Mr Albert Reynolds's defence in the Dail to an allegation by Mr Dick Spring in November 1994 that he had not given full information was not reported in an article in the English editions of the Sunday Times, the Court of Appeal in London was told yesterday.
Mr Andrew Caldecott QC, for Mr Reynolds, was arguing the case that qualified privilege did not apply to the words in the article, as the Sunday Times contended.
The article complained of was substantially about a report of the Dail on Wednesday, November 16th, when Mr Spring, the Labour leader in the coalition government, shortly before it collapsed, made a complaint about information not being given. What was quite clear was that Mr Reynolds gave considered defence to the allegation, and that was fully there in the article in the Irish edition.
"But it was fully absent from the article in the English edition", Mr Caldecott continued. "All that appears in the English edition is an allegation by Mr Spring in the Dail, who said Mr Reynolds had not given full information, but who did not say he had been lied to. Mr Reynolds's defence to the allegation - that he had not given full information - was not given."
They submitted that if positive policy was that the public should have a fair and accurate report from the Dail, how could some different species protect an unfair and inaccurate account?
Lord Justice Hirst remarked: "You're saying that the golden thread that runs through all qualified privilege cases was that there must be fairness and accuracy."
Mr Caldecott replied that that was it. Fairness and accuracy arose where a newspaper was reporting what people had said. In this case, it was the golden thread.
"If one chooses to make, as a main piece of an article, an untrue statement that Mr Spring made an allegation of lying, then the reader would assume Mr Reynolds hadn't a defence, otherwise they would have reported it", counsel said.
The article was reporting what an anonymous friend said, then what Mr Spring was alleged to have said in the Dail, and presenting them as fact. "There is no privilege in a garbled report", Mr Caldecott said. The idea that a newspaper could be under a duty to cross out a defence did not stand up.
Mr Caldecott ail was fairly reported.said that what was striking about this case was that the defence of fair and accurate reporting had been removed and the defence of fair comment had been removed. "Everything removed from the proceedings is anything with the word `fair' in it", he said.
What was not covered by common law protection were grave allegations of fact, be they treason, corruption, dishonesty, bribery, where the basis of information had real status which the law recognised. Politicians who sued for libel on trivial allegations, because they were expected to have broad backs, usually did not fare well with juries. "Practical politicians only sue on serious charges", counsel stated.
The whole essence of fair comment was that it had to be of public interest. The politician's right to reputation was more circumscribed that that of other people.
The Sunday Times is appealing a decision whereby the libel case judge ruled that qualified privilege did not apply to the article. The jury found in November 1996 that the words were defamatory, but awarded zero damages. The judge subsequently made an award of one penny.