Mr Michael Lowry told the Moriarty Tribunal today he did not instruct his solicitor to deliberately write two different letters relating to his involvement in a property transaction.
The former Fine Gael minister for Transport, Energy and Communications was being questioned by tribunal lawyers about "marked differences" in two letters, both dated July 12th, 2000, and relating to the purchase of St Columba’s Church in Cheadle, England in late 1999.
The letters were written by Mr Lowry’s London-based solicitor, Mr Christopher Vaughan, to the property consultant Mr Kevin Phelan.
The tribunal was supplied with a letter, referred to by counsel for the tribunal Mr Jerry Healy SC, as the "short form". Subsequently it received a different, longer version of the letter, referred to as the "long form", from Irish TimesJournalist Mr Colm Keena in March this year.
In the "short form" letter, Mr Vaughan said he had purchased the Cheadle property "as trustee for Aidan Phelan". In the long version, Mr Vaughan had written "as trustee for our client".
The tribunal is investigating whether the "short form letter" was intended to hide the true involvement of those involved in the sale of the Cheadle property, namely Mr Lowry, by suggesting that his accountant Mr Aidan Phelan was the purchaser of the property.
When asked this morning to explain the differences, Mr Lowry said that Mr Vaughan provided a six-page document that he had forwarded to the tribunal.
This response said Mr Vaughan regularly sent documents to Mr Kevin Phelan to be checked and/or amended. Mr Phelan would then keep both copies and Mr Vaughan would keep only the final copy.
However, Mr Healy said the only explanation for the differences between the letters was to remove all references to Mr Lowry.
This was refuted by Mr Lowry who said Mr Vaughan had "got confused and that he made mistakes arising from that confusion. That’s my understanding of his position.
Mr Healy then outlined "a myriad" of typing and formatting differences between the "long" and "short form" of the letter. He suggested that had Mr Vaughan made a simple mistake, he would have corrected just that mistake.
Mr Lowry responded that the two letters were written not on the same day, for reasons he was not aware of.
Mr Healy then asked Mr Lowry was it not a possibility that the letter was "rewritten at a much, much later time and for a totally different purpose than to correct a simple error. . ."
Mr Lowry replied that this question would have to be put to Mr Vaughan.
Mr Justice Moriarty observed the two letters were clearly the result of a separate and different typing occasion.
Mr Vaughan says he will not appear before the tribunal because he has a heart condition and because his evidence would be of no value.
The tribunal has been investigating whether the businessman Mr Denis O’Brien had any involvement in the property transaction.
Mr Lowry continues his evidence this afternoon.
