Jury in Adams libel case expected to begin deliberations on Thursday
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 will attempt 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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
40 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
Here is the real reason River City is being axed by BBC bosses
The letter's subject was BBC Scotland cancelling River City, an act I had previously described as cultural vandalism. My correspondent had a cooler disposition and a better way with words. Summing up how the soap had been brought low in recent years, she wrote: 'Its viewing figures were adversely affected by stop/start production runs, erratic scheduling and a general lack of promotion.' Spot on. And then came this: 'I began watching River City out of loyalty to my city, but came to the view that it makes an important contribution to the culture of central Scotland.' BBC Scotland HQ at Pacific Quay Watching out of loyalty to my city. How wonderful, how generous, how Scottish is that? Of the thousands of words written and spoken about River City, all the BBC statements, the petition to save the show, the debate in the Scottish Parliament, not one sentence hits home as hard as that contribution. Watching out of loyalty to my city. There writes someone who 'gets' what River City means, and why it is not just another programme that can be binned by BBC Scotland because its face no longer fits. But what do you know, no one is listening. Not to my correspondent, not to those who have signed the petition, not to MSPs, or ministers. It seems the main arguments in favour of keeping River City - that it provides jobs and training for working-class Scots who might otherwise never get a start in TV, as well as being a pretty decent drama beloved by its audience - are not enough for BBC Scotland to change its mind. We know this because the executive who made the decision appeared before Holyrood's culture committee at the end of May and said so. Hayley Valentine, director of BBC Scotland, told MSPs that River City, with its 200,000 viewers in Scotland compared to Shetland's 700,000 'did not pass the value for money test'. But the money saved by axing River City would help to fund three new short-run dramas, she confirmed. Though these will 'absolutely cost more to make', the BBC would 'expect' them to deliver much bigger audiences than River City and 'really hope' they will. Expectations and hope. In other words, BBC Scotland is taking a punt. Making all those people redundant on a gamble. Having said that axing River City was a creative decision, it really does come down to money. As for River City being a way into TV, Ms Valentine said opportunities would still be offered across a wide range of other programmes. So that's okay then. Nothing more to see here, folks. Except it is not okay. It is very far from okay. Cancelling River City has always been about more than the end of one programme. It's about BBC Scotland fighting Scotland's corner within the corporation, and making sure the BBC represents and is reflective of all those who pay for it. Read more On the former, was London asked for more money to fund the short-run dramas? Was there ever a chance of building on the UK-wide iPlayer audience for River City by running a promotion campaign? Where are the figures showing potential job and training opportunities lost versus those created? Was there any analysis or was this simply a case of executives thinking they knew best? I understand BBC Scotland's ambition. It wants another Baby Reindeer. It wants the next Adolescence. But it doesn't have the money of a Netflix or an Apple+, which makes it all the more important to ensure that it is making decisions for the right reasons. When it comes to River City, I'm not sure it is. Just as to govern is to choose, running the BBC is all about choice. Who is out and who is in, who gets the money and who doesn't. BBC Scotland decided, ultimately, that River City was expendable. It has made the arguments about viewing figures and opportunities offered elsewhere, but I think there is another factor at work here. For my money - £174.50 licence fee - River City was vulnerable because it was a Scottish working-class soap made by working-class casts and crews. No one thought there would be the backlash there has been. It wasn't like cancelling Question Time with its well-connected panellists and audiences (now there's an idea). The class ceiling exists in the media in general - heck, in society as a whole. It's not just BBC Scotland. Indeed, BBC Scotland has done more than most to widen access and should be commended for it. Now and then, a youngster will appear who doesn't sound like your typical BBC sort. They thrive on the attention and encouragement, but then at some point they hit that class ceiling. They don't get invited into the room where it happens, so they can't shape the corporation's future, and the story of inequality rumbles on. Representation matters. As the old saying goes, if you can see it, you can be it. For many working-class Scots, River City was 'their' soap, and therefore 'their' way into TV. Doors opened that had too often been closed, and if it could happen for the guy down the road, it could happen for you. You cannot put a price on that kind of positive PR. The same goes for viewer loyalty. Fans of River City have had their patience tested to a degree that would not have happened with any other show. Yet they've kept faith with the programme. Even now, they trust executives will repay that faith and cancel the cancellation, but will they? Back to you, BBC Scotland. Alison Rowat is a senior politics and features writer on The Herald. Contact
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Seamus Logan: Nigel Farage's visit shows what he knows about Scotland
The wisdom of that observation was brought into sharp relief for Scots on Tuesday, as Nigel Farage opted to take time out of his busy schedule of being anywhere but in his Clacton constituency to jet northwards for a day trip. The public-facing part of his day seemed to be mercifully short for all concerned. It began with him feigning concern for the welfare of energy workers in Aberdeen, before flying off to Glasgow Airport – en route to Hamilton – to get his picture taken to show him 'campaigning' in the by-election. READ MORE: Nigel Farage's Scottish conspiracy theories fit Reform's agenda. Don't fall for it When not attacking journalists for their cheek in wanting to ask him some questions, he seemed to spend the rest of his time finding ways to hide from them. Meanwhile, his press team were busy asserting that his party somehow represents a 'fresh, positive voice' between what they tried to describe as the Labour and SNP 'see-saw' in Scotland. If nothing else, his flying visit certainly showed up how much he knows and cares about Scotland. On both counts, about the nicest thing you could say is that it at least rhymes with 'see-saw'. Sometimes, as I wrote last week, politicians are lucky in their opponents. Farage has certainly been lucky on that score, but he's even luckier still in that after decades of his schtick, he still keeps getting away with it. His complaints about the 'institutionally biased' BBC and its licence fee show a particular lack of self-awareness. For without the institutional willingness of the BBC to platform him over the years with a frequency and prominence out of all proportion to the public support for whatever political vehicle he happened to be riding at the time, he'd be just another crank languishing on the fringes of politics, forever dependent on the patronage of wealthy idiots to keep him sporadically in the public eye. He's particularly lucky in that despite having won his long-term political prize of Brexit, it still manages to sustain him. Not through being able to bask in its successes, but instead, through the ability to feast off the political corpse of it being a disaster that somehow still has nothing to do with him. In this world, Brexit has been a failure – even in the fishing sector which potentially had the most to gain – not because the trade-offs involved in losing freedom of movement for goods and people simply weren't worth it. Rather, it's been a failure because 'politicians' have somehow 'betrayed' the noble vision of being able to 'take back control' free of there being any negative consequences to follow. In Farage-land, the economy doesn't struggle because of a failure to invest in people and infrastructure – it falters because taxes on the rich are too high. Public services aren't struggling from the consequences of ideologically driven austerity over many years from successive UK governments, but because of the pressures supposedly created by immigrants coming to the UK to consume those services. Every complex problem has a simple solution. He is held responsible for nothing, and nothing is ever his fault. Incredibly, both Labour and the Tories still seem to think that the best way to tackle his particular brand of grievance farming is not to do so head-on, but to lurch even further to the right themselves. And the more it fails to work for them, the louder the internal voices seem to become for them to keep doing it. READ MORE: Scottish Labour by-election candidate flounders after dodging question 11 times It's been obvious for a while that since the General Election, support for the Tories in Scotland has disappeared down the plughole. While there's no evidence that there are any significant numbers of SNP voters switching to Farage, there's ample evidence that a significant number of former Labour voters are happy enough for now to throw their lot in behind him. Maybe that shouldn't be a surprise. There's also always been a hardcore of anti-home rule of any kind Scots, who will vote in Westminster elections but who have tended to stay at home when it comes to Holyrood. Having spent the past two decades guided by nothing more principled than a steadfast and resolute #SNPBad-ism, it's hardly surprising that Labour and the Tories are now being outflanked by a party which seems well set up to cater to that sentiment far better than they can themselves. Farage's unpopularity with most Scottish voters is apparent, and was reflected in polling over the weekend which showed that were he to become prime minister, support for independence would rise by a further four points. If this time we are to turn that sentiment into pro-independence votes, then our arguments have to change. People are rightly concerned still about the cost of living, public services and the quality of life that they and their closest friends and relatives are able to have. So as well as delivering tangible results in those areas, we also have to be posing the fundamental question which affects all of those things for Scots. And that is the question of 'who decides?' If you are a Unionist who is happy for Westminster to continue setting budgets and clipping the wings of Holyrood, then you already know your answer to that question. If, on the other hand, you can be persuaded that decisions about Scotland should be taken in Scotland, for Scotland, by the people we elect in Scotland, then ultimately the answer to that question should also be clear. The reform that Scots need most is independence. And it's the job of everyone in our movement to do their bit in continuing to persuade the persuadable on that front.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Labour's defence document exposes some major cracks
However, the document itself makes no reference to it. There are important reasons for that, not least of which is the cost. But the danger and threat still lurks. It is technically credible that the UK's 30 (soon to rise to 47) F-35 multi-role fighters be fitted to carry nuclear bombs. The F-35 has that capability as does some other aircraft and there are more than 100 US-controlled gravity bombs stored in Europe stationed in several Nato countries. But the US nuclear control of the bombs would be a sticking point that deal-maker Donald Trump would not miss. Even faux British operational independence would up the cost of the F-35 option. READ MORE: Leading pro-indy figures write to Keir Starmer over referendum 'snub' An explicit endorsement of the re-introduction of tactical nuclear bombs carried aboard the F-35 multi-role fighter would signal a significant change to British nuclear policy. It would be seen by the 94 member states of the UN who support the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) as a destabilising move by the UK. That includes the 73 whose sovereign legislatures have ratified it into international law and chose to abide by its terms. Indeed, the non-nuclear nations could throw sections of the SDR back in Britain's face as the document makes much of – possibly even overhypes – global insecurity – a selling point for those arms companies that received advanced copies before even the shadow defence secretary. This was revealed when Defence Secretary John Healey finally deigned to brief parliament, late in the afternoon. To openly re-introduce British tactical nukes in a document which claims that one of its key aims is to de-escalate international tension would be the equivalent of the fire brigade claiming, with a straight face, that pouring rocket fuel on a fire would help put it out. However, the prepublicity over the weekend has ensured that notion of the reintroduction of British tactical nuclear weapons is still out there, mostly likely to test the political temperature. Indeed, within the document itself, Russia is rightly criticised for retaining the possible use of tactical nukes. Looking both ways at once is not a novel idea. But even by the standards of the Starmer administration, to do so in writing in the same document would be a bit of a stretch. The military dangers of devolving a degree of command and control of nukes from the political leadership to generals of at least four-star level is fraught with risk, though most top brass are usually near their political leadership. To devolve control three steps away further to one-star level is asking for trouble. Going even further, handing control of a nuclear weapon to a lowly pilot in a cockpit is more than a bit of a gamble. Maybe the naive LibDems had not thought that through when they briefly floated the idea of replacing the clapped-out Vanguards with nuclear-capable F-35s a few years ago. For the same reason, I find it hard to believe that a group with the ear of Keir Starmer are punting an F-35 option. But maybe it is to divert attention from the increasingly clapped-out Vanguards – something, inadvertently, that the Prime Minister made mention of in his Govan shipyard speech. However, the SDR did touch upon the increasing costs of the maintenance and potential expansion of the UK's nuclear arsenal with reference to £15 billion earmarked for the 'sovereign warhead programme'. READ MORE: 'A bit rich': Kate Forbes responds to Keir Starmer ruling out referendum That it is given a title with the word 'sovereign' in it, rather than just 'warhead programme' or 'new' or 'replacement' warhead programme, suggests that recent work by the anti-nuclear movement on the fact that President Trump actually owns the Trident missiles is impacting on public perception, or risks doing so. Starmer was surely on thin ice (and some military brass must have been nervous) when the Prime Minister mentioned that during his last visit to Scotland, he was aboard a Vanguard coming off patrol. Yesterday he said that the length of the patrol was a record breaker, implying that this was something to be proud of, when in fact it was the exact opposite. The Prime Minister did not reveal the real cause of the over-lengthy deployment, though he inadvertently revealed that the Continuous At Sea Deterrent (CASD) concept is under severe strain. The deployment of Vanguards is getting longer and longer. That's because it appears there are not four boats in various states of readiness, but three, or even less. In his widely viewed Rented Missiles And Worn Out Submarines YouTube presentation, military historian Mark Felton succinctly explains why. He even speculates that at times no Vanguard has been at sea at all. Behind the SDR lurk many questions, problems and dangers. We should not let the UK Government hide them. Bill Ramsay is secretary of SNP CND and convener of the SNP Trade Union Group
