Legal Issues Around Naming the Anglo ‘Golden Circle’
Read more about: Uncategorized 
Below is an mp3 of Sean O Rourke’s interview with Tony Williams, of McAleesse and Co Solicitors on the legalitites of naming the Anglo Golden Circle. Rumours and speculation abound as to the identity of the ten, with possibilities of Ministers being raised as well as some serious innuendo on the main story in a national daily.
Three main areas are in play with regard to the Anglo ten;
[display_podcast]
1) The sub judicae defence – this is a red herring according to solicitors, there is no court case to prejudice and even then the courts allow for some comment which makes the reason a smokescreen/diversion tactic.
2) The possibility of defamation – naming one or all of the ten instantly associates them with the negative image in the public mind of the golden circle as a shady group with dodgy deals raising potential defamation issues. However it is down to news editors to balance that risk not the government.
3) Bank-Client privilege – this is the real crux of the matter and I know it was raised over on twitter recently by Fergus. If the Golden circle lent from Anglo to purchase shares they are at once customers and shareholders. This raises the issue of client confidentiality and as Government own the bank they do have some responsibility to the customer as customer. It needs to be balanced with the responsibility to the public considering their role as shareholders, potentially bought with Anglo funding. This is where they issue of releasing the names becomes bogged down.
I would love to have some clarity from more expert minds than mine – am I correct in this? Missing something or wide of the mark?
Tony Williams also stated that the government’s position is made difficult by the fact that they are a)the government and b)the bank owners – thanks to nationalisation. Therefore while they may wish to make a statement on the issue (and let’s face it who is convinced that they do) as the government they are hindered in what they can say on the matter becuase they are also the owners of the bank. While this is a somewhat plausible explanation it also underscores the contortionist twisting that the government has become involved in as it manoeuvres to protect the interest of the monied elites (oh yes and also to preserve this great little nation).
Is this the same Tony Williams who ran in Rathmines in 2004 and has represented amongst others Tony O’Reilly’s Independent News and Media and also Iar-Taoiseach Bertie Ahern?
http://www.electionsireland.org/candidate.cfm?id=4997
The very same but it chimes with other legal eagles I have spoken to briefly (all three of them). There are some issues and the government does need to tread carefully – only if they want their pound of flesh / perp-walk in the end.
Pete’s take on this is interesting on the level of knowledge government have – does anyone believe they didn’t look at this fully?
http://sluggerotoole.com/index.php/weblog/comments/25-stake-was-a-serious-threat-to-the-stability-of-the-bank/
But sure WE own Anglo now, surely there’s no conflict in the owners knowing who their clients are?
1/ No sub judice
2/ Can’t be defamed by the truth, if the government states the fact that someone or a entity controlled by a someone was one of the ten, then can’t see where the defamation is. Of course if other people make comments based on these facts that are defamatory that is another story.
3/ Bank client privilege is a red herring. All bets are off now that the government owns the bank. They should pass legislation enabling the naming of names or otherwise use Dail privilege to do so.
At the very least we have a clear cut insider dealing case – they dealt in shares using inside information that was not available to other members of the public at that time; if that was not to stick; throw in fraud; conspiracy to defraud etc. etc etc …
Seems logical (by FPL) that defamation cannot spring from the truth.Also perceptions of truth as experienced by witnesses to say, a traffic accident are coloured by the principles of perception,which thereby lead to several different versions of what actually happened.
We are freed completely from these fetters by modern computer records, which by examination of logs etc., establish beyond doubt that what transpired is what transpired – end of story. Digging this Irishgate stuff out is tough work for the forensically minded, but could save Ireland from further collateral damage in a suppurating situation. Currently fixated World interest on a squirrelling investor group which understandably wished to become earthworms, may if their underground concealment succeeds, leaves us years behind in recovery as we refuse to face the cancer fed within the circle of initiates who shall not be named.Freedom seems further away now.
there is no court case to prejudice
Thing is if they conspired to commit securities fraud then they might have to be prosecuted by the Gardai. Not a legal expert though. According to a Mate of mine who has a law degree basically if the list was release any trial could collapse. So if people want them to be prosecuted the list should be kept secret if the aim is just stiring up public anger release.