Sir, - The headline to your report on my response to Nora Owen's Dail statement on the tapping of my telephone was unfortunate. It read "Browne rejects Owen statement on transcripts".
I did not and do not reject her statement. Indeed I welcome her clarification of her own role in the matter: that she went along with a decision taken by her predecessor to settle the case, but that the terms of the settlement were concluded by herself.
I am in disagreement with just one point. I objected strongly to the shredding of the transcripts both in person and through my solicitor. On August 2nd, 1995 my solicitor wrote to the chief stated solicitor stating: "It is apparent that Patrick Cooney, a former Minister for Justice (and possibly previous holders of that office) is now considering taking legal action" (actually he had already taken legal action) "which would involve our client. It is clear that any such legal action would concern the transcripts and, therefore, the material in those transcripts would "not just be relevant but would be crucial to those proceedings. In the circumstances, it is imperative, in the interests of justice, that these documents are not destroyed or interfered with in any way. In this regard, if the documents are interfered with or destroyed, our client's position will be materially prejudiced and we are putting you on notice of this fact".
When I saw the transcripts for the second time, later in August 1995, I again objected to their destruction. I said to the Department of Justice official, who was present throughout the time that I was permitted to see the transcripts, that I believed the destruction of them was illegal, given that Patrick Cooney had commenced legal proceedings.
In spite of these protests that official shredded the transcripts, I understood, on instruction from a higher authority in the Department. - Yours etc.,
Dalkey,
Co. Dublin.
