| The Dream Solution
- Documents |
10/09/96 - 3rd Affidavit of P B O'Mahoney
This is the Third Affidavit of P B O'Mahoney Sworn the day
of September 1996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION BETWEEN:
(1) MICHELLE TAYLOR
(2) LISA BUCK (nee TAYLOR)
Plaintiffs
and
PATRICK BERNARD O'MAHONEY
(aka BERNARD PATRICK O'MAHONEY, PATRICK LAWSON and BERNARD
KING)
Defendant
AFFIDAVIT OF PATRICK BERNARD O'MAHONEY
I, PATRICK BERNARD O'MAHONEY of Basildon, Essex MAKE OATH
AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:
1.
I am the Defendant in these proceedings. I make this Affidavit
further to my First Affidavit herein, sworn on 13th June 1995,
and my Second Affidavit herein sworn on 21st June 1995. True
copies of these Affidavits (though not the exhibits thereto)
are now produced and shown to me marked "POM 11"
2.
I have been registered disabled for over two years. I am unable
to work. I have no assets which could be used to satisfy a
money judgment in these proceedings. I have the benefit of
Legal Aid to defend these proceedings.
3.
The Plaintiffs also have the benefit of Legal Aid in bringing
them.
4.
I make this Affidavit in support of my application that the
Court should determine under Order 14A whether the confession
to the murder of Alison Shaughnessy which the First Defendant
made to me in October 1992, and to which I have deposed in
my two earlier Affidavits, is confidential information which
ought to be covered by the injunction sought at paragraph
1(b) of the Prayer for Relief in the Statement of Claim herein.
5.
I reaffirm that the confession was made to me in the circumstances
explained and as described at paragraph 12 of my First Affidavit
and paragraph 13 of my Second Affidavit.
6.
I accept that by paragraph 4 of their Reply in these proceedings
the Plaintiffs deny that the First Plaintiff made this or
any other confession. Indeed for the reasons I set out below
the dispute as to whether this confession was made and as
to whether, if it was, I can be restrained from disclosing
it on grounds of confidence is the only substantial matter
left in dispute in these proceedings.
7.
I am advised and believe that a trial of this case in which
the dispute of fact as to whether the confession was made
had to be resolved would be potentially very lengthy and complicated.
I understand that there would have to be cross-examination
of the parties and other witnesses on the lengthy affidavit
evidence already filed during the interlocutory hearings.
This would go to credit as well as fact. In effect the issue
of the First Plaintiffs guilt or innocence of the murder of
Alison Shaugnessy would be tried all over again in civil proceedings.
The costs would all have to be met by the Legal Aid fund.
8.
However there is no need for this issue of fact to be resolved.
I am prepared to agree to an injunction in the terms of paragraph
1 of the prayer for relief subject to:
(a) a ruling of the court as to whether I am entitled to disclose
my account of the confession and;
(b) if the ruling is in my favour, an appropriate amendment
to the wording of the injunction to make clear that I am at
liberty to do so.
I am advised and believe that a ruling on this point would
require consideration of a straightforward and well established
point of law. I am also advised that it is highly unlikely
that the Plaintiffs could successfully resist a ruling in
my favour on this point, since it has been long established
that there can be no confidence in information revealing iniquity
or misconduct. A confession to murder is the clearest possible
example of such information.
9.
Once the claim for injunctive relief is resolved in this way
(without the need for a trial on issues of fact) the case
effectively resolves itself. I say this for the following
reasons.
10.
First, I would refer the Court to paragraph 18 of my First
Affidavit which deals with the documents and or other materials
which I have in my possession. The tape referred to therein
was delivered up to the Plaintiffs a year ago. The only other
material now in my possession which would be capable of falling
within the provisions of paragraph 3 of the prayer for relief
in the Statement of Claim (as I made clear in paragraph 25
of my Second Affidavit) are the letters referred to at paragraph
18, which are my property.
11.
The injunction would restrain me from making any commercial
use of the letters or any other information as to my relationship
with the First Plaintiff or the private lives of the Plaintiffs.
I have no intention of doing so in any event.
12.
In theory this would leave the Plaintiffs to pursue their
claim for damages for breach of copyright. I deny that there
has been any breach of copyright. And as I have indicated
I am unable to meet any money judgment in any event.
However if this is the only issue that is left in the action,
and if (which I understand is unlikely) the Plaintiffs can
obtain Legal Aid to pursue their damages claim alone in these
circumstances, I am advised that it would be a very straightforward
claim to resolve.
The allegation of breach of copyright is based solely upon
alleged use by me of the letters (see paragraph 11 of the
Statement of Claim). I have admitted allowing the News of
the World to publish a small extract from one letter (which
I deny was a breach of copyright).
Beyond this the Plaintiffs have been unable to put forward
any evidence that I have shown the letters to anyone with
a view to publication and, save as already referred to in
my previous affidavits, I have not done so.
13.
In any event there is little or no reason to believe that
the Plaintiffs have any interest in pursuing their damages
claim, and every reason to believe that their real interest
in these proceedings has always been to obtain injunctive
relief. Cross-undertakings were given in the middle of July
1995 in order to resolve the Plaintiffs' application for interlocutory
relief.
A copy of the relevant order is now produced and shown to
me marked "POM 12". The pleadings were closed with
service of the Reply on 19th January 1996. Since then the
Plaintiffs have taken no steps at all to progress this matter
until 21st June 1996 when my solicitors wrote to their solicitors
in the terms of the copy letter now produced and shown to
me marked "POM 13".
14.
It seems clear from the inaction that the Plaintiffs have
been content to allow this matter to rest on the basis of
the protection provided to them by the cross- undertakings
given in July 1995. I, however, am not content to do so. I
wish to have mv right to disclose my account of the confession
resolved. Once this is done I wish the whole case to be resolved
as swiftly and at as little cost to the public purse as possible.
15.
Because of my willingness to agree to the injunctions sought
as indicated above, the bulk of this potentially very contentious
case can be resolved by a short hearing on the point of law
specified in the summons herein.
Although at first sight it might appear odd to ask the court
to resolve this point of law where the existence of the information
concerned is in dispute, the issue at stake is really whether
I should be at liberty to disclose my account of the confession.
I hope that I have demonstrated in this affidavit that determination
of the point of law referred to, represents the shortest and
simplest way to dispose of the bulk of this case.
16.
Accordingly I ask that there should be a determination of
this point of law before a judge and that it should be determined
in the affirmative and the appropriate injunction made as
specified in the summons. |
| Contact : bernard.omahoney@bernardomahoney.com |
|
|
|
