A BARRISTER from the attorney general’s office said there was no question of his having been put under any pressure by Michael Lowry in 1996, when the State’s second mobile phone licence was about to be issued.
Denis McFadden was giving evidence to Gerald Hogan, for businessman Dermot Desmond, about the role of the attorney general’s office in April and May 1996, when the licence was about to be issued to Esat Digifone.
Questions were raised by officials in Mr Lowry’s then department of transport, energy and communications on the legality of issuing the licence, given that Mr Desmond became a shareholder in the consortium after the bid was submitted for the licence.
The tribunal chairman, Mr Justice Michael Moriarty, has said he believes the advice commissioned from Richard Nesbitt SC at the time did not deal with the issue.
Mr McFadden said his view at the time was the advice did deal with the issue, and that this was the view of the attorney general’s office at the time. He said he had expressed this view to the tribunal during a private meeting in 2002.
Asked whether he had been in Mr Lowry’s “thrall” in 1996, Mr McFadden replied: “Absolutely not.” He said he had never met Mr Lowry. In his 30 years in the office of the attorney general, he had never had any civil servant come into his office and try to pressurise him in any way.
Mr Hogan said Mr Nesbitt had given evidence last year about the advice, and the credibility of his evidence had been questioned by the tribunal, on the basis that he had only in recent times expressed the view that the legal advice dealt with the matter in 1996.
Yet Mr McFadden had given evidence that he and Mr Nesbitt had told the tribunal, in 2002, of their view that the advice dealt with the matter. This was “most surprising”, Mr Hogan told Mr McFadden, who said it was a matter for the tribunal chairman.
Mr McFadden told the tribunal he had “no doubt” the advice dealt with the matter, and that Mr Nesbitt had given oral advice at the time to the same effect.
John Coughlan, for the tribunal, put it to Mr McFadden there had been correspondence between the tribunal and the attorney general’s office in 2002, but no one mentioned oral advice being given.
Mr McFadden said the focus of the meeting with the tribunal in 2002 was on the document produced by Mr Nesbitt. He said he expressed his view at the time the document dealt with the matter.
He said tribunal counsel Jerry Healy had a view on the matter and there was “a somewhat jocular interchange” between him and Mr Nesbitt. He reported to the then attorney general, Dermot Gleeson, that he believed the tribunal team had accepted his view. It was 2008 before he learned otherwise. Mr McFadden continues his evidence on Monday.