Judge directs only parts of INM inspectors report can be released
The president of the High Court has ruled only a redacted version of the first report of the inspectors investigating Independent News & Media can, at this stage, be disclosed to INM, the Central Bank, and others, including ex INM chairman Leslie Buckley.
The inspectors were appointed by Mr Justice Peter Kelly last September and their first interim report was provided to him last April. The judge noted today the inspectors aim to produce their final report by early next year.
Only the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE) has a statutory entitlement to see the first report but the court has discretion whether anyone else can access it.
The ODCE, supported by inspectors Sean Gillane and Robert Fleck, objected to the applicants being provided with the report at this stage primarily because it refers to evidential matters.
In his judgment today, the judge directed only those parts of the report which do not deal with evidential matters should be provided to the various applicants.
A “good deal” of the report deals with evidential matters, he said.
He reached that conclusion for reasons including the inspectors had given guarantees of confidentiality to various persons with whom they spoke and his anxiety the court should not take any step that might hinder the inspectors work.
The report, he noted, is essentially a progress report and does not contain any findings but does contain a lot of direct and indirect reference to evidential material.
The decision means the applicants will get access to 29 paragraphs of the report which, his judgment indicated, contains at least 79 paragraphs.
Among those who sought access were INM, Mr Buckley, former INM Group CEO Robert Pitt, former CEO of INM’s Irish division Vincent Crowley, journalist Maeve Sheehan and a number of companies and individuals whom the ODCE is concerned may have been involved in the removal and interrogation of data from INM in 2014.
Mr Justice Kelly reserved judgment on the access applications last May, noting this was the first time objections were raised concerning an application under Section 759 of the Companies Act for access to an interim report of court-appointed inspectors.
In his judgment, he noted he had appointed the inspectors last September to investigate a range of issues including the data interrogation.
Data appears to have been searched against the names of 19 individuals, including journalists and two senior counsel to the Moriarty tribunal, and “grave concerns” had been expressed about the lawfulness of that, he noted.
The lawfulness of this whole operation is “very questionable”, he said.
In exercising his discretion concerning access to the report, he noted the report is merely an interim one, a progress report on work undertaken to date, and no findings of any sort have been made.
He also took into account the ODCE and inspectors had opposed releasing the report to the applicants.
While only the court, and to a very limited extent, the ODCE, have a legitimate interest in having oversight of the work carried out of the inspectors, he did not believe giving a report to the applicants would in any way interfere with that oversight.
The judge would be “loath” to take steps which might risk being a hindrance to the inspectors making progress in their work and fully appreciated they had given a commitment of confidentiality to those whom they spoke.
The inspectors, he noted, had said that commitment was particularly productive in assisting their work and they were able to get co-operation of individuals without the fear of material leaking into the public domain.
It would be quite inappropriate for the court to take any step which might cut across that commitment or take any step which might jeopardise the integrity and progress of the inspection.
However, he saw no objection to the parts of the report which do not deal with evidential matters being disclosed.