De Rossa v Independent Newspapers Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Hamilton C.J.,Hon. Mrs. Justice Denham. |
| Judgment Date | 30 July 1999 |
| Neutral Citation | [1999] IESC 63 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Date | 30 July 1999 |
[1999] IESC 63
THE SUPREME COURT
Hamilton C.J.
Denham J.
Barrington J.
Murphy J.
Lynch J.
BETWEEN:
and
Citations:
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 10
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3
CONSTITUTION ART 40.6.1.i
CONSTITUTION ART 50
JOHN V MGN LTD 1996 2 AER 35
BARRETT V INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS LTD 1986 IR 13
PHILLIPS V SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY CO 1879 4 QBD 406
RANTZEN V MIRROR GROUP NEWSPAPERS LTD 1993 4 AER 975
MILOSLAVSKY V UNITED KINGDOM (UK) 1995 20 EHRR 442
MCDONAGH V NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LTD UNREP SUPREME 23.11.1993 1993/13/4009
HILL V CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF TORONTO 1995 126 DLR (4d) 129
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.1
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.2
HYNES-O'SULLIVAN V O'DRISCOLL 1988 IR 436, 1989 ILRM 349
MURPHY V INDEPENDENT RADIO & TELEVISION COMMISSION (IRTC) 1997 2 ILRM 467
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6(1)
WARD V JAMES 1965 1 AER 563
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 10(2)
COURTS ACT 1988
CASSELL 7 CO LTD V BROOME 1972 1 AER 801
UREN V JOHN FAIRFAX & SONS PTY LTD 1967 117 CLR 118
PRAED V GRAHAM 1889 24 QBD 53
COURTS & LEGAL SERVICES ACT 1990 (UK)
GORMAN V MUDD UNREP 15.10.1992 TRANSCRIPT NO 1076 OF 1992
RANTZEN & HOUSTON V SMITH UNREP TRANSCRIPT NO 1544 OF 1993
GIRVAN V INVERNESS FARMERS DAIRY 1996 SCLR 294
NEW SOUTH WALES LAW REFORM COMMISSION REPORT (NO 75) (1995)
CARSON V JOHN FAIRFAX & SONS LTD 1993 178 CLR 44
TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LTD V QUINN 1996 3 NZLR 24
CRAMPTON V NUGAWELA 1996 41 NSWLR 176
MCCARTON TURKINGTON & BREEN V TIMES NEWSPAPERS LTD 1998 NI 358
Synopsis
Defamation
Libel; damages; plaintiff awarded £300,000 in damages by the High Court; whether damages excessive; whether larger awards ought to be subjected to more searching scrutiny by an appellate court than has been customary; whether award in this case was so high as to amount to a restriction or penalty on the freedom of expression of the defendant; defendant accepted that trial judge had instructed the jury in accordance with present practice; whether jury ought to be given more specific guidance as to what counsel and the trial judge consider to be appropriate levels of damages, and by way of comparison with awards made in personal injury and previous libel cases; Articles 40.3.1°, 40.3.2° and 40.6.1° of the Constitution; article 10, European Convention on Human Rights.
Held: The suggestion of figures would constitute an unjustifiable invasion of the province of the jury; there should not be any reference by way of comparison to awards in personal injury or other defamation cases; no special scrutiny of large awards is permissible; the award did not go beyond what a reasonable jury applying the law to all the relevant considerations could reasonably have awarded and was not disproportionate; the substantive law fulfils the obligations imposed by the Constitution and the Convention; appeal dismissed.
De Rossa v. Independent Newspapers plc - Supreme Court: Hamilton C.J., Denham J.*, Barrington J., Murphy J., Lynch J. (*dissenting)
30/07/1999 - [1999] 4 IR 432
The plaintiff had been awarded substantial damages in the sum of £300,000 in respect of a libel action taken against the respondent. The respondent appealed against the size of the award on various grounds. The respondent claimed that the level of damages itself was excessive. The respondent also alleged that although the trial judge's comments to the jury regarding the level of damages applicable were legally acceptable that the law in this regard was repugnant to the Constitution and that juries should receive more guidance in this area. It was also claimed that the award itself constituted an attack on the freedom of speech as set out under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights. The Supreme Court rejected the arguments made holding that serious allegations had been made against the plaintiff. The libel in question was serious and grave. The level of damages awarded could not be said to be disproportionate to the level of injury that the plaintiff had suffered. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Judgment handed down on the 30th day of July 1999by Hamilton C.J.
The appeal in this case arises out of an action brought by the above named Plaintiff/Respondent, Proinsias de Rossa T.D. of 39 Pinewood Crescent, Ballymun in the City of Dublin (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent), and in which he claimed damages for libel against the above named Defendant/Appellant, Independent Newspapers Plc. (hereinafter called the Appellant).
The defamatory matter complained of was alleged to have been contained in an article published by the Appellant in the issue of the Sunday Independent dated the 13th day of December, 1992, which said article was set forth in toto in the schedule annexed to the Statement of Claim delivered on behalf of the Respondent.
The said article was written by a well-known journalist, Eamon Dunphy and was printed in a prominent position under the title "Throwing good money at jobs is dishonest", in the said newspaper, which enjoys a large circulation.
The relevant portion of the said article is:-
"Irish society is divided. As the political parties manoeuvre to try to form a Government a clear picture has emerged, revealing the nature of our differences.
On one side of the argument are those who would find the idea of Democratic Left in cabinet acceptable. These people are prepared to ignore Democratic Left Leader Proinsias de Rossa's reference to the"special activities" which served to fund the Workers Party in the very recent past.
The "special activities" concerned were criminal. Among the crimes committed were armed robberies and forgery of currency.
The people engaged in this business occupied that twilight world where the line blurs between those who are common criminals and others of that ilk who would claim to be engaged in political activity.
This world is inhabited by myriad groups, some dealing in drugs, prostitution, protection rackets, crimes of which the weakest members of society are invariably the victims.
It is therefore, ironic, wickedly so, that a political party claiming to"care" for the workers should accept funding from"special activities" of a particularly nasty kind.
There is no doubt that elements of Proinsias de Rossa's Workers Party were involved in "special activities". What remains unproven is whether de Rossa knew about the source of his party's funds. There is evidence, strengthened by revelations in the Irish Times this week, that de Rossa was aware of what was going on.
If one is to allow him the benefit of the doubt, and why not, one must nevertheless, have some misgivings about those with whom he so recentlyassociated.
Justice demands that we welcome Democratic Left's recent conversion to decency and indeed, acknowledge that their Dail deputies are exemplary in the conduct of their work they engage in on behalf of theirconstituents.
Still, questions remain unanswered about the Workers Party's"special activities" phase, not to mention their willingness to embrace the Soviet Communist party long after the world knew about the brutal oppression that this and other Communist regimes visited on workers, intellectuals and others who would think and speak freely.
Proinsias de Rossa's political friends in the Soviet Union were no better than gangsters. The Communists ran labour camps. They wereanti-Semitic.
Men like Andre Sakharov and Vaclav Havel were persecuted. Citizens who attempted to flee this terror were murdered. In Berlin, the bodies left to rot in no man's land between tyranny and liberty. Is it really necessary to remind ourselves of those "specialactivities"?"
In the Statement of Claim delivered on behalf of the Respondent on the 10th day of September 1993 it was alleged at paragraph 4 that:-
"The said words, in their ordinary and natural meaning, further or in the alternative by innuendo, meant and were understood tomean:
(a) That the Plaintiff had confessed to special activities on the part of a political party of which he was the leader;
(b) That the Plaintiff was aware of the said specialactivities;
(c) That the Plaintiff tolerated the said specialactivities;
(d) That the said special activities were criminal innature;
(e) That the said criminal activities consisted of orincluded;
(i) armed robbery
(ii) forgery of currency
(iii) drug dealing
(iv) prostitution or the management of prostitutes forreward
(v) protection rackets.
(f) That the Plaintiff had knowingly accepted funding, or allowed his party to accept funding, derived from the aforementionedactivities;
(g) That the Plaintiff was knowingly party to such specialactivities;
(h) That the Plaintiff knowingly benefited from suchactivities;
(i) That the Plaintiff supported the running of labour camps, anti-Semitism, the persecution of intellectuals and politicians and the murder of citizens attempting to leave Communistdictatorships."
In the said Statement of Claim, it was alleged that as a result of the said publication, the Respondent had been injured in his character and reputation and had been exposed to odium, ridicule and contempt.
The Defence delivered on behalf of the Defendant on the 12th day of May, 1994 pleaded as follows:
2 "1. The defendant admits that it published of and concerning the plaintiff the words set out in the Schedule to the Statement of Claim, but denies that they were published falsely or maliciously as alleged or at all.
2. The defendant admits that the words complained of mean that the plaintiff was now leader of a party which had previously received funds raised as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kinsella v Kenmare Resources Plc
...view was one which was not shared in this jurisdiction at the time. Hamilton C.J. in his judgment in De Rossa v. Independent Newspapers [1999] IESC 63, [1999] 4 I.R. 342 stated that it would be an invasion of the province or domain of the jury if it was to be buried with figures suggested ......