MORIARTY TRIBUNAL:THE MANAGING partner of solicitors firm LK Shields said it was not the case he should have thought there was something "dodgy" about letters concerning the purchase of Doncaster Rovers Football Club Ltd by businessman Denis O'Brien.
Hugh Garvey was questioned by tribunal counsel Stephen McCullough about correspondence he had with the tribunal over a period on behalf of his clients Denis O’Brien snr and Westferry Ltd. The latter was used to buy Doncaster Rovers in the late 1990s.
The tribunal is investigating whether the purchase of the football club at any time involved an effort to confer a financial benefit on former government minister Michael Lowry.
Subsequent to the purchase, a dispute broke out with the vendors and, during mediation hearings in London, an event occurred that led to Mr O’Brien snr making a complaint of attempted blackmail to the London Metropolitan Police.
Following the publication of a report in The Irish Timeson January 11th, 2003, which dealt with a letter to Mr Lowry concerning the Doncaster deal and the alleged blackmail attempt, the tribunal wrote to Mr O'Brien's solicitors, William Fry, who responded enclosing certain documents.
The tribunal sought further documentation including a draft police statement of Mr O’Brien snr.
In February, Ruth Collard of Carter Ruck solicitors, London, who were working for Westferry, wrote to Mr O’Brien snr saying the disclosure of its file was a matter for him and that the police did not think it would have any significant effect on any prosecution.
She wrote a letter in similar terms to William Fry, acting on behalf of both Mr O’Briens.
Mr O’Brien snr wrote back to her requesting that she alter both letters, removing certain references to the fact that the police believed the provision of the document would not jeopardise their inquiry. Ms Collard complied and sent new versions of the letters.
In September 2003 the tribunal was informed by William Fry that the issue was now being handled by LK Shields and that it now had its files. Documents shown yesterday included a fax from Owen O’Sullivan of William Fry to Mr Garvey on September 30th, 2003.
“Hugh. I refer to my voicemail yesterday evening and enclose copies of two letters received from Ruth Collard in Peter Carter Ruck Partners in case these are not among what you receive from Denis.”
The letters sent to Mr Garvey by Mr O’Sullivan were the two versions of the letters sent to William Fry by Ms Collard. An associated e-mail showed they had been changed at the request of Mr O’Brien snr.
During subsequent correspondence Mr Garvey, on behalf of Mr O’Brien snr and Westferry, wrote to the tribunal about his clients’ concerns about the release of a draft police statement to the tribunal.
In correspondence he said the English solicitors had a concern about the document being released “(which we understand is shared by the police).”
Questioned about this, Mr Garvey said it had been his understanding and his clients’ understanding at the time.
“The [altered] letters were there on the file. I can’t recall how much attention was paid to them. My instructions were clear.”
He said Ms Collard was aware of the correspondence and never said that what was being said to the tribunal was incorrect.
Following the tribunal’s discovery that the police did not have the concerns indicated by Mr Garvey, it wrote to him asking how he had come to make the statements made in his letters to the tribunal.
Responding to Mr McCullough, Mr Garvey said he did not accept that he could not have made the statements he did when in possession of the two versions of the Collard letters.
He agreed with Darren Lehane, for Mr O’Brien snr and Westferry, that any suggestion that he should have looked at the two letters and thought “there is something dodgy here” was not correct.
He had not sought to “look behind” the second letter to William Fry and had never been told by Ms Collard that the view that was being expressed in his letters to the tribunal was incorrect.
The tribunal sits with a new witness today.