Retrial sought essentially on basis of misdirection of jury

For the fourth day the parties gathered in the court, and yesterday Mr Reynolds's lawyer, Mr Andrew Caldecott QC, began his appeal…

For the fourth day the parties gathered in the court, and yesterday Mr Reynolds's lawyer, Mr Andrew Caldecott QC, began his appeal against the decision by the jury after the six-week hearing in November 1996.

The jury found that the words in an article in November 1994, at the time of the collapse of the Fianna Fail/Labour coalition government, were defamatory but awarded zero damages. The judge made an award of 1p.

Since Tuesday the three judges, Lord Chief Justice Bingham, Lord Justice Hirst and Lord Justice Robert-Walker have been hearing an appeal by the Sunday Times against the judge's ruling that qualified privilege did not apply to the article in question.

Lord Lester QC, for the newspaper, concluded his reply on the question at lunchtime yesterday, arguing that common law should be developed so "we are on good speaking terms with other jurisdictions".

READ MORE

He said journalism would become more responsible, because in cases where qualified privilege was the defence, the journalist had to give details of notes and research. They did not have to give those details where fair comment was claimed.

Mr James Price QC, the lawyer who represented the newspaper in the trial, then returned to court to take over in the defence of Mr Reynolds's appeal.

Mr Caldecott then began Mr Reynolds' case, saying there would be three appeals. The first was that Mr Reynolds would be seeking a retrial essentially on the basis of misdirection by the judge at the libel trial.

The second would be in relation to the award of 1p, and the third would be an appeal on costs, he said.

Mr Reynolds was made liable for costs of about £800,000 after the libel trial, as his award for damages did not reach the newspaper's £5,005 offer.

Mr Caldecott said he would be arguing the first appeal and not taking them all together.

He said the court would not be deciding the merits of the case. The judges would only be deciding whether or not the trial was vitiated by a miscarriage of justice and whether the case was fairly put.

The article complained of was in the Sunday Times in November 1994 and had stated that Mr Reynolds had lied to the Dail. This the jury found was libellous.

The questions in the Dail arose over the delay in extraditing the paedophile priest, Brendan Smyth.

Mr Reynolds has been present throughout the hearings in the Court of Appeal with his solicitor, Ms Pamela Cassidy, and other members of his legal team. He has said he intends to attend the rest of the appeal, which is expected to continue until next Friday.

The case was adjourned until Monday.