Tribunal 'misled' by Doncaster vendors

Solicitors for businessman Mr Denis O'Brien have complained to the Moriarty tribunal about "shadowy figures" involved in the …

Solicitors for businessman Mr Denis O'Brien have complained to the Moriarty tribunal about "shadowy figures" involved in the background to its inquiries into his purchase of Doncaster Rovers Football Club Ltd in 1998, writes Colm Keena.

The firm owns the lease on a football stadium in Doncaster.

The solicitors have alleged that the tribunal has allowed itself to be misled by Mr Ken Richardson and Mr Mark Weaver, the stadium vendors against whom a complaint of alleged blackmail has been made to the London police by Mr O'Brien's father, Mr Denis O'Brien snr.

The solicitors wrote to the tribunal this month saying they believed Mr Richardson and Mr Weaver were "operating for the benefit of competitors" of Mr O'Brien. The court was told the competitor was a consortium, Persona, which had come second in the 1995 mobile phone licence competition and which was now suing the State.

READ MORE

Recent correspondence between Mr O'Brien and the tribunal was read out on the second day of a hearing in which Mr O'Brien is seeking a High Court order preventing the tribunal proceeding with its public inquiry into Doncaster.

Mr Justice Herbert is asked to grant the order on several grounds including the fact that potential witnesses, who live outside the State, have indicated they will not attend the tribunal to give evidence.

The tribunal was told in correspondence that Mr O'Brien was concerned about the role being played by Mr Richardson and Mr Weaver, with one, Mr Richardson, being a convicted arsonist.

The solicitors sought any documentation or information the tribunal has concerning contacts between the two individuals and any unsuccessful applicant for the mobile phone licence.

A letter to the tribunal from a businessman based in Northern Ireland was also read to the court. Mr Kevin Phelan was involved in the Doncaster deal but has declined to come to Dublin to give evidence. In his letter, he said solicitors in Dublin acting for Persona were urging people to visit the tribunal to embarrass those before the tribunal.

The court has heard Mr O'Brien believes the tribunal's inquiries into his affairs mean he is faced constantly in his commercial life, at home and abroad, with comment that he is involved in a corruption tribunal.

On the hearing's second day, Mr Eoin McGonigal SC, with Mr Gerry Kelly SC and Mr James O'Callaghan, said the tribunal had no substantive evidence for proceeding from a private inquiry to a public inquiry into Doncaster.

The court heard the tribunal had categorically rejected the allegation that its only reason for holding the Doncaster hearings was to cause damage to Mr O'Brien.

Mr McGonigal said the tribunal had two contradictory letters from an English solicitor, Mr Christopher Vaughan, concerning the involvement or otherwise of Mr Michael Lowry in the Doncaster deal.

The first witness the tribunal would have to call would be Mr Vaughan, to be questioned about these letters, but he had said he would not be attending.

Mr McGonigal told Mr Justice Herbert that a tribunal could not move into a public inquiry if there was insufficient evidence to be heard on the issue. The terms of reference for the tribunal allow it to report back to the Dáil that it has inquired into a matter but could not come to a finding because it did not have sufficient evidence.

The case continues.