Legal opinion may exonerate Lowry, O'Brien, civil servants

[mmrebel]

An explosive document that the government claimed was privileged for 10 years has just been released to the Moriarty tribunal and could potentially exonerate former minister Michael Lowry, Ireland's richest man Denis O'Brien and top civil servants from the Department of Communications.

A legal opinion commissioned by attorney general Dermot Gleeson in 1996 advised Lowry's Department of Communications to proceed with signing over the mobile phone licence to Denis O'Brien's consortium – eliminating a crucial allegation relating to corruption of the political process.

The written advice by senior counsel and Arnotts chairman Richard Law Nesbitt is contained in a document circulated by the tribunal on 2 April. A spokesman for communications minister Eamon Ryan said he had no comment to make when asked why the decision to claim privilege had been reversed.

Legal opinion may exonerate Lowry, O'Brien, civil servants



Were the vast majority of people that assumed he was guilty wrong ????

[toxic avenger]

A well-placed leak to the Sunday Independent the same week that Lowry's English solicitor is questioned on his own letters saying Lowry was involved with O'Brien, plus another solicitor alleges Lowry paid blackmail money to hush up his involvement?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..... * strokes chin earnestly *

[Question R24U]

It would not be Dermot Gleeson's (now AIB chairman?)function to advise to sign off on such a deal. It might have advised they could within the law etc.

[mmrebel]

A well-placed leak to the Sunday Independent the same week that Lowry's English solicitor is questioned on his own letters saying Lowry was involved with O'Brien, plus another solicitor alleges Lowry paid blackmail money to hush up his involvement?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..... * strokes chin earnestly *

i would have never though you a cynic TA

[corelli]

It would not be Dermot Gleeson's (now AIB chairman?)function to advise to sign off on such a deal. It might have advised they could within the law etc.

From my understanding the Department,under Lowry at the time, decided to get independent legal advice on the issuing of the licence, and the AG merely served as a conduit through which the advice was procured. It's quite standard practice. It removes any taint that a department hand picked the individual who gave the advice.

It is not all cut and dried however, as we do not know what information was given to the barrister, on which he based his advice. Presumably it is a matter into which the tribunal will enquire. If there was, however, full disclosure to counsel and he advised, independently, that the licence should be issued, it would certainly cast the decision to award the licence in a totally different light.

[Lefournier]

A well-placed leak to the Sunday Independent the same week that Lowry's English solicitor is questioned on his own letters saying Lowry was involved with O'Brien, plus another solicitor alleges Lowry paid blackmail money to hush up his involvement?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..... * strokes chin earnestly *

Hmmmmm.... indeed. And it's the Tribune which gave this story most prominence.

http://http://www.tribune.ie/news/ar...ien-civil-ser/

Tomorrow's IT says the Tribunal is re-opening its hearings to deal with this document. O'Brien is learning some things from his erstwhile rival, new best friend in the Indo.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...245683944.html
The journalists failed to question Lowry/O'Brien claims that this opinion supported their contention. We are treated to highly selective comments from the legal opinion but I cannot see how any legal advisor is in a position to dictate the award of a contract. The most an advisor could do is indicate the legal consequences of possible courses of action.

It seems that the issue was whether Dermot Desmond's stakeholding (which had been disguised) was grounds for cancelling the award of the contract. I think the advice was that, having awarded the contract, it could not be reversed provided Desmond's stake did not exceed 20% . So at that point i.e. after the award of the contract, Lowry could say his hands were tied but that's not the main issue.

A separate question is why the Department did not release this document earlier. My guess is that the Department wanted to claim privilege on all its legal advice but when it saw the draft Report the Department decided to lob this grenade at the Tribunal. The Tribunal should ask for all the legal advice i.e. the Department should be allowed a selective leak.