ANALYSIS: The justification for withholding the David Norris clemency letters has shifted over the course of this week
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE David Norris and his advisers have given different reasons at different times for his decision not to release further letters he wrote seeking clemency for his former partner Ezra Nawi.
The reasons given at various times in recent days include the possibility that releasing the letters could provoke a defamation case by Nawi’s victim, that they are legally privileged, that they are covered by privacy laws and that he is bound by client confidentiality.
Norris has also cited “moral” arguments for not releasing the correspondence, saying he did not want to cause “further pain”.
Last month, Norris released a letter written to the judges of the Israeli supreme court in 1997 seeking clemency for Nawi, who was convicted of the statutory rape of a 15-year-old boy.
Last weekend, the Sunday Timesreported the fact that Norris had written other letters in the case in addition to the one released last August.
A spokesman for the Independent senator was quoted as saying that five of the six letters were all “almost identical” to the ones published in August, but that he was “not at liberty” to release them.
On Wednesday, the Irish Daily Starquoted a barrister involved in his campaign team, Muireann Noonan, as saying that six unpublished letters could potentially lead to a defamation case by Nawi's victim.
“We have decided these letters will not be released,” she said. “There are elements that could be viewed as defamatory . . . The victim in this case is now a man in his late 30s . . .
“What he might read in these letters might not necessarily be defamatory, but that might not stop him from taking a defamation case.”
The same morning, Norris told Pat Kenny on RTÉ radio that he had been told by his lawyers that the letters were subject to professional legal privilege and he could not publish them.
He said the letter he released in August dealt with the substantive case. “The other letters are letters to lawyers and they’re covered by privacy. They’re covered by legal constraints and I cannot do that.”
Under further questioning, he said his legal team had told him he was bound by “client confidentiality and legal privilege”.
On the same day's News at One, he told Seán O'Rourke that Noonan's comment was based on a "misunderstanding". He said his advice had come not only from Irish lawyers but also from Israeli lawyers and he referred to the fact that the case had been heard in camera.
“I have been legally advised I could prejudice a situation if I revealed information because this was held in camera,” Norris said.
That evening, on RTÉ television's Prime Time, he said his legal advice was provided to him "over the last week or so". He again adverted to the fact that the case had been heard in camera and claimed that certain references in some of the letters "could breach that".
He said he was being asked to break the law by publishing the letters. “Deep wounds have been created by this case,” he added, “but it’s not up to me to strip those wounds bare. I want to cause no further pain.”
In radio interviews yesterday, Norris repeated his claims that the letters could not be released because of the in camera rule.
