A chara, – In recent days, unbalanced media commentary and interviews regarding the Moriarty tribunal report have corroded respect for the rule of law and constitutional principles. Those criticised in reports or legal decisions by judges, and any other citizens, are entitled to have and express a view on the content and decision-making process.
However, if they want to challenge such findings, the appropriate place to do this is in the High Court, rather than through the media. If they want to change the processes involved, they should work with or within the Oireachtas. Judges cannot engage in media debates about their findings or decisions and the media cannot replace the judicial process but must safeguard it.
The Irish State either operates according to the rule of law, or it does not.
If it does not, then corruption and graft will deter foreign investment, lending and international co-operation, and people’s confidence in the law.
As academics who teach law and respect for the rule of law, with no roles in any tribunals, we feel obliged to highlight this major risk. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – What the findings of the Moriarty tribunal clearly illustrate, once again, is the noxiousness of tax havens that facilitate all sorts of obscure financial transactions and have the potential to undermine democracy and the rule of law.
How will the Government deal with that aspect of the report? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Robbie Burns (March 24th) claims “we have allowed one person 13 years at a cost of up to €150 million to attack a great Irishman and the best he can come up with is opinions without any basis of evidence”.
Might I suggest that for starters he reads Chapter 16 (of Part 2, Vol 1) of the tribunal report (www.moriarty-tribunal.ie) where he will find a comprehensive summary of a truly astonishing array of facts which dispel this notion entirely. Mr Justice Moriarty deserves the support of the public and the political establishment in the face of what appears to be a concerted campaign to discredit his painstaking work. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Mr Justice Moriarty has done us a great service – he has provided an early opportunity for the new coalition Government partners to demonstrate that they meant it when they promised “change”. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – I am so impressed with our new Dáil. That they did not as a group burst out laughing when Micheál Martin rose to admonish the current Government about the implications of the just published Moriarty report shows an amazing level of restraint. Or perhaps Mr Martin’s brazen remarks left everyone speechless. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – I refer to Sarah Carey’s piece, “Lying to Tribunal is Black Spot on my Record” (Opinion, March 24th).
In the course of her explanation of her lying to the tribunal about leaking tribunal papers to the Sunday Tribunein February, 2003, Ms Carey wrongly states: "In particular, there was one letter from Michael McDowell thanking Denis for a £15,000 donation to the Progressive Democrats and saying: 'I will drink a toast to your health this Christmas'. Here was a £15,000 donation to the PDs that was being kept secret while I was enduring pretty aggressive meetings with the tribunal over £4,000."
In fact, I wrote a short note on December 20th, 1996, to thank Denis O'Brien and another Esat executive for a gift of some bottles of wine which they had sent me in the run-up to Christmas. My note did not refer to any donation to the party. Ms Carey apparently led the Sunday Tribuneto believe that it did.
Earlier Esat donations to the party, none of which was for £15,000, were handled by the party’s treasurers and acknowledged in writing by the then party leader in the ordinary way.
Mr O’Brien, as Ms Carey’s employer, was entitled to disclose these to the tribunal or to the public and it is strange how she can think that they were unfairly “kept secret”.
I have since consulted The Irish Timesdigital archive relating to Ms Carey's evidence to the tribunal on these matters on Wednesday January 21st, 2004. Her evidence, by the way, concerned a great deal more than £4,000. She acknowledged that she was an active member of a political party. Apologising to the tribunal for lying about the leaks, she was reported by your paper as testifying that her motivation "had been political". – Yours, etc,
Madam, – In response to Joe Galvin's letter (March 25th) suggesting that Sarah Carey's position at The Irish Timesis now untenable: her honesty in this instance seems to have been mistaken for arrogance. This is depressing.
Surely it’s a good thing if a public figures use their position to admit their mistakes? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – I see from your Letters page (March 25th) that a number of your readers are calling for Sarah Carey’s head. While I may not always agree with the views of Ms Carey, I found her openness about her relationships with Fine Gael and Denis O’Brien to be refreshing. Is there a journalist in this small country who can claim to be impartial on all issues? The difference is that most of them never admit it.
As for her leaking information about the tribunal, I have always assumed that it was a journalist’s duty to disseminate information to the public. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Sarah Carey states in her column (“Lying to tribunal over leak is black spot on my record“) that “In the greater scheme of things, and in the context of Moriarty’s report, my part is peripheral”.
So she had a tiny role in what has turned out to be a large-scale and critically important episode in our recent history. Her modest assessment of her place in this debacle does not excuse the fact that she exercised appalling judgment and then lied to try to escape the consequences.
Is it appropriate that someone who failed as a (self-confessed) minnow is given a platform by The Irish Times to criticise, question and, when it suits her, berate those who must play the roles of giants in ensuring this country’s survival and (we hope) eventual return to stability? Do you have a “fit and proper persons” test for your columnists? If not, you may want to think about putting one in place – and measuring Ms Carey against it. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – I read with interest Denis O’Brien’s protesting comment that he did not give Michael Lowry a red cent.
Perhaps a few hundred thousand punts or sterling pounds maybe? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Surely if Michael Lowry and Denis O’Brien wish to seriously challenge the findings of the Moriarty tribunal they could simply take a polygraph (lie detector) test and publish the results? Come to think of it, if they had done that years ago we would have a couple of extra hospitals. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – This latest report confirms, if any further evidence were needed, that politicians should be considered as incompetent potential liabilities until persisting evidence emerges to the contrary. They reflect our national character of anti-communitarian self- interest. Hence the fewer and most monitored politicians we pay the better.
They constitute an ongoing attack on taxpayers’ earnings and necessitate the establishment of a strong taxpayers’ alliance to protect tax contributors. Shock, surprise, and false expectations are long past their sell-by date and have no place in future media or public responses. By expecting the worst we can limit future corruption, incompetence and cost and maximise chances of the emergence of genuine, internationally accepted, self-respect. Needless to say the same goes for our bloated, invisible public service. Ah shure. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – “The louder he spoke of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons!” Thank you, Ralph Waldo Emerson. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – John Waters (Opinion, March 25th) suggests that Denis O’Brien and Michael Lowry might not be guilty of wrongdoing. I don’t believe John Waters’s opinion would be supported by anybody coming from a neutral and objective position.
I think an important question with far-reaching consequences is whether the government sub-committee examined the criteria for selection or sought details of the evaluation process. If they failed to do this then they were either co-operating with Mr Lowry or were grossly incompetent and completely failed to do their job. These people are now in public office in positions of huge responsibility. I have no confidence in any of them. – Yours, etc,