A High Court jury yesterday awarded damages of £250 to the Fianna Fβil organiser, Mr Sean Sherwin, after it found he was defamed in an article published by the Sunday Independent.
Independent Newspapers plc, publisher of the Sunday Independent, is expected to argue that Mr Sherwin should get only minimum costs following the award.
Total costs in the 11-day hearing are estimated to be close to £500,000, and submissions on who should foot the legal bill will be argued next Wednesday.
The questions to the answers on the order paper which were completed by the jury were read out by the judge. In the answer to the final question, to assess damages, the judge first read out the figure "£250,000". There were gasps in the courtroom, and some jurors indicated that was not the correct sum. The judge then read out the correct figure, "£250".
Mr Sherwin (54), of Cappaghmore, Clondalkin, Dublin, brought his action over a front-page article in the Sunday Independent by political editor Jody Corcoran on February 19th, 1999. The article was headlined: "FF organiser sought election cash for his sister-in-law: Gilmartin". A sub-headline stated: "Sean Sherwin admits introducing US businessman but denies asking for money".
Mr Sherwin claimed the article meant he had solicited money from a property developer, Mr Tom Gilmartin, for his sister-in-law, Ms Catherine Sherwin. Ms Sherwin was an unsuccessful candidate in contested local elections in 1990. Mr Sherwin claimed the article was false and damaging to him.
The lengthy article carried a statement from Mr Sherwin in the course of which it was said that Sean Sherwin did not solicit money from Tom Gilmartin for Catherine Sherwin. The statement also said Mr Sherwin did not recall introducing Mr Gilmartin to an American businessman.
Independent Newspapers plc denied the words complained of bore or were understood to bear the meanings claimed. Without prejudice to that denial, it also pleaded the words in the article were true in substance and in fact and denied that Mr Sherwin was damaged in his character as national organiser or was brought into public contempt.
Asked if the words bore or were understood by the readers to mean that Mr Sherwin wrongfully solicited money from Mr Gilmartin for his sister-in-law, the jury answered Yes.
However, it found the article did not mean and was not understood to mean that Mr Sherwin was prepared to exert a political influence in return for a donation from Mr Gilmartin for Mr Sherwin's sister-in-law; did not mean that he sought money from Mr Gilmartin for his personal use in return for introducing Mr Gilmartin to a US businessman; did not mean that Mr Sherwin was aware that Mr Gilmartin gave a US businessman £40,000 in circumstances which made it clear to Mr Sherwin that Mr Gilmartin was being treated as a "sucker"; and did not mean that Mr Sherwin by seeking money from Mr Gilmartin abused his position as national organiser of Fianna Fβil.
The jury had then to consider if the words which meant that Mr Sherwin wrongfully solicited money from Mr Gilmartin for his sister-in-law were "substantially true in substance and in fact". They answered No. Question 3 asked the jury to assess damages, which they put at £250.