Man appeals against reversal of €900,000 damages award

The Supreme Court has reserved judgment on a man's appeal against the overturning of a €900,000 damages award after a newspaper article described him as a "Traveller drug king".

Martin McDonagh appealed the Court of Appeal decision to quash as "perverse" a High Court jury's finding the Sunday World had failed to prove he was a drug dealer and therefore libelled him in a 1999 article.

That story arose after gardaí seized £500,000 worth of cannabis and amphetamines in August 1999 in Tubbercurry, Co Sligo.

It was published on September 5th, 1999 during Mr McDonagh’s seven-day detention for questioning in connection with that seizure.

Mr McDonagh (46), Cranmore Drive, Sligo, denied any involvement in drugs and was ultimately released without charge.

In defending his defamation proceedings, the Sunday World denied libel and pleaded the article was true. In 2008, the jury found the newspaper had failed to prove Mr McDonagh was a drug dealer and a loan shark but had proven he was a tax evader and a criminal.

A stay applied on payment of the €900,000 damages awarded pending appeal on condition €90,000 was paid over to Mr McDonagh by the Sunday World.

In October 2015, the Court of Appeal found the evidence overwhelmingly pointed to the conclusion Mr McDonagh “was, indeed, a drug dealer associated with the drugs seizure in Tubercurry”.

Retrial

It ordered a retrial on the loan sharking claim and directed he return the €90,000 pending that.

The Supreme Court granted leave to Mr McDonagh to appeal the Court of Appeal judgment after determining his case raised matters of general public importance including about the role of juries in defamation cases, the power of an appeal court to reverse jury findings, and the constitutional right of freedom of expression.

During the appeal hearing on Monday, both sides accepted there would have to be a rehearing.

Mr McDonagh argued that should address both the drug dealing and loan shark claims, while the Sunday World maintained it should be confined to the loan shark claim.

Declan Doyle SC, for Mr McDonagh, said the central question was whether the defendants had proven his client was a drug dealer, the jury answered no, that issue was properly left to the jury by the trial judge and the appeal court should not have interfered with it.

Central to the Court of Appeal error was substituting itself as the fact finder and “selectively” picking parts of the evidence in support of that. Mr McDonagh was also never charged with offences relating to drugs, he added.

Tax cheat

While Mr McDonagh had admitted he was a tax cheat in relation to income tax and capital gains tax and had engaged in social welfare fraud, evidence of an agreement between him and the

Criminal Assets Bureau

concerning social welfare fraud was “well short of drug dealing”, he said.

In exchanges with counsel, Mr Justice Peter Charleton observed the damages are 128 times the monthly take-home pay of a High Court judge, while Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne noted the jury were told any damages should not be akin to "winning the lottery".

Eoin McCullough SC, for the newspaper, argued an appeal court can substitute its own verdict for a jury’s when the evidence shows the disputed verdict is one no reasonable jury could reach.

The jury’s finding Mr McDonagh was not a drug dealer was not supported by the evidence which showed he was “clearly” a drug dealer, he said. The appeal court had applied the correct test in finding that verdict was one no reasonable jury could have come to, the newspaper had therefore discharged the onus of proof and had a constitutional right to publish this information.