22 peo­ple in­volved in draft­ing un­law­ful wit­ness state­ments


Bray People - - NEWS -


In­ves­ti­ga­tors into al­leged crimes by former An­glo Ir­ish Bank chair­man Sean Fitzpatrick used ‘un­law­ful’ prac­tices when tak­ing wit­ness state­ments, his trial heard.

Lawyers for Mr FitzPatrick (68), who is ac­cused of mis­lead­ing au­di­tors about multi-mil­lion euro loans, have said that state­ments from wit­nesses from the au­di­tors were pro­duced as a re­sult of coach­ing and cross-con­tam­i­na­tion be­tween wit­nesses.

Mr FitzPatrick of Whit­shed Road, Grey­stones, Co Wicklow has pleaded not guilty to 27 of­fences un­der the 1990 Com­pa­nies Act. These in­clude 22 charges of mak­ing a mis­lead­ing, false or de­cep­tive state­ment to au­di­tors and five charges of fur­nish­ing false in­for­ma­tion in the years 2002 to 2007.

On day 72 of the trial in Dublin Cir­cuit Crim­i­nal Court, the jury saw a draft state­ment from Vin­cent Ber­gin, the au­dit man­ager for An­glo, with nu­mer­ous changes, in­clud­ing in­ser­tions and dele­tions of en­tire para­graphs, sug­gested by in­ves­ti­ga­tors.

The ev­i­dence emerged dur­ing the fourth day of de­fence cross-ex­am­i­na­tion of Kevin O’Con­nell, a le­gal ad­vi­sor with the Of­fice of Di­rec­tor of Cor­po­rate En­force­ment (ODCE), who dealt with wit­nesses from EY (for­merly Ernst & Young), An­glo’s au­di­tors from 2002 to 2008

The doc­u­ment ti­tled ‘ draft state­ment by Vin­cent Ber­gin’ and dated Novem­ber 1, 2010, was cir­cu­lated to a num­ber of peo­ple in the ODCE, in­clud­ing Mr O’Con­nell and his then boss, Paul Ap­pleby, the di­rec­tor of cor­po­rate en­force­ment.

These peo­ple sug­gested changes to the doc­u­ment and Mr O’Con­nell said he then dis­tilled or syn­the­sised ‘ the shared viewpoint’ that was fi­nally set­tled on.

The jury was shown var­i­ous ver­sions of the doc­u­ment with new sec­tions in­serted, other sec­tions crossed out or deleted, and oth­ers marked with the words ‘drop’ or ‘delete’.

Bernard Con­don SC, de­fend­ing, com­pared the process of pro­duc­ing the state­ment to the ‘ hokey cokey’.

‘It goes in and it goes out. The state­ment is just shaken out. A meet­ing of bits go­ing in and bits go­ing out,’ he said.

Mr O’Con­nell agreed the process was wrong and in­ap­pro­pri­ate. Mr Con­don told the court that rul­ings by Judge Mary Ellen Ring dur­ing the first trial in May 2015 and by Judge John Aylmer dur­ing the cur­rent trial found that it was an un­law­ful prac­tice.

He said it was un­law­ful be­cause it meant the jury never get to hear what the wit­ness might have said in an un­var­nished state­ment and not pro­duced af­ter they had be­ing coached.

Mr O’Con­nell said he couldn’t quib­ble with coun­sel’s char­ac­ter­i­sa­tion of one par­tic­u­lar ODCE in­ser­tion as ‘out­ra­geous’ .

The para­graph states: ‘I re­gard the let­ter of rep­re­sen­ta­tion in any au­dit as a state­ment made to us...which con­veys in­for­ma­tion...which we re­quire un­der the Com­pa­nies Act’. Coun­sel said the ex­act word­ing ended up in the fi­nal state­ments of EY au­di­tors Mr Ber­gin and Kieran Kelly.

‘It comes out of the mouth of the ODCE and is put into the mouth of Vin­cent Ber­gin. It is wrong, wrong, wrong,’ he said’

‘It’s the poi­son­ing of the pool. It moved from ODCE to Vin­cent Ber­gin and it gets into Kieran Kelly’s state­ment.’

Both Mr Ber­gin and Mr Kelly are due to give ev­i­dence later in the trial.

Mr O’Con­nell said he ac­cepted now that the process was wrong but said it was his hon­estly-held be­lief at the time that the fi­nal state­ments rep­re­sented the con­sid­ered view of both wit­nesses.

The jury saw one typed com­ment, at­trib­uted to Mr Ap­pleby, on a ver­sion of the state­ment and stat­ing: ‘Is Mr Ber­gin’s an­swer not likely to be very un­favourable. Ac­cord­ingly are we wise to sug­gest this?’

Coun­sel sub­mit­ted that this com­ment was con­trary to the duty of an in­ves­ti­ga­tor to seek out ev­i­dence as to the in­no­cence as well as guilt of sus­pects. Mr O’Con­nell agreed that it was a wrong thing to say and he re­gret­ted that he did not know this at the time and did not ob­ject to it when it was said.

An­other com­ment at­trib­uted to Mr Ap­pleby states: ‘I don’t think we should sug­gest an an­swer. Mr Ber­gin may wish to with­draw the state­ment or re­vise it, which would suit us bet­ter’.

Mr Con­don said this com­ment was not in­dica­tive of an im­par­tial in­ves­ti­ga­tion. ‘It’s quite wrong for Mr Ap­pleby to take this out be­cause you might get a bet­ter an­swer,’ coun­sel sub­mit­ted. Mr O’Con­nell agreed.

‘ There are se­ri­ous dan­gers in telling peo­ple what to say and in writ­ing it for them. This is a per­son’s state­ment, pre­sented to the de­fence as the state­ment of Vin­cent Ber­gin. This is a state­ment, the word­ing of which is a prod­uct of you and Paul Ap­pleby and oth­ers in the ODCE and un­known peo­ple in the EY and A&L Good­body (lawyers for EY),’ Mr Con­don said.


Gar­dai were not in­volved in the draft­ing of wit­ness state­ments crit­i­cised by a trial judge in the pros­e­cu­tion of former An­glo Ir­ish Bank chair­man Sean FitzPatrick, a court has heard. Lawyers for Mr FitzPatrick (68), who is ac­cused of mis­lead­ing au­di­tors about multi-mil­lion euro loans, have pre­vi­ously said that state­ments from wit­nesses from the au­di­tors were pro­duced as a re­sult of coach­ing and cross-con­tam­i­na­tion be­tween wit­nesses. Ear­lier last week the jury heard that the prac­tices used by in­ves­ti­ga­tors from the Of­fice of Di­rec­tor of Cor­po­rate En­force­ment (ODCE) were found to be ‘un­law­ful’ by Judge Mary Ellen Ring dur­ing the first trial in May 2015. On day 73 of the trial in Dublin Cir­cuit Crim­i­nal Court, the jury was shown a let­ter writ­ten by De­tec­tive Su­per­in­ten­dent Ger­ard Walsh in June 2015 re­lat­ing to the ad­journ­ment of that trial. In the email, which ac­com­pa­nies a re­port made by De­tec­tive In­spec­tor Ray­mond Ka­vanagh, Su­per­in­ten­dent Walsh states that ‘ the garda unit sec­onded to the ODCE were not in­volved in draft­ing of the wit­ness state­ments the sub­ject of courts crit­i­cism’.

The email re­quested that the at­tached re­port be for­warded to garda man­age­ment. Kevin O’Con­nell, a lead in­ves­ti­ga­tor who had ad­mit­ted his in­volve­ment in wrong and in­ap­pro­pri­ate prac­tices, told the jury that Dt In­spec­tor Ka­vanagh was present dur­ing a meet­ing in De­cem­ber 2010 where draft­ing of state­ments had taken place.

At this time DI Ka­vanagh had just re­cently taken on the sec­onded role with the ODCE, he said.

Mr O’Con­nell has also pre­vi­ously ad­mit­ted shred­ding doc­u­ments which were rel­e­vant to the in­ves­ti­ga­tion. On Wed­nes­day he told the jury that he dis­cov­ered the doc­u­ments on a Fri­day evening af­ter he had spent four days un­der cross-ex­am­i­na­tion over the draft­ing of the state­ments dur­ing the first trial.

Ear­lier that same day he had dis­cov­ered 16 pages rel­e­vant to the in­ves­ti­ga­tion. He brought these to the at­ten­tion of the di­rec­tor of cor­po­rate en­force­ment Ian Dren­nan and the doc­u­ments were scanned and emailed to the DPP.

Henry Matthews, an of­fi­cer with the DPP, then told Mr O’Con­nell that the late dis­cov­ery of rel­e­vant doc­u­ments was un­for­tu­nate and most un­help­ful and that he would have to go back into the wit­ness box to ac­count for it.

He told Mr Con­don that he was ter­ri­fied about the prospect of hav­ing to get back into the wit­ness box and un­dergo fur­ther cross-ex­am­i­na­tion. He said the ela­tion he had felt af­ter fin­ish­ing his ev­i­dence turned to panic.

A short time late he dis­cov­ered four more doc­u­ments re­lated to EY (for­merly Ernst & Young), An­glo’s au­di­tors from 2002 to 2008. He said his panic grew and he de­cided to shred the doc­u­ments.

‘It was a com­pletely wrong thing to do. I’m ashamed of it. I have never done any­thing like it be­fore nor I hope will I ever again.

‘It was a time of very con­sid­er­able pres­sure. I made a des­per­ate, des­per­ate mis­take. I was aware of what they were, that fur­ther height­ened the panic I was in.

‘It was a time of enor­mous strain, more so than I’d ever ex­pe­ri­enced in my pro­fes­sional ca­reer be­fore,’ Mr O’Con­nell said. He said that over the week­end he de­spaired and ago­nised over his ac­tions and re­alised he could not main­tain the lie.

He said with­out prompt­ing from any­one else he rang his boss Ian Dren­nan and told him what had hap­pened.

‘All I can be grate­ful for is, 48 hours later, I did the right thing in ad­mit­ting the wrong thing that I had done. I’m glad I did,’ he said.

The jury was shown CCTV footage from the ODCE of­fices show­ing Mr O’Con­nell bring­ing a tray of doc­u­ments from his of­fice to a shred­ding room. A col­league, Garda Gary Cal­li­nan, ap­proached Mr O’Con­nell at this time and Mr O’Con­nell can be seen at­tempt­ing to con­ceal the doc­u­ments while the two men talk.

Mr Con­don pointed out that around half an hour ear­lier Garda Cal­li­nan had been in Mr O’Con­nell’s of­fice ‘shoot­ing the breeze’ and hav­ing a so­cial con­ver­sa­tion. Mr O’Con­nell agreed that he had the doc­u­ments at this point and did not dis­close it to his ‘ trusted col­league’.

He said that ‘ the train had al­ready left the sta­tion’ and his mind was made up to de­stroy the doc­u­ments. ‘An­other grave er­ror on my part. I re­gret I didn’t tell him,’ Mr O’Con­nell said.

Garda Cal­li­nan pre­vi­ously tes­ti­fied that it was a nor­mal con­ver­sa­tion and he didn’t no­tice any­thing un­usual about Mr O’Con­nell, the court heard.

Mr O’Con­nell told the court that his de­ci­sion to de­stroy the doc­u­ments was un­eth­i­cal.

Mr Con­don de­scribed it ‘an ab­so­lute dis­grace’, say­ing: ‘it was with­out doubt a truly ap­palling thing for a State in­ves­ti­ga­tor, given the pow­ers avail­able to you’.

In other ev­i­dence the jury heard that a state­ment given by a wit­ness for the pros­e­cu­tion was changed dur­ing a meet­ing the wit­ness wasn’t present for.

The jury were shown more drafts of what would even­tu­ally be­come the wit­ness state­ment of Vin­cent Ber­gin, the au­dit man­ager for An­glo.

The change was de­tailed in an ODCE in­ter­nal email dated De­cem­ber 5, 2010, weeks af­ter the ODCE had re­ceived a first draft of the state­ment from EY’s lawyers, A&L Good­body.

In the sub­se­quent weeks the ODCE pro­duced their own ver­sion of the

state­ment which in­cluded sug­ges­tions for ad­di­tional para­graphs and for delet­ing sec­tions.

Mr O’Con­nell noted that the lawyers have taken on board most of the sug­gested changes. He said that ‘most cru­cially’ they changed what he said was a ‘rather weak state­ment’ to one which in­cludes the words: ‘from my per­spec­tive as the au­di­tor re­ceiv­ing the let­ters... I be­lieve the let­ters were mis­lead­ing, false or de­cep­tive in a ma­te­rial par­tic­u­lar’.

Mr Con­don said it was a piece of brazen­ness for Mr O’Con­nell to pre­sent­ing this change as theirs when he was in the room when it was agreed at a meet­ing with EY’s lawyers.

He said that the ‘I’ in the state­ment, Mr Ber­gin, wasn’t in the room.

‘His so­lic­i­tor was typ­ing out the word­ing which would be agreed with the ODCE,’ coun­sel said.

Mr O’Con­nell replied that he be­lieved that the word­ing would ul­ti­mately only ap­pear in the fi­nal state­ment of Mr Ber­gin if Mr Ber­gin was will­ing to adopt the word­ing.

‘If he had any is­sues to that word­ing he would not have signed up to it,’ he said.

In an email sent in Novem­ber to Mr O’Con­nell and re­fer­ring to the ‘ tidy­ing up’ of the state­ment, Liam Kennedy, part­ner with A&L Good­body, states: ‘My client may si­mul­ta­ne­ously be do­ing some pol­ish­ing’.


Gar­daí have never in­ves­ti­gated a State of­fi­cial’s de­struc­tion of doc­u­ments re­lated to the in­ves­ti­ga­tion of al­leged crimes by former An­glo Ir­ish Bank chair­man Sean Fitzpatrick, the trial heard.

The jury had al­ready heard that in May 2015 Kevin O’Con­nell, a lead in­ves­ti­ga­tor from the Of­fice of Di­rec­tor of Cor­po­rate En­force­ment (ODCE), shred­ded doc­u­ments which were rel­e­vant to the in­ves­ti­ga­tion.

He told Bernard Con­don SC, de­fend­ing, that he pan­icked when he dis­cov­ered the five pages in his of­fice and made a wrong de­ci­sion to de­stroy them. He ad­mit­ted it was un­eth­i­cal and said he was ashamed of his ac­tions.

He said he dis­closed his ac­tions to his boss, di­rec­tor of cor­po­rate en­force­ment Ian Dren­nan, three days later.

On Thurs­day morn­ing Mr Con­don be­gan a sixth day of cross-ex­am­in­ing Mr O’Con­nell. The wit­ness agreed that it was a crim­i­nal of­fence to de­stroy doc­u­ments rel­e­vant to an in­ves­ti­ga­tion.

He also agreed that there had been no garda in­ves­ti­ga­tion into his shred­ding of the doc­u­ments.

He said when he told Mr Dren­nan about his ac­tions he did so know­ing it could have led to very se­ri­ous out­comes such as crim­i­nal in­ves­ti­ga­tions or dis­ci­plinary pro­ceed­ings. He agreed with coun­sel that none of these things hap­pened.

Mr Con­don said there had been no garda in­ves­ti­ga­tion and hence there had been no pros­e­cu­tion.

He said that at the start of the cur­rent trial last Oc­to­ber the Di­rec­tor of Pub­lic Pros­e­cu­tions (DPP) of­fered Mr O’Con­nell what coun­sel de­scribed as ‘ef­fec­tive im­mu­nity’ from pros­e­cu­tion.

This of­fer came while Mr O’Con­nell was giv­ing ev­i­dence dur­ing le­gal ar­gu­ment and he in­di­cated to the court that he may wish to rely on the priv­i­lege against self in­crim­i­na­tion.

Mr Con­don told the jury that this was a le­gal right avail­able here and known in the United States ‘as plead­ing the fifth’, where a per­son does not have to an­swer a ques­tion that may in­crim­i­nate them.

On Oc­to­ber 12 last, 2016 the Chief Pros­e­cu­tion So­lic­i­tor for the DPP wrote to so­lic­i­tors for Mr O’Con­nell stat­ing that no ev­i­dence given by him con­cern­ing the de­struc­tion of doc­u­ments would be used in ev­i­dence in any crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ings against him.

The court heard that lawyers for the DPP have firmly re­jected that the let­ter amounted to an im­mu­nity against pros­e­cu­tion. Mr Con­don sub­mit­ted that it was a qual­i­fied but ‘ef­fec­tive’ im­mu­nity.

Mr Con­don moved on to ask Mr O’Con­nell about the process of agree­ing the state­ment of Kieran Kelly, the sec­ond wit­ness from An­glo’s au­di­tors EY (for­merly Ernst & Young).

The de­fence have told the trial that state­ments from wit­nesses from the au­di­tors were pro­duced as a re­sult of coach­ing and cross-con­tam­i­na­tion be­tween wit­nesses and that Judge Aylmer pre­vi­ously ruled that this was an un­law­ful process.

The process of draft­ing Mr Kelly’s state­ment be­gan in early 2011 with Liam Kennedy, a part­ner with A&L Good­body (ALG), who rep­re­sented EY, send­ing a first draft of Mr Kelly’s state­ment to the ODCE.

The jury saw notes made over the fol­low­ing months. One note shows Mr Kennedy dis­cussing the graft­ing of para­graphs and ‘cut and paste’.

In June 2011 Mr O’Con­nell dis­cussed meet­ing with the lawyer in the ab­sence of Mr Kelly. He pro­posed this in an email sent to gar­dai sec­onded to the ODCE and to the then di­rec­tor, Paul Ap­pleby.

In the email he said the lawyers were the peo­ple who we had to con­vince about how best to move for­ward.

‘Even if Mr Kelly was in at­ten­dance it’s likely to be the lawyers who would take the lead role in dis­cussing the next steps,’ he con­tin­ued.

Mr Con­don said that in the meet­ing that fol­lowed, there were four lawyers, two gar­dai and no wit­ness present.

The jury heard that the process of putting the state­ment to­gether con­tin­ued through­out the sum­mer of 2011. In Novem­ber 2011 Mr O’Con­nell said that ‘ the state­ment was largely based on Vin­cent Ber­gin’s state­ment, which they had been happy with’.

Mr Ber­gin is the other pros­e­cu­tion wit­ness from EY and his state­ment was also pro­duced as a re­sult of the un­law­ful draft­ing prac­tice.

A draft of Mr Kelly’s state­ment pro­vided from ALG to the ODCE in Novem­ber 2011 con­tained mul­ti­ple para­graphs la­belled with a mar­gin note ‘ver­ba­tim from VB state­ment’.

The jury saw notes of ad­vice given by Mr Kennedy to Mr Kelly in ad­vance of a meet­ing with Mr O’Con­nell. Mr Kennedy is recorded as telling Mr Kelly that he may be asked to look at doc­u­ments by the ODCE in­ves­ti­ga­tor.

He ad­vised Mr Kelly: ‘ Be seen to look at a few. Say you have to think on it and re­flect on it’. A later note states that Mr Kennedy told Mr Kelly ‘ the less you say the bet­ter’.

Mr Con­don sub­mit­ted that the le­gal ad­vice amounted to telling Mr Kelly to ‘en­gage in a sort of pan­tomime per­for­mance’ with the ODCE in­ves­ti­ga­tor.

He told Mr O’Con­nell: ‘Kieran Kelly was to have a meet­ing with you. He was to pick up as much as he could from you, com­mit to noth­ing, meet with his so­lic­i­tor, then de­cide. This was go­ing to be a piece of the­atre.’

He said that in the sub­se­quent meet­ing be­tween Mr O’Con­nell, Mr Kelly and Mr Kennedy, Mr Kelly said very lit­tle and ‘sat there like a statue and didn’t open his mouth’.

Mr O’Con­nell agreed that the notes of the meet­ing at­trib­uted very lit­tle to the au­di­tor. Most of the notes show the in­ves­ti­ga­tor and the lawyer dis­cussing the state­ment.

Mr Con­don sug­gested to Mr O’Con­nell that he had be­come too close to the so­lic­i­tors for EY. Mr O’Con­nell said there was a de­gree of role play­ing where the two par­ties would be cor­dial with each other de­spite ear­lier ‘ups and downs’.

Coun­sel said that Mr Kennedy had taken on a role of in­ter­me­di­ary be­tween a State in­ves­ti­ga­tor and his own client. He said in one in­ter­ac­tion in early 2011 the two of them agreed on what Mr Kennedy would say to Mr Kelly.

He said this was redo­lent of an in­ves­ti­ga­tor who was too close to so­lic­i­tors for a wit­ness.

‘It begs the ques­tion as to whether he should have ever signed up to such a thing. His duty was to his client,’ he said.

Mr Con­don noted that in Oc­to­ber that year an ini­tial re­port from the ac­count­ing reg­u­la­tory body CARB in­cluded a num­ber of neg­a­tive find­ings against EY. An ap­pen­dix at­tached to the re­port in­cluded a 153 page de­fence by EY con­cern­ing its au­dit.


Lawyers de­fend­ing Sean FitzPatrick ac­cused in­ves­ti­ga­tors of craft­ing and cre­at­ing state­ments in or­der to get ev­i­dence to pros­e­cute the former An­glo Ir­ish Bank chair­man.

On day 75 of the trial at Dublin Cir­cuit Crim­i­nal Court, Bernard Con­don SC, de­fend­ing, fin­ished his lengthy cross-ex­am­i­na­tion of Kevin O’Con­nell, a lead in­ves­ti­ga­tor from the Of­fice of the Di­rec­tor of Cor­po­rate En­force­ment (ODCE).

Dur­ing seven days in the wit­ness box, Mr O’Con­nell ad­mit­ted that the meth­ods used to pro­duce state­ments from wit­nesses in the in­ves­ti­ga­tion were wrong and un­law­ful.

He told Mr Con­don that the mis­takes he made were down to his in­ex­pe­ri­ence of in­ves­ti­gat­ing crim­i­nal of­fences and de­nied they were part of a de­lib­er­ate ef­fort to get a pros­e­cu­tion at all costs.

On Fri­day, Mr Con­don put it to him that the in­ves­ti­ga­tion was ‘a sham­bles’ and one which ‘you should not take any pride in and one which the ODCE should never re­peat’.

Mr O’Con­nell replied that he took no pride what­so­ever in all the man­i­fold mis­takes made by him. He said that since these mis­takes were deemed un­law­ful by Judge Mary Ellen Ring dur­ing the first trial in May 2015, the ODCE has mod­i­fied its prac­tices.

The jury heard that in Fe­bru­ary 2012, Mr O’Con­nell’s then boss, pre­vi­ous di­rec­tor of cor­po­rate en­force­ment, Paul Ap­pleby, wrote to an ODCE col­league thank­ing her for her work. He said: ‘Let’s hope we get pros­e­cutable of­fences out of all your work’.

Mr Con­don said this com­ment by Mr Ap­pleby spoke vol­umes about a de­sire of the ODCE to pros­e­cute Mr FitzPatrick.

‘Noth­ing was go­ing to stop you,’ coun­sel said. The wit­ness replied that they would have been stopped if rel­e­vant ev­i­dence had not been avail­able.

‘So what you did was crafted and cre­ated wit­ness state­ments so you could get ev­i­dence,’ Mr Con­don said. Mr O’Con­nell re­peated that his in­ex­pe­ri­ence and a lack of in­put from other col­leagues led to mis­takes be­ing made.

Mr Con­don said the state­ments of wit­nesses from An­glo’s au­di­tors EY (for­merly Ernst & Young) were a re­sult of coach­ing and con­tam­i­na­tion. He said they were state­ments by a com­mit­tee formed by a tri­an­gle of three sep­a­rate bod­ies, the ODCE, EY and A&L Good­body, a le­gal firm rep­re­sent­ing EY.

He named 22 peo­ple. These in­cluded five gar­daí, four peo­ple and ‘other un­known per­sons’ from EY and Liam Kennedy, a part­ner with A&L Good­body.

Mr O’Con­nell agreed that these peo­ple were in­volved ‘to one de­gree or an­other’ in the draft­ing of state­ments us­ing meth­ods later ruled to be un­law­ful.

Ear­lier this week the jury saw a note to garda man­age­ment stat­ing that no gar­daí were in­volved in the draft­ing of the state­ments.

The jury also heard pre­vi­ously that dur­ing the first trial in May 2015, Mr O’Con­nell shred­ded doc­u­ments rel­e­vant to the in­ves­ti­ga­tion. On Fri­day he told Do­minic McGinn SC, prose­cut­ing, that the five pages de­stroyed would have been jot­tings and scrib­bled notes of phone calls.

He said that the in­ves­ti­ga­tion into An­glo had cre­ated thou­sands of pa­per doc­u­ments, as well as 850,000 elec­tronic doc­u­ments. He said not all of these would be rel­e­vant to the au­dit fraud of­fences be­fore the court.

The trial con­tin­ues be­fore Judge John Aylmer on Thurs­day.

Kevin O’Con­nell, le­gal ad­vi­sor with the ODCE, who was cross-ex­am­ined.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Ireland

© PressReader. All rights reserved.