THE High Court yesterday ordered the Workers' Party to produce any documents relating to the 10 year period when Mr Prionsias De Rossa was its leader. The order came as part of the defence by Independent Newspapers plc in a libel action being taken against it by the Democratic Left leader.
The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Costello, also made an amendment to the Independent's defence of the action, which is over an article by Eamon Dunphy in the Sunday Independent in December 1992 and which is due to be re heard this month.
The amendment, which was agreed with the plaintiff, states that the Independent admits the words complained of in the article meant that Mr De Rossa was leader of a party which had previously received funds as a result of criminal activities.
There had been public comment on what became known as the "Moscow letter", which had been signed but "not knowingly signed" by him which appeared to refer to such activities.
Mr Justice Costello ordered that only the terms of the amendment and nothing else from the proceedings relating to the amendment should be given publicity. In a separate application for discovery of Workers' Party documents, the newspaper sought the audited accounts of the party, the minutes of its ardchomhairle meetings and documents relating to three buildings used by the party in Dublin, Cork and Meath.
It also wanted correspondence relevant to links between the party and communist regimes in the former Soviet Union and eastern bloc countries. It sought documents relating to the existence and activities of the Official IRA and a response to media claims of links between the Workers' Party and that organisation as well as records of all inquiries and disciplinary action and complaints against members of the party in relation to criminal or anti social behaviour.
Ordering that the documents be made available, Mr Justice Costello said they should only relate to the period between 1982 and 1992 when Mr De Rossa was leader and to links between the Workers' Party and communist regimes, particularly in the Soviet Union.
In his judgment on the application for discovery of Workers' Party documents, the judge rejected submissions that as an unincorporated association it could not answer such an application.
He also rejected a submission that the court should differentiate between a political party and other entities when considering whether it infringed a constitutional right to privacy. He also rejected submissions that providing documents relating to communist regimes breached the principle of sovereign immunity.
The release of documents in relation to possible links with the IRA did not breach the privilege against self incrimination and if there were any this could be dealt with by the court.
On the question of why the application for discovery was not sought earlier, Mr Justice Costello noted that it was only during the hearing of the libel trial that the question of Workers' Party documents arose.
Mr De Rossa had also been late in filing documents still in his possession which the defence had sought, and this had meant there was not a proper opportunity for the Independent to evaluate the need for seeking Workers' Party documents. There was therefore a reasonable excuse available to the defence as to why it had not sought this discovery of documents application earlier.
On the question of prejudice to the forthcoming re trial that could be caused by this application, Mr Justice Costello said he did not think it would be necessary to adjourn the date for the re hearing on February 25th.
He ordered that the documents be made available by next Friday.