‘Sunday World’ loses appeal over €85,000 David Speedie case

The Sunday World has lost its appeal over a €85,000 award for defamation to a former English Premiership footballer David Speedie.

A High Court jury made the award after finding the newspaper defamed Mr Speedie by saying gardaí had reason to suspect him of being involved in criminal activity. The case related to two articles published in April 2011.

Mr Speedie, who played for Liverpool and Chelsea among other clubs, claimed Sunday Newspapers Ltd, publishers of the paper, defamed him by linking him to criminal figures in those articles. Sunday Newspapers denied defamation.

The paper had asked the Court of Appeal to overturn the €85,000 award while Mr Speedie argued the sum should be increased.

Mr Justice Gerard Hogan, giving the three-judge court’s unanimous decision, said the essence of the newspaper’s argument was to the effect there was a mistrial in that the jury verdict was inconsistent.

It was also argued the judge presiding over the High Court hearing had infringed the “single meaning” rule by allowing two of eight questions to be put to the jury, he said. Those questions related to Garda suspicion of involvement in criminal activity and associating with known criminals.

The paper also argued the sequence of questions put to the jury was wrong and had the effect of depriving it of one of its defences.

Single meaning rule

Mr Speedie’s side argued the single meaning rule had not been infringed and disputed that the defence over sequence of questions applied. Even if it did, the paper was debarred by its own conduct from challenging the sequence of the questions, it was argued. Mr Justice Hogan held the single meaning rule was not infringed.

The rule was there to ensure the same set of words contained in a published piece has a fixed, settled meaning, thereby providing certainty for the parties and mitigating the risk of inconsistent jury verdicts arising from confusion as to the meaning of the words in question, he said.

The single meaning rule was not infringed in this case where a publication contains two or more distinct allegations conveyed by different sets of words.

Two distinct allegations were made in the first article on April 10th 2011 – suspicion of involvement in crime and associating with known criminals, he said. It was “perfectly possible” to conclude that article carried two imputations and that one was true while the other was false.

In relation to the question of the paper’s defence, under section 16.2 of the 2009 Defamation Act, concerning the sequence of questions, the judge said no objection was raised to that sequence as presented to the jury on the issue paper it had to consider.

He held the newspaper had waived its right to the section 16.2 defence in relation to the meaning alleged, and disputed, that gardaí suspected the plaintiff of involvement in crime, he said.

There was no basis for interfering with the jury’s award, the court ruled.