The Irish Times revealed details of payments to the Taoiseach in the early 1990s because it was in the public interest to do so, Editor Geraldine Kennedy has said. Ms Kennedy told the planning tribunal the payments would never have come to light had the newspaper not published details because they did not relate to planning and so did not fall within the remit of the inquiry.
She defended her decision to destroy the leaked documents obtained by The Irish Times, arguing this was necessary to protect the newspaper's sources. She also declined to answer detailed questions about the documents, because to do so might help the tribunal identify these sources.
Ms Kennedy said she became involved in the story two days before it was published on September 21st, when public affairs correspondent Colm Keena contacted her about the information he had received. The story went through the normal verification process before the decision was made to publish.
"I took the view that it was a matter of very legitimate public interest that the Taoiseach of the day had received monies from businessmen while he was minister for finance in 1993. I took legal advice, as we normally do on any contentious story every night. I decided it was my duty as editor to publish the story, but I regret any offence caused to the tribunal."
Ms Kennedy said the story published by The Irish Times was thoroughly verified and she was happy to publish it. She stood over everything Mr Keena wrote.
Immediately after the article was published, the tribunal wrote to The Irish Times saying it had breached the terms of a Supreme Court order restraining media outlets from publishing confidential material from the inquiry.
In her reply to the tribunal, Ms Kennedy stated: "The circumstances of this matter are straightforward. The Irish Times received an unsolicited and anonymous communication that I considered an important matter in the public interest for this newspaper to verify and publish. The vital issue of public interest, which I considered I had a duty to publish, was that the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, while a serving minister, was in receipt of certain payments of money. The fact of these payments is a matter that this newspaper had a proper interest in publishing.
"This is not a situation where an allegation of a payment has been made that is denied or is false. The fact of these payments is admitted."
Ms Kennedy wrote that she was not aware that the article breached the Supreme Court injunction. The Irish Times was not a party to these proceedings (involving another newspaper, the Sunday Business Post).
"It would be something of a surprise to discover that a general order had been made restraining this newspaper [and the print, broadcast and electronic media in general] from publishing matters of important public interest in a case I was not involved in, on the basis of evidence I was unaware of, in relation to factual matters unconnected with that case, without an opportunity to make any submissions and in relation to an interlocutory order I do not have."
While The Irish Times respected the tribunal's important public function, this did not mean it would desist from discharging its separate duty to publish matters in the public interest, she continued. "I think you might agree that no single person or entity in this State [including this newspaper] has a monopoly on supporting constitutional democracy."
The Irish Times did not breach and never had an intention of breaching any order of the Supreme Court, Ms Kennedy concluded.
Last Monday, the tribunal summonsed Mr Keena and Ms Kennedy to appear before the inquiry and ordered them to produce the leaked documents.
Ms Kennedy said she received legal advice, after which she decided to destroy the documents. "I made at that time the only decision I felt I could make in the circumstances, by ordering Colm Keena to destroy any documents in his possession. I did not make this decision out of any disrespect for the tribunal or its work but rather as the only way to fulfil my duty and obligation to protect journalistic sources."
Judge Mahon said that for whatever reason the effect of this was to fail to comply with a tribunal order.
Ms Kennedy agreed this was the case.
She declined to answer questions about the leaked documents, saying she did not wish to provide the tribunal with any information that might help the tribunal identify the newspaper's sources.
During the process of verification, she said, it emerged that the payments were "facts not allegations" and that the person who was now Taoiseach was receiving payments in 1993 while he was minister for finance. It was also learned that Mr Ahern was moving in the High Court to stop the tribunal from proceeding with its investigation into these payments.
"In making the decision to publish in the public interest I was very conscious of the possibility that this tribunal could find that the matter it was investigating was outside its terms of reference and in my opinion it clearly is because it wasn't dealing with payments for planning matters, and that this material might never have entered the public domain and I remain of my view that it was in the public interest to publish for these reasons."
Ms Kennedy also pointed out that because it was a controversial story, she took a deliberate decision not to mention the fact that the payment related to Mr Ahern's separation. "It was the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, who brought these issues into the public domain. We had no interest in the purposes to which the monies were put, only the fact that a serving minister for finance had received monies."
Ms Kennedy said she was a great admirer of the tribunal and did not intend any disrespect. It was ironic that the tribunal, as well as the McCracken and Moriarty tribunals, would not have been set up without journalists' leaks, she said.
