A solicitor for businessman Mr Dermot Desmond told the High Court yesterday her client had been dismayed for some time at the manner in which he has been treated by the Moriarty tribunal.
Ms Helen Rackard added, however, that Mr Desmond, of course, had respect for the tribunal's integrity. Rather than immediately challenge the tribunal in court, he had sought to resolve issues through correspondence.
Ms Rackard was giving evidence on affidavit on the second day of the hearing of proceedings in which Mr Desmond is contesting the reading of the findings of the Glackin Report into the public record of the tribunal. The report dealt with the sale of the former Johnston, Mooney and O'Brien site at Ballsbridge, Dublin, and the involvement of two property companies in which Mr Desmond was found to have an interest.
The Moriarty tribunal is inquiring into decisions taken by former minister Michael Lowry leading to the granting of the second mobile phone licence to the Esat Digifone/Telenor/IIU consortium.
Mr Desmond is involved with IIU. The tribunal denies it has failed to afford Mr Desmond fair procedures and that it had failed to give him a chance to protect his reputation.
In her affidavit, Ms Rackard said it had been asserted on behalf of the tribunal that it was not under a duty to notify Mr Desmond of its intention to make reference to the Glackin Report.
In support of that contention was the assertion that the report was a public document that had been in the public domain for 10 years.
However, it was not disputed, nor could it have been, that Mr Desmond was entitled to fair procedures.
Rather, by implication, the tribunal claimed that referring to the Glackin Report could not amount to a breach of fair procedures.
Superficially, that argument might appear to have merit but on closer analysis it was completely misconceived, she said.
Mr Desmond was entitled to fair procedures because he was a member of the Esat Digifone consortium that was granted the second mobile phone licence. The tribunal was inquiring into whether Mr Lowry conferred any benefit on any member of that consortium.
Although it had been indicated that no case was being made against Mr Desmond, the tribunal had not restricted itself to facts that had emerged in the private phase of the investigation.
Mr Desmond was clearly entitled to be afforded fair procedures in respect of the tribunal's current module.
The hearing, before Mr Justice Quirke, continues today.