The Moriarty tribunal is expected to continue hearing evidence on Denis O'Brien's ownership of Doncaster Rovers Football Club Ltd (DRFC) when it resumes public hearings today.
The tribunal, which normally begins its sittings at 10.30am or 11am, begins proceedings today at 9.30am. This may be to accommodate Mr O'Brien.
Mr O'Brien, who is not tax-resident in Ireland, is expected to begin giving evidence today on the purchase of DRFC on his behalf by an Isle of Man-based trust in 1998. DRFC owns the lease on a stadium in Doncaster which has development potential.
Mr O'Brien is expected to be the last witness in the present module and he may also give evidence on certain aspects of the tribunal's lengthy inquiry into the awarding of a mobile phone licence to his company, Esat Digifone, in 1996. This inquiry is also near completion.
The tribunal began public hearings into the possibility that former government minister Michael Lowry may have a link with the DRFC transaction after The Irish Times published the content of a letter to him from an English solicitor.
The letter indicated the solicitor's belief that Mr Lowry had an involvement with the DRFC transaction. The letter was written by solicitor Christopher Vaughan, who was acting for the purchaser of DRFC at the time. Mr Vaughan has refused to come to Dublin to give evidence about the matter.
Mr Lowry, who retained his Dáil seat in the election, and Mr O'Brien have both rejected the suggestion that Mr Lowry had any involvement in the DRFC transaction and Mr Vaughan has told the tribunal in correspondence that he wrote the letter while under a misapprehension.
Since it last sat, the tribunal may also have heard evidence on commission from another solicitor working in England, Ruth Collard. If so, this evidence will be read into the record.
Ms Collard, who works for the London firm Peter Carter Ruck, took a note of a meeting she had in 2002 with a Dublin accountant, Denis O'Connor, where she noted Mr O'Connor as saying Mr Lowry was present during talks with the vendors of DRFC on an aspect of the DRFC transaction. Mr O'Connor has said Ms Collard's note is incorrect.
Ms Collard was acting for the O'Brien family at the time she took the note. Mr O'Connor is an adviser to Mr Lowry.
At the time of his meeting with Ms Collard, Mr O'Connor had become involved in a dispute between the vendors of DRFC and the O'Brien family. He has told the tribunal that he was not acting on behalf of Mr Lowry when he met Ms Collard and he was seeking to assist the O'Brien family.
