It was probably inevitable once the Sunday Independent determined to fight the libel action of Proinsias De Rossa to the end that the cost of losing would be punitive. The cumulative cost of the series of hearings plus the award to Mr De Rossa must now be borne by Independent Newspapers. It may run close to £1.5 million, perhaps more.
These sums represent the largest set of costs ever incurred in a libel case in this jurisdiction. Even on the scale of Independent Newspapers's turnover and profits, they are considerable. Independent Newspapers and Mr De Rossa alike saw this case as a test. Even Mr De Rossa's political opponents will acknowledge the dogged resolution with which he has pursued the case, regardless of the price he might have been expected to pay in cash, in stress and in reputation. Equally, Independent Newspapers had determined to take a stand on principle and they must be given credit for that. They believed in their journalist, Mr Eamon Dunphy, and in their editorial executives and stood over their right to express themselves as they saw best.
Potential litigants may be encouraged, indeed tempted by this outcome. They could be foolish if they sought to follow suit. There is a great deal of the lottery about such proceedings. This jury found for Mr De Rossa. A previous one failed to reach agreement and was discharged.
Other revelations, in another forum, have shown in recent weeks how essential it is for the media to have freedom to comment and to explore the activities of politicians. Mr De Rossa has won his case and his reputation has been vindicated before the High Court. But there remains a myriad of questions to be clarified about the years of transition during which the political evolution of the old Official Sinn Fein/IRA occurred. We are hardly any wiser at the end of all this about what actually happened in Moscow when the infamous Moscow letter was penned.
Mr De Rossa may not wish it; but the scale of the damages awarded to him will invariably inhibit trenchant but responsible comment and the pursuit of investigative journalism. In some instances, it might also skewer journalistic priorities towards less contentious material. Invariably, the scale of Mr De Rossa's award will revive debate about reform of the libel laws. From what one can gauge, there appears to be little appetite among the politicians for such reform. All of the political parties have made soothing noises while in opposition about the necessity of reform. But there still has been no move by Government on the libel laws, notwithstanding recommendations for change by the Law Reform Commission and the fact that a draft Bill was presented by the newspapers. There is a tendency among the political class to see reform of the libel laws as an issue pursued by the media for their own commercial reasons. But this is disingenuous and unfair. Reform of the libel laws is necessary, above all, to protect and safeguard the public interest.