Gerry Adams allegation was checked in 'good faith', BBC journalist tells court
A BBC journalist behind a programme at the centre of Gerry Adams' defamation action against the broadcaster has refuted a suggestion she set about finding 'yes men' to corroborate a claim that the former Sinn Féin leader sanctioned the killing of a British agent.
Jennifer O'Leary previously told the court the allegation – made to the BBC Spotlight programme by an anonymous contributor dubbed Martin – was corroborated by five different sources.
Advertisement
At the High Court on Thursday, during the third week of a civil trial hearing into Mr Adams' action, the reporter said the allegation was checked in good faith, and in the public interest.
Mr Adams claims the Spotlight programme and a related article published in 2016 defamed him by falsely accusing him of sanctioning Mr Donaldson's killing at a cottage in Glenties, Co Donegal in 2006.
The BBC denies it defamed Mr Adams, who insists he had no involvement in the death, which dissident republicans claimed responsibility for in 2009.
Continuing his cross-examination of Ms O'Leary on Thursday, Tom Hogan SC put it to the witness that she had set about finding 'yes men' who would corroborate the allegation against Mr Adams, like disaffected republicans and indiscrete security services people.
Advertisement
She refuted this, and said she spoke to republican sources who supported the peace process, who did not hold animosity towards Mr Adams.
'I wasn't going to any Tom, Dick or Harry, Mr Hogan, to check the journalism,' she said.
Mr Hogan put it to Ms O'Leary that she engaged in 'ticking boxes', by speaking to sources who wouldn't contradict the allegation against Mr Adams, and receiving Mr Adams' denial of the allegation.
With boxes ticked, she was able to publish the allegation in the knowledge that she wouldn't have to stand over the allegation, he claimed.
Advertisement
Ms O'Leary said she didn't agree with the premise of the question, and said she could absolutely stand over her journalism.
Mr Hogan suggested to the witness that she didn't make the allegation against Mr Adams 'bona fide'. She said the journalism was done in good faith, the allegation was checked in good faith, and in the public interest.
Counsel suggested she made the allegation recklessly. 'It wasn't an allegation made by me. It wasn't an allegation taken or treated recklessly,' she said.
Ms O'Leary agreed that numerous times, it was put to Mr Adams that he never previously took legal action over allegations made against him in the past. Mr Hogan put to the witness that she could say anything about Mr Adams, because he wouldn't sue.
Advertisement
In response, Ms O'Leary said this was an 'outrageous and wrong suggestion' to make.
'Everybody that features in a BBC story is treated in the exact same way,' she said. In making a serious allegation about Gerry Adams, Ms O'Leary said she wasn't given 'carte blanche' to do so because he 'hadn't sued before'.
'That is not the case whatsoever,' he said.
Mr Hogan said that in dismissing previous allegations made by the likes of Sean MacSiofán, Dolours Price or 'any disaffected IRA man or woman', he was able to explain why they might make such an allegation, because he knew their identity.
Advertisement
He said this was not the case with Martin – a single, anonymous person making an unsubstantiated allegation out of the blue.
Explaining why Martin had to be anonymous, Ms O'Leay said that in 2015, according to a PSNI/MI5 report, IRA men were trying to identify 'human intelligence' sources. She said 'you can be sure' that there would be an interest in identifying Martin, 'who was talking about his experience about being an informer'.
She noted the potential consequences of his identification, including trauma and grief to his family. 'That is the reason why he had to be anonymous,' he said.
Ms O'Leary was also asked about the related BBC News article Mr Adams is suing over. Ms O'Leary previously told the court she didn't write the article, although it was based on her journalism.
Ms O'Leary has now completed her evidence. Gweyneth Jones, who was deputy editor of Spotlight at the time the programme was published, is now giving evidence.
The trial, before Mr Justice Alexander Owens, continues.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
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.
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Report: Trevor Bauer wins settlement violation suit against accuser
June 3 - A Los Angeles judge ruled on Monday that Lindsey Hill violated the terms of a settlement agreement with former major leaguer Trevor Bauer. As a result, Hill -- who brought sexual assault allegations against the pitcher -- was instructed to pay over $300,000 to Bauer. Major League Baseball suspended Bauer in 2021 after Hill brought forth the allegations. The following year, MLB concluded its investigation and suspended Bauer, a 2020 Cy Young Award winner, for 324 games for sexual misconduct violations. The suspension was later decreased to 194 games. Bauer, 34, sued Hill for defamation, but she countersued for assault and sexual battery. The two sides ultimately settled in 2023, although no money was exchanged between the pair. At the time, Hill's attorneys noted that she would receive a $300,000 insurance payment to go to her law firm. On social media, Hill said that Bauer "handed back an insurance sum to me that was meant for him in order for me to drop my countersuit." Bauer sued Hill again in October 2024, saying she violated the terms of the settlement agreement by saying on a podcast and social media that she received any money from the pitcher. Bauer sought $10,000 for each of the 22 times Hill allegedly violated the agreement along with additional money for attorney fees and interest. That total equated to $309,832.02, which was more than Hill received in the insurance payment. While Hill didn't respond to the court regarding the new lawsuit, the judge originally said in February that Bauer did not have a strong enough case. Two months later, the judge contested the amount that Bauer's team sought in attorney fees. On Monday, with Hill still not responding to the suit, the judge ruled in Bauer's favor and ordered Hill to pay the full amount requested by the pitcher. Bauer was never charged with a crime and has not been picked up by a major league franchise since the Los Angeles Dodgers released him in early 2023. He has since played for Japanese and Mexican clubs. --Field Level Media
