|
|
 Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman, together with fellow Supreme Court justices have given reasons for granting, businessman Declan Ganley’s Comcast International Holdings Inc and Persona Digital Telephony Ltd, leave to proceed with actions challenging the manner in which the State’s second mobile phone licence was allocated in 1995, to Esat Digifone.
Mr Hardiman stated it would be a “disgrace to the nation and the State” if it were proven that there was any corruption at the highest level of Government, in the awarding of a mobile phone licence to Esat Digifone.
Six bidders, back in 1995, competed for Ireland’s second mobile phone licence, which eventually businessman Denis O’Brien’s firm was awarded.
The leave granted allege fraud, conspiracy, deceit, corruption and misfeasance in public office in relation to the granting of this same licence.
Comcast’s action is being taken against the Minister for Public Enterprise, former Minister and current North Tipperary Independent TD Mr Michael Lowry, Esat Telecom, Mr Denis O’Brien, Ireland, and the Attorney General. Persona on the other hand are taking their case against the Minister for Public Enterprise, Ireland and the Attorney General.
Mr Justice Hardiman stated that the integrity and reputation of Ireland, together with the rights of Persona & Comcast, required to be heard, regarding accusations of covert, devious and concealed corruption.
These actions, which had been taken first back in 2001, now challenge the awarding of this licence while also claiming millions in financial damages. The State previously secured, in 2007, through the High Court, orders which halted such cases against the former, on grounds of inordinate and inexcusable delay, however on Wednesday last the Supreme Courts ruled that this delay was excusable, on grounds that both companies were within their rights to await the full result of the long drawn out 13-year old Moriarty Tribunal, latter which probed into the granting of same licence.
According to RTE the former Communications Minister Mr Michael Lowry has welcomed this Supreme Court decision, saying a court of law is the proper forum to critically probe this 1995 mobile licence award process.
 Thurles Courthouse A 23-year-old male has appeared, today, before Thurles District Court, on the serious charge of manslaughter.
The charge refers to an assault at Liberty Square, Thurles, Co.Tipperary which resulted in the unfortunate death of 25-year-old Mr James Tynan, a native of Johnstown, Co.Kilkenny, on February 20th last 2012.
A male, then aged 22, from the Templemore area, was arrested in relation to this incident and detained under Section 4 of Criminal Justice Act, at Thurles Garda Station.
It is understood that there was CCTV in the vicinity of where the incident happened and gardaí, headed by Supt Pat Lordan, examined digital film footage as part of their then ongoing investigations.
The late Mr Tynan was an extremely popular and much loved young man, who worked with his father Pascal, in Tynan Meats, in Johnstown, Co Kilkenny and our sympathy is with his family at this sad time.
The defendant was remanded in custody to appear before Nenagh District Court on Friday September 7th next.
 What is being described as a viable “Improvised Explosive Device,” or IED, has been made safe by our Defence Forces, operating in the early hours of this morning at Roscrea, Co Tipperary.
The alarm was first raised at around 11.30pm last night, when the device was spotted close to a vehicle at the Cois Carrig estate in the Grange area of Roscrea.
The Defence Forces deployed a team of explosive experts to Roscrea, arriving at 2.45am, following a request from Roscrea gardaí. The area was cordoned off and a number of residents living close to the positioning of the device were evacuated for a time, in the interests of their safety.
The device was made safe by means of a controlled explosion and the scene was declared safe at around 4.40am.
This is now the 70th time the ‘Bomb Squad,’ has been deployed this year and the 22nd time they have had to handle a viable IED device.
US President Barack Obama today called on the American Congress to pass the “Buffett Rule,” a principle that ensures that millionaires and billionaires do not pay less in taxes as a share of their income, than middle class families pay, as a matter of fairness.
At the Fine Gael Ard Fheis today, Irish Finance Minister Michael Noonan said “a country is not just an economy, it is about people.” He described the building blocks of the economy as “stability, confidence and fairness.” He said everything should be about “better.” The minister told delegates that the burden in relation to our economy will have to fall evenly on people, and those who are strongest will have to contribute most and those who are weakest will have to be protected.
Two Questions For Minister Michael Noonan
- Was the Household Charge, introduced by Minister Phil Hogan, based on income and ability to pay?
- Where were the building blocks of fairness, when a majority of law abiding Tipperary householders, today, were forced to break the law?
Do the right thing. In your own words “treat all of the children of the nation equally.” Cancel this ridiculous, unplanned and unfair attack on low income earners. Enda Kenny has previously twice made reference to publishing ‘Report Cards,‘ on the work of each of his Ministers and it must now be obvious to him that Phil Hogan does not have the basic ability to carry on the work, taxpayers require of his office.
We also don’t envy success here in Tipperary. We also aspire to it. But we also believe that anyone who does well for themselves should pay their fair share in return, so that more people are given the opportunity to get ahead, not just a few.
 The number of household’s categorised under the heading “At Risk of Poverty Rate,” rose to 15.8% in 2010, up on the 2009 figure of 14.1%. Latest published figures also show, in 2010, that another 6.2% were listed as “Consistent Poverty Rate,” again an increase of 0.7% on 2009.
Figures from the Central Statistics Office (CSO) reveal that the gap between rich and poor grew over 2009/10, while the average income of high earners was 5.5 times that of those in the lowest income group and 1.2 times higher than a year earlier.
A survey on income and living conditions in Ireland found that the threshold for identifying those at risk of poverty fell by more than 10 per cent – from €12,064 in 2009 to €10,831 in 2010.
The CSO said children remained the most exposed age group living consistent poverty, a rate of 8.1 per cent.
Meanwhile the Government has admitted, following a parliamentary question from former Labour TD Tommy Broughan, that Social Welfare applicants are waiting for up to 84 weeks to have appeals heard. The Department of Social Protection have confirmed that between 2009 and 2011, the number of social welfare appeals had increased dramatically from 15,000 a year to 32,000. The average summary appeal period rose from 18.2 weeks in 2009 to 25.1 weeks in 2011 and if an oral hearing is required, the average waiting time has risen from 34.8 weeks in 2009 to 52.5 weeks (Over a year) during the same period.
These statistics further highlight the unfairness of Minister Phil Hogan’s Household Charge, which in four days time will force people to break the law, because of their present financial standing.
Is This Government Forcing Law Abiding Citizens To Break The Law?
I am no lawyer, but surely, in jurisprudence, duress or coercion refers to a situation whereby a person performs an act as a result of threat or other pressure against the person. Call it a law protecting, those who are being coerced, because of their personal financial circumstances, to break the law, because they cannot afford to pay the Household Charge.
Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines “Duress,” as any unlawful threat or coercion, used to induce another to act in a manner that otherwise they would not. Surely a person can raise an “Economic Duress defence,” when force or the law, compels him to enter into a contract which he cannot afford. Is the defendant therefore being forced to break the law by another party, in this case our government, which caused the financial distress and for which the defendant is being now asked/coerced into paying?
I repeat, I am not a qualified legal person, so is there any qualified legal opinion out there, willing to comment?
|
Support Us Help keep Thurles.info online by donating below. Thank you.
Total Donated 2026: €300.00
Thank You!
Daily Thurles Mass Livestream
|
Recent Comments