John Delaney’s bid to have court proceedings held in private ‘draconian’

Former FAI chief executive concerned certain information will get into public domain

The application arises out of John  Delaney’s stated concerns that media reports of the court case will result in private and legally privileged information being wrongfully put in the public domain. File  Photograph: Laura Hutton

The application arises out of John Delaney’s stated concerns that media reports of the court case will result in private and legally privileged information being wrongfully put in the public domain. File Photograph: Laura Hutton

 

An application by former Football Association of Ireland chief executive John Delaney to have an action over seized documents held in private is “very draconian,” the High Court has heard.

The application arises out of Mr Delaney’s stated concerns that media reports of the case will result in private and legally privileged information being wrongfully put in the public domain.

However, solicitor Simon McAleese for the Sunday Times told Ms Justice Leonie Reynolds on Wednesday his client is opposed to Mr Delaney’s bid to have ongoing hearing heard in camera.

In February last year, some 280,000 files were sized by the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement as part of its criminal investigation into certain matters at the FAI.

In proceedings brought by the ODCE, where Mr Delaney is a notice party, Ms Justice Reynolds has been asked to determine which of the material is covered by legal privilege are made, and cannot be used by the ODCE as part of its probe.

To assist with this process, barrister Niall Nolan Bl was appointed as an independent person to examine and review materials over which claims of legal privilege are made by Mr Delaney.

Mr Nolan will prepare a report for the court which will aid Ms Justice Reynolds to determine which of the material is privileged and which is not.

‘Enormous concern’

On Wednesday, Paul McGarry SC for Mr Delaney told the judge that arising out of Mr Nolan’s work, their client is seeking a formal order, under the 2014 Companies Act, that the hearing be conducted ‘in camera’ where only the parties involved would be present.

Counsel said his client was not trying to delay things but is very concerned about material being aired in public.

If the application is successful, the media would not be allowed to attend nor report on the proceedings.

The order was being sought over his concerns when material he claims is covered by Legal Professional Privilege (LPP) and or that is private to him comes before the court, counsel said.

If the ODCE wishes to challenge any of Mr Delaney’s claims that certain material is covered by LPP, he fears that matters will come into the public domain that should not be aired in public.

Mr Delaney says that material relates to legal advice he received, and should not be disseminated to the ODCE or anyone else without his consent.

This potential dissemination he said is “a matter of enormous concern,” to him. The public and the media he said have no right of access to the material seized nor to challenge his assertions of privilege.

In order to protect the integrity of his privilege claims and his family’s privacy, the court should hear matters in camera, or in the alternative restain reporters from reporting details in the hearing until the issues concern privlege are determined.

In response, Mr McAleese said his client wished to make submissions, including the importance that justice be seen to be administered in public, to the court outlining its opposition to the “very draconian” application.

He said the application for the matter to be held in camera raised a net legal point, adding that it was premature at this stage of the proceedings.

He added that other media organisations may also wish to take part in the proceedings, adding that RTÉ had been in contact with him regarding the matter.

Kerida Naidoo SC, for the ODCE, which in a separate application is seeking orders including one allowing more persons to appointed to assist Mr Nolan, said his client was neutral regarding the in-camera application.

Brian Gageby Bl, for the FAI, said it was also neutral in relation to Mr Delaney’s application.

Ms Justice Reynolds questioned if the application was “premature,” given that no report has been furnished to the court by Mr Nolan.

The judge adjourned the matter for a week to allow the sides exchange legal submissions.

She also remarked that while the ODCE and FAI were not objecting, it should have been foreseen that the media would seek to make submissions or oppose Mr Delaney’s application for the hearings to be held in camera.