THE JURY in the Albert Reynolds libel case will continue its deliberations this morning after being directed yesterday to return a majority verdict because of its failure to reach a unanimous decision after being out for 2 1/2 days.
Adjourning the hearing, which has now entered its sixth week Mr Justice French told the six men and five women to go home and relax. "Discussing one matter for such a very long time is, we appreciate, very tiring," he added.
The former Taoiseach is suing the Sunday Times over an article published in its English, Scottish and Welsh editions on November 29th, 1994, which claimed he misled the Dail and lied to his cabinet colleagues over the extradition of paedophile priest Brendan Smyth.
Under the headline "Goodbye gombeen man", the article stated: "Why a fib too far was fatal for Ireland's peacemaker and Mr Fixit." The Sunday Times denies libel, claiming justification and qualified privilege.
Two hours after resuming its deliberations yesterday morning, the jury, which retired to consider its verdict last Thursday at 1.05 p.m., sent a note to Mr Justice French requesting the use of a dictionary.
Following legal argument, the judge instructed the foreman to write down the words the jury members wanted to consider because this was such an "unusual request".
In his note, the foreman stated they wanted the "distinction between a fib and a lie" and also asked how they should interpret the phrase "in substance", which is in the first question they have to answer: "Is the allegation complained of by the plaintiff in substance true?"
After further legal discussions, Mr Justice French told the jury it had to decide what the words mean. "Both words are contained in the article and must be read in their context. They are words in everyday use and what matters is how you understand them and not what a dictionary tells you they mean," he said.
Turning to their second question, the judge advised them that the "sting" of the alleged libel had to be proved by the Sunday Times.
At 2.25 p.m., after more than 13 hours of deliberations, Mr Justice French called the jury back into Court 13 to state he was prepared to accept a majority verdict because "quite some time had now gone by".
"Do your very best to all agree but if you don't succeed, and 10 of you agree, then I can receive that verdict," he said.
Two hours later, the jury was sent home for the night after the foreman indicated that it had neither reached a unanimous verdict nor one on which 10 agreed.
Mr Reynolds, who is still taking painkillers after injuring his arm in a fall last week, spoke briefly to a number of well wishers as he left the court.