Consultant objects to McDowell's 'angry tone'

ANDERSEN'S EVIDENCE:THE DANISH consultant who is giving evidence to the long-running Moriarty tribunal objected to the "angry temper and tone" of former tánaiste and attorney general Michael McDowell SC, who is putting questions to him for the tribunal.

Prof Michael Andersen said he would not be available again until the second half of 2011 if the tribunal was not finished taking his evidence by the end of next week.

Prof Andersen was the key consultant to the 1995 mobile phone licence competition that was won by Denis O’Brien’s Esat Digifone.

The arrival of Prof Andersen in the witness box is largely as a result of the efforts of Mr O’Brien and the provision by him of an indemnity to Prof Andersen.

Prof Andersen said it was understandable that Mr O’Brien would give him an indemnity against any costs that might arise, in order to facilitate his appearance at the tribunal. He had also been asked by Telenor, a shareholder in Esat, to come and give evidence.

He said he never had any intention to hide the existence of the indemnity.

It had been a long-standing pre-condition of his appearance that he would have an indemnity and because he had been refused one, he had not appeared at the tribunal some years ago.

At one stage Prof Andersen’s counsel, John Gleeson SC, objected to the tone being adopted by Mr McDowell. The witness was a recognised expert who had come to give evidence and not to mislead anyone, he said. English was not his mother tongue. Yet he was being subjected to what could only be described as “linguistic torture”.

Mr McDowell’s questioning was undoubtedly “being done in the tone of a prosecutor against an accused person”. He was not criticising Mr McDowell who was acting on instructions. “You sir are the client,” he said to Mr Justice Michael Moriarty.

Mr Justice Moriarty said it had been the practice to adduce the evidence of witnesses and on certain matters to weigh the evidence given.

In Prof Andersen’s case it was “not realistic” to “rigidly demarcate” the two for a number of reasons, including the existence of the indemnity from Mr O’Brien.

The indemnity includes any costs Prof Andersen has incurred to date that he does not manage to have paid by the tribunal, subject to a ceiling of €30,000, as well as any costs arising from his appearance at the tribunal that he does not recoup, as well as any future costs arising from his appearance.

Mr Andersen said his view was that the tribunal legal team did not want his evidence.

The attitude of the tribunal was indicated by the 80 letters that passed back and forth since he agreed in April to come to give evidence, one of which accused him of speaking to The Irish Times, which he had not.

“I am offering to come and give evidence and then the tribunal starts shooting at me,” he said. “The first thing I get is to get bullied.”

There had been no agreement with Mr O’Brien to keep the indemnity secret, as had been said by the tribunal, he said.