A letter sent on behalf of the Workers' Party to the Soviet Communist Party seeking a £1 million grant and bearing the name and apparent signature of Mr Proinsias De Rossa was a central feature of the three hearings in his action against the Sunday Independent.
The letter, dated September 15th, 1986, stated that the bulk of a shortfall in the party's funding had been met by "special activities" which it was not possible to detail in it. It ended: "Yours fraternally, Sean Garland, general secretary; Proinsias De Rossa TD, chairperson, Executive Political Committee." Mr De Rossa has consistently denied any link with the letter, the text of which was published in The Irish Times on October 26th, 1992, declaring that it was a forgery. "I didn't write it, type it, author it, sign it, post it."
He severed his links with the Workers' Party when he and others left to set up Democratic Left in March 1992, and the new party contested its first general election in November of that year.
The Sunday Independent article by Mr Eamon Dunphy, which led to the libel action, was published on December 13th, 1992, when attempts were being made to form a government after the previous month's general election. Mr De Rossa claimed the article meant he had confessed to special activities on the part of a political party of which he had been leader; that he was aware of the special activities and that they were criminal in nature.
In its defence, the paper admitted it published the article, but denied it was published falsely or maliciously. It also admitted the words meant Mr De Rossa had been leader of a party which had previously received funds raised as a result of criminal activities and that there had been public comment on the letter, signed, but not knowingly signed, by him which appeared to refer to such activities.
Asked during the hearings if he had at any time thought somebody might have procured his signature by fraud, Mr De Rossa said it was one of the things that might have happened. Questioned about his statement in an interview with The Irish Times, which was published on December 7th, 1992, that the letter might well have originated from somebody within the Workers' Party, Mr De Rossa said it was an option he would have considered at the time, given that it appeared to be on WP notepaper. But it was not necessarily a view he held; it appeared to be on a photocopy of WP notepaper.
Asked if he could not have phoned Mr Garland, Mr De Rossa said he did not wish to have anything to do with anybody linked to the WP. Leaving the party had been a period of huge turmoil for him personally and politically; he had left with 80 per cent of the membership and it was unlikely that Mr Garland would have been willing to help him.
He said no funds were ever sought by the Workers' Party from either the Soviet Government or the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, but Mr Garland had admitted seeking funds from the Communist Party in Moscow without authorisation. Asked if he was aware of "special activities" being carried out to fund the WP, he replied: "No, not at any time, never."
He said that at Christmas in 1992 he had a bonfire in his garden of material relating to the WP, because he wanted to be rid of the memories and get on as leader of DL.
Mr Dunphy strongly rejected the assertion that the Sunday Independent had deliberately set out to destroy Mr De Rossa's reputation.
When he wrote the article, the big thing was not really the Moscow letter but the proposal that DL would be in the next government. That was why The Irish Times went so big on the story: because of the prospect of being governed by people who had come from a party of questionable character, said Mr Dunphy.
Denying that he had accused Mr De Rossa of being involved in "special activities", he said: "I most certainly did not." Mr Dunphy said he had never written a hostile piece about the Workers' Party or Democratic Left, nor did he have any personal antagonism towards the parties.
It was "utter nonsense", he declared, to suggest that the views he had expressed were dictated to him, adding that he had complete freedom to write what he wanted "subject to the laws of libel". Denying that he had set out to "get" Mr De Rossa, he said there was "life after condemnation by Eamon Dunphy".
"I spent 10 years trying to convince the Irish people that Jack Charlton was no good - he became a national hero. I wrote many dissenting pieces about Mary Robinson - she's the most popular person in the country. I said Roddy Doyle was a bad novelist. He's the most celebrated novelist in these islands. Fianna Fail have begged me not to endorse Bertie Ahern."
Denying that he was joking, he said he was a minority journalist and there should be somewhere for someone to express opinions which were not popular. Mr De Rossa was a very powerful man who should have better things to do than intimidate a newspaper, he said, adding that he had no apology to make.
But Mr De Rossa's colleagues supported his claim that he had been devastated by the article. Ms Liz McManus said it was as if a light went out in Mr De Rossa, who was a man of reserve and not one to go into a pub and weep into a pint of beer. Mr Pat Rabbitte said the article was the most "vicious, vindictive and scurrilous attack" he had ever seen in his time as a politician.
