Jury in Adams libel case expected to begin deliberations on Thursday

Leader Live

3 days ago

Former Sinn Finn leader Mr Adams alleges a BBC Spotlight programme, and an accompanying online story, defamed him by alleging he sanctioned the killing of former Sinn Fein official Denis Donaldson, for which he denies any involvement.
Mr Donaldson was shot dead in Co Donegal in 2006, months after admitting his role as a police and MI5 agent for 20 years.
In the programme broadcast in September 2016, an anonymous source given the pseudonym Martin claimed the shooting was sanctioned by the political and military leadership of the IRA and that Mr Adams gave 'the final say'.
In 2009, the dissident republican group the Real IRA claimed responsibility for the killing and a Garda investigation into the matter remains ongoing.
Mr Adams claims he was subject to a 'grievous smear' while the BBC has described the legal action as a 'cynical attempt to launder his reputation'.
The high-profile republican is seeking damages of at least 200,000 euros (£168,000) from the BBC.
However, the British public service broadcaster has argued it would be a 'cruel joke' to award the former Sinn Fein president any damages.
Trial judge Mr Justice Alexander Owens told the jury that he was aiming to finish providing a summary of all the evidence in the case on Wednesday, with a view to allowing them to begin deliberations on Thursday.
He said he did not imagine that they would be 'deliberating for long' in this case as they will have had the evidence relayed back to them.
He continued by giving an overview of the evidence of the main journalist in the programme, Jennifer O'Leary, whom he said was the most important witness for the BBC's defence on fair and reasonable publication, and for the case that the broadcast was in the public interest.
Mr Owens told the jury he was going to go through the evidence as 'quickly as possible', comparing his summary to the pace of the Grand National horse race.
Explaining his reasoning for giving a 'fairly detailed' recount of the evidence, he said the 'smoke of battle' of adversarial cross-examination had now lifted and there was an opportunity for them to rehear the evidence in a calmer, more relaxed atmosphere with a fuller appreciation of all the issues in the case.
On Ms O'Leary's evidence, Mr Owens said the jury may consider whether it proves that that materials she gathered from her sources were 'sufficiently robust' to support the journalistic decision to include the allegation made by Martin in the programme.
Ms O'Leary and the BBC have said that the central allegation against Mr Adams had been corroborated by five other sources, although this was not referenced in the broadcast.
Mr Owens said that, in his view, the matters of public interest and fair and reasonable publication would be 'more starkly identified' for the jury if reference to corroborating sources had been included.
On the statutory provisions about attempts made to verify the allegation, the judge said it was his view that the lack of references to other independent sources in the programme does not alter the matter.
'Obviously a central issue is how you view the evidence of Jennifer O'Leary, which is clearly central to your decision on that particular matter.'
Mr Owens said the matter of sufficient corroboration or verification is for the jury to assess by reference to Ms O'Leary's evidence.
The judge also summarised evidence from other witnesses including the founding director of standards for Ofcom Chris Banatvala and former Irish attorney general Michael McDowell as well as victims' group activists Ann Travers and Trevor Ringland
He then told the jury that they had to look at whether the meaning of the words on which Mr Adams based his complaint was that he had sanctioned and approved the killing.
He said this had to be considered in the context of the overall broadcast.
If they found in favour of the plaintiff that the meaning of the words was that he had sanctioned and approved the killing, they then had to consider based on the evidence if it was published in good faith and if it was fair and reasonable to do so.
He said it would normally logically follow that their decision on the programme would apply to the article, as the online report was the 'child' of the broadcast.
However, he said they may find something extra or omitted that may change their view on one over the other.
'You decide what the evidence shows you.'
The judge said if the jury found it was not fair or reasonable nor done in good faith, they could then consider damages.
He said it was open to them to award 'small or derisory' amounts of a few euro, up to 'many tens of thousands' of euro.
Mr Owens said the BBC's case was that Mr Adams 'should be shown the door' with a very small award because he has no reputation at all.
He said Mr Adams was arguing that he does have a reputation.
He advised the jury that they were evaluating what Mr Adams' reputation was and what people actually think of him, noting that a person's reputation could change over time and could be mixed.
'It's not what you think of him, whether you approve of him, it's what you make of the evidence.'
Proceedings resume on Thursday morning.