been necessary to offer Ms Purcell a right of reply to them specifically.

She said that in response to the draft report being issued, the oversight committee had requested that an executive summary be added to the report along with the investigation’s terms of reference, and that typographical errors in the copy should be removed.

Ms Newell added that “high-level discussions” had been held by the committee in response to the draft report’s findings, noting that “we were all pretty shocked by what we saw”.

Asked if she had had any further input into the composition of the report, Ms Newell replied: “No.” 

She said that, after the oversight committee voted unanimously on January 28, 2022, to instigate a disciplinary process against Ms Purcell on foot of the report’s findings, a “number of attempts” had been made to fix a date for a hearing with Ms Purcell, but that it had not been possible to do so, and the hearing had never taken place.

Regarding claims by Ms Purcell earlier in the trial that the findings in the EY report had been arrived at “on the instruction of the oversight committee”, Ms Newell replied: “Her [Ms Purcell’s] role was purely administrative.” 

Asked by counsel for the Irish Examiner, Brendan Kirwan, if the report’s findings had been those of the oversight committee rather than EY, Ms Newell replied: “That’s incorrect.” 

When questioned by counsel for the plaintiff, Niall Buckley, senior counsel, as to when she had spoken to Mick Clifford, she replied: “I have never spoken to Mick Clifford.” 

Ms Newell acknowledged that the IPI’s council had been aware that the then IPI president, Mr Norton, who first brought the anonymous complaint made by Ms Ball to the council’s attention in November 2021 and had recommended Ms Purcell’s suspension on full pay, had been the supervisor for Ms Ball’s master's thesis.

The case continues.