logo
BBC granted time to consider appeal in Gerry Adams case before paying all costs

BBC granted time to consider appeal in Gerry Adams case before paying all costs

Wales Online2 days ago

BBC granted time to consider appeal in Gerry Adams case before paying all costs
Mr Adams took the BBC to court over a 2016 episode of its Spotlight programme
Gerry Adams
(Image: Brian Lawless/PA )
The BBC has been granted time to consider taking an appeal of a jury decision which found it had defamed Gerry Adams, before paying all costs and damages to the former Sinn Fein leader.
Mr Adams took the BBC to court over a 2016 episode of its Spotlight programme, and an accompanying online story, which he said defamed him by alleging he sanctioned the killing of former Sinn Fein official Denis Donaldson, for which he denies any involvement.

On Friday, a jury at the High Court in Dublin found in his favour and awarded him 100,000 euros (£84,000) after determining that was the meaning of words included in the programme and article.

The BBC will also have to pay Mr Adams's legal costs.
However, the broadcaster was granted a stay on paying out the full costs and damages to allow it time to consider whether to lodge an appeal.
The stay was subject to paying half the damages (50,000 euros or £42,000) and 250,000 euros (£210,000) towards solicitors' fees.
Article continues below
Eoin McCullough SC, for the broadcaster, told trial judge Mr Justice Alexander Owens on Tuesday that he was applying for a stay pending a decision on whether to take an appeal.
He said his client had not determined if it would appeal, but added that he was seeking a stay until the end of the appeal period.
In making its decision, the jury also found the BBC's actions were not in good faith and the corporation had not acted in a fair and reasonable way.

When asked by the judge for what grounds an appeal could be taken, Mr McCullough said the court had rejected applications by the defence on matters put to the jury relating to Section 26 of the Defamation Act.
In particular, he questioned the decision to reject an application to withdraw the question of "good faith" to the jury – and the order in which that question was asked of the members.
The jury was asked the good faith question before making a decision on whether the publication was fair and reasonable.

Mr McCullough said it was inevitable that the jury would find against him on the matter of fair and reasonable action once it had already found against him on good faith.
Mr Justice Alexander Owens agreed with counsel that there may be grounds for an appeal on the fact that the jury was first asked to consider whether the actions were in good faith before considering whether the actions were fair and reasonable.
Tom Hogan SC, for Mr Adams, said that if the court was going to grant a stay, it should be on the basis of something being paid towards the award.

Mr Justice Alexander Owens granted the stay subject to the conditions that 50,000 euros be paid towards damages and 250,000 euros towards the solicitors' fees.
However, this can also be appealed against.
Mr McCullough had raised other potential grounds for appeal, including the court's decision not to allow Mr Donaldson's daughter to give another "version" of matters given in evidence by the family's former solicitor Ciaran Shiels.

He also said an appeal may be grounded on the exclusion of the evidence of Austin Stack and historian Eunan O'Halpin.
He said an appeal could further be grounded on the defendants being excluded from taking on the issue of whether Mr Adams was in the IRA, arguing that this could be put forward as significant acts of misconduct which would speak towards reputation.
Mr Adams denies being a member of the IRA.

Mr McCullough also raised comments by the judge which referred to newspaper reports about Mr Adams that were called upon during cross-examination as "rot" and "blather".
He said that based on all of these issues, the jury determination of a 100,000 euro quantum for damages was itself unsustainable, further stating that the circulation of the programme and article was "very small" and combined with a "very damaged reputation".
Mr Hogan said he could not say that there were not some points that were arguable, but added he did not want to "fight the appeal now".

He said there was a "very significant inequality of arms in this case" and questioned whether the application was strategic.
He said an appeal had to be brought on a bona fide basis.
Mr McCullough said it was "surprising" if not a "little frustrating" to hear a suggestion that he was acting short of good faith.

He said all he had said was that his client had not made up its mind and that any appeal should be allowed to proceed in the usual way.
He had argued that it may be difficult and complicated to get the amounts paid out back should he prevail on appeal.
Mr Justice Alexander Owens said he was "not really persuaded" on the grounds of the appeal, other than the order of the questions on "good faith" and "fair and reasonable".

He made the order of the payment of partial damages and costs.
It is open to the BBC to seek a further stay against that payment at the Court of Appeal.
Last week, the director of BBC Northern Ireland Adam Smyth said the broadcaster has insurance and "makes financial provision for ongoing and anticipated legal claims".

Separately, the counsel discussed whether the article – which remains online – could be geoblocked in the Republic of Ireland.
On the issue of seeking an injunction, Mr Hogan said he had been discussing the matter with Mr McCullough and that it may be technologically possible.
He added that there had been a lot of talk over the weekend over BBC services being blocked in the Republic of Ireland.

Mr Justice Alexander Owens replied: "I heard that, I don't imagine that will happen."
The judge questioned what jurisdiction he had to make an order on the BBC, which is abroad.
He added that it had been put to the jurors that he would not be able to make such an order and that their award of damages was the remedy on the matter.
Article continues below
Mr Hogan agreed that it was not a matter to be decided on Tuesday.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

‘Vast Majority' of new homes will have solar panels, says Miliband
‘Vast Majority' of new homes will have solar panels, says Miliband

South Wales Argus

time2 hours ago

  • South Wales Argus

‘Vast Majority' of new homes will have solar panels, says Miliband

It comes a month after Downing Street confirmed the panels should be installed on as many new properties as possible amid speculation that ministers will make them a mandatory requirement on new builds by 2027. Speaking to the BBC, Mr Miliband described the proposed policy as 'just common sense' and said the panels should be 'almost universal' on English homes. Changes to regulations will be laid out in the Future Homes Standard, due to be published later this year. The previous Conservative Government considered a proposal that would have mandated rooftop solar panels to cover 40% of a building's ground area or equivalent. Ed Miliband says solar panels should be 'almost universal' on English homes. 'The problem about the previous system was that it said you would had to have a certain percentage of coverage of solar panels, but if you couldn't achieve that percentage, you didn't have to do anything at all,' Mr Miliband said. 'Under our plans, we are not going to say that. We are going to say even if you can't hit 40% you will still have to have some solar panels, except in rare, exceptional cases.' He added that the number of homes fitted with solar panels needed to be 'much higher'. The policy is estimated to add between £3,000 and £4,000 to the cost of construction, but to then save owners more than £1,000 on their annual energy bills, according to the Times, which first reported the change. Asked in May whether housebuilders would be legally required to fit the panels, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's official spokesman said: 'Of course we want to see solar panels on as many new homes as possible. 'The Future Homes Standard, which will be published in the coming months, will include measures to drive this, we're working on the detail of that and will provide an update on that in due course. 'But it's good news for householders who want lower energy bills.' Under the Government's new proposals, 80% of new builds would reportedly be required to have solar panels covering 40% of their ground area, while 19% would have slightly fewer because of exemptions, including roof pitch and overshading. Ministers last year rejected a private members' Bill aiming to force housebuilders to install solar panels on the roof of every new home, saying the proposals would potentially slow down construction and add to building costs. Labour's manifesto included a pledge to build 1.5 million new homes over the course of the Parliament.

‘Vast Majority' of new homes will have solar panels, says Miliband
‘Vast Majority' of new homes will have solar panels, says Miliband

Rhyl Journal

time2 hours ago

  • Rhyl Journal

‘Vast Majority' of new homes will have solar panels, says Miliband

It comes a month after Downing Street confirmed the panels should be installed on as many new properties as possible amid speculation that ministers will make them a mandatory requirement on new builds by 2027. Speaking to the BBC, Mr Miliband described the proposed policy as 'just common sense' and said the panels should be 'almost universal' on English homes. Changes to regulations will be laid out in the Future Homes Standard, due to be published later this year. The previous Conservative Government considered a proposal that would have mandated rooftop solar panels to cover 40% of a building's ground area or equivalent. 'The problem about the previous system was that it said you would had to have a certain percentage of coverage of solar panels, but if you couldn't achieve that percentage, you didn't have to do anything at all,' Mr Miliband said. 'Under our plans, we are not going to say that. We are going to say even if you can't hit 40% you will still have to have some solar panels, except in rare, exceptional cases.' He added that the number of homes fitted with solar panels needed to be 'much higher'. The policy is estimated to add between £3,000 and £4,000 to the cost of construction, but to then save owners more than £1,000 on their annual energy bills, according to the Times, which first reported the change. Asked in May whether housebuilders would be legally required to fit the panels, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's official spokesman said: 'Of course we want to see solar panels on as many new homes as possible. 'The Future Homes Standard, which will be published in the coming months, will include measures to drive this, we're working on the detail of that and will provide an update on that in due course. 'But it's good news for householders who want lower energy bills.' Under the Government's new proposals, 80% of new builds would reportedly be required to have solar panels covering 40% of their ground area, while 19% would have slightly fewer because of exemptions, including roof pitch and overshading. Ministers last year rejected a private members' Bill aiming to force housebuilders to install solar panels on the roof of every new home, saying the proposals would potentially slow down construction and add to building manifesto included a pledge to build 1.5 million new homes over the course of the Parliament.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store