RTE Reynolds Report - RTE didn't waive its claim to privilege

BrianD

Just wondering what the ramifications are of this are - it's one of the key findings in the BAI report into the Prime Time Investigates debacle.

"Mr Collins said the authority “expressed regret” in its statement of findings that RTÉ had “not chosen to waive the privilege that exists between solicitor and client”. He said the “the investigating officer was told by RTÉ it would not waive its claim to privilege”. He said the public broadcaster “will want to consider carefully its approach to legal proceedings in future circumstances”." (quote from The Irish Times 7/4/12)

I don't fully understand what the ramifications of this are and why it would have been better to waive in the first place.

Victor

I can only assume it means that RTÉ consulted their lawyers (in-house or otherwise) and while they shared some information with the BAI investigation, they didn't share all of it.

Waiving it would have meant a more transparent investigation.

BrianD

Makes sense now. The way it was presented made it seem that it was something that happened at the time or that something that should have done as with the other findings.

Will be interesting to see if the source of this programme is revealed.

nuac

RTE should have waived privileged and directed their solicitors to disclose their entire file to BAI ,

The libel action by Fr Reynolds had been settled. No valid reason to consider the file still privileged.

It is the clients' call, not the lawyers'

Victor

Given the less than amicable departures, I suspect that some parties don't want certain information shared. Potentially we're back to a Charlie Haughey & Noel Smyth scenario where one party took legal advice from another party's solicitor and relied on it.

But who knows?

nuac

Surely the RTE Solicitor/legal department advised t whatever extent they were consulted, and staff cannot be faujlted for following that advice.

Different matter of course if solicitor not fully briefed.

Victor

What if it's the legal department's fault? Could they be required to disclose what legal advice they gave?

Delancey

Lest we forget , RTE muzzled Fr. Reynolds by insisting on a confidentiality clause so we cannot say with certainty the level of damages or costs paid - RTE want this issue to go away and it remains in their interest to keep as much of this affair from the public eye.

As a small aside - does this BAI report not bear a remarkable similarity to the all-too-frequent reports commissioned by the HSE after yet another mis-diagnosis scandal ? By that I mean the report is peppered with phrases like '' systemic failures '' , management failures '' , '' communication breakdowns '' , etc but actually does not name a single individual.

Accountability and the lack of it remains a huge problem in the Public Service and RTE's failure to waive privelige is symptomatic of that..

FreudianSlippers

Delancey wrote: »

Lest we forget , RTE muzzled Fr. Reynolds by insisting on a confidentiality clause so we cannot say with certainty the level of damages or costs paid - RTE want this issue to go away and it remains in their interest to keep as much of this affair from the public eye.

As a small aside - does this BAI report not bear a remarkable similarity to the all-too-frequent reports commissioned by the HSE after yet another mis-diagnosis scandal ? By that I mean the report is peppered with phrases like '' systemic failures '' , management failures '' , '' communication breakdowns '' , etc but actually does not name a single individual.

Accountability and the lack of it remains a huge problem in the Public Service and RTE's failure to waive privelige is symptomatic of that..

I don't think it's fair to say one group "muzzed" the other with any certainty. It is an equally valid proposition for a plaintiff in a defamation (or libel as this was under the old act) action to want a confidentiality agreement as part of a settlement.

nuac

If the amount of settlement is to be kept confidential, teh figure can be deleted from documentation ( or "redacted" to use a posher word )

As this is public money I dont see why the amount of damages should be kept confidential. While the insurers will I presume be paying, it reflects on premium.

After the Joe Duffy hit re Monica Leetch and this one, it must be difficult arranging insurance

Delancey

Exactly nuac , this is public money we're talking about , the impression given has been that the confidentiality clause was at the insistence of RTE - their failure to waive privelige would suggest this.
Between damages , legal costs , fines , enquiry costs , etc , the licence payers have been well and truly screwed over.

Slightly off topic but I did read recently that Monica Leech is now the subject of action by her own Solicitors over outstanding fees !

FreudianSlippers

I wouldn't agree that the confidentiality clause in the settlement is in any way related to the refusal to waive privilege in the BAI investigation. I don't think it's fair to either party to imply that the confidentiality clause was suggested by one side or the other during settlement negotiations - as I said before, both parties in these actions could have very valid reasons for seeking a confidentiality agreement on not only the quantum of the settlement but other terms as well.