5/14/2014
Gmail - An Election question for Dundalk Independent Candidate, Barrister Sean Bellew.Lawfulness of recordings of conversations without the approv‌
No acknowledgement of receipt nor response to my queries/ requests from Sean by May 14th 2014.
Liam O Gogain <ogogainl@gmail.com>
An Election question for Dundalk Independent Candidate, Barrister Sean Bellew.Lawfulness of recordings of conversations without the approval of the other party ? Does it matter? Liam O Gogain <ogogainl@gmail.com> To: seanbellewdundalk@gmail.com Cc: Gerry Woods <gerry.woods.gw@gmail.com>
9 May 2014 20:38
A chance meeting on your canvassing trail.
Dear Sean, I went out for a walk, as did Arthur McBride in the well known song, ag spaisteoracht, with my friend Gerry and his dog Toby yesterday, 08/05/2014. As we walked through the Council Mullaharlin Housing Estate, we were met on the footpath by yourself, Counsellor Sean Bellew and your associate (who did not then introduce himself and subsequently at the end of conversation refused to give his name or an email contact address). Your associate initiated conversations with Gerry and myself, by asking if we are going to vote in the upcoming council elections. Continuing in the flow of the conversation which I had been having with Gerry as we were "ag spaisteoracht", I put the question "does it matter?" to your colleague. He replied that, while it didn't matter to him personally, https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=f93a1c5927&view=pt&search=sent&msg=145e27e40f1ec257&siml=145e27e40f1ec257
1/14
5/14/2014
Gmail - An Election question for Dundalk Independent Candidate, Barrister Sean Bellew.Lawfulness of recordings of conversations without the approvâ&#x20AC;Ś
because he was retired (it made me wonder if this should also apply to both myself and Gerry, as retirees), he felt that it mattered to the younger generations and therefore it mattered that we should vote. As you were both actively canvassing for a vote in the upcoming elections and I noted to you, in our conversation, that you are a Barrister at Law, I decided to raise with you a question which is constantly troubling me, as it has not been possible for me, in spite of numerous requests to politicians and the former Confidential Recipient, Oliver Connolly (formally relieved of his duties Feb 19 2104 by the now former Minister for Justice Alan Shatter who resigned May 7, 2014), to get a correct and reliable answer, with appropriate references to the following question:"is it unlawful for a party to a conversation to record that conversation without the approval of the other party?"
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=f93a1c5927&view=pt&search=sent&msg=145e27e40f1ec257&siml=145e27e40f1ec257
2/14
5/14/2014
Gmail - An Election question for Dundalk Independent Candidate, Barrister Sean Bellew.Lawfulness of recordings of conversations without the approvâ&#x20AC;Ś
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=f93a1c5927&view=pt&search=sent&msg=145e27e40f1ec257&siml=145e27e40f1ec257
3/14
5/14/2014
Gmail - An Election question for Dundalk Independent Candidate, Barrister Sean Bellew.Lawfulness of recordings of conversations without the approvâ&#x20AC;Ś
Your colleague provided a very surefooted, instant reply, stating that it was certainly illegal. For example, if I was record a conversation between myself and himself without his approval, then that would be illegal. Furthermore he supported his view, by quoting some judge (whose name he didn't seem to remember, once stating at a court case at which he was present, or aware of) who had quite clearly stated that such a recording was unlawful. I have a sense that at this point you may have been out of earshot and when you joined our conversation more https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=f93a1c5927&view=pt&search=sent&msg=145e27e40f1ec257&siml=145e27e40f1ec257
4/14
5/14/2014
Gmail - An Election question for Dundalk Independent Candidate, Barrister Sean Bellew.Lawfulness of recordings of conversations without the approvâ&#x20AC;Ś
closely, I repeated the same question to you. I understood that you recognised me. You also confirmed that it would be illegal for someone to record a conversation that they were a party to without the approval of the other party. Because of my personal interest in the ongoing saga in relation Garda whistleblowers Sgt. Maurice McCabe and retired Garda John Wilson, which any politically active person must be aware of, I repeated my question to you, this time asking specifically that you would stake your professional reputation, as a barrister, on the answer that you would give. Once again, in a very surefooted assertion, you were quite definitive that such recording was unlawful. I found this assertion by yourself and your colleague to be quite frightening, in terms of democracy, particularly in light of the ongoing crisis of senior personnel within the Irish justice system, having to step down from their positions of power, primarily and fundamentally as a result of the Garda whistleblowers and especially the political fallout and spiked public interest, when the content of a conversation, purportedly recorded by Sgt. Maurice McCabe of his conversation with former Confidential Recipient, Oliver Connolly emerged in the public domain. Please note that, from the contents of the repeated emails below and associated reference links, Oliver Connolly, a highly acclaimed and qualified barrister in multiple jurisdictions, agrees with your legal assertion that such recording is unlawful (See emails to Connolly below). The fact that professionals such as Oliver Connolly and yourself, barristers who are likely to be believed not only by the general public but by many other professionals in https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=f93a1c5927&view=pt&search=sent&msg=145e27e40f1ec257&siml=145e27e40f1ec257
5/14
5/14/2014
Gmail - An Election question for Dundalk Independent Candidate, Barrister Sean Bellew.Lawfulness of recordings of conversations without the approvâ&#x20AC;Ś
positions of authority is understandable. However, and particularly as you are standing as a candidate in the forthcoming elections, it is vital that clarity with reliable references is brought to bear on the answer to this question. Surely if anything matters, including your professional and political integrity, then the answer you provided to me yesterday during your canvassing, should be correct in the first instance, and you should be able to supply reliable and valid references to support your opinion. Too many people in Ireland when asked whether it is unlawful for someone to record a conversation which they are a party to, instinctively react by saying it's illegal. This mistaken belief often protects those in positions of power against the evidence of the weaker party. Often as in the case of modern Ireland, whistleblowers play a critical role in re-establishing public confidence in the integrity of politics, finance and justice in Ireland. Almost by definition, the whistleblower needs to have evidence to back up their claims and quite often the most powerful tool in their locker is a recording made of a conversation they have with someone in power. Freudian Slip. Perhaps querying this issue is 90 years to early!
The recent uncovering of abuse within the Irish justice system by Garda whistleblowers Sgt. Maurice McCabe, and retired Garda John Wilson, is a case in point. The very highly qualified former Confidential Recipient, Oliver Connolly, formally relieved of his duties Feb 19 2104, has https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=f93a1c5927&view=pt&search=sent&msg=145e27e40f1ec257&siml=145e27e40f1ec257
6/14
5/14/2014
Gmail - An Election question for Dundalk Independent Candidate, Barrister Sean Bellew.Lawfulness of recordings of conversations without the approvâ&#x20AC;Ś
maintained in his public statement that the recording by Sgt. Maurice McCabe of their conversation was unlawful. He has repeatedly failed to respond to requests for him to support his position with relevant legal references (see http://issuu.com/liamog/docs/statement_of_oliver_j_ connolly__tue). The fact that so many people believe such recording is unlawful constitutes a serious impediment to future putative whistleblowers and by an extension presents a threat to Ireland's democracy. After staking your professional reputation as a barrister, a public representative councillor, seeking election, on the correctness of your answer yesterday, I said to you that I had collected information which appear to contradict your position. See http://issuu.com/liamog/docs/ use_of_recordings_as_evidence_13080 You then responded by saying that you had given your initial answer without you having "known the full facts". Quite separately from whether your legal opinion is correct or otherwise, I find it particularly disconcerting that given the nature of the question that I had originally raised, that you would have given such a surefooted definitive response without considering the "full facts". I mused to myself that this characteristic of an instinctive self assured response, without any critically thought out reflection beforehand, is fundamentally typical of the standard of political dialogue in Ireland and why then https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=f93a1c5927&view=pt&search=sent&msg=145e27e40f1ec257&siml=145e27e40f1ec257
7/14
5/14/2014
Gmail - An Election question for Dundalk Independent Candidate, Barrister Sean Bellew.Lawfulness of recordings of conversations without the approvâ&#x20AC;Ś
should anyone be surprised at how Ireland has been bankrupted financially, politically and morally and institutionally over the last number of years. I find it difficult to believe that a competent legal professional with integrity would not be aware of the 2006 ruling of the Barristers Professional Tribunal (see reference links and further info at http://storify.com/Liamog/were-the-recording-ofconversations-by-sgt-mccabe)and in particular the statement by Jim Gleeson, Chairman of the Tribunal that:â&#x20AC;&#x153;After all, a party to a telephone conversation is always capable of giving evidence of the contents of that conversation without any recording apparatus, whether by making a contemporaneous note or by simply recalling in evidence what was said during the conversation.â&#x20AC;? I then asked you if you had an email address and you pointed out that it was on your flyer, which colleague had given us (see below). You asked if I would send you the information which I had. I then asked your colleague for his name which he refused to provide. As he was hurriedly removing himself from the situation, you being a number of steps ahead of him, I then asked him for an email address where I could share the information with him also. Unfortunately he seemed unable, or unwilling or uninterested enough to give me an https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=f93a1c5927&view=pt&search=sent&msg=145e27e40f1ec257&siml=145e27e40f1ec257
8/14
5/14/2014
Gmail - An Election question for Dundalk Independent Candidate, Barrister Sean Bellew.Lawfulness of recordings of conversations without the approvâ&#x20AC;Ś
email address for him. I would appreciate if you would share this email with him in order to add value to our conversation. I had initially posed the question to your colleague and yourself, in relation to the question of whether we were voting are not, as to whether it matters. I went on then to question does it matter whether it matters are not? Furthermore, if in fact it does matter, then does the fact that it matters not become a call to action? If I am to accept the assertions of your colleague, presumably supported by yourself in your canvassing for election, that it does matter, then it appears obvious to me that both you and I and your activist colleague (Gerry is free to make his own choices) surely have a civic duty, particularly in relation to the critical value to the reestablishing of public confidence in our institutions in Ireland, to make sure that future putative whistleblowers are not inhibited and frightened off from exposing wrongdoing, by being fed wrong information about the lawfulness of them recording conversations to which they are a party without the approval of the other party . If all of us collaborate, with integrity, to establish the facts in relation to the legality of such recordings, I submit that we will have performed a valuable public service. I will feel that clarity has been achieved, and sanity reestablished. You will have shown yourself to be a politician with integrity, a legal professional who is either competent https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=f93a1c5927&view=pt&search=sent&msg=145e27e40f1ec257&siml=145e27e40f1ec257
9/14
5/14/2014
Gmail - An Election question for Dundalk Independent Candidate, Barrister Sean Bellew.Lawfulness of recordings of conversations without the approvâ&#x20AC;Ś
enough to win through with your argument, that someone recording a conversation they are a party to without the approval of the other party, is acting unlawfully, with appropriate supportive references, or in the event of you being incorrect, that you have the strength of character to not only correct the record but to actively work to educate the wider public and professional sector in this regard. In preparing this email to you came across the following quotation which seemed appropriate: "If you make a mistake and do not correct it, this is called a mistake."...Confucius
I await your response with interest, Yours Sincerely, Liam O Gogain
---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Liam O Gogain <ogogainl@gmail.com> Date: 30 April 2014 12:10 Subject: Re: Unlawfulness of recordings re You and Sgt .McCabe ?: - Call for clarity Reminder no.3 To: oconnolly@thefriary.ie
Dear Oliver, Please ntoe that this is my 3rd reminder to you in this matter.I do not appear to have received either, an acknowledgment of receipt, nor a response from you to my previous emails. I would appreciate if you would give this matter your attetnion and respond to me without further delay. Sincerely, Liam O Gogain
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=f93a1c5927&view=pt&search=sent&msg=145e27e40f1ec257&siml=145e27e40f1ec257
10/14
5/14/2014
Gmail - An Election question for Dundalk Independent Candidate, Barrister Sean Bellew.Lawfulness of recordings of conversations without the approv…
On 2 April 2014 17:01, Liam O Gogain <ogogainl@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Oliver, I still do not appear to have received either, an acknowledgment of receipt, nor a response from you to my previous emails. I had contacted your office at Friary Law on the 25th of March last and left a message there with someone, drawing your attention to this correspondence. I would be obliged if you would now acknowledge receipt and respond to the queries therein. Sincerely, Liam O Gogain
On 24 March 2014 12:12, Liam O Gogain <ogogainl@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Oliver, I do not appear to have received either, an acknowledgment of receipt, nor a response from you to my email below. As the matters referred to therein are of National importance and the credbility of the Sgt.McCabe, as a whistleblower, has been widely established and his ( and John Wilson's) contribution in this area in service of the public good is increasingly being acknowledged politically and in the media generally, this remaining slight on his integrity, by your claim that he acted unlawfully in recording his conversation with you, demands clarification and correction , if necessary, most importantly from yourself, in the public interest. As the impact of the intervention of the whistleblowers is being widely discussed, even at cabinet level this week, I urge you:1. Firstly to immediately, by return email, acknowledge receipt of this and the previous email (I got the address from http://www.friarylaw-mediation.ie/about/ which identified you as being the Principal) and 2. Secondly, provide a clear, accessible and unambiguous to the issues raised in my email below. Sincerely, Liam O Gogain
On 19 March 2014 16:43, Liam O Gogain <ogogainl@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Oliver, I am writing to you in relation to your recent press release and surrounding media coverage, specifically in relation to the lawfulness, legality or otherwise of the recordings of your conversation with Sgt. McCabe. I wish to make it clear that I have no interest or desire to ask or suggest that you breach any confidentiality. I first heard about your press release while listening to the Last Word on Today.fm in a public place. The detail was hard to hear so I followed it up on The Examiner.ie article . I noted firstly how highly and widely qualified your credentials were, on your headed paper :OLIVER J CONNOLLY BARRISTER-AT-LAW (IRE, N IRE, ENG & WALES) ATTORNEY-AT-LAW (NEW YORK AND US SUPREME COURT) AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION HOELLERING INTERNATIONAL FELLOW MEMBER OF BARRISTERS’ CHAMBERS AT 36 BEDFORD ROW, LONDON MA LLB (DUBLIN), DIP BS, DIP ARB, DIP INTL ARB, FCI ARB ACCREDITED MEDIATOR
Further research on you came up with the article “Legal eagle has impressive CV and party https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=f93a1c5927&view=pt&search=sent&msg=145e27e40f1ec257&siml=145e27e40f1ec257
11/14
5/14/2014
Gmail - An Election question for Dundalk Independent Candidate, Barrister Sean Bellew.Lawfulness of recordings of conversations without the approv…
credentials” quote “Mr Connolly certainly boasts one of the most impressive CVs in the Irish legal domain.” Any reader, viewer or listener would be highly impressed and easily swayed by your assertions that the recordings referenced to Sgt.McCabe were unlawful and your referencing of the Kennedy-v-Ireland judgment in support of your assertion. I then noted another article by TJ.McIntyre, “Oliver Connolly is wrong – Sgt McCabe broke no laws with his secret recording” From the outset I had understood that the judgment you had used to underpin your press statement was based on third party recording, which is dimensionally different than an intraparty recording. Given your impressive Legal credentials as referenced above, I found it difficult to believe that a competent legal professional with integrity would not have known the difference and would not be aware of the 2006 ruling of the Barristers Professional Tribunal (see my attached PDF on the issue)and in particular the statement by Jim Gleeson, Chairman of the Tribunal that:“After all, a party to a telephone conversation is always capable of giving evidence of the contents of that conversation without any recording apparatus, whether by making a contemporaneous note or by simply recalling in evidence what was said during the conversation.” The article by TJ McIntyre (supported by his legal credentials) along with my own material from 2006, seem to be in direct contradiction your fundamental thesis in your press statement that the recording was illegal. I know that, for now, the media focus has moved on from you and your statement. However, as a concerned citizen, I have often found myself, similar I presume to Sgt. McCabe, in situations where every other person had given legitimacy to false data, and the only record I have had were recordings etc. In fact, almost by definition in the emergence of whistleblowers is the overwhelming ability of the dominant forces to legitimate false realities. In such situations, without the sole, grounding, calibration of recorded evidence, such a whistleblower might in https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=f93a1c5927&view=pt&search=sent&msg=145e27e40f1ec257&siml=145e27e40f1ec257
12/14
5/14/2014
Gmail - An Election question for Dundalk Independent Candidate, Barrister Sean Bellew.Lawfulness of recordings of conversations without the approv…
fact end up doubting their own sanity and certainly getting little traction in seeking to expose wrongdoing. The recent Garda Inspectorate report and articles such as “Taoiseach says garda whistleblowers have been vindicated”, highlights the vitality for Democracy in Ireland of having civic minded whistleblowers to expose wrongdoing. In conversations with general members of the public and reviewing media commentary over the last fortnight, I have major concerns that the argument that you had posited, given the weight of your professional legal credentials, continue to cast doubt over the lawfulness of whistleblowers making such recordings. This issue is not restricted to you personally or Sgt. McCabe. The need for clarity and definition has much wider societal ramifications. If this confusion is allowed to persist there is a serious danger that in future, potential whistleblowers will be afraid to record material, believing that you are correct in saying such intra-party recordings are unlawful. As the recording is often the only security and critically believable evidence a whistleblower may have, this misinformation may force them into continued silence. I would sincerely hope that given your former role as the Confidential Recipient, you would be distressed if your statement were to have such a suppressive effect. I am calling on you as a civic duty to either:Substantiate your claim that such recording are unlawful, as you have claimed, and thus make it clear to future whistleblowers that they will be breaking the law by making such intra-party recordings. OR Acknowledge that the argument that you had posited was not applicable in this case and explain why such a highly rated legal professional would have mislead the public and frightened future (and past and present) whilstleblowers. Sincerely, https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=f93a1c5927&view=pt&search=sent&msg=145e27e40f1ec257&siml=145e27e40f1ec257
13/14
5/14/2014
Gmail - An Election question for Dundalk Independent Candidate, Barrister Sean Bellew.Lawfulness of recordings of conversations without the approvâ&#x20AC;Ś
Liam O Gogain Email:- ogogainl@gmail.com
-Do Visit www.Liamog.com Defragmentation with Attitude
-Do Visit www.Liamog.com Defragmentation with Attitude
-Do Visit www.Liamog.com Defragmentation with Attitude
-Do Visit www.Liamog.com Defragmentation with Attitude
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=f93a1c5927&view=pt&search=sent&msg=145e27e40f1ec257&siml=145e27e40f1ec257
14/14