'Times' case adjourned until summer

A High Court action over the disclosure by The Irish Timesthat Taoiseach Bertie Ahern received cash  from businessmen when he was Minister for Finance in the early 90s is expected to be heard in June or July.

The proceedings brought by the Mahon Tribunal against Irish TimesEditor Geraldine Kennedy and Public Affairs Correspondent Colm Keena were briefly mentioned before Mr Justice Vivian Lavan today.

Denis McDonald SC, for the tribunal, said affidavits in the action had closed and the sides were seeking time to complete and exchange legal submissions.

Counsel said the tribunal submissions would be handed over by May 3rd next while the defence submissions would be exchanged by May 24th.

It had been agreed the case would be mentioned to the court on May 24th for the purpose of fixing a hearing date, counsel added.

Mr Eoin McGonigal SC, for the defendants, said his side consented to the schedule outlined and the judge adjourned the case to May 24th.

The tribunal is seeking to compel both journalists to disclose the source of confidential information regarding payments to Mr Ahern in an article, written by Mr Keena and published by the Irish Timeson September 21st 2006.

Under the headline, "Tribunal examines payments to Taoiseach", the article quoted a letter written on behalf of the tribunal to businessman David McKenna, which the tribunal says was marked "stricly private and confidential".

When summoned before the tribunal on September 26th, both journalists refused to provide documents or answer questions identifying the source of the information on which the article was based.

Ms Kennedy said the letter had been destroyed. In an affidavit, she said it is "a matter of legitimate and significant public and political interest" that the Taoiseach received substantial cash payments from businessmen when he was Minister for Finance in 1993.

These were "matters of fact and not mere allegations" and the citizens of Ireland were entitled to know them. On that and other grounds, the tribunal action was misconceived and an abuse of the court's process, she contended.