Gloves off in libel case as De Rossa launches counterattack in court

THE gloves came off on the third day of the Proinsias De Rossa libel action against the Sunday Independent, when exchanges frequently bordered on the ugly.

Cross-examination of the plaintiff by defence counsel Patrick MacEntee was never going to be a gentle affair. But High Court lawyers fight (mostly) under Marquis of Queensberry rules, and the vigour of Mr De Rossa's counterattacking style - honed on the mean streets of Dublin's north side and in the bearpit of Leinster House - had his opponent occasionally reaching for the safety of the ropes.

The day began quietly enough, with counsel exploring Mr De Rossa's short IRA career and the subsequent evolution of his political philosophy. But when the plaintiff was asked what he thought was one question too many about possible links between the Workers' Party and crime, he exploded.

The point of the case, he said, was that he had been called a criminal, a drug dealer and a pimp by the Sunday Independent, and the lack of any proof on the defence side was the reason for this "nonsensical" cross-examination.

He dismissed reassurances from Mr MacEntee that it was not their case that he was a criminal. "What's this? What's this? What's this?" he exclaimed, brandishing the article by Eamon Dunphy and proceeding to read a long extract.

When he finished reading he demanded that the defence counsel apologise for it there and then. The invitation was also extended to "Mr Kealy," bringing a startled look from the Sunday Independent solicitor who had hitherto been a non-combatant, at least in court.

Mr MacEntee had been left almost speechless by the outburst. He asked the judge to restore some order, but by then it was 1 p.m. and time for lunch. Nobody had heard the bell in the excitement.

But the day's most dramatic exchange was reserved far the afternoon, when Mr MacEntee probed disapprovingly the 1980s relationship between the Workers' Party and the North Korean government. If you were choosing your friends carefully, counsel suggested to the plaintiff, you wouldn't choose the repressive Korean regime.

"It would depend...," Mr De Rosa opened and, seeing a gap in his defences, Mr MacEntee launched an upper-cut: "It would depend on how desperate you are for friends!"

Mr De Rossa reeled, but even as he reeled he countered: "It would depend on how desperate you are for a brief that you'd take on a case like this,"

This last blow, if not below the belt then certainly marginal produced a gasp from the body of the court. Even Mr De Rossa seemed to sense he had gone too far.

Prompted by the gently wrinkled brow of Mr Justice Moriarty, the plaintiff explained he was accustomed in the Dail to having the freedom to counterattack: "I'm trying to adjust to the new rules," he said, apologetically.