Investigators will not get involved in row between cardinal and archbishop, writes Patsy McGarry
The Dublin Archdiocese Commission of Investigation believes that few if any of the documents over which Cardinal Desmond Connell is claiming privilege at the High Court, have such privilege, The Irish Timeshas learned.
It is understood the commission told the cardinal it also had no intention of getting involved in the row between himself and Archbishop Martin over how the two prelates should deal with the commission.
On January 30th last, the day before Cardinal Connell initiated his current High Court action, he was told by the commission that, having looked at a list of the documents he claimed as privileged to him, its view was that few if any of them were.
On January 31st the cardinal was granted an interim injunction preventing the commission from examining the documents. Last Monday counsel for the commission agreed in court that it would not do so pending the outcome of a judicial review which Cardinal Connell is seeking.
The case is due for mention in the High Court this morning.
On January 30th also, the commission asserted that its order of December 20th last, made on Archbishop Martin for production of the documents, was totally in order as he was the current archbishop and successor to all previous archbishops of Dublin.
It said repeated allegations by Cardinal Connell of unfair treatment by it were baseless, and had not been substantiated, despite repeated requests that he do so.
On January 15th last Archbishop Martin handed over 66,583 documents to the commission, including 5,586 that the cardinal claims are privileged to him.
In mid-January the commission rejected the cardinal's contention that he was not aware of its interest in the relevant documents until shortly beforehand, and said it was satisfied he had been kept informed all along about the discovery process by the archdiocese. It added that it had no difficulty with that.
It insisted that at no time in that discovery process, going back to June 2006, had Cardinal Connell asserted any personal privilege over any documents, and that as recently as October last, when he attended a commission hearing and claimed that a document produced was privileged, that he had waived that privilege.
It pointed out that, under the 2004 Act under which it was set up, it had powers to decide on whether documents before it were protected by legal privilege or not. It had decided in this case to read all documents over which privilege was claimed. Where it felt any such document was relevant to its investigation, it would make a preliminary decision on whether it was privileged and would let the archdiocese know accordingly.
The archdiocese could then make submissions where it felt it appropriate on those documents and could, where it so wished, contact relevant third parties such as the cardinal. In that context, it felt Cardinal Connell's proposed High Court action was not necessary.
It is understood the commission asked the cardinal to proceed with the action quickly if he chose to take it.