forms of relief primarily in regard to what had arisen relating to both Mr.Andersen and Mr. Bacon. In a written judgment of 21
December,2005 Quirke J., refused each of the reliefs sought. Mr. O’Brienappealed that decision to the Supreme Court. That Appeal was heardand dismissed by the Supreme Court on 30
May, 2006, Denham J.,stating in an
decision that “
having considered the Applicant’s submission and Respondent’s written submissions, thedecision of the High Court and the considered Ruling of theRespondent, the Court is of the view that there is no case to answer,for the reasons given by the High Court and is satisfied that theapplication should be dismissed and the judgment of the High Court affirmed.”
It was following this Ruling that written submissions (havingalready been invited by the Tribunal) were received regarding theprospect of the Tribunal calling Dr. Bacon as a witness. They haveproved to be of considerable assistance. They have prompted adetailed reappraisal by the Tribunal of the proposal to adduce theevidence of Dr. Bacon and of the value of such evidence in advancingthe Tribunal’s task in finding facts pursuant to its Terms of Reference.All of the submissions were to the effect that Dr. Bacon’s evidenceshould not be adduced. A variety of reasons were put forward insupport of these submissions. Whilst not accepting all suchsubmissions or the reasoning upon which they were based, because Ihave determined to accede to the thrust of what is being contended for,I need only briefly refer to them at this point.
On behalf of Telenor it was contended that the question was notwhether the GSM2 Process was perfect, but whether any improper political influence or intervention in it was disclosed, that no expertcould help the Tribunal in that exclusively conferred function, least of all one not involved at the time, and that in any event Mr. Bacon’sexpertise was as a macro economist without significant expertise in