Lowry loses defamation appeal in court action against journalist

INDEPENDENT TD for North Tipperary Michael Lowry has lost his High Court attempt to secure summary disposal of a defamation case brought over comments by journalist Sam Smyth which, the TD claimed, wrongly meant he was a thief and a corrupt politician.

Mr Smyth had denied comments by him during the TV3 show Tonight With Vincent Brownein June 2010 meant Mr Lowry was a thief but said he did believe the politician was a liar and tax cheat and argued he was expressing "honest opinion" on a matter of public interest.

He also denied he defamed Mr Lowry in a newspaper article.

President of the High Court Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns said yesterday the summary order sought by Mr Lowry under section 34 of the Defamation Act 2009 could only be granted if there was no defence to the alleged defamation “reasonably likely to succeed”.

“On the contrary, it seems clear the defendant has a good arguable case in respect of both publications,” he said.

Brendan Kirwan, for Mr Smyth, was also granted costs against Mr Lowry in both the High and Circuit courts.

Speaking afterwards, Mr Smyth said the decision represented “a good day for journalism”.

Mr Lowry was not in court.

During the hearing, lawyers for both sides appeared to share the view that if a section 34 order was refused, the defamation proceedings would not proceed further.

The first alleged defamatory matter related to comments by Mr Smyth on June 24th, 2010, on the T V3 Vincent Browneshow (when discussing the Moriarty tribunal) that Mr Lowry was "caught" with "his hand in the till".

The second was an article by Mr Smyth in the Irish Independenton May 27th, 2010, concerning the tribunal following a "money trail" into property transactions to which it felt Mr Lowry was linked.

Mr Justice Kearns yesterday dismissed Mr Lowry’s appeal against the refusal of Circuit Court Judge Margaret Heneghan to grant him a section 34 order.

Section 34 allows for summary disposal only if the court is satisfied the statement at issue is defamatory and the defendant has no defence “reasonably likely to succeed”.

If the court is satisfied, a correction order must be made and further publication of the defamatory statement is prohibited.

In denying defamation, Mr Smyth, dealing with the “hand in till” comments, argued that these related to Mr Lowry having engaged in tax fraud and did not mean he used his position as minister to extract public funds for his own benefit.

It was true Mr Lowry engaged in tax fraud, therefore he had lied and cheated and it was reasonable to conclude he was indeed corrupt, he also argued.

On the newspaper article, Mr Smyth said he had a full and valid defence because the article referred to a matter of fact, that the Moriarty tribunal was looking into the circumstances in which Mr Lowry bought a house in Co Dublin as well as English property transactions in Cheadle, Mansfield and Doncaster.

He also argued it was a fact that the tribunal would be looking into whether those transactions conferred benefit on Mr Lowry, and the total value of the transactions involving Mr Lowry was about £5 million.