Garda bodies asked why State should pay costs

The chairman of the Morris tribunal has asked the Garda Representative Association (GRA) and the Association of Garda Sergeants…

The chairman of the Morris tribunal has asked the Garda Representative Association (GRA) and the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors (AGSI) why the public purse should fund their costs when they have "deep pockets". Gerard Cunningham reports.

Mr Justice Morris asked lawyers for both organisations to comment on Mr Justice Costello's observation at the Whiddy inquiry several years ago that "the capacity of an individual, group or body to fund its own costs is an element that should be taken into account".

In that case, Mr Justice Morris said, the chairman said that the oil companies had deep pockets, "and could well afford to pay for themselves".

"The pockets are not as deep as they might first seem," said Mr Tom Murphy, solicitor for the GRA. He added that the GRA represented 9,500 members.

READ MORE

"If the association is put in the position of the oil companies, it is difficult to see how they could maintain the type of expenditure required in funding a tribunal. If such a thing happened, it might have to rethink its position."

Mr Michael Cush, representing AGSI, said bearing in mind the principle of equality before the law, if two parties came before the tribunal and assisted it, one of whom was capable of paying and the other was not capable, and attracted different orders on costs, then it would be a matter of concern.

Mr Justice Morris said if he was to follow Mr Justice Costello's thinking, he "would have to be satisfied that it is equitable that the government purse, the public fund, should be required to pay".

Mr Cush said in relation to Totale and Gulf Oil in the Whiddy case, Mr Justice Costello was more concerned with the negligence of oil companies in causing the disaster than with their conduct before the tribunal.

He said it was "very thin ground to enunciate a general principle that this is a factor to be taken into account bearing in mind the necessity for equality before the law".

He added: "I am endeavouring to suggest, sir, that great caution is required before one enunciates as a general principle that one's financial well-being is a factor to be taken into account when exercising discretion as to costs.

"I would go along with that as a general principle; that great caution would have to be exercised," Mr Justice Morris said.

Tribunal barrister Mr Peter Charleton told the chairman he was entitled to refuse costs where a witness had knowingly given false or misleading information to the tribunal.

"Regrettably, sir, in this tribunal, in my submission, anyone who has sat through it or has been involved in it will realise that enormous amounts of time and energy have been put into cracking open nuts that have been hardened through lies.

"Attempting to get to the truth has been a process which has cost enormous effort and energy on the part of the tribunal, on the part of the legal team, and has incurred also an enormous waste of time and an enormous waste of costs on the part of the people of Ireland."

Supt Kevin Lennon, the suspended superintendent criticised for organising bogus explosives finds in the first module of the Morris tribunal, made an application for "minimal costs" to cover costs and labour involved in typing, photocopying and the discovery of documents at the tribunal. The superintendent's bill for these costs totals €37,600.

"I know that I am not a lawyer; I am not represented by a lawyer," the superintendent said to the chairman.

"I am not a man of means, sir, and I was just looking for minimal costs for the hours of work that I put in."

In a written submission, lawyers for Ms Adrienne McGlinchey said the chairman's report was a "vindication" of their client. The Letterkenny woman was portrayed as an IRA informer by two Donegal gardaí, Supt Kevin Lennon and Det Noel McMahon, in order to arrange bogus explosives finds to further their careers. The tribunal found she was neither a member of the IRA nor an informer.

Her legal team said "the main findings of the tribunal in relation to each of the 'finds' under investigation are a vindication of the evidence which Adrienne McGlinchey gave.

"Put simply, as she maintained they were not 'IRA finds' but rather 'finds' in respect of which Supt Lennon and Det Garda McMahon were directly involved. They maintained the opposite, hence 150 days approximately of public sittings."