Magee v MGN Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 14 November 2003
• Date: 14 November 2003
• Docket Number: Rec. No. 2001 12443p
• Court: High Court

BETWEEN

PATRICK MAGEE

PLAINTIFF

AND

M.G.N. LIMITED

DEFENDANT

Rec. No. 2001 12443p

THE HIGH COURT

Abstract:

Libel - Defamation - Practice and procedure - Litigation - Abuse of process - Role of jury in defamation proceedings - Allegations made against former IRA bomber - Whether proceedings were an abuse of process - Whether proceedings should be struck out.

Facts: The plaintiff had instituted libel proceedings against the defendants arising out of an article which appeared in a newspaper 'The Sunday Mirror'. The article claimed that the plaintiff, a former IRA bomber, was opposed to the peace process and intended to kill Gerry Adams. The plaintiff asserted that the article was implying the plaintiff intended to obstruct the Peace Process, intended on using violence against the British and considered that the Peace Process was a surrender. The defendant brought an application, seeking to have the action struck out on the basis that the proceedings were an abuse of process. It was submitted that the article could not have defamed the plaintiff as he had no reputation which could be lowered in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. The plaintiff was a mass murderer and by his own actions had held himself up to public hatred, odium and contempt and accordingly had no cause of action. The plaintiff asserted that the allegations made against him were completely untrue, he was an enthusiastic supporter of the Peace Process and was involved as a voluntary worker in a reconciliation programme.

Held by McKechnie J in dismissing the application. Given the constitutional right of access to the courts and the desirability of there being a judicial determination on the merits of every case a claim could not be dismissed in its infancy unless the Court was fully satisfied that it was bound to fail. The Court must accept the plaintiff's contention that he is an active subscriber to the Peace Process and his involvement in a reconciliation programme was evidence of this. Given the crucial role that a jury plays in a libel action it could not be concluded with certainty that right thinking members of society would not, despite the plaintiff's past, find in his favour. The application would be refused.

Reporter: R.F.

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice William M. McKechnie delivered the 14th day of November, 2003.

2 1. In this action for libel the plaintiff alleges that on the 11th July, 1999, in a newspaper entitled "The Sunday Mirror" the defendant, as part of a number of articles, falsely and maliciously published certain words which, in their context, including a photograph of Mr. Gerry Adams and Mr. Magee, were defamatory of him.

3 2. The words complained of, under the heading;

4 "Terror dossier sensation.

5 I'll kill Adams:

6 Chilling vow by IRA Brighton Bomber Magee"

7 which are set out in the appendix to the statement of claim are as follows:

8 "APPENDIX

9 IRA master bomber, Patrick "Mad Dog" Magee has threatened to kill Gerry Adams for "surrendering" to the peace process...

10 As republican leaders negotiated a peace deal, Magee mocked the ceasefire saying

11 'The Brits only understand bombs'...

12 Some terrorists released under the Good Friday Agreement, like Magee, are still dedicated to the bomb and bullet... ...

13 Even as his political brothers battled for peace, Patrick Magee and his fellow terrorists housed in the Belmarsh's Secure Segregation Unit continued to wage their war of violence...

14 The sensational leaked dossier shows Magee's arrogant defiance and will confirm Ulster Unionists' distrust as they seek a new peace deal on the disarmament issue...

15 Described as a man of exceptional cruelty and inhumanity, he was freed last month...

16 Another section details how Magee appeared frustrated as the peace plans were negotiated. In an entry dated June 12th 1996 a prison officer wrote 'Magee seems agitated about the peace talks taking place'. Said to PO***** (a prison officer)

17 'You're a soldier like me but on the other side. How would you feel if your leaders surrendered after you had risked all for them...'

18 On the same day Magee was reported for threatening a prison Officer. Magee threatened officer ***** over exercise. Later he stated to PO ***** 'I always carry out my promises. If I ever get out I'll finish the job whatever

19 Adams says' .... Wife said she was being pressurised by [them] for Magee to end the dirty protest' (This seems to show how isolated from the other IRA prisoners he has become... ...)

20 He complained about the cowardly bastards who have lost their way...

21 Later that year he threatened another prison officer, apparently warning him 'When the boys back home hear what's going on they will use Ak 47s to shoot the prison officers...'

22 ...he states 'there will be a ceasefire.' He does not agree. And he wrote 'the only thing the Brits understand is bombs..

23 Magee was locked up at Belmarsh after an escape attempt with fellow I.R.A. inmate...

24 Later officers reported 'Magee heard about a bomb incident in Tyrone, Magee said Adams had been against it and had now lost control. They seemed happy about this news...'

25 Magee and all members of the IRA bombing gangs were placed under round the clock scrutiny and had their phonecalls tapped."

26 3. It is claimed that these words in their ordinary and natural meaning and/or by implication and/or by innuendo meant and were understood to mean the following:

• (a) That plaintiff was opposed to the Northern Ireland Peace Process and had voiced objections to same.

• (b) That the plaintiff had threatened to kill and or harm Mr. Gerry Adams.

• (c) That the plaintiff was attempting to undermine the Peace Process.

• (d) That the plaintiff had intimidated and/or intended to intimidate Mr. Gerry Adams so as to undermine his efforts in the Peace Process and obstruct same.

• (e) That the plaintiff had mocked the Peace Process.

• (f) That the plaintiff had stated that bombs and violence were the only way to deal with the British.

• (g) That the plaintiff had stated that the British only understood bombs.

• (h) That the plaintiff intended to use violence against the British during the Peace Process.

  (i) That the plaintiff was dedicated to the use of violence and weapons and bombs following his release from prison pursuant to the Good Friday Agreement.

• (j) That the plaintiff should not have been released from prison.

• (k) That whilst his colleagues or political allies within the Republican Movement were promoting peace the plaintiff continued and encouraged a campaign of violence.

  (1) That the plaintiff attempted to obstruct the Peace Process.

• (m) That the plaintiff was dangerous and in particular a danger to the Peace Process.

• (n) That the plaintiff was inciting violence and undermining the Peace Process.

• (o) That the plaintiff was defiant towards the republican leaders and those involved in promoting peace.

• (p) That the plaintiff was arrogant.

• (q) That the plaintiff was frustrated by the fact that peace was being negotiated.

• (r) That the plaintiff considered that the Peace Process was a surrender.

• (s) That the plaintiff had threatened a number of prison officers in Belmarsh prison.

• (t) That the plaintiff was engaged in a dirty protest against the Peace Process.

• (u) That the plaintiff had referred to negotiators of the Peace Process as "cowardly bastards".

  (v) That the plaintiff was a vengeful man who stated that he 'had... a lot of scores to settle.'

• (w) That the plaintiff was associated with people who engaged in drug taking.

27 4. In addition to the aforesaid meaning it is claimed that the plaintiff was released under the Good Friday Agreement and at the time of the said publication was committed to and was involved in promoting the Peace Process and was and was seen to work along side political leaders in that said process. By reason of these facts the said words are alleged to have the following additional innuendos:

• (i) That the plaintiff was pretending to promote peace whilst being opposed to same.

• (ii) That the plaintiff was obstructing the Peace Process from within the negotiation process itself

• (iii) That the plaintiff was being dishonest with his fellow republicans.

• (iv) That the plaintiff was working alongside Gerry Adams whilst intending to kill him.

• (v) That the plaintiff was not committed to the Peace Process.

28 5. It is said that these words in the context as pleaded are defamatory of the plaintiff in that he has been subject to public scandal, hatred, ridicule and contempt, and/or that he has been lowered in the estimation of right thinking people, and in particular that within the republican movement his credit and reputation has been seriously damaged. He claims damages therefor.

29 6. The defendant, M.G.N. Ltd., without filing a defence, has issued a notice of motion wherein it seeks, pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of this court, an order striking out or dismissing or permanently staying these proceedings on the grounds that the same are an abuse of process. It so claims by alleging that the action is clearly unsustainable, is bound to fail, is frivolous and/or vexatious, and/or that no cause of action has been disclosed or established.

30 7. In support of its application, a Mr. James A. O'Leary, described as "in house counsel" to the defendant, swore two affidavits dated respectively the 26th June and 2nd August, 2002. The essence of the evidence emerging from these affidavits is as follows:

• (a) On 12th October, 1984, a bomb exploded in the Grand Hotel, Brighton, which atrocity subsequently became known as "The Brighton Bombing". At that time the Conservative Party was holding its annual conference at this venue and thus many senior members of the British Government, the...