Analysis: The tribunal has still not been told why two versions of two letters were created by a solicitor. Colm Keena reports
The closer the focus the tribunal puts on the letters it has been examining over the past two days, the less satisfactory becomes the explanation it has been given for the letters' existence.
The letter dated July 12th, 2000, for example, was incorrect in the form in which it was submitted to the tribunal early last year, but correct in the form which the tribunal now possesses, having received it in March 2002 while this reporter was researching a story.
The incorrect version was submitted by Mr Christopher Vaughan, the English solicitor who acted for Mr Michael Lowry in a property transaction in Cheadle and who does not deny he wrote both letters. The relevant sentence is: "You will recall that this property was purchased I (sic) my name as Trustee for Aidan Phelan".
Mr Aidan Phelan is an accountant who worked for Mr Denis O'Brien. The second form of the letter contains a different version of the sentence quoted above: "You will recall that this property was purchased I (sic) my name as Trustee for our client." There is no dispute but that the client being referred to is Mr Lowry. In other words, this version of the letter is correct.
Both letters were addressed to Mr Kevin Phelan, a Northern Ireland businessman who acted for Mr Lowry when the property was purchased. Mr Phelan has not yet agreed to give evidence to the tribunal. Mr Vaughan is also refusing to attend to give evidence but has written to Mr Lowry's solicitors in Dublin. He said he sometimes became confused when dealing with the Cheadle property. If he sent a letter by fax to Mr Kevin Phelan and it was incorrect, Mr Phelan might point this out to him and he would fax an amended version.
"Kevin Phelan would therefore have two versions of the same letter, and I would only have the final version." He also wrote that he would keep a copy of the amended version on his files.
However, the tribunal was given copies of the July letter by both Mr Vaughan and Mr Kevin Phelan. That is, it seemed it had both the copy sent out and the file copy kept by Mr Vaughan. They were both the same and they both mentioned Mr Aidan Phelan. In other words, they were both wrong.
A second matter rests on a host of minor details in both the July and the September letters to do with layout, the use of capitals, and other matters. Mr Jerry Healy SC, for the tribunal, said this could be viewed as suggesting that the versions of the July and September letters given to the tribunal by Mr Vaughan last year were created at the same time. Furthermore, he speculated, it could be that they were written some time after the versions which referred to Mr Lowry.
Mr Lowry was very clear on his position. He knew nothing about the differing versions of the letters until they were brought to his attention by the tribunal.
He does not understand Mr Vaughan's attitude towards the tribunal.
If the letters were reconstituted at a later date, then Mr Vaughan, as his solicitor, had no instructions from him, Mr Lowry, in that regard.
He would be appalled if that turned out to be the case and he did not believe it to be the case.
When Mr Healy said the only reason for the differing versions of the letters could be to remove Mr Lowry's name from the correspondence, Mr Lowry said: "I don't accept that. There is no reason why that should be the case."
The tribunal has now adjourned for the summer.
It will resume hearings in October, when it will commence a huge and extremely expensive inquiry into the granting of a mobile phone licence to Esat Digifone by Mr Lowry in 1995/1996.
It is to be " a tribunal within a tribunal", Mr Justice Moriarty said. It is to take place because of what the tribunal has discovered in relation to financial links between Mr Lowry and Mr Denis O'Brien. This tribunal is set to run and run.