Former Taoiseach Mr Albert Reynolds will learn today if he has to pay a legal bill of well in excess of £1 million or if there will be a retrial of his libel case against the Sunday Times.
The three judges of the Court of Appeal in London will deliver their judgment today less than a month after hearing the appeals arising out of the case in November 1996 when the jury found that Mr Reynolds was libelled but awarded zero damages. The judge subsequently awarded him one penny. The jury also decided that the newspaper had not acted maliciously in publishing the words in the article in the Sunday Times in November 1994. The article. which appeared only in the English editions, alleged that Mr Reynolds had lied to the Dail. This was found to be defamatory.
However, Mr Reynolds was also made liable for the costs of the case which extended over six weeks as the damages award did not meet an offer of £5,005 from the newspaper. This was estimated at the time to be approximately £800,000.
The newspaper appealed the judge's decision that it did not have qualified privilege to publish the article. The privilege allows reporters on certain occasions to report on matters of public concern, even though it is wrong, providing there is no malice. Mr Reynolds in his appeal sought a retrial on the grounds that the trial judge misdirected the jury.
The qualified privilege arguments are particularly relevant. If the judges rule in favour of the Sunday Times in that the newspaper had qualified privilege, all other appeals by Mr Reynolds must fail.
If Mr Reynolds loses his case he will be liable not only for the £800,000 legal costs of the case in 1996 but for most of the costs of the seven-day appeal last month. This would leave him with a bill of well over £1 million.
If he succeeds in his appeal for a retrial, the case will take its place in the court list for hearing. The lists in Britain are lengthy and it could take up to a year before it takes place. Then it will mean another four to six-week case in front of a new judge and jury.
There is one other option in Britain. There is a further appeal procedure whereby the losing side could apply for a hearing in the House of Lords. This would inevitably mean many more days of lengthy legal argument and delays in actually obtaining a hearing.
Last month, the appeals opened with the newspaper arguing it had a right to publish the article which was written by Alan Ruddock at the time of the collapse of the Fianna Fail/ Labour coalition government and the resignation of Mr Reynolds as Taoiseach.
Lawyers for the Sunday Times appealed the decision where the trial judge had ruled that qualified privilege did not apply to the article. Lord Lester QC for the newspaper said qualified privilege was there to enable newspapers and others to report on politicians, even when they got it wrong, providing there was no malice.
Mr Reynolds's lawyer, Mr Andrew Caldecott QC, argued that qualified privilege applied only where the report was fair and accurate and where a newspaper was reporting what people had said.
Mr Reynolds in his appeal sought a retrial on the main ground of the misdirection of the jury by Mr Justice French. Mr Caldecott said the judge misrepresented the case to the jury and key matters on documents and chronology were completely confused.
Mr James Price QC, who took over the defence of Mr Reynolds's appeal, argued that the judge's mistakes in the summing up did not justify a retrial.
The appeals were heard by Lord Chief Justice Bingham, Lord Justice Hirst and Lord Justice Robert Walker and ended on June 10th.