Amy O'Brien v Independent Star Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Cian Ferriter |
| Judgment Date | 26 November 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] IEHC 743 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [2016 5411 P] |
[2021] IEHC 743
[2016 5411 P]
THE HIGH COURT
Defamatory meanings – Strike out – Defamatory imputations – Defendant seeking to strike out various defamatory meanings – Whether the defamatory meanings were reasonably capable of bearing the defamatory imputations contended for by the plaintiff
Facts: The plaintiff, Ms O’Brien, issued High Court proceedings on 17th June, 2016 claiming damages for defamation. The defendant, Independent Star Ltd, applied for an order pursuant to s. 14 (1)(a) of the Defamation Act 2009 to strike out various defamatory meanings contended for by the plaintiff in respect of an article appearing in the defendant’s Irish Daily Star newspaper on 27th April, 2016, on the basis that none of those meanings were reasonably capable of bearing the defamatory imputations contended for by the plaintiff.
Held by Ferriter J that the meanings at paragraphs 9(d) to (g) and 10(d) to (g) of the Statement of Claim strayed outside the boundaries of the possible range of meanings that might be ascribed thereto by the reasonable reader: (d) the plaintiff is a gangland criminal and/or a member of a gangland criminal feud (paragraph 9(d))/the plaintiff is a member of a criminal gang (paragraph 10(d)); (e) the plaintiff is amenable to an approach by criminal elements in order to carry out serious criminal acts such as murder; (f) the plaintiff is someone with a propensity to carry out serious criminal acts such as murder for and on behalf of criminal gangs; (g) the plaintiff is associated with and/or connected with criminal gangs to the point that the said criminal gangs can and have in fact asked her to commit an act of murder on their behalf.
Ferriter J proposed striking out the meanings at paragraphs 9(d) to (g) and 10(d) to (g) of the Statement of Claim by way of order pursuant to s. 14 (1)(a) of the 2009 Act. Ferriter J held that the effect of this order was that the proceedings, if they ultimately proceeded to trial, would involve the trial only of the remaining pleaded meanings being the following meanings (whether by way of natural and ordinary meaning and/or by way of innuendo): (a) the plaintiff is a criminal; (b) the plaintiff is involved in serious criminal activity; (c) the plaintiff has involvement with and/or links with gangland criminals/that the plaintiff has involvement with and/or links with criminal gangs; (h) the plaintiff has and in the circumstances close links with and/or ties to the said criminal gangs.
Application granted in part.
Judgment of Mr. Justice Cian Ferriter delivered on the 26th day of November 2021
This is an application by the Defendant for an order pursuant to s.14 (1) (a) of the Defamation Act, 2009 to strike out various defamatory meanings contended for by the Plaintiff in respect of an article appearing in the Defendant's Irish Daily Star newspaper on 27th April, 2016, on the basis that none of those meanings is reasonably capable of bearing the defamatory imputations contended for by the Plaintiff.
The article was published in the Irish Daily Star on Wednesday 27th April, 2016 on the front page and over the course of the following pages 2, 3, 4 and 5. The front page is headed (under the strapline “ Gangland Exclusive”) “ Kinahans: we'll kill 15 more” and then in a sub- heading “ Cartel draws up hit list of Hutch rivals”. The main article then continues on pages 2 and 3. The strapline across the top of these two pages reads “ War on street: mob vow to kill again” and contains a picture of a man in a balaclava pointing a pistol.
The main headline, across these two pages is “ Kinahans to wipe out 15 more Hutch men”.
Underneath that headline is the heading “ So who's in the firing line?!” A number of individuals are then featured either by name or alias in some eight smaller panels underneath that headline. One of the individuals identified is “Keith Murtagh”. There is a picture of Mr. Murtagh and a box panel underneath that which reads:
“The 32-year-old convicted criminal from north inner city Dublin was the real intended target of the hit that saw innocent Martin O'Rourke killed by mistake — and the Kinahans' killers are still coming for him”.
The body of the article under the bye-line “ Exclusive, Michael O'Toole crime correspondent”, starts on page 2 with the paragraph: “ The Kinahan drugs cartel has drawn up a hit list of fifteen more people and five more people it wants to murder in its deadly feud with the rival Hutch gang, it has emerged.” The article goes on to state that “the Kinahan gang have compiled a list of fifteen targets on the Hutch side – and want them all dead.” The article says that “ sources told The Star the mob drew up a list after carrying out its own extensive investigations into the Hutch gang attack on the Regency Airport Hotel in February – in which leading cartel member David Byrne (33) was shot dead”.
The article further states that: “ Sources say the Kinahans believe they have identified all of the six-strong gun gang as well as six other people involved, including spotters and get away drivers. They have also identified people involved in planning the attack.”
In a paragraph highlighted in bold in the body of the article, it states as follows: “ The Kinahans also planned to kill the key Hutch associate who was dressed up as a woman in the attack – as well as convicted criminal Keith Murtagh who was a target of the botched hit this month that saw innocent Martin O'Rourke (24) shot by mistake”.
The last paragraph of the substantive article (which appears on the bottom right hand corner of page 2 of the newspaper) is headed (in bold) “Help”. This section of the article contains two paragraphs and reads as follows:
“Meanwhile, The Star has also learned that the Kinahans have now threatened a woman who fled Ireland over her relationship with one of the men on their hit list.
She was contacted while she was outside Europe and told she had to help the Kinahans kill her partner – or she would be killed herself.”
The Plaintiff issued High Court proceedings on 17th June, 2016 claiming damages for defamation in respect of the contents of the article. She delivered her Statement of Claim on 23rd June, 2016, with her affidavit of verification being sworn the day before, 22nd June, 2016.
Although the Plaintiff is not named in the article, she pleads that she is identifiable from the contents of the article and that the two paragraphs under the heading “Help” (as set out above) were intended to and do in fact refer to her.
The Plaintiff pleads that “ she can and has been identified as the woman referred to in the article by persons who possess the following knowledge of and concerning the plaintiff:
-
(a) That the plaintiff has been in a relationship with the Keith Murtagh referred to and named and identified in the said article.
-
(b) That the said Murtagh has been expressly identified and named by the Defendant as an intended target of the Kinahan gang and has been on the aforementioned hit list.
-
(c) That the plaintiff has been outside of Europe in that the plaintiff has been in Australia.”
The Plaintiff pleads (statement of claim, paragraph 8) that the relevant paragraphs in the article are false in that she did not flee the country, she has not been threatened by the Kinahan gang, and that she has not been asked by the Kinahans to kill her partner.
She then pleads, at paragraph 9 of her Statement of Claim, that the publication of the article is defamatory “ in that the said statements and in particular the statement that the plaintiff has been asked by members of the Kinahan gang to kill her partner in their natural and ordinary meaning mean and are understood to mean that:
-
a) The Plaintiff is a criminal.
-
b) The Plaintiff is involved in serious criminal activity.
-
c) The Plaintiff has involvement with and/or links with gangland criminals.
-
d) The Plaintiff is a gangland criminal and/or a member of a gangland criminal feud
-
e) The Plaintiff is amenable to an approach by criminal elements in order to carry out serious criminal acts such as murder.
-
f) The Plaintiff is someone with a propensity to carry out serious criminal acts such as murder on behalf of criminal gangs.
-
g) The Plaintiff is associated with and/or connected with criminal gangs to the point that the said criminal gangs can and have in fact asked her to commit an act of murder on their behalf.
-
h) The Plaintiff has and in the circumstances close link with and/or ties to the said criminal gangs.”
At paragraph 10 of her Statement of Claim, the Plaintiff pleads that:
“Alternatively, the aforementioned false statements by innuendo mean and/or are understood to mean:
a) That the Plaintiff is a criminal.
b) That the Plaintiff is involved in serious criminal activity.
c) That the Plaintiff has involvement with and/or links with criminal gangs
d) That the Plaintiff is a member of a criminal gang.
e) That the Plaintiff is amenable to an approach by criminal elements and in order to carry out serious criminal acts such as murder.
f) That the Plaintiff has a propensity to carry out serious criminal acts such as murder for and on behalf of criminal gangs.
g) That the Plaintiff is associated with and/or connected with criminal gangs to the point that the said criminal gangs can and have in fact asked her to commit an act of murder on their behalf.
h) That the Plaintiff has and in the circumstances close links with and/or ties to the said criminal gangs.”
The Plaintiff in her Statement of Claim goes on to plead as follows:
“[13] Further by reason of the publication of the said statements the Plaintiff has suffered loss and damage.
[14] The Plaintiff also claims aggravated and punitive...
To continue reading
Request your trial