Denis O’Brien portrayed himself as a champion of the rights of the ordinary citizen, a defender of the Constitution and in the interests of Ireland itself when he took the witness stand on Thursday in his legal action against the Dail and the State.
“It would be a pretty extraordinary situation,” he said, “if the private details of a citizen’s banking arrangements were disclosed publicly.”
Speaking clearly and in a strong voice, he painted a picture of a valiant foray in the High Court to defend his rights and privacy while, "two miles away from the court where he was granted an injunction, members of the Oireachtas were breaking that order".
He evoked the national interest.
“It would be a very bad thing for the country to have a situation where people could rely on the courts [for an injunction] and for that to be unravelled by a different part of the country,” he said.
There could be implications for foreign investment.
“People would take a view, it would be a checklist of things you would view if you were investing in that country. It would be a weakness.”
Close to 100 people took up every available seat in the court room as the clocked ticked down to 11am and the start of day three of his action against the Dail Committee on Procedure and Privileges, and the State.
Those for whom there was no room, lined the walls and huddled around the entrance door, rather in the manner of half-hearted attendees at Saturday evening Mass.
Standing with his back to the wall was RTE’s business reporter David Murphy, the source of Mr O’Brien’s woes, at least as he would have it. There too was Elaine Byrne, former academic, expert on corruption and Sunday Business Post columnist sued in person by Mr O’Brien for something she wrote in the Sunday Independent.
Seated close by was James Morrisey, Mr O’Brien’s not so secret weapon, sent out regularly to battle ferociously on the airwaves, taking on all comers against his client.
There was a clutch of disinterested but curious barristers, not involved in the proceedings but dying to see what would happen. They outnumbered members of the public heavily.
The jury box was filled almost exclusively by working journalists, the people whose judgement of him Mr O’Brien so regularly disputes.
Among them all was the man himself - Citizen O’Brien - wearing a dark grey suit, pale blue shirt and blue tie.
Within minutes of Ms Justice Úna Ní Raifeartaigh taking her seat and dispensing with some other business, Mr O’Brien walked with confidence into the witness box, took hold of the Bible, raised his hand and swore by Almighty God to tell the truth and the whole truth.
He donned a pair of what appeared to be highly fashionable red-framed glasses and looked down at his statement to the court explaining.
His statement of events and claim was true and accurate, he told his barrister Michael Cush, SC.
“There is nothing more confidential than banking details, along with medical records,” he said.
There had been threats to his family in the wake of his seeking an injunction in May 2015 and of remarks in the Dail, he said.
He reported them to the gardai on June 5th. This was what Social Democrat TD Catherine Murphy should have done when she received information about his banking details - “stolen” in Mr O’Brien’s words.
“A member of the Oireachtas should have actually have gone to the gardai instead of reading it out in the Dail,” he said.
Counsel for the Oireachtas committee Michael Collins SC pressed Mr O’Brien as to what he really wanted from the case he had launched.
The terms of the injunction granted to him by the High Court and against what RTE wanted to report “never applied to any member of the house and was never intended by you to apply to any member of the house”.
Was that not so, he asked. “The way I look at this is why we’re here today,” he said.
The businessman is now being further cross examined, by Maurice Collins, SC, the Ireland and the Attorney General.
“You want judicial disapproval of deputies Murphy and Doherty,” he asked.
“That’s correct,” said Mr O’Brien.
Didn’t Mr O’Brien want both censuring of the two TDs and censorship of all TDs as to what they might say in the future, asked Maur ce Collins.
Mr O’Brien said he wanted their actions condemned.
After a slight verbal tug of war, Mr O’Brien acknowledged that it was “probably unlikely” that he would sue either TDs personally in the future for what they had done, win or lose the current action.
But you want them condemned for acting recklessly and maliciously? asked Mr Collins
“It is part of the case to get the court to endorse your view?” said counsel.
“Yes,” said Mr O’Brien.
