As part of an extensive investigation into Independent News & Media (INM), High Court inspectors revealed that Denis O’Brien, the company’s previous majority shareholder, was notified about an ongoing email examination. The probe aimed to uncover the reasons for the renewal of a legal adviser’s contract with the media conglomerate. The investigation was kick-started by Leslie Buckley, INM’s past chairman and an associate of O’Brien.
It appears that Buckley requested an external firm to sift through the emails due to concerns over the conditions attached to the renewed contract of Simon McAleese. McAleese, previously a solicitor, is now a Circuit Court judge and a long-standing legal consultant for INM.
Buckley hoped to uncover a specific email that could potentially justify terminating McAleese’s contract as a cost-cutting measure, according to a report published on Wednesday. The search was subsequently expanded to investigate suspicions of secretive activities by other INM associated individuals, which may not have been in the best interests of the media business, now under the ownership of Belgian corporation, Mediahuis.
Involving 19 listed names, the inspectors concluded it would be inappropriate to make assumptions about the inclusion process which fuelled the 2018 INM controversy and resulted in their appointment. A significant point of contention was the perceived link between several included names and the Moriarty tribunal’s investigation of the State’s second mobile phone license award to O’Brien’s Esat Digifone.
The 19-listed individuals encompassed INM employees, journalists, barristers, and members of lobbying group FTI Strategic Communications. The inspectors stated in their report that due to the severe nature of the allegation, it would not be suitable to speculate on the origin of the 19-person list or any other lists.
Inspectors Sean Gillane SC and Richard Fleck expressed disbelief towards the testimony of Derek Mizak, owner of DMZ, concerning how he came to create certain names. In relation to this, they saw a lack of synchronous documentation. Their investigation revealed no signs that Mr O’Brien was informed of the extended data examination which took place following October 2014, or of the work undertaken by Mr Mizak and TDS, a Welsh company involved in data scouring, pertaining to select individuals like the highlighted group of nineteen.
According to the inspectors, Mr O’Brien accepted to finance the data analysis because Mr Buckley suggested that to explain the enormity of the work to INM during a budget reduction period would cause him humiliation. However, the INM board was not notified by Mr Buckley about the decision to examine emails for material linked to the McAleese contract.
The cause of the scandal which resulted in the appointing of inspectors can mostly be attributed to undisclosed private revelations from ex-INM CEO Robert Pitt and Ryan Preston, the former chief finance officer of the group. The inspectors labelled the absence of early disclosure from the pair that they were collaborating as “inaccurate and deceptive”. They went on to say that the two men misled them by implying that they were working independently when this was not the case.
They further added that it was unjust towards Mr Buckley when it surfaced during cross-examination that there was a failure to release crucial documents. Nonetheless, the interaction between the pair didn’t compromise the authenticity of their revelations, as per the inspectors.
Mr O’Brien argued in a statement that the inspectors found no Companies Act violations as originally stated. He added that allegations raised during the scandal were incorrect and baseless. They also concluded that there was no endeavour to his advantage, at the expense of other shareholders, via a potential takeover of his then radio station, Newstalk, by INM or through the fee payments to Island Capital, one of his firms, for an Australian transaction.
The Inspectors ascertained that there was no breach of confidentiality concerning sensitive information about INM, which was relayed to me, and it was never used inappropriately. Moreover, the report elucidates my diligence in preserving the secrecy of any details acquired by me and my lack of misconduct concerning any accommodated correspondence, according to his assertion.
He pointed out that the report confirms his unawareness of tasks being executed in connection to specific individuals, referred to as the 19 persons of interest. Mr Buckley also expressed his appreciation for the report in a statement. The report, he said, is void of any evidence indicating deceitful behaviour on his part during his term as INM’s chairman. He insists that it proves he operated ethically for the benefit of all stakeholders.