Adams libel trial ‘retraumatising' for Denis Donaldson's family, lawyer says
Solicitor Enda McGarrity said the family had to sit through the high-profile five-week case at Dublin High Court when their own efforts to pursue legal remedies have been 'stonewalled at every turn'.
Mr Adams was awarded 100,000 euros (£84,000) by a jury over a 2016 BBC programme which alleged he had sanctioned the murder of Mr Donaldson, a former Sinn Fein member who had been exposed as a British agent. Mr Adams had described the allegation as a 'grievous smear'.
Mr Donaldson was shot dead in Co Donegal in 2006.
In 2009, the dissident republican group the Real IRA claimed responsibility for the killing and a Garda investigation into the matter remains ongoing.
Mr McGarrity told the RTE This Week programme the Donaldson family had been initially 'ambivalent' as to the outcome of the case.
He said: 'The case was seen as a sideshow in that the family was aware it wasn't the type of case which would assist them in their long and tortuous search for answers and accountability.
'But of course as the trial played out it became difficult to ignore and retraumatising in many ways.
'The family had to listen along as private and sensitive information was tossed around with little regard to the Donaldson family.
'Probably the most galling part for the family is that they've had to sit through five weeks of hearings in a case which concerned the murder of their loved one Denis Donaldson, and yet when they've tried to pursue their own legal remedies, they've been stonewalled at every turn.
'The process has been an extremely difficult one for the family.'
Now that the libel case has concluded, Mr McGarrity said focus should turn to seeking answers for the Donaldson family.
He said: 'It has been a tortuous 19-year search for justice and the family acknowledge this case was ostensibly about Gerry Adams' reputation, not about uncovering the circumstances surrounding the murder of Denis Donaldson.
'However, what this case does do is shine a light on the wider, and clearly more important issue of the circumstances around Denis Donaldson's murder.'
'The fact that the family have never had anything resembling an effective investigation into this murder highlights an uncomfortable truth for authorities on both sides of the border, particularly where legacy cases are concerned.'
The lawyer said the current Garda investigation was limited to who carried out the murder, not the wider circumstances.
He said: 'When we look to mechanisms which could explore those you have things like coroners' inquests, one of the practical difficulties is that the inquest has been adjourned 27 times, quite an unprecedented delay.
'It begs the question, how is justice to be delivered to the Donaldson family if the Garda investigation is only looking at a limited aspect of the murder and the coroner's inquest won't begin until that process finishes.
'That has led the family to call for a commission of investigation to properly investigate these issues.'
Mr McGarrity said there was a 'unique cross-border element' to the death of Mr Donaldson.
He added: 'Who was behind it and who pulled the trigger isn't the only question. The circumstances leading up to that, how Denis Donaldson came to be exposed, how his location came to be known in Donegal, there are lots of ancillary questions.
'All of which I think the family are aware we may not get full unvarnished answers to every aspect, but at this point they haven't even got close to the truth and they deserve answers and accountability.'
He said the Donaldson family would now be seeking a meeting with Irish Justice Minister Jim O'Callaghan.
'This family are 19 years down the line and they are no further forward.
'There needs to be a discussion and we would certainly welcome prompt engagement with the minister.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Powys County Times
20 minutes ago
- Powys County Times
BBC granted time to consider appeal in Gerry Adams case before paying all costs
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. 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.
North Wales Chronicle
24 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
MI5 apologises unreservedly to High Court for ‘failings and errors'
In 2022, then-Attorney General Suella Braverman went to the court in London to stop the BBC airing a programme that would name him. An injunction was made to prevent the corporation disclosing information likely to identify the man, referred to only as 'X', though Mr Justice Chamberlain said the BBC could still air the programme and the key issues without identifying him. At a hearing in February, the court heard that part of the written evidence provided by MI5 was false. On Tuesday, Sir James Eadie KC, representing the Attorney General, made an 'unreserved apology and contrition on behalf of MI5' for the incorrect evidence that was provided. He added: 'I am not here to seek to excuse or diminish the seriousness of that position. 'Everyone from the Director General onwards acknowledges the seriousness of what has occurred.' The written witness statement said the Security Service had maintained its policy of neither confirming nor denying (NCND) the identities of intelligence sources. However, the BBC said MI5 disclosed X's status to one of its reporters, but then said it had kept to the NCND policy. Sir James said there had been internal investigations since, and the 'first and most obvious conclusion' led to the 'unequivocal apology'. He added that there had been failings that have been 'properly identified' by the investigations. Sir James also said that criticism had been made that records of conversations with the press, about this subject matter, had not been created and maintained 'despite the obvious, clear and serious importance of doing so'. He added that the creation of contemporaneous documents was the 'best guard' against errors being made and that lessons had been learned. Sir James said the court can be 'properly satisfied' a full investigation had taken place, and it had concluded that the 'errors had not been deliberate' and that 'there had been no deliberate misleading or lying'. He also said there had been proper accountability for the errors, including in public, 'to the maximum extent possible'. Jude Bunting KC, for the BBC, told the court on Tuesday that the person – person B – who gave the false evidence did 'deliberately and repeatedly lie'. He continued that the evidence also suggests that there was a 'widespread' understanding within MI5 that this person had departed from NCND. Mr Bunting added that person B had departed from NCND in a way which was 'detailed and surprising, and that he had only been authorised to stray from the policy when talking to a 'trusted MI5 source'. The hearing before the Lady Chief Justice, Baroness Carr, Dame Victoria Sharp and Mr Justice Chamberlain, who will decide what action should be taken against MI5, is due to conclude on Tuesday.
North Wales Chronicle
24 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Fact check: Reform UK migrants claim and minister's inflation mix-up
Has Labour 'allowed the biggest influx of migrants in British history'? Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice MP claimed in a newspaper column a few weeks ago that 'the statistics show without a doubt that this Labour government has allowed the biggest influx of migrants in British history'. It's not clear which figures Mr Tice was basing this claim on – we've asked him and Reform UK, and haven't had a response. But the statistics we've been able to check – both those available at the time Mr Tice made his claim, and those published since – don't appear to support it. And when we asked Oxford University's Migration Observatory about Mr Tice's claim, it told us: 'We cannot identify any data that support the assertion that the current government has been responsible for the biggest influx of migrants in British history, and we are unclear how Mr Tice came to this conclusion.' Mr Tice referred only to 'migrants' and did not specify that he was talking about any particular group of migrants, but some on social media have suggested he intended to refer solely to Channel crossings, which have been at record levels this year and hit the headlines again this weekend after almost 1,200 migrants were recorded as arriving via small boat on Saturday. Between January 1 2025 and April 27 2025 (the day Mr Tice's article was published), government statistics show 9,885 migrants were detected crossing the English Channel in small boats, and between January 1 and May 31 this figure was 14,812. Both these figures are higher than for equivalent periods in other years going back to 2018, when statistics for this measure began. But they don't support the claim Mr Tice made – firstly because they only refer to a small proportion of all migrants, and secondly because they don't cover Labour's full time in office. In the time between Labour forming a government on July 5 2024 and April 27 2025, 33,127 migrants arrived in the UK after crossing the Channel on small boats, according to government statistics. This isn't a record – the equivalent total between July 5 2022 and April 27 2023 was 38,600. In terms of overall migrant numbers, there are various different sets of data, but one of the most commonly cited is the estimate of long-term international migration published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The most recent such figures cover the year to December 2024, when 948,000 people are estimated to have moved to the UK. (Over the same period 517,000 people left, so total net migration that year is estimated to have been 431,000.) These figures can't tell us exactly how many have arrived under Labour, as they cover roughly six months of the last Conservative government and the first six months of Labour. The next set of figures, which will cover the year ending June 2025 and are expected to be published in the autumn, will more reliably tell us about the change under Labour. But overall the figures for 2024 were significantly down on the year before. In the year ending December 2023 around 1,326,000 people were estimated to have moved to the UK – a record high. (And 466,000 people left, so net migration that year was an estimated 860,000.) Net migration is estimated to have reached a record high of 906,000 in the year ending June 2023, when 1,320,000 people moved to the UK and 414,000 people left. So while the ONS migration estimates can't tell us specifically what the change in the number of immigrants coming to the UK has been under Labour, they appear to suggest that the 'biggest influx' of migrants on record so far took place under the previous Conservative government. The Migration Observatory believes this is the case, telling us: 'Data clearly show that the 'biggest influx of migrants in British history' took place under the previous administration.' School standards minister mixes up inflation and interest rates Speaking about the cost of living in an interview on Friday, school standards minister Catherine McKinnell MP claimed 'we've seen inflation coming down'. That's not what the latest inflation figures show, however, and the Department for Education has since told us she'd intended to refer to interest rates. While the Bank Rate – which is set by the Bank of England to influence the interest rates charged by banks – is currently one percentage point lower than it was when Labour came into government on July 5 2024, inflation (the change in prices for goods and services over time, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, or CPI) is higher than it was when Labour entered government. In the 12 months to June 2024 – the last full month of the previous Conservative government – inflation stood at 2%, while in the 12 months to July 2024 – the month Labour formed a government – it was 2.2%. As of April 2025, annual CPI inflation was 3.5%, 0.9 percentage points higher than the previous month's figure. Other commonly used measures of inflation show similar trends. This isn't the first time we've seen government ministers confuse interest rate and inflation figures. Earlier this year we fact checked the Prime Minister and Home Office minister Seema Malhotra MP after they both wrongly claimed interest rates had been at 11% under the previous government. As Ms Malhotra later made clear in an edited post, the 11% figure actually referred to the peak rate of CPI inflation in 2022.
