INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS has asked the High Court to order the State allow it inspect material relied on by the Quigley inquiry into the award of various public contracts to communications consultant Monica Leech and her company when Martin Cullen was minister for the environment.
The State has opposed the newspaper’s application on grounds of public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of persons who give evidence to such inquiries.
If such inquiries cannot guarantee confidentiality to persons who provide information, there will be a “chilling effect” on such inquiries, it argued.
The hearing concluded yesterday and Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O’Neill will give his decision next week.
The newspaper wants to inspect the documents to assist it in its defence of a forthcoming libel action brought against it by Ms Leech arising from some 20 articles published in the Evening Heraldnewspaper in late 2004.
The libel proceedings by Ms Leech (49), a communications consultant, of Otteran Place, South Parade, Waterford, are due to open next month.
Yesterday, Cian Ferriter, for Independent Newspapers, said it wanted to see the material relied on by the Quigley inquiry for its report, as there are “legitimate questions” as to whether various contracts secured by Ms Leech or her firm were influenced by her alleged connections with Mr Cullen.
In its defence, the newspaper has pleaded there were legitimate questions to be asked concerning Ms Leech’s appointment in July 2002 to the position of consultant to the Department of the Environment; the award of a tender to her in December 2002; and the appointment of Monica Leech Communications Ltd in February 2003.
The newspaper contends there was public concern and controversy about those matters and there were legitimate questions over whether the rate of pay to Ms Leech and the company represented a prudent use of public money.
Mr Ferriter argued there was a public interest in his client being allowed to inspect the material generated by the Quigley inquiry. Without such inspection, his client would not be able to test fully Ms Leech’s own evidence as to matters concerning the inquiry.
As Mr Quigley had himself noted, in the absence of “paper trails” in the OPW and other public bodies relating to the contracts awarded, it was all the more important the newspaper should be able to inspect notes of the Quigley inquiry’s interviews with Ms Leech, Mr Cullen, and various public servants as well as other material generated by the inquiry.
His side was not denying a validity in the public interest argument of the State but was rather contending the balance of justice lay in favour of the newspaper being in a position to properly defend the case.
Counsel for the State argued there was public interest privilege attaching to the material. Mr Quigley had guaranteed confidentiality to those who assisted the inquiry.
