THE Minister for Social Welfare, Mr De Rossa, said in the High Court yesterday that the publication of a letter allegedly from the Workers Party to the Soviet Union four years ago had a devastating effect on him.
He told Mr Justice McCracken and a jury that he did not ask former Workers' Party office staff if they could cast any light on the letter to the Soviet Communist Party seeking funds.
Mr De Rossa, now the leader of Democratic Left, had stated on Wednesday that he had concluded that the letter to the Soviet Communist Party bearing his name and published in The Irish Times was a forgery. The letter stated the Workers' Party sought a £1 million grant.
Yesterday was the sixth day of his libel action over an article by Mr Eamon Dunphy in the Sunday Independent on December 13th, 1992.
It is claimed the newspaper published material which associated Mr De Rossa with truly horrible activities, such as subversion, armed robbery, drugs, prostitution and protection rackets. The defence admits publishing the words but denies they were published falsely or maliciously as alleged.
Mr Patrick MacEntee SC, for Independent Newspapers, asked Mr De Rossa about the letter published in The Irish Times on October 26/27th, 1992, and dated September 15th, 1986.
Mr MacEntee asked if, when Democratic Left was formed after the split with the Workers' Party any Workers' Party staff had gone to Democratic Left. Mr De Rossa said they did.
Counsel asked if he had made inquiries among those people to see if anyone could cast any light on how the letter came into existence.
Mr De Rossa said he had not. He did not pursue that inquiry. The fact was that publication of the text in The Irish Times had a devastating effect on him.
He had gone through "the guts of 18 months" of political turmoil and helped form a new party. He felt that this letter was likely to do him damage and destroy virtually all the work he had done over 18 months and all the political work he had done over his life.
Mr MacEntee asked if that was not a reason why he would have been keen to identify who was responsible for the letter.
Mr De Rossa said the effect at that point was that he would withdraw into himself. He did not want to discuss the letter and he did not want to think about it.
He wanted to establish in the public mind immediately that it was not a letter he had anything to do with. The whole purpose of his approach was to establish that he had nothing whatever to do with it.
At that point he did not want to have anything further to do with the Workers' Party. The letter was apparently on Workers' Party notepaper. He had left and did not want to look back and become embroiled in haggling in public or in private.
He wanted to get on with his private and political life in the new party. He simply wanted to move on.
Mr MacEntee asked did it follow that he believed when he read The Irish Times article that the likely consequence would be to lead back to the Workers' Party. Mr De Rossa said: "No, not necessarily." There were aspects of the text published in The Irish Times that did not ring true to him.
He had no way of knowing who might have been the author of the letter. His primary concern was that it had nothing whatever to do with him personally.
Counsel asked what were the things in the letter that made him wonder if it was a letter from the Workers' Party or official of the Workers' Party. Mr De Rossa said he had not said he thought it came from the Workers' Party. He did not come to a conclusion one way or another.
Mr De Rossa said he had stated on Wednesday that the letter had said there was a common analysis between the Workers' Party and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. He had pointed out that that was not true, as the CPSU had supported violence in Northern Ireland.
He had pointed out on Wednesday that an aspect that did not ring true was the reference in the letter to a five year development plan. From his knowledge of participation in Workers' Party committees, no such plan had ever been drawn up and approved.
Aspects of the letter seemed to indicate it was possible it came from somebody who was not a member of the Workers' Party.
Mr MacEntee said that not only was the letter a request for funds but it was saying "we are willing to negotiate with you" and meet and expand on any points in the letter. It was common sense that it was an invitation to the central committee to write back if they agreed in principle, saying "come and have a chat".
Mr De Rossa said he had made it clear that he was not prepared to speculate about what the letter was intended to do and who was the author of it. He was in court to establish his good name against a libel by the Sunday Independent alleging he was a criminal. "I am not a criminal and I am here to establish that fact."
Mr Justice McCracken said it must also be said that Mr MacEntee was in court to put forward the case of the Sunday Independent. He was doing his job and he was entitled to ask Mr De Rossa questions.
Mr De Rossa said he could not be seriously asked to speculate. Mr Justice McCracken told Mr MacEntee that he was to some degree asking Mr De Rossa to speculate. Once counsel accepted he had no knowledge of the letter, Mr De Rossa could not know about it.
The judge said Mr De Rossa did not know who wrote the letter. That was a matter they may try to establish later in the trial. As far as Mr De Rossa was concerned, he did not write it. He denied knowledge of it and he could not know the knowledge of the persons who wrote it.
Asked by Mr MacEntee, when he read the letter published in The Irish Time, what did he understand "special activities" to mean Mr De Rossa said it seemed to him in the context of the letter to imply illegal activity of some kind.
Mr MacEntee asked if it did not go a little farther than that in his mind. Mr De Rossa said the reading of it at that point was that it was illegal activities, raising funds illegally.
Mr MacEntee said they accepted Mr De Rossa had no knowledge of funds having been raised illegally or special activities or otherwise.
Further questioned, Mr De Rossa said it had always been his contention that there was never such activity associated with the Workers' Party.
He said there was no evidence to his mind that the letter emanated from the Workers' Party.