THE CHAIRMAN of the Moriarty tribunal has for now abandoned any plan of publishing his report in two parts, interested parties have been informed.
It is understood Mr Justice Moriarty has also told interested parties that if he was going to produce a split report, he would give them at least 10 days’ notice. This would give any party so minded time to seek to challenge such a move in the courts.
The possibility of two reports, one covering so-called “money trail” issues concerning the former minister Michael Lowry, and a second covering the tribunal’s marathon inquiry into the issuing of the State’s second mobile phone licence to Denis O’Brien’s Esat Digifone in 1996, was first mentioned by the judge last May.
The tribunal has recently and for the first time posted transcripts of its proceedings on its website, moriarty-tribunal.ie. However the transcripts only go as far as March 2003. It is not known why the tribunal has decided at this stage to post some of the transcripts of its public hearings.
Documents from the Department of the Taoiseach, released under the Freedom of Information Act, show Mr Justice Moriarty has in recent months told the department there is a “pressing need” for an additional outside solicitor for the tribunal and a barrister to replace John Coughlan SC, who has been unwell.
In a letter dated June 15th to the secretary general of the Department of Finance, Philip Hamell of the Taoiseach’s department said it was “extremely unwilling” to add to the costs of the tribunal but wanted sanction for the move given that it might avoid delaying the tribunal’s work.
Also in June the secretary general at the Taoiseach’s department, Dermot McCarthy, told Eimear Lavelle of the Dáil Committee of Public Accounts it had received information from the tribunal about its work during 2008.
The tribunal said that during the year it received up to 19,000 pages of documentation from Gerry Ryan, the authorised officer who had investigated the Ansbacher deposits affair, “pursuant to obligations imposed on him under the Companies Acts”.
The tribunal had already held hearings into, and reported on the Ansbacher deposits. However, the tribunal felt obliged to examine the material and articulate its views to the relevant department on the matter.
Other documents show that in January the department wrote to almost all the members of the tribunal’s legal team. As all but one member of the team had incomes in 2009 that exceeded €200,000, the budget reductions of 15 per cent on salaries of that size, should apply, the department decided.
An internal memo dated January 19th noted that there had been an 8 per cent cut in their fees the previous year. “Last year’s reductions were accepted by the tribunal legal team without comment and the tribunal’s work went on without apparent interruption on foot of the reduction.”
Mr McCarthy then wrote to all but one member of the legal team informing them of the decision. “If you are dissatisfied with this reduction in fees, you will be allowed to withdraw your services by doing so in writing before February 1st, 2010.” There is nothing in the documents released to indicate any member withdrew services.