I propose, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to take Questions 56 and 57 together.
My involvement in this matter arose from a series of slanderous statements made in the Dáil by Deputy L'Estrange, in relation to a Member of the Government, which were devoid of all truth, which Deputy L'Estrange himself retracted on two occasions but again repeated by innuendo.
Deputy L'Estrange showed a knowledge of the facts of the case in question which could have been got only from the documents submitted to the High Court by the parties in a civil action. These documents were available only to the litigants, their legal advisers and the Court. The action was settled out of Court and the pleadings were not published.
On the 7th March, 1968, the day that the matter was listed for hearing in the High Court, Deputy L'Estrange mentioned the matter in the Dáil and, again on March 13th, when he quoted the High Court reference on documents containing an amended defence of 29th February, 1968, and an amended claim of 5th March and he gave intimate particulars which could not have been obtained otherwise than from those documents. He also gave the actual monetary terms of the settlement of the case which were not even disclosed in the final Court Order striking out the action.
I am satisfied from the information in my possession that Deputy L'Estrange was given access to the documents in question but I am not in a position to state categorically how he received them, that is—whether it was from one of those directly concerned or from a go-between.
As Mr. Cooney, a counsel in the case, has denied that he was involved in any way in Deputy L'Estrange's machinations I accept his denial and offer him my apology for naming him.
I also accept Mr. Cooney's denial that he or his family were associated with the Locke's Distillery case or that he is a brother-in-law of Deputy L'Estrange and I offer him my congratulations.