The managing director of Zoe Developments Ltd has told the High Court the death two years ago of a young man on a site operated by his company continued to cause him "severe sorrow".
Mr Liam Carroll said in an affidavit that James Masterson died after an accident on a Zoe site in Dublin. He had attended his burial in Co Mayo in 1997.
Mr Carroll said it was "unfortunately true" that safety regulations had previously been breached on some of Zoe's sites, and Zoe deeply regretted this.
There were some 600 people working on Zoe's sites, and the company had employed safety consultants to advise on its sites. Zoe had also implemented a comprehensive site safety-management system.
Mr Carroll said it was "insulting" for the National Authority for Occupational Safety and Health (NAOSH) to allege that he was either unwilling or unable to recognise the magnitude of events which gave rise to court proceedings in November 1997, to halt work at Zoe's Charlotte Quay site.
His complaint was that the authority, knowing Zoe was facing a criminal trial on December 8th, 1997, chose to issue a press statement on November 6th, 1997, which said Zoe had had 12 previous convictions between 1991 and 1997, with two further potential indictable offences pending. He believed the authority knew the publication of the fact of 12 previous convictions would prejudice Zoe in its defence.
The affidavit by Mr Carroll, of La Touche House, Grove Road, Rathmines, Dublin, was read on the second day of an action in which Zoe is seeking various orders and declarations, including an order to stop its pending trial before Dublin Circuit Criminal Court for alleged safety breaches. Zoe is denying the charges.
In an affidavit, Ms Annette Bolger, of Drury Communications, said Zoe had commissioned Lansdowne Market Research to carry out a survey where 425 people were interviewed about four building companies, Zoe, Sheelin Homes, Cosgrave Homes Ltd and Park Developments Ltd. Of these, one in three was aware of Zoe.
She said the poll showed Zoe had "a disproportionate number of people who spontaneously associate it with a poor health and safety record, accidents and fatalities on site, and going to court". It was highly probable that of any 12 jurors empanelled to try the case against Zoe, at least one, and possibly more, would associate Zoe with previous convictions.
The DPP and the authority are opposing Zoe's application. The authority denies the disclosure of Zoe's previous convictions created a real or substantial risk of prejudice. It also claims any unfairness which might arise may be avoided by appropriate trial directions. It further denies it set out to prejudice Zoe's prospects.
The hearing continues.
