THE jury in the libel action being taken by Mr Proinsias De Rossa against Independent Newspapers failed to bring in a verdict after a seven hour absence last night and will resume deliberations today.
Mr Justice Moriarty, who said the situation was unique, was told the jury of nine women and three men had reached agreement on one part of one of the three questions put to it. The court was not told what the verdict was.
Allowing the jury members to go home overnight, the judge said nobody connected with the case could recall such a situation ever having arisen where a High Court civil jury was asked to return home in the middle of deliberations and return next day.
Shortly before 10.30 pm., the judge asked everybody in the packed courtroom to remain there until all the jury members had left. He said he was doing this because the jury should be able to leave without the fear of the slightest suggestion of even a glance or imagined pressures being brought to bear.
He asked that gardai assist jurors from the Four Courts building. In the special circumstances he thought it right the jurors be able to leave without the slightest interruption or contact with anybody.
He was not suggesting anybody would bring any pressure to bear but because the matter was so delicately poised, he asked that nobody leave the courtroom for a few minutes while the jury left.
Yesterday was the 13th day of the libel action by Mr De Rossa against Independent Newspapers arising out of an article by Eamon Dunphy on December 13th 1992
The jury retired at 3.20 p.m. to consider three questions.
They were: 1 - Do the words complained of mean (a) that the plaintiff was involved in or tolerated serious crime? (b) That the plaintiff personally supported anti semitism and violent communist oppression?
2 - If the answer to 1 or either part thereof is Yes, were the words complained of published by the defendant without genuine belief in their truth? (3) If the answer to 1 or either part thereof is Yes and whether the answer to 2 is Yes or No, assess damages.
At 9.40 p.m, the jury was recalled and asked by the judge if it had reached a verdict on any one of the three questions.
The forewoman said they had reached a decision on one part of one question. The judge told them they had the option of continuing their deliberations for a short time last night or returning this morning.
Mr Justice Moriarty said no juror should be under any pressure to change their decision for the sake of expediency.
The jury then retired again for a further 20 minutes. On its return, the forewoman said the members felt it would be advisable to resume deliberations this morning.
The judge said this morning's deliberations should not be for a extensive period, not more than half a day. Anything over that and he would take the view that it would be oppressive to the jury and the litigants to proceed further in the case and it would have to declared a disagreement.