BBC faces criticism over delay in paying court-ordered damages to Gerry Adams
The corporation lost a major defamation case earlier this year after Mr Adams took them to court over a 2016 episode of its Spotlight programme and an accompanying online story.
They contained an allegation that Mr Adams sanctioned the killing of former Sinn Féin official Denis Donaldson. Mr Adams denied any involvement.
In May, a jury at the High Court found in his favour and awarded him €100,000 after determining that was the meaning of words included in the programme and article.
The BBC, which was found by the jury not to have acted in good faith nor in a fair and reasonable way, was also ordered to pay the former Sinn Féin leader's legal costs.
BBC Northern Ireland director Adam Smyth (centre) outside the High Court in Dublin after the court case (Brian Lawless/PA)
Adam Smyth, director of BBC NI, expressed disappointment in the verdict and said the corporation believes it supplied extensive evidence to the court of the careful editorial process and journalistic diligence applied to the programme and accompanying online article.
After the decision, the broadcaster's legal team was granted a stay in the payment of the full award as it took time to consider an appeal, subject to paying half the damages (€50,000) and €250,000 towards solicitors' fees.
In June, the BBC confirmed it would not pursue an appeal.
However, it is understood that by August 1 the BBC had not paid the damages.
Mr Adams previously indicated that he planned to donate what he receives to good causes.
He specified that these would include for children in Gaza as well as groups in the Irish language sector and those who are homeless.
A source close to Mr Adams told the PA news agency: 'The delay by the BBC is deplorable and it should move speedily towards discharging the order of the court.'
A BBC spokesperson said: 'Total costs will be finalised and payable in due course.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
2 minutes ago
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on Poland's new president: a thorn in the side of the government
There's presidencies, and there's presidencies. Irish parties mulling over their choices to succeed Michael D Higgins will be taking some comfort from the fact that their successful pick will not be assuming a Trump-like, seemingly omnipotent presidency, shaping their agenda, nor indeed, the half-way house that is Poland's top office. Karol Nawrocki, conservative historian, amateur boxer, and supporter of Donald Trump, who was sworn in on Wednesday, is neither a symbolic figurehead nor an agenda setter. However, his powers of veto and policy prerogatives ensure that he will be a major thorn in the side of Poland' s centrist Europhile government. Backed by nationalist opposition party Law and Justice (PiS), Nawrocki 's shock, wafer-thin, majority in June's election dealt a particular blow to prime minister Donald Tusk's hopes to undo the PiS's legacy of attacks on judicial independence and to improve the country's relationship with fellow EU member states and Ukraine, whose Nato membership the new president can block. Poland is now bracing for a continuation of the deadlock seen under nationalist outgoing president, Andrzej Duda. At his inauguration on Wednesday Nawrocki warned that he is ready to block appointments of judges he does not see as fit to perform their roles, and will create a council dedicated to repairing Poland's constitutional order. He concluded, shouting the Maga-like 'May God bless Poland, long live Poland.' READ MORE Like Trump, Nawrocki brings a rich vein of controversy to his new post. He is the subjects of ongoing criminal probes, and like Trump, will be protected during his presidential term from prosecution. Controversies he has been involved in range from his admitted part in a brawl between football hooligans in 2009, allegations of involvement with gangsters and claims he cheated an old man out of his apartment. He is a political newcomer little known to the public before PiS threw its weight behind him. A bumpy road ahead is likely.
Irish Times
2 minutes ago
- Irish Times
Fine Gael significantly outspent Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin on elections last year
Fine Gael spent significantly more than either Fianna Fáil or Sinn Féin on elections last year, according to party accounts provided to the Standards in Public Office Commission (Sipo). Fine Gael was the biggest spender overall on elections in 2024 and also the highest spender on the general election, according to the consolidated accounts of the parties. The accounts, published by Sipo, show Sinn Féin is the richest of the three big parties, with more income, stronger cash balances and an unmatched reserve of €8.7 million at the end of 2024. Sinn Féin, like the other parties, ran a significant deficit last year, in its case amounting to €1.6 million. However, it still finished the year with €4.6 million in cash, down from €5.3 million at the beginning of the year. READ MORE By contrast, Fianna Fáil had just €470,000 in cash at the end of the year. Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil appear to have funded some of their election expenditure through loans, which the two parties will pay back over the coming years as they prepare for the next election, though Fine Gael is in a significantly better financial position than Fianna Fáil. The days when Fianna Fáil outspent everyone at election time are long gone, the figures suggest. This time, the consolidated spending shows Fine Gael spent €3.22 million on elections last year, substantially ahead of Sinn Féin on €1.7 million and Fianna Fáil on €1.69 million. Fine Gael spent more than €2 million on the general election, more than twice as much as Fianna Fáil, which spent less than €950,000, according to the consolidated accounts of both parties. Despite being outspent, Fianna Fáil won 10 more seats than Fine Gael in the general election. Sinn Féin also beat Fine Gael by one seat. [ Three constituencies that show why Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin outperformed Fine Gael Opens in new window ] [ Expect the unexpected: What the 2024 local and European elections have taught us Opens in new window ] Sinn Féin and Fine Gael each spent about €600,000 on the European elections, according to the accounts, with Fianna Fáil's figure much lower at about €320,000. Fine Gael also outspent its rivals at the local elections, with the accounts showing expenditure of €512,000. Fianna Fáil reported spending of €289,000, while Sinn Féin's accounts show it spent just €77,000 on the local elections. All three parties received more than €5 million in State funding last year, while the accounts of all three parties show they are also reliant on fundraising among their members. Sinn Féin has the highest income from donations, with €182,000 raised from individual donations and €52,000 from corporate donations. The party's organisation in Northern Ireland is not governed by the strict rules on political donations that are in place in the South. [ Who is the American who left €535,000 to Sinn Féin's US fundraising group in her trust? Opens in new window ] But it is Sinn Féin's cash pile – likely linked to a mysterious bequest from a reclusive Englishman, William Hampton, who left more than €4 million to the party in 2019 – that sets it apart from its rivals. Along with a substantial property portfolio, it means the party can record 'reserves' of some €8.7 million in its accounts. This is the first year Sipo rules have required the parties to produce consolidated accounts that show the financial dealings of all units of the organisations above a certain size. In a statement, Fine Gael cautioned against comparing the election spend of the different parties in the accounts. [ William Hampton: The life and extraordinary times of Sinn Féin's million-euro donor Opens in new window ] 'It would be inaccurate to use the published annual accounts of political parties without context to compare election expenditure by political parties,' the party said in a statement. It said there 'appears to be significant divergence in the approach to Electoral Act compliance by different political parties ... The extent to which election expenditure is funded by the Party HQ, by party subsidiaries that are required to be reported under the Electoral Act, or by party subsidiaries that are not required to be reported under the Electoral Act, varies for each party and candidate. This also has a bearing on the figures reported.'
Irish Daily Mirror
2 minutes ago
- Irish Daily Mirror
'Conor McGregor posted a rant about us - It's time to debunk him... again'
Disgraced fighter Conor McGregor has once again posted misinformation - this time targeting our publication. Sadly, in this era of social media, where a person has 10.6m followers and an army of fans and bots alike, it has become necessary to further rebut misleading posts that he freely and without question uploads to social media. McGregor, who was found liable by a civil jury for rape and recently lost his appeal of that decision, has taken to targeting this journalist and now our publication for reporting nothing but factual information - albeit information he does seem to like. READ MORE: Conor McGregor wants to become the next President of Ireland - could it really happen? READ MORE: Conor McGregor makes series of misleading claims in rant about failed Nikita Hand case appeal On Tuesday he posted a long rant naming me, the Irish Daily Star, and levelled a series of unfounded accusations that he has now since deleted - as he has every other post directed at us. But not before they were read by his millions of followers. On Tuesday we factually and accurately reported about a rape investigation which is now before the courts. It is the case that gardai believe the attack was random in nature - meaning the alleged injured party was not known to the alleged attacker beforehand. This was stated as fact and was not in any way intended to minimise the alleged incident - if anything it was to properly reflect the grim reality of it. As is the law of the land - we cannot identify the alleged attacker - nor information that has not been heard in court. In general when a person is ultimately convicted of a rape offence - it may be the case then that they can then be identified - so long as a victim is not identified, or if a victim decides to waive their anonymity. McGregor, who has blocked me on social media platform 'X', nonetheless took it upon himself to repost screenshots of our story on this issue, in order to attack our reporting. The Irish Mirror's Crime Writers Michael O'Toole and Paul Healy are writing a new weekly newsletter called Crime Ireland. Click here to sign up and get it delivered to your inbox every week Calling me 'an absolute disgrace' for merely informing the public about the incident in the first place, McGregor then went on to falsely state that I 'first ignored and then mocked the stabbing of a Garda on active duty in broad daylight.' He further falsely claimed that I was 'acting' like I 'didn't know the details,' and that I was 'here again playing to the agenda of government elite in deceiving the public despite the dangers now faced by the people of Ireland.' Normally these kinds of allegations are best left ignored. But McGregor, who claims he's running for the Irish presidency, enjoys a large platform that I believe should not go unchallenged. I resent and totally reject his allegation that I ignored or mocked a garda. I would never do so, nor would I mock or make light of any victim. The UFC fighter is referring to a now deleted post by me on 'X' in which I reposted a statement he made about an incident that is now before the District Court. My intention behind this post was to state that at that point he had been 'radio silent' about the Court of Appeal decision upholding a High Court civil jury finding that he raped Nikita Hand - and that instead he was posting about this. Noting in hindsight that his post was about an incident now before the courts, I decided it best to delete it. Sadly however, that was not the end of it, and a pile of accounts leapt on the opportunity to allude to some sort of conspiracy as to why the post was deleted. My post at no stage mocked or ignored what was a widely covered major news event - that was not only extensively reported by this publication - but virtually every other outlet in the land. Conor McGregor invites Donald Trump to Ireland and drops wild AI image Once again, this is a matter now before the courts - which severely limits how publications such as ourselves can comment on such matters for the moment. We the media have to follow the law. But that is clearly something McGregor doesn't seem to understand. Or perhaps, he doesn't care. Finally, he made further misleading claims that our publication, the Irish Daily Star, is a 'sponsored rag of government,' alluding to a €100,000 payment by the government which he claims was to aid us in propagating 'the public full of misdirection and diversion.'He also called this 'criminal behaviour.' Once again, there is no conspiracy here. I certainly haven't seen a cent of government money personally, and no one controls our editorial direction or that of any of the free press here in Ireland. McGregor is referring to a €100,000 payment given to our company 'Reach PLC' as part of the 'Global Ireland Media Challenge Fund.' The Department of Foreign Affairs backed fund is awarded to media outlets in order to help fund international coverage that would otherwise be impossible in this challenging time for all media. The funding is not, and never has been used to control our editorial direction - which has often challenged and been critical of the government of the day. The fund has only ever been used to enhance our international reporting - for example allowing our reporters to cover our brave Irish soldiers helping keep the peace between Syria and Israel in the Golan Heights. It was further utilised to send us to Lebanon to cover the important work being done by Irish peacekeepers there and the demand for justice for the murdered soldier - Private Sean Rooney. It is also utilised and open to any media outlet to avail of - and does not in any way impact or get used for our domestic coverage. We would absolutely abhor and never sign up to being used by the government to spread any agenda. These are words that normally should go without saying. But sadly, this is no longer the case in a world of unchecked social media - where any thick with a blue tick can have such a large platform. Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest news from the Irish Mirror direct to your inbox: Sign up here.
