THE Minister for Social Welfare, Mr De Rossa, denied in the High Court yesterday that he lied in an Irish Times interview about how much time he spent in Moscow on a visit in 1986.
Counsel for Independent Newspapers, Mr Patrick MacEntee SC, put it to Mr De Rossa that he told "two significant lies" to The Irish Times in the 1992 interview.
Mr De Rossa, who said he was not surprised that the Sunday Independent was now calling him a liar, said all Mr MacEntee had shown was an inaccuracy in his recollection when he gave the interview to journalists John Armstrong and Ed O'Loughlin.
The interview, in December 1992, concerned the "Moscow letter" of September 15th, 1986, at the centre of Mr De Rossa's libel action against Independent Newspapers. The letter referred to alleged "special activities" by the Workers' Party and requested £1 million in funding from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
Reading from a transcript of the interview, Mr MacEntee said that Mr Armstrong had put it to Mr De Rossa that the letter was dated around the same time as Mr De Rossa's visit to Moscow with Mr Sean Garland.
Mr De Rossa had replied yes, that they had stayed overnight in Moscow on their way to a nuclear disarmament conference in North Korea. After giving some detail about the conference, Mr Dc Rossa had said that on the way back "we would have stayed overnight in Moscow before flying back to Shannon."
Mr MacEntee put it to the witness that he was saying to Mr Armstrong, and through him to - the readers of The Irish Times, - that they had stayed overnight in Moscow on the way to North Korea and overnight on the way back. That was not the truth, was it?
Mr De Rossa said it was the truth as far as he could recall it at that stage. It was to his best recollection while doing the interview. He had subsequently established that the visit to North Korea was shorter than he had recalled and the visit to Moscow was longer.
Mr MacEntee said he was putting it to the witness that there were two statements which were untrue: one relating to how long he had spent in Moscow on the way out, and the other to how long he had stayed there on the way back.
Mr De Rossa said it was simply a matter of recollection. They were talking about an interview which had taken place in December 1992; the visit was six years earlier. He had been on hundreds of trips abroad to various places in the meantime so he did not see "any big deal" about it.
Mr MacEntee said this was Mr De Rossa's first visit to Moscow. He had told him that already and had no difficulty recalling his vis its to the ballet and Gorky Park.
Mr De Rossa replied that in the meantime he had had time to disentangle in his memory a subsequent holiday he spent in Moscow in 1989. Mr MacEntee was seeking to make a big deal of it but he had simply misremembered the length of time he had spent in Moscow.
Mr MacEntee said he was suggesting it was not a mistake, "but a deliberate curtailment of the time you spent in Moscow".
Mr De Rossa said he was not surprised that the Sunday Independent was now calling him a liar as well. He had given the court in the last week his full recollection of the visit. He had done that while having a transcript of the interview in his possession. He was being-called not only a liar but a stupid liar.
Counsel put it to the witness that he had told Mr Armstrong a "very strange tale", that he had been overnight in Moscow on the way to North Korea and overnight on the way back, when you were there on your own reckoning at least one full day on the way out and possibly 10 days on the way back".
"That couldn't be a mistake, that has to be a deliberate lie," he added.
Mr De Rossa said he could not accept that. He was not a liar, although he was sure not many people would accept that politicians were not liars. "I'm not aware of anybody who's prepared outside of this court or outside of the Sunday Independent to call me a liar."
Mr MacEntee: "I'm presenting it chapter and verse of where you told not one but two significant lies."
Mr De Rossa said no, and no matter how many times Mr MacEntee called him a liar, he was not going to rise to the bait. All counsel had shown was an inaccuracy in his recollection in a 1992 interview about a visit that had taken place six years earlier.
Earlier, Mr De Rossa said the questions for The Irish Times interview in December 1992 were furnished a couple of days in advance. However, there was no restraint on the journalists asking whatever they wanted to ask. He would have discussed the questions with Mr Tony Heffernan, who was then press officer of Democratic Left.
He also agreed to give copies of his signature to The Irish Times. As far as he was concerned he had nothing to hide and he gave the interview to clear up the matter of the "Moscow letter". However, when he was asked by Mr Armstrong if he would supply signatures from 1986, he had indicated he was not prepared to do that at that stage.
He had already given copies of his signature to the paper, which had had assessments made. He had told them that if the interview was going to develop into a forensic examination, he would rather that the gardai dealt with the matter. He was not prepared to be tried by The Irish Times or any other newspaper.
One of the reasons he was in court was that the Sunday Independent tried to try him in its newspaper columns and libelled him in the process. He had cooperated fully with The Irish Times in giving the interview and supplying his signatures.
Mr MacEntee put it to Mr De Rossa that, from the transcript of the interview, it looked on the face of it as if he was threatening the journalists Mr Armstrong and Mr O'Loughlin - that he would go to the DPP.
Mr De Rossa replied no, he did not threaten journalists. He had made it clear, in frank and straightforward replies, that if they proceeded to pursue the matter in a way that implied that in some way he was guilty of something, that he would have to take the whole matter further and put it in the hands of the DPP. He did not accept the newspaper had the right to try anybody. He agreed they had the right to ask questions.
Mr De Rossa said he freely and without hesitation had given copies of his signature to The Irish Times. He had agreed to do an extensive interview. He wanted to clear up the matter. It seemed he had done everything conceivably possible to assist The Irish Times.
He would not have been there to do the interview if he had not been willing to assist the journalists.
Mr De Rossa said it was his lawyers who sent an expert to Moscow to see the original of the letter there. He was told that was in September 1996. He had not given the handwriting expert any instructions his lawyers had. He had supplied his lawyers with as many signatures as he could lay his hands on.
Asked if he had expected the expert to be confined solely to the authenticity of the signature and not look at the paper or the markings, Mr De Rossa said he did not know what the specific instructions were. He had never met the expert beyond meeting him in court during the week. He had not known or selected him. There was no evidence that the expert was instructed to limit himself to an examination of the signatures.
Mr De Rossa said that in The Irish Times interview, he was being asked to speculate about the purpose of the letter.