A LIBEL action against the Rev Ian Paisley and Ulster Television was settled yesterday after the TV company apologised to a Co Tyrone farmer and agreed to pay him damages of about £20,000.
The action was brought in the High Court in Belfast by Mr Michael Kelly (44), of Loughbracken Road, Pomeroy, after a Counterpoint programme on April 29th, 1993.
The jury had been told on Monday that remarks made by Dr Paisley grossly defamed Mr Kelly by accusing him of being a "noted republican, an IRA man who assisted and encouraged the murder of one of his neighbours".
The programme dealt with the IRA's so called "ethnic cleansing" of Protestants from Border areas and followed the murder of an ex UDR man, David Martin.
Mr Kelly, described by his lawyer as a peace loving Catholic had been an unsuccessful bidder for land which came into Mr Martin's possession shortly before he was blown up by an IRA bomb.
Mr Kelly was not named in the programme by Dr Paisley who said "noted republicans" were out to get the farm and when they did not they threatened Mr Martin. "You'll never farm that land".
The court was told that the case against Dr Paisley had been discontinued. Mr Hugh Kennedy QC read a statement for UTV, in which he said that "UTV wish to make it clear that it had not been their intention to broadcast such suggestions and accept that the plaintiff is a person of impeccable character, that he has never been involved or associated with impropriety or illegality and that he has never been sympathetically disposed to those whose actions caused the death of Mr Martin.
"UTV unreservedly apologise to the plaintiff for any distress caused to him and the plaintiff agrees to accept substantial damages and compensation and the costs of this action."
Dr Paisley's barrister, Mr Stephen Shaw, said his client wished to confirm the statement bf regret issued by him to the Tyrone Courier and Mid Ulster Mail in June 1993.
Outside the court Dr Paisley said. "UTV have seen fit to pay damages and costs to the plaintiff and that is a matter entirely for them. For my part I have paid not a penny in either damages or costs and the plaintiff discontinued his action against me. This could well be an implied acknowledgment of his recognition that in saying what I did I never intended any derogatory, much less defamatory, sentiment against him.
"This I have consistently maintained and can only deplore the obdurate refusal of UTV to allow me to make this clear in the following Counterpoint programme.
Instead, he said, he had been forced to resort to local papers which reported his statement that he had no intention of imputing the smallest impropriety, much less illegality, to the unsuccessful bidders for the land. "I wish the plaintiff well," Dr Paisley added.