‘Big sensationalist expose' claim over Adams programme denied
During a libel trial in Dublin, Declan Doyle SC, acting for Mr Adams, put it to the witness that the programme's 'big reveal' was a false claim that Mr Adams had sanctioned the murder of Denis Donaldson.
BBC Spotlight editor Gwyneth Jones said that was 'absolutely not the case', adding: 'I don't accept that characterisation of it for one minute.'
'The tone was measured, the language was precise. There was so much care taken over this programme. It was a solid piece of journalism and the result of many months work and a lot of diligence and a lot of rigour and a lot of scrutiny,' she said.
The exchange came during the trial at the High Court in Dublin.
Mr Adams has claimed that the BBC Spotlight programme, as well as an accompanying online story, defamed him by alleging he sanctioned the killing of Mr Donaldson.
He denies any involvement.
Mr Donaldson was shot dead in 2006, months after admitting he was a police and MI5 agent for 20 years.
In 2009, the Real IRA claimed responsibility for the killing, and the Spotlight programme was broadcast in September 2016 while a garda investigation into the matter was ongoing.
In the programme, an anonymous source identified as 'Martin', who says he was an informant for Special Branch within the IRA, claimed that the shooting was sanctioned by the political and military leadership of the IRA and that Mr Adams 'gives the final say'.
The BBC has said the claim was corroborated by five other sources.
Ms Jones had been deputy editor of the programme at the time of the broadcast in 2016.
She said Jeremy Adams, who had been editor of the programme in 2016, had since left the BBC, lived outside the jurisdiction and would not be giving evidence in the case.
Asked about the online article and why it had not been taken down, Ms Jones said she saw no reason to, and the BBC is standing by its journalism.
'It came from the programme which was a very solid, very well researched, well considered, much scrutinised piece of significant public interest journalism,' she said.
Earlier, BBC reporter Jennifer O'Leary rejected assertions that she had 'no regard or care' whether a claim that Mr Adams sanctioned the killing of a spy was true of false.
She said she did not treat the allegation 'recklessly', saying her journalism was carried out in 'good faith'.
Under cross examination by Mr Adams' barrister, Tom Hogan SC put it to Ms O'Leary that she did not make the allegation 'bona fide'.
Ms O'Leary said that her journalism was carried out in good faith.
'The allegation was checked in good faith and in the public interest,' she said.
Mr Hogan said the allegation was made by the reporter 'recklessly', adding that she had 'no regard or care if it was true of false'.
'I absolutely refute that assertion,' Ms O'Leary responded.
She also told the court that the allegation against Mr Adams was not a 'single source' allegation.
She said she took the allegation seriously and met with reliable sources who 'speak to it', and not republicans who had animosity towards Mr Adams.
The investigative journalist said she avoided people who she knew had some sort of history with Mr Adams, and those who would be biased in what they said.
'I was careful and responsible. Was I supposed to ignore the allegation? It was in the public interest that it was in the programme but only if it was stood up,' she added.
Mr Hogan put it to Ms O'Leary that she was 'just ticking boxes' when she was speaking to people about the allegation.
She replied: 'Mr Hogan, I am a professional journalist, I wasn't ticking boxes. I was doing my job in a professional way. It would be nothing without sources.'
However, Mr Hogan accused Ms O'Leary of setting about to find 'yes men' who would corroborate the allegation.
'That is not the case,' the reporter rebuked.
She was accused of disclosing the allegation only to 'disaffected' republicans and 'indiscreet' security people.
'No, that is a wrong representation of the sources. I spoke to republicans who support the peace process, and have no animosity. I wasn't going to any Tom, Dick or Harry to check the journalism.'
He went on to say that once she received the right of reply from Mr Adams, and 'having ticked the boxes', Ms O'Leary was able to publish 'in the knowledge you never had to stand over the allegation'.
She said: 'I don't agree with the premise of that question. I absolutely can stand over the journalism. The way it is represented, that we can kick back and put our feet on table. That is not the way I operate.
'This is investigative journalism, it is rigorous and you get the gift of time.'
Ms Jones, editor of Spotlight, also gave evidence on Thursday.
Ms Jones, who has known Ms O'Leary professionally for 13 years, was asked by defence barrister Eoin McCullough SC to describe her work.
Ms Jones said her BBC colleague is 'hard working, a grafter, very committed and passionate about her journalism'.
'She is someone who I think has a very good trait to be in investigative journalism, in that she will always play the devils advocate and she questions things.
'She is curious. Her work was to a very high standard.'
The trial continues.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
3 minutes ago
- The Sun
Judge who controversially allowed knife-wielding drug dealer to stay in UK was on pro-asylum charity board
A JUDGE who controversially allowed a knife-wielding drug dealer to stay in the UK was on the board of a pro-asylum charity. Fiona Beach declared Christian Quadjovie, 26, was not a threat to the public. The French-born crook had been locked up for a total of 963 days since arriving here aged ten in 2009. But he was granted a reprieve by Judge Beach, an ex-director at Asylum Aid who represented migrants for free on behalf of the Bail for Immigration Detainees charity. The decision has since been overturned after Government lawyers claimed her judgment was 'made against the weight of evidence'. Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick said Judge Beach's apparent conflict of interest 'undermines confidence' in the courts. He added: 'This is the latest example of an immigration judge with open borders views. 'The similarity between her decisions and the political views she has broadcast totally undermines confidence in the system. Judges must be independent.' Last night, in a letter seen by The Sun on Sunday, Mr Jenrick made a formal request to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office to probe whether Judge Beach, 54, had declared her previous roles. In 2005 and 2007, she was listed in a 'thank you' section of the Bail in Immigration annual report, and named as a barrister volunteering to represent its clients in court. Records show she was a director of Asylum Aid between September 2004 and February 2007. Judicial sources insisted she stepped back from the group in December 2006 when appointed as a part-time judge. In 2018 she was made a salaried tribunal judge. She first heard Quadjovie's case in April 2024. He was first convicted as a boy of 12 after sexually assaulting a girl under 13. In 2016, he was given a nine-month referral order for carrying a knife in public. Later that year, he was convicted of drug offences. He was detained for 30 months and caught with more drugs after his release. The Home Office tried to deport him but he argued he would not be able to reintegrate in France. A judiciary spokesman said all judges took an oath to remain impartial. He added: 'In each case, judges make decisions based on the evidence and arguments presented, and apply the law as it stands.' 1 Channel returns ratings plan axe By Thomas Godfrey HOME Office bosses have scrapped a plan to get a trendy research company to award them marks out of ten for returning asylum seekers — thanks to the Sun on Sunday. The department gave The Social Agency a deal worth almost £250,000 to carry out an 'evaluation of asylum returns policy'. It was agreed shortly after PM Sir Keir Starmer revealed his one-in, one-out deal with France to remove small boat migrants. But after The Sun on Sunday asked for comment on why so much was being spent on the review, bosses axed it. A Home Office spokesperson said: 'This particular contract was not approved at the right level and is therefore being withdrawn.' Contract details emerged as the number of migrants crossing the Channel in small boats since Labour took power last summer passed 50,000. The Social Agency, based in Hackney, East London, was initially awarded £237,786 over the 32-month deal, which was to run ran from this month until March 2028.
Telegraph
3 minutes ago
- Telegraph
‘British women and girls are paying the price for Labour's lax immigration laws'
Most European countries use detention centres but Britain puts undocumented men in accommodation while British families struggle under taxes
Telegraph
3 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Rayner accuses Farage of fuelling revenge porn culture
Angela Rayner has claimed Nigel Farage would open the floodgates to revenge porn and 'fail a generation of young women' by scrapping online safety laws. In a direct attack on the Reform leader, the Deputy Prime Minister warned that removing protections would enable 'a vile, misogynistic culture on social media'. Her broadside reflects how Labour strategists are convinced Mr Farage has misread the public mood and that voters support more regulation of the internet. Reform hit back on Saturday, saying it would 'always prioritise prosecuting abuse but will never let women's safety be hijacked to justify censorship'. Laila Cunningham, a party councillor, said Ms Rayner could not 'claim to protect women while placing unvetted illegal migrant men' in communities. The row erupted amid controversy over the application of the Online Safety Act and concerns that the enforcement of it is impinging on free speech. Initially passed by the Tories, the legislation is designed to protect children in particular from freely accessing harmful material like extreme pornography. It requires websites to block access to adult content with strict age verification checks, such as artificial intelligence (AI) face scans or by demanding people's bank account details. But ministers are concerned it is being enforced 'over-zealously' by firms, with examples of blocked content including a Commons debate on grooming gangs. The controversy has prompted Reform to pledge that Mr Farage would repeal the legislation, warning it is turning Britain into 'a borderline dystopian state'. Shortly after the act came into force last month, the Reform leader said: 'It begins to look as though state suppression of genuine free speech may be upon us already.' Ms Rayner said the move would lead to a rise in instances of 'intimate image abuse' online, which is more commonly referred to as revenge porn and can include uploading images online, as well as sharing them by text and email or even showing another person an image. 'Intimate image abuse is a devastating crime and contributes to a vile misogynistic culture on social media that we know translates into physical spaces too,' Ms Rayner said. 'Nigel Farage risks failing a generation of young women with his dangerous and irresponsible plans to scrap online safety laws. 'Scrapping safeguards and having no viable alternative plan in place to halt the floodgates of abuse that could open is an appalling dereliction of duty. 'It's time for Farage to tell women and girls across Britain how he would keep them safe online.' The row between the pair could foreshadow a future election campaign, were Sir Keir Starmer to step down and be replaced by his deputy. Ms Rayner has long been rumoured to be on leadership manoeuvres and her high-profile attack on Mr Farage will be seen as a further burnishing of her credentials. Reform has led in every opinion poll since the beginning of May and has an eight point cushion over Labour according to the latest YouGov survey. The meteoric rise of Mr Farage's party has unnerved Downing Street and Labour MPs, many of whom sit on wafer thin majorities in the Red Wall. Labour strategists think he has made a mistake by attacking the Online Safety Act, with a recent poll showing seven in 10 voters back age verification checks on porn. The Deputy Prime Minister led the attack after Peter Kyle sparked controversy by suggesting that Mr Farage was on the side of sex offenders such as Jimmy Savile. The Science Secretary faced widespread criticism and calls to apologise over the slur, which the Reform leader described as 'absolutely disgusting'. Joining the attack on the Reform leader, Jess Phillips, the Safeguarding Minister, claimed Mr Farage was 'happy for online spaces to remain a wild west'. 'Nigel Farage's Reform have shown they have a total disregard for the abuse, hatred, and vile criminality millions of women face online,' she said. 'Reform have no idea and simply don't care about the grave damage their decisions could have.' 'Women are more unsafe than ever' Cllr Cunningham, a former prosecutor who has been tipped to run for London Mayor, challenged Ms Phillips to a debate on women's safety. She said that 'women are more unsafe than ever before thanks to Labour' and accused the Safeguarding Minister of 'wilfully deceiving voters on this issue'. Ministers had shown they will 'take more steps to monitor your social media posts than they will to monitor the unvetted men they house at your expense', she added. Writing for The Telegraph, she said: 'Labour are attacking Reform for pledging to scrap the Online Safety Act as if that legislation is the last line of defence for women. It isn't. 'It's a cover for censorship and an excuse to hand unelected regulators sweeping powers to silence views they don't like, while doing nothing about the real crimes happening on our streets. 'You don't protect women by silencing speech. You protect them by securing borders, enforcing the law, and locking up actual criminals.' Online laws are a force for good, and for parents' peace of mind By Emily Darlington MP Picture this. Your teenage daughter gets her first mobile phone for her birthday. She's excited about the prospect of messaging her friends, sharing funny videos, posting about the day out she's had with her friends or family. Instead, she's randomly contacted by someone on social media who says they're a friend of a friend. They speak, friendly at first. But the conversation turns. The person starts using sexually explicit language. They ask your daughter to take revealing pictures. She doesn't know what to do. She feels pressure. This person threatens your daughter. If she doesn't share these images, they will tell her family something egregious that will embarrass her. She feels scared, even ashamed. She obliges. These photos are now in the hands of a predator. Who knows what they will do with them? Who knows who this manipulative figure really is? These exploitative crimes are on the rise – with 14 per cent of young women having experienced threats, or actual sharing, of intimate images. It's just one of the many emerging threats against daughters, sisters, and mothers across our country - and it's not just women and girls, with young men being victimised by online predators too. Social media and other online spaces have evolved quicker than legislators across the world have been able to act. Labour has brought in new online laws to protect women and children online. The tide is changing. But there's a new threat in the joint effort in tackling these heinous crimes… Nigel Farage. There had been a political – and indeed public – consensus that social media has become a wild west. A space for violence, misogyny, the promotion of terrorism – and an open forum for predators. That's why it'll send shivers down the spines of parents that Farage and his Reform party want to scrap the new safeguards that have recently been put in place. They shamefully haven't put forward any plan as to how to how they'll replace the vital new protections this Act provides. It's profoundly irresponsible and frankly, profoundly unpatriotic. It could put millions of young people at risk of becoming the next victims, put them in danger of being radicalised, and being exposed to extreme hatred. Enough is enough. This is a test for Reform. In an age where technology should be harnessed for good, we have a choice. We can look forward and ensure that protections are in place for everyone to use the internet in a safe and enjoyable way. Or we can surrender in the way that Farage is choosing. That would mean predators are emboldened to prey on the unsuspecting. It could damage a whole generation and change lives for good. Of course the new online laws are a change. There's no denying that. But they're a force for good, and for parents' peace of mind. That's why it's vital we confront Reform on this. Protecting the citizens of Britain is the first duty of any government. Reform won't even do that. They're not safe for our children - and they're not fit to govern.
