A Cheann Comhairle,  I wish to make a brief personal explanation in response to the unfounded allegations being made against me in recent days.

On December 21^st a defamation action, which had been taken against me by a Sinn Féin Councillor in Limerick City: Cllr Maurice Quinlivan was mutually agreed and settled in the High Court.

The case followed on from remarks I had made in an interview with a journalist from a local paper: The Limerick Chronicle.

There has been much ill informed unfounded and mischievous comment in recent days. What has appeared has been comment masquerading as facts. I am making this personal explanation to the Dáil to place the facts of the matter on the record.

As part of the settlement agreed and put before the High Court on December 21^st last: a statement was read out in Court which containing the following paragraph:

“It is not suggested by Mr Quinlivan that Mr O’Dea acted other than innocently in making such denial and he accepts that there was no intention to mislead on the part of Mr O’Dea.”

I have openly and fully acknowledged that my recollection of some of what I said in the interview as described in my original affidavit was mistaken.  I corrected the mistake when I realized it. I admitted the mistake and apologised for it.

I agreed a settlement in which, as I have already outlined, the other party fully accepted that there was no intention to mislead on my part.

The matter was a personal one between me and a Sinn Féin representative in Limerick. It did not pertain to my responsibilities as a Minister in the Government. It did not pertain to Government policies in any shape, way or form. It was born out of heated political exchanges between me and the Sinn Féin candidate in the run up to the Local Elections in Limerick City.

It was dealt with in open Court over two months ago and reported widely in the newspapers at the time. Both parties to the dispute agreed that the matter is resolved and that there are no outstanding issues. As far as the two parties and the Courts are concerned the matter is closed and has been closed since December 21^st last.

A Fine Gael member of the Seanad has sought to raise this closed matter on the Order of Business in Seanad Éireann on a number of occasions, over the past few weeks. He made unfounded accusations against me on Tuesday February 2^nd, on Wednesday 3^rd February, and again on Thursday February 11^th.

He has asserted, both directly and indirectly, that I only corrected my statement when I had been “found out” and that I have admitted that I “lied on oath.”

These two unfounded claims have been used as the basis for much of the media commentary since then.

Firstly, as I have not lied under oath I most certainly have not “admitted to lying under oath”. I made a mistake. The other party to the action, as I stated earlier, acknowledged and fully accepted this in the settlement agreed in Court. 

Secondly, I was not, as asserted: “found out” by the production of a tape recording of my interview, as if the interview had been surreptitiously recorded.

I knew the interview was being recorded. I didn't have a transcript of the interview when I made my statement, but as I had seen the report of it in the newspaper, I felt sure a transcript of that tape recording would vindicate my recollection. I was wrong, it didn't.

I have never denied saying what was reported in the newspaper. I knew I had made the remarks reported in the paper, but I did not recollect going beyond those. My mistake relates specifically to remarks that were not published in the paper, which I honestly did not recall making.

When I later saw a transcript of the interview I saw that I had, contrary to my recollection, gone further in what I had said and what had been quoted in the newspaper.

I took the initiative; I went to my solicitor and immediately corrected my affidavit. I was not forced or pressed to do this. I did so of my own volition as I then knew that my original affidavit was wrong.

I openly acknowledged and apologized for my own mistake and agreed a settlement in which the other party accepted that there was no intention to mislead.

What has happened in this instance was that the evidence I had given to the Court was mistaken. Evidence and testimony is regularly corrected in courts without allegations and assertions of lying and perjury being leveled. People in all walks of life have been obliged to correct testimony they gave in written and oral statements. There is nothing unusual or pernicious in this.

As has been pointed out frequently in the past few days, I am a Barrister and I have lectured in Law. Is it even the slightest bit reasonable to imagine that I would have deliberately or maliciously made a false statement knowing that the newspaper and journalist had a recording of the interview?

The settlement we mutually agreed was brought before the High Court on December 21^st and was read out in full before the open Court. The Judge was satisfied that the settlement as laid before the court resolved the matter and that there were no outstanding issues and the proceedings were closed.

To attempt to re-open a matter that has been resolved and finalized before the High Court for political advantage while professing respect for the integrity of the Courts is hypocritical to say the very least.

ENDS