Leo Varadkar story in The Village??? - Mod Notes and banned Users in OP updated 16/05

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Varadkar is trying to claim that he did not break the Official Secrets Act as it does not refer to the "Members of the Oireachtas" but it does refer to holder of a public office.

Have you read the Act?


“public office” means an office or employment which is wholly remunerated out of the Central Fund or out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, or an appointment to, or employment under, any commission, committee or tribunal set up by the Government or a Minister for the purposes of any inquiry, but does not include membership of either House of the Oireachtas.


Pretty clear that it does not apply to him. Whether you agree with the law or not is a separate issue, but it is clear there is no offense under this Act as the article had insinuated. Pretty poor journalism to claim there is really.

You have to actually sign the official secrets act, so Leo would most probably know if it applies to him or not.

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Have you read the Act?


“public office” means an office or employment which is wholly remunerated out of the Central Fund or out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, or an appointment to, or employment under, any commission, committee or tribunal set up by the Government or a Minister for the purposes of any inquiry, but does not include membership of either House of the Oireachtas.


Pretty clear that it does not apply to him. Whether you agree with the law or not is a separate issue, but it is clear there is no offense under this Act as the article had insinuated. Pretty poor journalism to claim there is really.

The Department of An Taoiseach is a public office funded from the Oireachtas.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

The Department of An Taoiseach is a public office funded from the Oireachtas.

But he didnt work for the Department of the Taoiseach. He was Taoiseach.

Leo's statement on the face of it seems very upfront. He not only didn't deny it, but admitted sharing it, gave his reasons for same and actually justifies it.

He's good at spin - but at face value that seems quite honest and almost naive if it's how things worked out. A fúckup, but not a deliberate attempt to stimey anything.

Of course, the SF / broad left will not see it that way and regardless of any clarification will use it as ammunition.

And what worries me is that the 20 minutes of research needed to reach such a conclusion is 19 minutes more than it feels like most far left leaners will do, if the evidence of recent protests and SF type rhetoric is anything to go by, unfortunately a significant enough proportion of left followers are the type who will blindly follow the ringleaders and shít stirrers and not do as much digging as is actually required to form an opinion.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Entirely irrelevant if the IMO released information prior to this.

The issue is whether Varadkar broke the law?

I very much believe in the spirit not the letter of the law and giving the benefit of the doubt on this doesn't appear to have any dire consequences.
That would also appear to be a minute technicality at this point.

tigger123 wrote: »

But he didnt work for the Department of the Taoiseach. He was Taoiseach.

Ah ffs.

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Did you read the definition of public office for the State Secrets Act, which you just quoted?

It refers to the HOLDER of the office, not the office itself.

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

"but does not include membership of either House of the Oireachtas."

Irrelevant Leo, sorry Bubbaclaus.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Irrelevant Leo, sorry Bubbaclaus.

I don't follow your posts? Leo is very much a member of one of the houses of the Oireachtas.

Who the f**k is the village magazine?
Doesn't look great for Leo but I'm sceptical, if it was the Irish Times that reported this I'd be much more likely to believe, I wouldn't jump to any conclusions just yet.

How can they claim he broke the criminal justice act? Did he receive compensation for giving this information? If he didn't receive any compensation or gift then he hasn't broken that, story seems sensationalised imo either way a lot of answers needed before any judgements are made imo. Great to see the opposition parties speak up when they think there is something to be gained, sinn fein typically coming out of their burrow now they see an opportunity to score some political points.

All I'm saying is there are two sides to every story, haven't heard the other yet

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Which law though? Cos the one the village quoted doesn't apply. Is there another one you are claiming that has been broken?

You're saying that a little too confidently imo. It's certainly not as black and white as you seem to think it is.

Section 4 provides:

4.—(1) A person shall not communicate any official information to any other person unless he is duly authorised to do so or does so in the course of and in accordance with his duties as the holder of a public office or when it is his duty in the interest of the State to communicate it.

(2) A person to whom subsection (1) applies shall take reasonable care to avoid any unlawful communication of such information.

(3) A person shall not obtain official information where he is aware or has reasonable grounds for believing that the communication of such information to him would be a contravention of subsection (1).

(4) In this section “duly authorised” means authorised by a Minister or State authority or by some person authorised in that behalf by a Minister or State authority.

Section 2 defines 'official information' as; "any secret official code word or password, and any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information
which is secret or confidential or is expressed to be either and which is or has been in the possession, custody or control of a holder of a public office, or to which he has or had access, by virtue of his office, and includes information recorded by film or magnetic tape or by any other recording medium".

Furthermore, Section 2 defines a 'public office' as "an office or employment which is wholly remunerated out of the Central Fund or out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, or an appointment to, or employment under, any commission, committee or tribunal set up by the Government or a Minister for the purposes of any inquiry, but does not include membership of either House of the Oireachtas."

As a TD, Varadkar's position would not be within the scope of 'public office' as set out above. However, as Taoiseach??

Peter Flynt wrote: »

Ah ffs.

No, not "FFS".

The Official Secrets Act goes to the trouble of deliberately, clearly and pointedly differentiating Ministers from people who contracted with them, and specifically gives the Minister the authority to allow a disclosure. The Taoiseach is the Minister's boss, that authority naturally extends to him.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/act/1/section/5/enacted/en/html#sec5

Disclosure of confidential information in official contracts.

5.—(1) A person who is or has been—

(a) a party to a contract with a Minister or State authority or with any person on behalf of a Minister or State authority, or

(b) employed by such party,

shall not communicate to any third party any information relating to the contract and expressed therein to be confidential.

(2) A person to whom subsection (1) applies shall take reasonable care to avoid any unlawful communication of such information.

(3) It shall be a good defence to a prosecution for a contravention of this section to prove that the communication was authorised in writing by the Minister or State authority or by the party contracting on behalf of the Minister or State authority.

funnydoggy wrote: »

Leo admitted it

They claim he broke the criminal justice act no? If he did where is the evidence he received compensation?

Mr.S wrote: »

From a user on Reddit:

Worth noting that according to Oireachtas records, Steven Donnelly stated in response to Simon Harris on 16 April 2019:



This means that according the Varadkar's own timeline, he had provided this document to his friend before the Oireachtas, the GPs or the public at large had seen it.

(source: https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2019-04-16/32/)

It does say 'Confidential: Not for Circulation' on the front of the the doc FWIW.