Moriarty findings attacked

The preliminary findings of the Moriarty tribunal have been attacked by a leading international telecoms consultant.

Prof Michael Andersen said members of the tribunal legal team have been biased and that this bias “culminated” in the confidential provisional findings issued by Mr Justice Michael Moriarty in November of 2008.

Prof Andersen, who acted as lead consultant to the 1995 mobile phone licence competition won by Denis O’Brien’s Esat Digifone, said the tribunal had “little interest” in finding out what really happened during the competition.

In response to questions from Michael McDowell SC, for the tribunal, Prof Andersen said the tribunal’s legal team had a “working hypothesis” that another consortium, Persona, should have won the competition. He thought this flowed through the entire preliminary findings.

“Otherwise the tribunal could not arrive at the hostile view it does in the provisional findings,” he said.

He said draft results in 1995 based on quantitative analyses of the bids for the licence showed Esat scoring less than Persona, but these results were based on flawed work.

The results “could not be justified on statistical grounds” and could not be the grounds for nominating any candidate.

He said tribunal counsel Jerry Healy SC and Jacqueline O’Brien SC were both of the opinion that Persona should have won the competition. This view led to the preliminary findings and the underlying thesis that something was fundamentally wrong, he said.

Prof Andersen said it was because of the hostile treatment he had received from the tribunal legal team back in 2002 and 2003 that he had wanted an indemnity that would cover not just his legal costs but any damages that might arise from the tribunal’s work.

However the tribunal could not get him the indemnity. In 2007 the tribunal made a ruling that was factually incorrect and defamatory of him, he said.

The hostility of the tribunal “escalated to a level where I could not have any normal communication with it.”

He had agreed to give evidence in April after he was approached by a representative of Mr O’Brien and given an indemnity from Mr O’Brien. Telenor, the Norwegian telecoms company that was a shareholder in Esat, had also asked him to give evidence.

“The reason for my changed approach is fairly justified from my point of view, when the tribunal has had so little interest in getting down to what happened in the competition in 1995.”

The tribunal’s inquiry into the mobile phone licence competition started in 2002. It is expected that the final cost will be far in excess of €100 million.