Sinn Féin minister urges BBC to ‘learn lessons' from Gerry Adams libel case
BBC management must reflect on the outcome of the Gerry Adams libel case and avoid knee-jerk reactions to the verdict, a Sinn Féin minister has said.
Stormont's Finance Minister John O'Dowd said he welcomed the outcome of the high-profile case.
Advertisement
Former Sinn Féin 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 Féin official Denis Donaldson, for which he denies any involvement.
A jury at the High Court in Dublin awarded Mr Adams €100,000 when it found in his favour on Friday after determining that was the meaning of words included in the programme and article.
It also found the BBC's actions were not in good faith and the corporation had not acted in a fair and reasonable way.
Mr Donaldson was shot dead in Co Donegal in 2006, months after admitting his role as a police and MI5 agent over 20 years.
Advertisement
Mr Adams' legal team said the verdict of the jury was a 'full vindication' for their client while the BBC said it was 'disappointed' with the outcome, warning it could have 'profound implications and potentially 'hinder freedom of expression'.
Following the jury's decision, Mr Adams said his case had been about 'putting manners' on the BBC. The veteran republican claimed the corporation upheld the ethos of the British state in Ireland and was 'out of sync' on many fronts in relation to the Good Friday peace agreement.
The National Union of Journalists has described those remarks as 'chilling'.
Seamus Dooley, Irish secretary of the NUJ, also said the case showed the need for reform of Ireland's defamation laws.
Advertisement
Gerry Adams outside the High Court in Dublin after he was awarded €100,000 in damages after winning his libel action against the BBC (Brian Lawless/PA)
However, Mr O'Dowd said the BBC reaction to the case indicated it was 'unwilling to learn lessons'.
'I welcome the judgment,' he told BBC Radio Ulster.
'I think it's a timely reminder that everyone has the right to defend their name in court. Gerry has been successful in his case and I think the BBC have lessons to learn, and they should instead of the knee-jerk reaction that we've heard thus far from them, I think they should take a time of reflection and reflect on that court judgment.'
The minister was asked if Mr Adams' claims about the BBC upholding the ethos of the British state and being out of sync with the Good Friday Agreement reflected Sinn Fein's position on the broadcaster.
Advertisement
'I think it's a position that many in society hold,' he replied.
'There are many, many fine journalists from the BBC – there's no question about that. But I think the upper echelons of the BBC in the north and the reaction to the court judgment shows that they're unwilling to learn lessons.
'They're unwilling to reflect on their own role and responsibility. So, I think … this is a time for the BBC to reflect, and the upper echelons of the BBC to reflect, rather than some of the knee-jerk reactions we've seen from them thus far.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
BBC defends Gaza coverage after White House criticism
Press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed the corporation, after updating an article's headline with new information, had to 'correct and take down' its story about fatalities and injuries following a reported incident near an aid distribution centre in Rafah. The BBC said it has not removed its story and explained that its headlines about the incident were 'updated throughout the day with the latest fatality figures as they came in from various sources', which is 'totally normal practice'. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt holding a document containing images of BBC articles (Alex Brandon/AP) In a press briefing on Tuesday, Ms Leavitt responded to a question about the incident and said: 'The administration is aware of those reports and we are currently looking into the veracity of them because, unfortunately, unlike some in the media, we don't take the word of Hamas with total truth. 'We like to look into it when they speak, unlike the BBC, who had multiple headlines, they wrote, 'Israeli tank kills 26', 'Israeli tank kills 21', 'Israeli gunfire kills 31', 'Red Cross says, 21 people were killed in an aid incident'. 'And then, oh, wait, they had to correct and take down their entire story, saying 'We reviewed the footage and couldn't find any evidence of anything'.' While she was speaking Ms Leavitt held up a document that appeared to show a social media post from X, formerly Twitter, with the different headlines. The person who posted the headlines also posted a screenshot from a BBC live blog and wrote: 'The admission that it was all a lie.' The headline from the blog post read: 'Claim graphic video is linked to aid distribution site in Gaza is incorrect.' A BBC spokesperson said this came from the a BBC Verify online report, and not the corporation's story about the killings in Rafah, saying that a viral video posted on social media was not linked to the aid distribution centre it claimed to show. Ms Leavitt added: 'We're going to look into reports before we confirm them from this podium or before we take action, and I suggest that journalists who actually care about truth do the same to reduce the amount of misinformation that's going around the globe on this front.' A BBC spokesperson said: 'The claim the BBC took down a story after reviewing footage is completely wrong. We did not remove any story and we stand by our journalism. 'Our news stories and headlines about Sunday's aid distribution centre incident were updated throughout the day with the latest fatality figures as they came in from various sources. 'These were always clearly attributed, from the first figure of 15 from medics, through the 31 killed from the Hamas-run health ministry to the final Red Cross statement of 'at least 21' at their field hospital. 'This is totally normal practice on any fast-moving news story. 'Completely separately, a BBC Verify online report on Monday reported a viral video posted on social media was not linked to the aid distribution centre it claimed to show. 'This video did not run on BBC news channels and had not informed our reporting. Conflating these two stories is simply misleading. 'It is vital to bring people the truth about what is happening in Gaza. International journalists are not currently allowed into Gaza and we would welcome the support of the White House in our call for immediate access.' The corporation has faced a backlash over its coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict and it emerged earlier in the year that a documentary it aired about Gaza featured the son of a senior Hamas figure. Gaza: How To Survive A Warzone was removed from BBC iPlayer after it emerged that the child narrator, Abdullah, is the son of Ayman Alyazouri, who has worked as Hamas's deputy minister of agriculture.
Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
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, 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. Mr Hogan agreed that it was not a matter to be decided on Tuesday.
North Wales Chronicle
an hour ago
- North Wales Chronicle
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, 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. Mr Hogan agreed that it was not a matter to be decided on Tuesday.
