The matter of an article in The Irish Times written by journalist Paul Cullen concerning an affidavit by the late Mr Liam Conroy would be referred to the gardai, the chairman of the Flood tribunal said yesterday.
Mr Justice Flood said any form of leaking of documents that he regarded as confidential was a very serious matter and he would take all the steps that he had taken in the past.
He had previously reported such matters to gardai, as they were the people who investigated these matters and carried out investigations within their own staff, and any other source. He proposed to do exactly the same thing in this instance.
Mr Cullen was called to the witness stand and he told the tribunal that he had not seen the affidavit. The article was based on a variety of sources, not including the affidavit.
The matter had been raised by Mr Garrett Cooney SC, for the Murphy group. Effectively, he said, this report, which appeared yesterday, contained extracts from Mr Conroy's affidavit, which must have been leaked to Mr Cullen.
"We are very disturbed about this, Mr Chairman," Mr Cooney said, "because it is a clear contempt of this tribunal and it's also a very serious interference with my clients' rights." Everybody knew that the chairman had made a ruling on the admissibility of the affidavit, he continued. Mr Cullen must have been perfectly aware that it was still the subject of very anxious consideration by the tribunal.
Mr Desmond O'Neill SC, for the tribunal, asked Mr Cullen if he disputed that the content of the article appeared to be an affidavit sworn by Mr Conroy.
Mr Cullen said: "The article is giving the background to an issue which, as you know, has been ongoing in this tribunal for some time. If you are saying that the article is based on the affidavit which is at question, then I can say that it's not. I have not seen that affidavit and I do not have it in my possession."
When asked to what other source he attributed the information contained in the article other than the affidavit, Mr Cullen replied: "The article is based on a variety of sources."
Mr O'Neill asked: "Do you know whether or not this information is, in fact, contained within the affidavit of Liam Conroy?"
Mr Cullen replied: "I don't."
Mr Cooney, cross-examining, asked if it was Mr Cullen's evidence that he had never had Mr Conroy's affidavit or a copy of it in his possession. Mr Cullen said it was.
He asked if it was his evidence that nobody at any time had ever read extracts of the affidavit to him. Mr Cullen said it was.
Mr Cooney asked if he had conversed with anybody about the affidavit and its contents. Mr Cullen said that he had conversed with a wide variety of people, anybody who had any interest in the tribunal and its workings.
When asked if he had conversed with any person who clearly had a knowledge of its contents, Mr Cullen said he may have, he was not sure. He did not know what was in the document.
Mr Cooney asked if he had spoken with Mr Gogarty. Mr Cullen said he had never spoken with Mr Gogarty. He had spoken to his son that morning for the first time.
Mr Cooney asked what documentation he had in front of him when he wrote the article. Mr Cullen replied: "I didn't have any specific documentation in front of me when I wrote that article yesterday."
Asked if he meant that he was not referring to any other documents as he wrote the article, Mr Cullen said the article was based on a variety of sources and not including the affidavit, which was sworn in March 1989.
When pressed again on this point, Mr Cullen said he would prefer not go any further without having legal advice present.
The chairman said the witness had claimed the right to have legal advice, and the witness had the right to be advised as to his position.
He adjourned the matter until today to give Mr Cullen the opportunity to obtain legal advice.