Articles on planning executive allegations were fair and accurate, journalist tells libel trial

Newspaper articles concerning an investigation into allegations against an Irish Planning Institute (IPI) executive were fair, accurate and showed “what was going on behind [the] closed doors” of the institution, the journalist behind the pieces has told the High Court.

Mick Clifford was giving evidence on Thursday in a defamation case taken by former IPI executive director Orla Purcell against the Irish Examiner.

Purcell is suing over two January 2023 articles, claiming the publications were defamatory of her.

The subject of the articles was a report compiled by consultancy firm EY, following an investigation into allegations made against Purcell by another IPI employee.

Ken Early: Dismal Germany exit World Cup after losing penalty shootout

Aughinish Alumina will have to pay up front for costs of closing down Limerick plant under new deal

Feel the heat. We are living in the future we were warned of

‘A kind, caring, beautiful soul’: Tributes paid to three Irish people killed in Spain car crash

It is Purcell’s case that various statements in the articles were defamatory in meaning, including statements that allegedly meant she was “guilty” of “serious misconduct”, “impropriety” and “illegality”.

Purcell, of Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, claims the statements are “false, unbalanced and published maliciously knowing that they were untrue or being reckless as to their truth”.

The Irish Examiner denies these claims and is contesting the case. It claims the articles have a different meaning to that contended by Purcell, and that its pleaded meaning is true.

The Cork-based newspaper also relies on a defence of fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest, and a defence of qualified privilege.

At Thursday’s hearing, led in his evidence by barrister Brendan Kirwan, Clifford said the basis for referencing allegations against Purcell in his reporting was the EY report.

[ Defamation action brought by former planning body official against Irish Examiner opensOpens in new window ]

Those allegations were referred to in Clifford’s articles as “unauthorised spending of €1,500”, “attempts to set up a false email trail alleging the members of the IPI were complaining about the [IPI] president [Conor Norton]” and “attempts to undermine the president’s authority”.

Explaining why he stated in his report Purcell was “guilty” of the referenced allegations, Clifford said he was “expressing in shorthand” whether an allegation was upheld or not by the EY investigation. He said the word “guilty” was not in the EY report.

Following this answer, lawyers for Purcell said Clifford could not give evidence as to the meaning of words.

In cross-examination, Purcell’s counsel Mark Harty put to Clifford he knew his reference in his articles to Purcell engaging in “wrongful use of funds” was not correct, and that he “crafted” those words.

Clifford said the EY report referred to €1,500 of “unexplained and unapproved” expenditure by Purcell, and he used the word “wrongful” to explain that.

Asked if the source who leaked him the EY report had an “agenda”, Clifford said part of his job was to discern sources’ agenda, and decide whether placing information provided to him into the public domain is in the public interest.

Clifford said he believed the articles were of interest to planners, the Department of Housing, and to people trying to buy a house or paying “exorbitant” rent.

Clifford said the EY report showed a pattern of “conduct or behaviour” that showed attempts by a group of individuals to undermine the official position of the IPI – and that of its then president Conor Norton – in relation to a central governmental housing policy, strategic housing developments (SHD).

Clifford said it appeared from the EY report that Purcell was aligned with those within the IPI “attempting to undermine the majority view” in the institute in relation to SHD.

The SHD system was introduced by the Government in an effort to speed up construction of housing, but was ultimately scrapped. The court previously heard that differing opinions on the SHD policy was the source of tensions between members of the IPI.

Asked if he was “scrupulously fair” to Purcell in his reporting, Clifford said: “I believe so.”

He claimed he “absolutely” reported accurately. “If [it] was tomorrow, I’d report the same thing because I put that report out into the public domain so that people can be aware of what was going on behind closed doors in the planning body,” Clifford said.

The case, before Judge Tony O’Connor and a jury, continues.