Sir, – I viewed most of Thursday’s (June 29th) session of the PAC at which RTÉ staff were questioned. As a recently retired solicitor, I cannot understand why any potential witness would co-operate with the PAC, based on what I saw.
In all the courts and tribunals that I appeared in over 34 years, there was always one constant: that witnesses were treated with respect and were allowed to answer questions uninterrupted within reason.
In what I saw, the PAC members, with few exceptions, barracked and hectored the witnesses.
One PAC member, Colm Burke, FG, issued a barrage of questions to RTÉ witnesses Adrian Lynch, chief executive, and Richard Collins, chief financial officer. Each time these witnesses attempted to answer, Mr Burke talked across them. The chairman, Brian Stanley, SF, did not intervene.
Savaged by Anton: Easy questions for Seán O’Rourke, gentle inquisition for Lynn Boylan
Agent Noel Kelly bounces back after Tubridy controversy
RTÉ records net deficit of €9.1m amid plummeting licence fee revenues
Siún Ní Raghallaigh, seven months after RTÉ affair: the Oireachtas hearings were ‘vicious. People were unfairly treated, as if they had no rights’
Several other PAC members said they wanted only short answers or yes or no answers. That is not procedurally correct or fair. If a question or an accusation is put, especially in relation to a serious and complex matter, the witness has to be allowed to respond appropriately.
Bear in mind that none of the RTÉ witnesses had been involved in arranging the top-up payments.
PAC member Verona Murphy, Ind, used her allocated time to hector Adrian Lynch aggressively to confirm whether he would resign if Ryan Tubridy sued for being taken off air. Mr Lynch attempted to respond, but was interrupted by Ms Murphy who said it was a binary question, yes or no.
As any lawyer present for Mr Lynch would have said: it isn’t a yes or no question, it is a hypothetical question requiring the witness to speculate about several possible future outcomes; requiring comment on potential litigation was inappropriate; and the question was not relevant to the question of the top-up payments made to Mr Tubridy. The chairman did not intervene.
Ms Murphy argued that Mr Lynch’s action was likely to cost the taxpayer a fortune. In so doing, she conveniently forgot that the PAC had itself cost the taxpayer a fortune when costs were awarded against the PAC by the Supreme Court arising from the case of Angela Kerins, Rehab chief executive, who was before the PAC in 2014.
The court found that the PAC exceeded its remit in carrying out a “witch hunt” style of questioning against Ms Kerins.
PAC member John Brady, SF, spent much of his allocated time hounding Mr Collins to disclose his salary. I don’t believe a judge would have allowed that question – or not without a detailed explanation – as it was not relevant to an inquiry into payments to Mr Tubridy. Mr Collins was not on trial.
On this occasion, the chairman did intervene, but only to urge Mr Collins to disclose his salary. (Full disclosure: Richard Collins and I are members of the same sports club.) Mr Brady subsequently asked Mr Collins if he had been asleep at the wheel. That was simply abusive. No case had been made to justify abuse on that level.
I could go on. For example, Alan Kelly, Labour, demanded barter account records going back 20 years. No court would grant that on discovery, or not readily.
He also bluntly criticised RTÉ chairwoman Siún Ní Raghallaigh for failing to disclose details of a disciplinary process involving Dee Forbes on an earlier news programme. Correctly, she had not disclosed those details.
Most of the PAC members behaved boorishly, as I saw it. The PAC procedures require radical reform. At a minimum, revised procedures should include a legally qualified chairperson, an end to unco-ordinated questioning by members, and an end to grandstanding and speeches.
The members should undergo detailed training on procedures for quasi-judicial bodies and the rules of evidence. Basic courtesies must be observed. There must be protocols to protect witnesses from self-incrimination.
No lessons appear to have been learned from the Kerins case. – Yours, etc,
JOHN MARK DOWNEY,
Dundrum,
Dublin 14.