The Moriarty Tribunal has been given letters that appear to show a more "emphatic" involvement by Michael Lowry with English property transactions at a time when earlier evidence had indicated his involvement was limited, the tribunal heard today.
Tribunal counsel Jerry Healy SC said the letters had been given to the tribunal yesterday afternoon. He read into the record six letters that dealt with Mr Lowry and property transactions in England which had not previously been given to the tribunal.
He also read out a letter which was different to one which had been given to the tribunal at an earlier date, with the difference concerning a reference to Mr Lowry which was absent from the version which had been given to the tribunal earlier.
The tribunal is investigating property purchases in the late 1990s in Cheadle and Mansfield which involved Mr Lowry, and whether Mr Lowry was receiving any financial support from businessman Denis O'Brien. Mr O'Brien's Esat Digifone was given the State's second mobile phone licence in 1996 during a period when Mr Lowry was the minister concerned. He had denied giving financial support to Mr Lowry.
English solicitor Christopher Vaughan, who acted for the purchaser in the property transactions, told Mr Healy he had given his purchase file to the tribunal in 2001 but not documentation dealing with potential sales of the properties that had not been finanised. However Mr Healy said documents from 2001 indicated Mr Vaughan had said he would give both the purchase and disposal files to the tribunal.
Mr Vaughan forwarded the new documents to the triubnal yesterday after they had been given to him, three or four weeks ago, by Northern Ireland land agent Kevin Phelan, who was involved with the English property deals.
Mr Vaughan said the letter which mentioned Mr Lowry had contained a mistake and the version which had earlier been given to to the tribunal, and which had not mentioned Mr Lowry, was probably a corrected version of the letter.
However Mr Healy said the two letters differed in many respects and appeared to have been written by a different typist. He said this was true of other letters the tribunal had been given concerning the property transactions, of which it had later been given different versions. Mr Vaughan denied that he was "trifling" with the tribunal.