The tone of a Sunday newspaper article about a private session of the Barr tribunal strongly suggested that the source for the article was probably a garda involved in the Abbeylara siege or someone on that party's behalf, the tribunal chairman said yesterday.
The Sunday Independent article by Maeve Sheehan related to statements made to the tribunal by Ms X, believed to be a former girlfriend of Mr John Carthy.
The chairman said the article published claims of a family dispute over land, which was based on an allegation by Mr Carthy that he owned the land, which was patently wrong. The information in the article about the land was fundamentally incomplete, he added.
He said that last Friday Mr John Rogers SC, for certain junior officers who were involved in Abbeylara, and Mr Diarmuid McGuinness SC, for the commissioner who represented all Garda officers, made applications that Ms X should give oral testimony in public.
He said he ruled that this should be in private as it was at the preliminary investigative stage. The application continued in private. Solicitors were entitled to inform their clients about the hearing.
"It is evident that Ms Sheehan's article is heavily slanted towards the arguments of Mr Rogers on behalf of his clients. The general tenor of it strongly suggests the probability that she has been briefed by one of Mr Roger's clients, or someone on their behalf who is privy to information relating to Ms X, which has been circulated on behalf of the tribunal to relevant solicitors and regarding what transpired on the hearing of the Ms X application," the chairman said.
If that was so, then it amounted to a serious wrong in view of the privacy of the applications about the proposed evidence of Ms X. "However, it is even more serious than that. Assuming that Ms Sheehan has utilised all relevant information furnished by her informant, it appears that she has been seriously misled and manipulated," he said.
He said it seemed clear that the motivation for misleading Ms Sheehan and for instigating her article, was to thwart and circumvent his [ the chairman's] direction on privacy, and secondly to promote a contention based on fundamentally incomplete information that there was disharmony between mother, son and daughter.
"The informer's apparent deception of Ms Sheehan has been exposed as the cheap, dishonest ploy that it is. Those who, it seems, were intended to benefit from it are, I apprehend, greatly embarrassed by the outcome of the dishonest conduct of Ms Sheehan's informer."
The chairman said the information furnished by Ms X in her written statement to the tribunal was: "John gave out about his sister saying his mother wanted him to sign over some of his land that he inherited from his uncle. He was outraged."
The chairman said it appeared Ms Sheehan's informant did not tell her the tribunal had evidence, also disclosed to solicitors, that Mr Carthy's contention that he owned the land was untrue. The owner of the land was at all times Mrs Carthy. Mother and sister indicated there was no dispute about the land. The publication of these unjustified allegations had caused considerable distress for Mrs Rose Carthy, Mr Carthy's mother, and her daughter, Marie.
The chairman said Ms Sheehan would be invited to answer questions about the source and whether or not her informer had told her the other facts about the land. He would consider the matter again when the tribunal received Ms Sheehan's response, he said.