Businessman Denis O'Brien has described as a "total fudge" a ruling on Thursday by the chairman of the Moriarty tribunal on the issue of the standard of proof that is to be applied in his forthcoming report on payments to Michael Lowry.
Mr O'Brien was one of a number of parties who made legal submissions to Mr Justice Moriarty on the issue of standard of proof and rules of evidence some weeks ago. He said he had been expecting that a public hearing would be held to allow oral discussion of the matter.
Mr Justice Moriarty, in a ruling posted on the tribunal website on Thursday, said he would not be departing from the approach of his first report, which concerned payments to the late Charles Haughey.
That meant "the civil standard, a flexible approach, proportionate to the nature and gravity of the matters arising" would be applied, he said. He did not deem it necessary to hold a public hearing to facilitate oral submissions on the issue.
Mr O'Brien, in his submission, had taken issue with comments on the issue of standard of proof made in the chairman's first report and had argued that a "substantial probability" standard should be applied.
The chairman's second report, on payments to Mr Lowry, a former minister for transport, energy and communications, is expected to be published in the coming months, barring last-minute actions in the High Court.
In the report Mr Justice Moriarty will give his findings in relation to a number of matters, including whether Mr O'Brien gave financial support to Mr Lowry and whether Mr Lowry in any way interfered with the State's second mobile phone licence competition in 1995, which saw Mr O'Brien's Esat Digifone consortium win the licence.
In a short statement issued yesterday by Mr O'Brien to The Irish Times, he said: "What was sought by various parties was a definitive ruling on fundamental points of constitutional law, natural justice and fair procedure."
He described it as vague however, saying it had "completely failed" to address the key points raised. "This ruling is a total fudge and of no assistance to anyone."
He said the tribunal had "inexplicably refused" to allow interested parties the opportunity to address the issues at a public hearing, and said such a decision was the "antithesis" of a public inquiry.