Lawyers for businessman Denis O’Brien and several other parties are seeking to be provided with the final report by inspectors appointed to investigate the governance scandal in the former Independent News & Media (INM).
The inspectors’ report, running to several hundred pages, will be presented to the High Court on Thursday but several preliminary applications were made to Mr Justice Garrett Simons on Tuesday in advance of that.
The judge said he has not yet seen the report but his preliminary view, subject to any parallel proceedings that might be affected, is in favour of the report’s publication, perhaps in redacted form. He was aware parties would want to consider the report and asked those involved to advance a “realistic” timetable for possible publication.
Lawyers for several parties sought leave to issue motions aimed at getting access to the report. Mr Justice Simons said the motions may not be necessary because his view was that the applicants were entitled to be given the report but he would permit them to issue motions.
Christmas walks: 10 family-friendly trails around Ireland, from easy to challenging
Róisín Ingle: My profound, challenging, surprisingly joyful, life-changing year
Fostering at Christmas: ‘We once had two boys, age 9 and 11, who had never had a Christmas tree’
Inside the alleged Hollywood smear campaign against Blake Lively: ‘We can bury anyone’
Senior counsel Michael Cush, representing Mr O’Brien; senior counsel Sean Guerin, for former INM chairman Leslie Buckley; Eoin Mc Cullough SC, for Mediahuis, which now runs the Independent titles; Caren Geoghegan SC, for seven former non-executive directors of INM; and John Rogers SC, for former INM chief executive Robert Pitt, all secured leave to issue the motions.
Neil Steen SC, for the Corporate Enforcement Authority, which, as the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, sought the inspectors’ appointment in 2018, said the authority is automatically provided with the report.
His client, unlike the other parties, had received no drafts of the report and has “no idea what is in it”, he said. The authority had no position at this juncture on the applications to be provided with the report and would require time to consider it and its position on any publication of same, counsel said.
Mr Guerin said Mr Buckley is in favour of the report being published.
Following a six year investigation, the inspectors – senior counsel Sean Gillane and UK solicitor Richard Fleck – earlier this year circulated confidential draft findings to individuals against whom any adverse findings may be made, seeking any observations they may have on them. Following that process, the inspectors finalised their report and will put it before Mr Justice Simons on Thursday.
The inspectors were appointed in 2018 by then High Court president, Mr Justice Peter Kelly, to carry out the inspection following an unlawful breach of company data when Mr O’Brien was the main shareholder in INM. The data breach raised serious questions over the conduct of the then INM chairman Mr Buckley, who represented Mr O’Brien’s interests in the company. Mr Buckley has always denied any wrongdoing.
Mr O’Brien became the dominant INM shareholder after wresting control of the business from the late Sir Anthony O’Reilly. He incurred a loss of more than €400 million when selling his INM shares to Mediahuis of Belgium in 2019.
When appointing the inspectors in September 2018, the High Court was told that backup computer tapes from INM ended up in the hands of third parties for “data interrogation” relating to 19 named individuals, among them journalists and former company officials. The INM data was accessed by parties with links to Mr Buckley and one of Mr O’Brien’s companies paid for the analysis, the court was told.
The inspectors were also asked to examine a plan for INM to buy out Newstalk, a radio station then under Mr O’Brien’s control. The plan was scrapped after INM’s then chief executive, Mr Pitt, complained of pressure from Mr Buckley to pay an inflated price for Newstalk.
Also under investigation was a proposal, later dropped, for INM to pay about €1 million to one of Mr O’Brien’s companies for work “allegedly done” on the sale of shares in APN, an Australian group. Mr Pitt claimed no services were provided.
- Sign up for push alerts and have the best news, analysis and comment delivered directly to your phone
- Join The Irish Times on WhatsApp and stay up to date
- Listen to our Inside Politics podcast for the best political chat and analysis
