Property developer Mr Tom Gilmartin told the High Court yesterday he did not believe Fianna Fβil national organiser Mr Sean Sherwin had acted improperly.
Cross-examined in the continuing action by Mr Sherwin alleging libel in a Sunday Independent article, Mr Gilmartin said he gave information to the newspaper so it could check on it. He did not attack Mr Sherwin and had no animosity against him but had made a statement of fact. He gave the information to clear his own name of scurrilous allegations that had been made against him. Mr Sherwin was not part of that scurrilous campaign.
Asked by Mr Garret Cooney SC, for Mr Sherwin, about a comment - "deja vu" - which Mr Gilmartin had made when leaving a meeting with Mr Sherwin at Fianna Fβil headquarters in 1990, Mr Gilmartin said he had not intended to convey Mr Sherwin was behaving in an improper manner and was not saying Mr Sherwin was behaving in the same way as people who had held him up to ransom.
He did not think it was illegal for anybody to ask for a donation to a political party. Mr Gilmartin said the court was not familiar with the evidence before the Flood tribunal, which evidence was "far, far wider". There had been an attempt to involve the Flood tribunal in the present case.
Mr Cooney put it that Mr Gilmartin had blundered in making his statements to journalist Jody Corcoran who had published them and Mr Gilmartin was now trying to get out of the impact of the statements. Mr Gilmartin said nothing could be further from the truth.
Yesterday was the sixth day of the action arising from the Sunday Independent article by Mr Corcoran on February 14th, 1999. Mr Sherwin claims the article meant he wrongfully solicited money from Mr Gilmartin at a meeting in late 1990 for his sister-in-law, Mrs Catherine Sherwin, who stood as a candidate in local elections.
Mr Gilmartin said he gave the information to Mr Corcoran during phone calls in 1998/9 in response to allegations in the media that he had bribed former minister Mr Padraig Flynn. He wanted to defend himself and say he had told a Fianna Fβil secretary or whatever that he had given a donation to the party.
He had been alleged to have bribed Mr Flynn. He had told Mr Sherwin that he had already given a donation to Mr Flynn. That was the only evidence he had in his possession to defend himself against the allegation that he had bribed Mr Flynn.
Mr Gilmartin said he had had advance notice from Mr Corcoran about the article. He had spoken to Mr Corcoran on the phone the previous Wednesday and asked Mr Corcoran to tell him what he was writing.
Mr Corcoran read out the contents. He did not tell him what the headline would be or that there would be photographs of himself and Mr Sherwin. He "OKed" what Mr Corcoran read out to him.
He started to give information to Mr Corcoran when it was realised the Flood tribunal was trying to get him to co-operate and scurrilous articles about him started to appear in all the papers. That was probably towards the end of 1998. He gave information to Mr Corcoran in December 1998 and it continued up to probably the following February.
He first met Mr Corcoran in Luton in spring 1999. That meeting was after he had faxed some information to Mr Corcoran and, he thought, after publication of the article.
Mr Gilmartin agreed with Mr Cooney he had not faxed or posted to Mr Corcoran any information concerning Mr Sherwin or his sister-in-law. He agreed the article was based exclusively on what he had told Mr Corcoran over the phone. Mr Gilmartin said there was no documentation relating to his meeting with Mr Sherwin (in 1990) but he had handed over a notebook with Mr Sherwin's phone number to the tribunal.
The hearing continues today.