THE judge in the Reynolds libel case yesterday told the jury he "didn't understand the difference between an opinion piece and a feature piece or any other kind of piece". He added: "I don't know if it matters if you understand it or not.
Mr Justice French was completing his summing up to the jury, which began a week ago.
Mr Reynolds is suing the Sunday Times for an article on the fall of the coalition government in November 1994 under the title "Goodbye Gombeen Man". It continued: "How a fib too far proved fatal for Ireland's peacemaker and Mr Fixit." The Sunday Times is denying libel, pleaded justification and qualified privilege.
Mr Justice French told the jury that, in considering damages, they should think of the damages awarded to people in personal injuries cases.
For example, he said, awards for damages for those who suffered from quadraplegia were in the region of £110,000-£130,000. This did not include loss of earnings or the costs of care, "simply for being left in that incapacitated state," he said. Those who lost an arm at the shoulder were awarded in the region of £50,000, he said.
"Compare it with the insult, if such you find it was, to the reputation of the plaintiff of suffering he says he's undergone for saying he misled the Dail." Mr Justice French summarised the evidence of the witnesses for the Sunday Times, Mr Alan Ruddock, Mr John Burns and Mr John Witherow. Mr Ruddock and Mr Witherow are also defendants in the trial. Mr Burns was discharged as a defendant during the trial.
Mr Ruddock had said that greater coverage was given to the fall of the coalition government in 1994 in the Irish than in the British edition of the paper. "One could assume in writing for an Irish audience a greater background knowledge of the political situation in Eire and a greater interest," Mr Justice French said.
He said Mr Ruddock had acknowledged that it was rare to have actual different accounts in the Irish and UK editions.
He said the defendant had said he bore the plaintiff no personal animosity and considered him competent and dedicated. He did not think of him as "either high or low" when it came to principles, but "somewhere in the middle".
He described to the jury how Vincent Browne's article had been faxed to Mr Ruddock in London.
However, Mr Ruddock had said he felt the need to explain the relations between Mr Spring and Mr Reynolds, and how this could have caused the government to fall. Mr Finlay was a source of information, Mr Justice French said.
Lord Williams said that although Fergus Finlay was in court he failed to give evidence. I could, if I was in the defendant's shoes, say none of the plaintiff's witnesses except his daughter gave evidence. We have had a remarkable lack of live evidence on both sides," Mr Justice French said.
Mr Ruddock had said he believed that the plaintiff had misled the Dail on the Tuesday as well as on the Wednesday, and this was why they were defending the case. Mr Ruddock felt that the plaintiff knew on Monday about the Duggan case, and chose to reject the Fianna Fail version of events.
Turning to the evidence of Mr Witherow editor of the Sunday Times, he said he was not aware of what Vincent Browne was going to say until the Saturday before the paper was published, and he never read the copy for that article.
He had been persuaded it was reasonable for the two editions to publish different conclusions about the events.
"The Irish reader would not know the plaintiff was called a liar because Browne did not come to the conclusion he was a liar," Mr Justice French said. "A journalist must examine the facts and come to conclusions. He must exclude matters he believes to be false or did not believe."
He then made a number of points which had been drawn to his attention during legal argument in the absence of the jury on Tuesday and Wednesday. These included that the plaintiff's case was not whether the plaintiff knew of the Duggan case on the Monday, but whether he understood its importance before he received the Fitzsimons letter at 9 p.m. on Tuesday. The plaintiff was also saying that Mr Spring did not mention lies to the Dail in his speech to the Dail on the Wednesday, when the Labour Party withdrew from government.
The judge reminded the jury that malice, in the legal sense, meant improper motive. It could mean a lack of belief in the truth of a defamatory statement. It was up to the plaintiff to prove malice.
He then reminded the jury of the questions they had received. The first was whether the allegations were true. If they found they were, then there was no need to answer the other questions.
However, if they found that the allegations were untrue, they then had to answer four other questions. These were had Mr Alan Ruddock acted maliciously in the legal sense, in writing and publishing the words complained of; had Mr John Witherow acted maliciously in publishing them; what damages did they award; and, finally, had the article accurately reported the reasons given by Mr Spring for leaving the government.
"Question five contains two questions," he said. "What were the stated reasons for Mr Spring withdrawing from the coalition government? Were the words complained of correct in reporting those stated reasons?"