Opinion Piece by Cathal Goan, Director General, RTÉ

There has been much discussion and comment during the past week regarding the settlement reached between RTÉ and Deputy Beverly Flynn.  Some people have been angered at the fact that Ms. Flynn has not paid the full amount that was awarded to RTÉ after her failed libel action and appeal to the Supreme Court.   Now that the settlement has been before the Bankruptcy Court, I feel it appropriate that I outline clearly for licence fee-payers RTÉ's position.

Throughout this case my two overriding considerations were firstly; protecting the integrity and independence of RTÉ, its journalism and journalists and secondly ensuring value for money for licence-fee payers. No other considerations, political or otherwise, were part of my decisions at any time.   

As in any other society, independent investigative journalism in Ireland plays a critical role in uncovering corruption and injustice in Irish society. RTÉ has invested the time and the necessary resources to allow our journalists do this job.  This is fundamental to RTÉ's remit and ethos and I strongly believe, given RTÉ's position, offers real value to the licence fee payer and is in the broader public interest.

Part of the process of investigative journalism is standing over and defending, when necessary in court, the stories which our journalists uncover. At all times through this case, the longest libel trial in the history of the state, RTÉ stood squarely behind its journalists Charlie Bird and George Lee. And in doing so RTÉ comprehensively defeated the initial challenges brought against us by National Irish Bank and subsequently the libel case brought by Deputy Flynn in first the High Court and then the Supreme Court.

It is also worth noting that, as a result of the story uncovered by RTÉ, as of the 30th of April 2007, the Revenue has directly retrieved €59 million from NIB customers and indirectly from their subsequent investigation following the RTÉ story, collected €854.2 million from bogus non-resident account holders.  Also as a direct consequence of our work, there has been a significant change in the regulatory environment for financial institutions.  The Financial Regulator (IFSRA) has been established with a specific consumer protection remit.

RTÉ got this story right, stood by its journalists and has been proven right both in court and by the subsequent report by the High Court Inspectors and by investigations and collections by the Revenue.

This brings me to the issue of the settlement reached between RTÉ and Deputy Flynn. In 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the High Court judgment in the libel case brought by Deputy Flynn against RTÉ, which found that she had facilitated tax evasion while working for National Irish Bank. The result of this was that Deputy Flynn was required to pay the costs of her libel action and the appeal to the Supreme Court.  This was adjudged to be approximately €2.3 million in September 2005, with interest accruing ever since.

Ms. Flynn did not pay to RTÉ the money it was owed.  Faced with the prospect of never receiving payment, in the last number of weeks RTÉ filed bankruptcy proceedings against the Deputy in an effort to retrieve, as best it could, some compensation for the considerable costs incurred defending our journalism and reputation. 

In deciding to accept any proposed settlement of the debt it was owed, RTÉ had to weigh up what was being offered against what in all probability we would receive had Deputy Flynn been declared bankrupt, most likely a relatively small sum of money obtained after many years of endeavour through the process of bankruptcy. Based on the best legal advice available to me and with the possibility of considerable delay had Deputy Flynn pursued her constitutional challenge relating to bankruptcy and public representation it was clear to me that a settlement should be considered. It was in this context that I instructed our legal team to accept the €1.225million, to be paid in full by 17 August, 2007 and with the insistence that there be no confidentiality in relation to the settlement.

Of course I would have preferred for RTÉ to have received full payment, but this is the situation RTÉ found itself in.  It is in no different a position than any other person to whom money is owed and it cannot somehow avail of a legal procedure that is not available to any other person.  In the end it had become a debt collection issue and I genuinely believe that we got the best deal available in the circumstances.

Different people will have different views on the settlement and that is their right, but I strongly defend my own decisions and credit both Charlie Bird and George Lee for breaking an important story. RTÉ did not bring these events about or set out to bankrupt anyone, but our integrity ultimately depends on our willingness to defend the stories we pursue, even if at times this comes with considerable costs. I sincerely hope that the licence fee payer can understand this.

If there is a political issue from all this it is about libel reform. On the one hand when a person feels their name is damaged they risk potentially catastrophic expense to seek redress. And on the other the publisher is often left with the difficult choice of whether or not to run stories where a mistake could result in huge legal bills. Or as in this case, we can run a story of the highest standard, based on excellent journalism of genuine public interest and value, be challenged, win, and still end up paying a high price. 

Irish Independent,  03-07-2007