Former Garda commissioner seeks more time to bring defamation case

The Irish Examiner has opposed an application by former Garda Commissioner Nóirín O'Sullivan for an extension of time to bring a defamation action against the newspaper.

Ms Justice Teresa Pilkington, having heard both sides, said on Wednesday she will rule on the application as soon as possible.

Ms O'Sullivan, who served as Commissioner between 2014 and 2017, claims she was defamed by the Irish Examiner in a front page article of October 4ah, 2016 with the headline "Senior Garda tried to 'destroy' source".

The article stated two senior gardaí had made statements under the protected disclosure whistleblower legislation alleging senior Garda management conducted a major campaign to destroy them in the force in what was described as “a smear campaign”.

The allegations in the article were raised in the Dáil by Fianna Fáil leader Michael Martin, and shortly afterwards an inquiry into the disclosures was ordered by the Minister for Justice.

In February 2017, the government announced a Commission of Inquiry conducted by Mr Justice Peter Charleton would consider the claims in the disclosures made by Supt Dave Taylor and Sgt Maurice McCabe.

Ms O’Sullivan claims she was defamed in the article and, because she is outside the 12 month time limit for defamation cases, wants the court to extend the time so she can sue.

The newspaper denies defamation and says it published to the public the contents of what two gardaí had said in protected disclosures to the Minister for Justice about an alleged campaign to damage a Garda whistleblower.

The story was “dramatic” news and hugely in the public interest given the concerns it raised, it said.

Ms O’Sullivan was not named nor identified in the article as being one of the senior gardaí against whom allegations were being made in the protected disclosures, it also said.

Under the 2009 Defamation Act, litigants have up to 12 months from the date of publication to bring defamation proceedings against the publisher. Under section 38 of that Act, the High Court can extend the 12-month time limit to a maximum of two years.

Declan Doyle SC, with Gary Compton BL, for Ms O’Sullivan said she was under the “most intense” strain from when the article was published to the conclusion of the public hearings of the Disclosures Tribunal.

It was absolutely crucial that his client be allowed bring the proceedings so she can vindicate her good name, he said.

In a sworn statement, Ms O’Sullivan said she was not in a position to bring proceedings against the newspaper until now.

The entire controversy had taken a considerable toll on her and her family and she did not want to add to that by challenging the newspaper and other media outlets “who publicly vilified us”.

Now that the Disclosures Tribunal has concluded its public hearings, she was attempting “to undo the damage that has been done to my reputation by the newspaper and others”.

She fears the article and others will stand as a permanent record of the “horrendous and false allegations about me”, she said.

Oisin Quinn SC, with Shane English BL, for the newspaper, said allowing Ms O’Sullivan bring the action would have a “chilling effect on newspapers”.

The newspaper was only contacted by Ms O’Sullivan’s lawyers in September 2018, one year and eleven months after the article she complains of was published, he said.

No good reason had been advanced why she should be given an extension of time to bring her case, he argued.

Even if the court grants an extension, the newspaper says it has a good defence to the claims, Mr Quinn said.

There was significant public interest in the allegations contained in the disclosures being transparently investigated and determined, he said.

Ms O’Sullivan has an opportunity for full public vindication in relation to the allegations in the Protected Disclosures when the next report of the Disclosures Tribunal is delivered, he added.

In reply, Mr Doyle said his client strongly rejects that argument.