'Stocktaking' to delay public hearings

Moriarty Tribunal: The tribunal has adjourned until the "earliest possible date" after the Easter recess, which comes to an end on April 28th, writes Colm Keena.

At the outset of yesterday's proceedings, the chairman, Mr Justice Moriarty, said that during the break the tribunal team would be working on public hearings concerning a number of matters other than the 1995 mobile phone licence competition, which is the subject of the current hearings.

He said that because of this "stocktaking" he did not want to set a precise date for the resumption of public hearings, but it would not be later than a week after the beginning of the new law term.

The tribunal is believed to be preparing for further hearings into matters connected to Mr Charles Haughey, the Revenue Commissioners, and financial transactions involving Mr Michael Lowry and Mr Denis O'Brien.

Earlier this year, Mr Justice Moriarty said he envisaged the tribunal's hearings being completed by Christmas. However, sources believe that because of the pace of the hearings to date into the mobile phone licence issue, it is now likely that the tribunal will still be involved in public hearings in 2004.

Yesterday, the tribunal heard evidence for the third day from an accountant, Mr Billy Riordan, who was on assignment to the Department of Finance at the time of the licence competition. Mr Riordan worked with the evaluation team which assessed the bids received.

He told Mr Jerry Healy SC, for the tribunal, that he did not at this point have a clear view as to whether he was an "evaluator" or a "resource which could be used by the evaluators".

He told Mr Eoin McGonigal SC, for Mr O'Brien, that "I did not see myself as a lead player" in the process. He had never felt overborne by anyone in relation to his work on the licence competition.

He agreed that no one ever told him to "shut up" or told him not to raise an issue, and that the then minister, Mr Lowry, had never told him to do that.

He agreed with Mr McGonigal that he had worked on the process to the best of his ability and in an independent way.

He told Mr Richard Nesbitt SC, for the Department of Communications, he saw nothing during the evaluation process which made him feel that anything untoward had taken place. If he had he believed he would have remembered it. He would have stood up against anyone who had refused to give due attention to points he raised.