The Irish Times's public affairs correspondent, Colm Keena, has told the Mahon tribunal he could not assist it in its investigation into the leak of material which led to the revelations of payments made to Taoiseach Bertie Ahern in 1993.
Mr Keena, who was ordered to appear before the tribunal yesterday, said he meant no disrespect but that he could not provide answers which could lead to the identification of sources.
He said his motivation at all times was to write a story which he thought was in the public interest. He said it was not his intention to cause difficulty for the tribunal.
Mr Keena confirmed he had destroyed the documentation on which the story had been based.
Asked by tribunal chairman Judge Alan Mahon as to how the public interest was served by destroying material which had been sought by the tribunal, Mr Keena said he had "wished to ensure that how the information came to my attention in relation to this article would never become public knowledge and I felt that this was the appropriate thing to do".
Mr Keena said he believed that if a journalist revealed sources it would be "very damaging to the activity of journalism".
Judge Mahon said that under legislation the failure to answer questions put by a tribunal or to produce documents sought could lead to a fine of up to €300,000 or a two-year prison sentence.
Counsel for Mr Keena and Irish Times Editor Geraldine Kennedy, Eoin McGonigal SC, said that both journalists believed that in fulfilling their duty under freedom of expression they should never reveal their sources.
Counsel for the tribunal, Des O'Neill SC, said it would appear there was an acknowledgment in an article published in The Irish Times on September 21st, under the headline "Tribunal examines payments to Taoiseach", that Mr Keena had found himself in possession of confidential communication which the tribunal had sent to businessman David McKenna.
Mr Keena acknowledged he had contacted Mr McKenna two days prior to publication, but said he could not recall whether he had said to him that he had seen the letter or had it in his possession.
He declined to confirm that a letter sent by the tribunal to Mr McKenna in June and shown to him in the witness box yesterday was the one to which he had referred.
Judge Mahon said he had to direct Mr Keena to answer the question and asked could he take it that he was refusing to do so.
"I'm afraid so," Mr Keena replied.
He accepted that the letter produced by the tribunal yesterday contained the same words as set out in quotations in The Irish Times article. He declined to say whether the documentation on which he had based his article had been an original or a photocopy.
Mr O'Neill said that Mr McKenna had returned the original letter to the tribunal and indicated that only one copy had been made in his solicitor's office.
Judge Mahon said that if the letter seen by Mr Keena was the original then it could have implications for other people.
However, Mr Keena said he was concerned that in answering such questions he would assist the tribunal in "narrowing the field" with regard to potential sources.
Mr O'Neill said the tribunal could gather that Mr McKenna was not the source of the information because Mr Keena had given evidence of contacting him.
"Chairman, on reflection, I suppose it is, could be interpreted that way and was possibly a mistake on my part. I am very wary of narrowing fields and assisting towards the identification of sources," Mr Keena stated.
Mr O'Neill said that the article had stated that the letter had been seen by The Irish Times, but that this could only have been established definitively by the newspaper if the document had either the official tribunal letterhead or the signature of its solicitor.
Mr Keena said he had written in the article that he had seen a tribunal letter and he stood over this assertion.
Mr O'Neill said that copies of letters retained by the tribunal were kept on plain paper without identifying marks.
"Chairman, I feel that when you asked me questions and they seem quite innocuous and I refuse and you might be of the view that I am perhaps being a bit too stubborn, but I think that that is a perfectly good example of why I feel I can't give any information about anything in relation to these matters for fear I would contribute towards your inquiry into the source of this information," Mr Keena said.
Mr Keena also said he could not confirm that the documentation had been received anonymously.
"I have decided that I will not answer questions that have to do with sources, categories of sources, categories of possible sources, excluding possible sources , excluding possible categories of sources. I am reminded of the dangers of doing so by Mr O'Neill's earlier question about headed letters. I am very nervous that I might inadvertently say something that assists the tribunal and I apologise but that is the position I have adopted," he said.
Mr O'Neill said that the article referred to the money given to the Taoiseach being used to pay legal bills. He suggested that this indicated that Mr Keena had had access to a letter sent from Mr McKenna's solicitor in reply to the tribunal.
Mr O'Neill said that neither the tribunal's letter nor the response contained any reference to the fact that three or four people made payments. He said that there was no reference to £50,000 or £100,000 or any figure in between as being the subject of the tribunal's inquiry of Mr McKenna.
He said it was evident from both the query raised by the tribunal and the response submitted by Mr McKenna's solicitor that the detail in the article about three or four persons being contacted concerning payments to Mr Ahern totalling £50,000 to £100,000 did not come from either of these documents.
