Author: Gavin Sheridan

Mortgage arrears

The only way is up.

Brian Cowen's bank guarantee calls and texts

Thanks to journalist Vinnie O’Dowd for this one. This is the mobile phone bill breakdown for Brian Cowen for the dates around the bank guarantee in September 2008. The numbers were removed by the Department of the Taoiseach. But the times and durations are interesting. Another piece in the jigsaw.



NAMA vs OCEI

It’s not clear whether it will be for mention or hearing (I’m hoping the latter) but tomorrow sees another step in the long process of trying to find out if the National Asset Management Agency is a public authority for the purposes of the Access to Information on the Environment Regulations 2007/2011. (This is not Freedom of Information, but a separate piece of legislation). We began this process on thestory.ie back in February 2010 with simultaneous requests to NAMA and Anglo Irish Bank. It’s listed for Court No 4, Four Courts at 10.45am on May 17.

The core of the argument comes down to legislative interpretation. Myself and Fred Logue (who has kindly given his free time to give huge help on the matter) have argued that the “and includes” part of the legislation when referring to public authorities really does mean “and includes”. NAMA have argued that it effectively means “may include”.

The Commissioner for Environmental Information, Emily O’Reilly, agreed last September with our view. She noted:

The National Asset Management Agency has argued that allowing the word “includes” its ordinary meaning would have the consequence, in the present context, of extending the definition of public authority beyond what is envisaged in the EU Directive. What NAMA proposes is that the plain and ordinary meaning of the word, as used in the Regulations, be set aside in favour of a meaning which implies a restriction rather than an expansion or an inclusion. It is not at all clear that, as Commissioner for Environmental Information, I may abandon the plain language of the Regulations in favour of an interpretation which is arguably more in keeping with the provisions of the Directive. This is particularly the case where the language of the Regulations, in this particular instance, is neither obscure nor ambiguous.

In any case, I am not persuaded that reliance on the plain meaning of the word “includes”, as used in the definition of “public authority” in the Regulations, gives rise to an outcome which is at odds with the Directive. In fact it is very arguable that the Directive encourages and enables Member States to take an expansive approach to what constitutes a “public authority”. Recital (11) of the Directive refers expressly to an expansive intent in relation to the definition; and Recital (24) expressly permits Member States “to maintain or introduce measures providing for broader access to information than required by this Directive.” Therefore, I do not accept that subparagraphs (a) to (c) of the definition of “public authority” in the Regulations should be interpreted as restrictive criteria where a Member State has apparently chosen to take an expansive approach to the definition.

NAMA and Anglo disagreed with this view, and appealed to the High Court – leading us to this current situation.

If we are right, then NAMA becomes a public authority, but *only* for the purposes of the AIE Regulations. By extension, Anglo Irish Bank, as a company wholly owned by the Minister for Finance, would also become a public authority, but *only* for the purposes of the AIE Regulations.

And by further extension, if we are right, a Minister of the Government, a harbour authority within the meaning of the Harbours Act 1946, a board or other body (but not including a company under the Companies Acts) established by or under statute, a company under the Companies Acts, in which all the shares are held by or on behalf of a Minister of the Government or by directors appointed by a Minister of the Government, would also automatically become de facto public authorities for the purposes of the AIE Regulations.

It has always been clear to us from the beginning that as a little-known and indeed little-used legislation that cases like this were possible – since it is relatively untested. Ultimately we are seeking legal clarity and trying to push the boundaries of how citizens can access information generally – this is not just about NAMA (though NAMA is an oddly opaque organisation in my view).

It is worth noting the following:

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights says:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

In TÁRSASÁG A SZABADSÁGJOGOKÉRT v. HUNGARY in 2009, the European Court of Human Rights found that there had been a violation of Article 10 when access to information was refused. The court noted “in view of the interest protected by Article 10, the law cannot allow arbitrary restrictions which may become a form of indirect censorship should the authorities create obstacles to the gathering of information. For example, the latter activity is an essential preparatory step in journalism and is an inherent, protected part of press freedom”

While there are cases where access should be limited to some degree, in general free access to information by citizens should be the default position. Access to information is a human right.

Environmental information is largely untested in Irish legal waters and unless the boundaries are pushed both in terms of what defines public authorities generally, and what defines environmental information, we cannot progress the right to information agenda generally.

James Morrissey letter to IN&M

Following on from yesterday’s look at the life and times of Denis O’Brien’s spokesman, James Morrissey, comes this April 2012 letter sent to thestory.ie by a reader.

It is a letter dated April 2, 2012, addressed to IN&M Managing Editor Michael Denieffe and CCd to IN&M Chairman James Osborne and Independent Newspapers chief executive Joe Webb by James Morrissey, concerning the Sunday Independent’s coverage of Denis O’Brien. It also contains a list of articles that Mr Morrissey says “produce a cocktail designed solely to discredit Denis O’Brien”.

Those James Morrissey texts

There was an interesting article in the Sunday Independent today surrounding a legal case involving Karl Brophy.

It is interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly it’s one of the first times I’ve seen someone who is traditionally referred to in articles as “a spokesman for Denis O’Brien”, instead being referred to as “Businessman Denis O’Brien’s spokesman James Morrissey”. Rarely if ever do you see the name of spokesmen, though I am not sure what tradition in journalism means that is the convention.

Of course James Morrissey rings lots of bells, not just for his involvement in the early days of the Sunday Business Post, along with others such as Aileen O’Toole and current Sunday Times editor Frank Fitzgibbon. But also there was the infamous Mespil Homes deal as blogged about on this website back in 2009 and on my old blog earlier in 2009. So who is he?

James Morrissey is from Kiltimagh, County Mayo, and studied commerce at UCD. He worked in the showband scene and at the music magazine Spotlight after leaving UCD. He left Independent Newspapers in 1989, where he had variously worked on the business desk for over 10 years – becoming involved in the development of the Evening Herald as a tabloid and became close to Tony O’Reilly during the 1980s. He eventually became deputy business editor of the Indo before leaving to co-found the Business Post in 1989. He also wrote a book on the battle to take over Irish Distillers, which was published by The Kerryman in 1989. As one would imagine, and given his interest in the showband scene, he was reported to have a close relationship with former Taoiseach Albert Reynolds.

In July 1992 he joined Gilmore and Associates, just prior to the Mespil Homes deal with Irish Life. He was one of many members of Irish society who purchased apartments at the Mespil complex in 1992. Michael “Fingers” Fingleton, then managing director of Irish Nationwide, and for whom James Morrissey was a spokesman, also availed of a purchase (though it emerged that Fingleton had broken rules on borrowing from his own building society). Mr Morrissey (along with his wife) bought the apartments along with his associates, Brendan Gilmore and Michael Holland (of New City Estates).

Brendan Gilmore also acted as a financial adviser to former INM CEO/chairman Tony O’Reilly back in the day.

Indeed New City Estates essentially organised the purchase of all 299 apartments, financed by First National Building Society (whose managing director Joe Treacy also bought six apartments himself though with loans from Ulster Bank). Of course there was nothing illegal in the Mespil deal – New City Estates organised a consortium who purchases the apartments from Irish Life – the controversy only arose because the apartments were sold from under the feet of the tenants, many of them pensioners.

In December 1993 when it was reported that Mr Morrissey had been appointed to the Customs House Docks Authority, he was described as “a financial consultant with Gilmore Associates”.

It was reported in 1993 that James Morrissey approached publican Dessie Hynes in October 1992 to see if he wanted to purchase. Management were reported to be looking for 10% of the rent, so Mr Hynes ended up only buying five apartments through ODOM Ltd. Mr Morrissey also approached broadcaster Marian Finucane and her husband, on behalf of New City Estates, to see if they would be interesting in purchasing – ultimately one was purchased by the broadcaster (she in 1996 sued Independent Newspapers for defamation in relation to an article about the deal – the case was settled soon after).

In 1994 he was appointed to the board of Bula Resources – a company also later associated with Albert Reynolds. In late 1995 Mr Morrissey joined PR company Murray Consultants (where Frank Dunlop and Ita Gibney had worked previously). By 1999 Mr Morrissey was representing JMSE as a PR spokesman during the Flood Tribunal. Mr Morrissey started working for Fleishman-Hillard Saunders in April 1998, and joined the board there in 2001. In 2004 he also joined the board of Newstalk (News 106 Ltd), one of Denis O’Brien’s companies. He also self-published several books, including one on the history of the Fastnet lighthouse in 2005. Interestingly the same year James Morrissey was acting as spokesman for Atlantic Philanthropies at the height of the Centre for Public Inquiry/Frank Connolly affair.

By 2007 Anthony O’Reilly was threatening legal action against Mr Morrissey (who was by then representing Mr O’Brien), accusing him of defamation in relation to a report into IN&M that had been ‘leaked’ to the media. Mr Morrissey denied the accusations and hired Belfast solicitor Paul Tweed to defend himself.

When it emerged in 2009 that Michael Fingleton had received a €1m bonus just after the bank guarantee, all questions were directed to Mr Morrissey. During the property boom, Mr Morrissey was involved with Bernard McNamara in Varleigh Limited, a company which owes its banks €63m (assets in Tallaght were valued at €59m but this is likely to have now fallen).

Investigative Journalism Summer School 2012

For the past couple of years I have attended the rather excellent Investigative Journalism Summer School in London run by the CIJ. It’s on again this year on July 6th to July 8th. Knowing that a large amount of Irish journalists subscribe to this blog I would encourage them (and others!) to attend. The cost if you book before May 4 is just £260 for three full days training – a bargain. The first year I was there, there were three journalists from Ireland, including myself. The second year there were five including myself – perhaps this year we can get it do a dozen?

Book here.

Soros on the end of the eurozone

The Euro has really broken down. It has sprung defects, some of which could have been anticipated and some were anticipated. But some actually couldn’t. Effectively, heavily indebted countries [in Europe] have ended up in the position of a third world country that is heavily indebted in a foreign currency. And that is only one of the unanticipated results of how things worked out [with the Euro].

[via Steve]

Denying the O'Brien/Hogan meeting

From the Department of the Environment press office on April 4 after a query relating to an alleged meeting between Denis O’Brien and Phil Hogan a couple of weeks ago and any mention of Sitserv as it relates to any future water metering contracts/tenders.

The Minister had no meeting with Denis O’Brien in recent weeks or recent years for that matter. As regards, water reforms – including the Prog for Govt commitment to install water meters, this is very much a matter for Govt and the Minister will be bringing forward proposals on same for consideration of Govt in the coming weeks.

Any public contracts that might arise would of course be subject to the normal rules on procurement/tendering.

Regards,

XXXX XXXXXX

Press Office,

Room 1.52,

Custom House,

Dublin 1.
Tel: 8882638

But…on April 6:

Meanwhile, Mr Hogan and Mr O’Brien had a brief encounter at Mount Juliet Hotel last month.

The minister was having breakfast in the hotel when Mr O’Brien entered the restaurant.

“He did briefly bump into Denis O’Brien. They bumped into each other and exchanged pleasantries. They spoke for a matter of moments,” a spokesperson said.

Mr Hogan holds honorary membership of Mount Juliet Golf and Country Club in Thomastown, Co Kilkenny, where Mr O’Brien has a holiday home.

Mr Hogan’s officials insist he has not held any official meeting Mr O’Brien as a minister.

Can brief be defined as an hour or two?