Bribery allegations on Moore Street

July  15

AST MONTH, Aengus Ó Snodaigh TD

made some very serious claims in an

article on Village’s website. He alleged

that four individuals may have been

illegally involved in eectively bribing

Moore Street Traders to vote a certain way, within

a committee called the Moore Street Advisory

Group (MSAG). The group was set up to advise

Malcolm Noonan TD, junior minister for heritage,

on what action the Government should take in

relation to planning or legislative measures, on

the large site embracing O’Connell St and Moore

St which contains sensitive historic structures

designated as national monuments. The current

plan from its owners, Hammerson, would

eectively knock most of the famous Moore

Street terrace, site of the retreat by the leaders

of the 1916 Rising.

Ó Snodaigh has indicated to Village that,

following Minister Noonan’s dismissal of his

request that the minister contact An Garda

Síochána on this matter, he intends to lodge a

criminal complaint. This will include naming ﬁve

individuals, whom he has said may have been

involved in wrongful or illegal activities.

“I intend to lodge a complaint and to submit

extensive material, including some not yet in the

public domain, with a statement detailing the

names of those I believe were involved in trying

to bribe Moore Street traders to vote in a

particular way on the ministerial Moore Street

Advisory Group in May of last year”, O Snodaigh

said on 11 July.

Similar allegations have been made by a

Moore Street trader to several people, including

to businessman Stephen Troy of Troy Butchers,

and others. They can be broken down into the

following: that Moore Street market traders

By Frank Connolly

Ó Snodaigh has indicated to Village that,

following Minister Noonan’s dismissal of his

request that the minister contact An Garda

Síochána on this matter, he intends to lodge

a criminal complaint

received three ﬁnancial oers, rising in value,

with the last oer totalling €1.7 million or

€100,000 per trader. These oers were made on

condition that the traders supported the

Hammerson development in a vote on the MSAG,

it is claimed. The funds would be provided by

Hammerson and Dublin City Council, ostensibly

as compensation to the street traders for the

potential disruption of their businesses during

the redevelopment work.

The traders were allegedly told that nobody

else could be informed of these financial

discussions, least of all other members of the

advisory group. They were also allegedly told

that they must vote in favour of the Hammerson

plan and that no objections should be lodged

against the company’s planning application to

Dublin City Council. And they were allegedly told

they should not support Ó Snodaigh’s legislation

on Moore Street, the 1916 Culture Quarter Bill

2021 on the MSAG, having originally supported

it and to lobby other political representatives to

oppose it.

Before these compensation offers were

allegedly made, the traders were steadfast against

Hammerson’s proposal, as reﬂected in their

submission to the group in February and late April

2021, two working days before the ﬁnal vote. That

was important since they could have had the

decisive votes. As Ó Snodaigh put it in Village:

“If, for example, Brid Smith TD, Jim Connolly

Heron, Councillor Donna Cooney,

Neasa Hourigan TD and I all opposed the

Hammerson plan, then the traders would have

had the two deciding votes. Even if the other six

members of the group, who had adopted an

essentially uncritical position on the Hammerson

proposals from day one, supported the

Hammerson plan, the group would have still

produced seven to six against it. Turning the

traders’ to support the plan would have been

crucial for those who believed in the planning

permission”.

This can be backed up by people

communicating with Village on this topic. We

have been provided with details of emails and

other messages between a trader and one of the

persons against whom the allegations are being

made, discussing the first offer. In this

correspondence, it was noted that in return for

the oer the traders would, or were expected to:

“1. Vote for the Hammerson plan at the MSAG. 2.

Support the Hammerson planning permission at

DCC and An Bord Pleanála stages. 3. Lobby

politicians and individuals to support the

Hammerson planning permission and 4. oppose

legislation [Ó Snodaigh’s] 1916 Culture Quarter

Bill 2021”.

One of the most prominent traders who was in

direct communication with some of those who

are the subject of the Garda complaint has

agreed to co-operate with any subsequent

criminal investigation. It would be illegal if he did

not. He admits that he thinks that a crime

occurred but also claims that the traders should

be compensated and is not willing to co-operate

with or assist in the uncovering of the alleged

crime at the moment.

Stephen Troy also backed up the allegation,

stating that “it’s very clear to me that this was

Bribery allegations on Moore Street

Sinn Féin TD will lodge complaint to Garda about Moore St traders being

offered substantial payments to vote in favour of Hammerson plan

which demolishes much of Moore St in breach of corruption legislation

NEWS

16 July 

bribery, considering businesses with substantial

trading costs weren’t oered any money and nor

were other traders who had no votes on the

MSAG. Traders on Moore Street have further

conﬁrmed to me they were eectively bribed

which undoubtedly resulted in a compromised

MSAG report. These behind-the-scenes actions

explain why the developers never engaged with

independent businesses in close proximity of the

site. Sure why would they? We didn’t have a

vote”.

In essence, while the MSAG was set up to

advise the Minister, it was undermined in its

work by being kept in the dark by undisclosed

(until later revealed in Dáil Eireann) meetings

between the Taoiseach, Micheál Martin and the

developer Hammerson leading to his support for

the scheme; by the failure to disclose that a

participant in the MSAG held a lease agreement

on a key property under discussion; and by

covert manoeuvrings with traders’

representatives on a ‘compensation’ package for

them.

If payments of public monies oered are

proved to have been linked to a vote, it could be

against the law under

Section 7 and 8 of the

Criminal Justice (Corruption

Oences) Act 2018.

So, applying the facts to

the law as Ó Snodaigh did in

his piece:

An Irish employee of a local authority or any

other person acting on behalf of the public

administration of the state who, does an act in

relation to his or her employment, position or

business for the purpose of corruptly [by any, i.e.

other, means] obtaining consideration or

advantage for himself or herself or for any other

person, shall be guilty of an oence.

In this case it is clear that buying a vote, being

the essence of acting with an improper purpose,

is corrupt.

Any person oering payment for a vote would

also be guilty of an oence under Section 8 of the

Criminal Justice (Corruption Oences) Act 2018

which states:

“A person who gives a gift, consideration or

advantage to another person where the ﬁrst

mentioned person knows, or ought reasonably

to know, that the gift, consideration or

advantage, or a part of it, will be used to facilitate

the commission of an oence [payment for votes]

under this Act shall be guilty of an oence”[26].

Why these individuals were so interested in

securing planning permission for a property

developer is unclear. Village has previously

reported that two of the individuals against

whom these allegations have been made have

denied being involved in any such oer of

compensation in exchange for trader support for

the Hammerson plan.

Now, because the Minister, Malcolm Noonan,

a member of the Green Party, has failed to act, Ó

Snodaigh will be reporting it to the Garda

himself.

Member of the MSAG and Green Party

councillor, Donna Cooney, speaking in a personal

capacity has told Village that she was concerned

at the perception that may arise from ocials of

DCC and the heritage department engaging in

discussion on compensation for traders,

particularly as no planning application for the

development had been submitted at that stage

in May 2021.

“I am concerned about discussions on

compensation involving Dublin City Council and

the Department and the possible inﬂuence it

brings. Given that there was no planning

application for the development, I felt it was

putting the cart before the horse. I am committed

to the revitalisation of the Moore Street market

rather than compensating people to leave it”,

said Councillor Cooney, a relative of Elizabeth

O’Farrell who famously surrendered to British

forces with Pádraig Pearse, following the retreat

to Moore Street.

A number of FOI requests were made in recent

months in relation to correspondence between

DCC and Department ocials on matters relating

to the Hammerson plan and the Moore Street

Advisory Group.

Following several months of correspondence,

only a small number of the requests were

granted. The replies failed to answer speciﬁc

queries on whether Dublin City Council or

Heritage department ocials were aware of how

the traders might vote or why they were involved

in any negotiations which might inﬂuence them

to support the Hammerson plan or in oering a

larger compensation package to do so.

If the authorities did not disclose any such

information in their possession such a refusal

could be in breach of the Criminal Justice Act

2011, Section 17 - Concealing facts disclosed by

documents and the Criminal Law Act, 1997

section 8.

In crucial email correspondence, it was noted

that in return for the alleged bribe the traders

would, or were expected to: “1. Vote for the

Hammerson plan at the MSAG. 2. Support the

Hammerson planning permission. 3. Lobby

for support for the Hammerson planning

permission and 4. oppose Ó Snodaigh’s 1916

Culture Quarter Bill”

Hmmerson proposl for Moore Street

“Corruption in relation

to ofﬁce, employment,

position or business:

Section 7. (1) states:

“An Irish ofﬁcial who,

either directly or

indirectly, by himself or

herself or with another

person, does an act in

relation to his or her

ofﬁce, employment,

position or business

for the purpose of

corruptly obtaining a

gift, consideration or

advantage for himself

or herself or for any

other person, shall be

guilty of an offence”.

[Section 2. (1) of the

Act states that—

“Irish ofﬁcial means…

(j) an ofﬁcer, director,

employee or member

of an Irish public body

(including a member of

a local authority) or…

(l) any other person

employed by or acting

for or on behalf of the

public administration

of the State;

“corruptly” includes acting

with an improper purpose

personally or by inﬂuencing

another person, whether—

(a) by means of making

a false or misleading

statement,

(b) by means of

withholding,

concealing, altering or

destroying a document

or other information, or