Seamus Griffin v Sunday Newspaper Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Kearns P.
• Judgment Date: 09 August 2011
• Neutral Citation: [2011] IEHC 331
• Date: 09 August 2011
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [2010 No. 6827 P]

[2011] IEHC 331

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 6827 P/2010]

Griffin v Sunday Newspapers Ltd

BETWEEN

SEAMUS GRIFFIN

PLAINTIFF

AND

SUNDAY NEWSPAPERS LTD

DEFENDANT

Abstract:

Practice and procedure - Defamation - Defamation Act, 2009 - Whether the plaintiff's claim ought to be narrowed down - Whether certain imputations ascribed to the article were not reasonably capable of bearing the defamatory meaning contended for by the plaintiff.

Facts The plaintiff, who was a former member of the Irish Army claimed damages for defamation arising from the publication by the defendant of an article in the Sunday World. The defendant herein brought an application pursuant to section 14(1)(a) of the Defamation Act, 2009 seeking to whittle down the scope of the plaintiff's claim on the basis that certain imputations ascribed to the article were not reasonably capable of bearing the defamatory meaning contended for by the plaintiff. The article essentially identified the plaintiff as the subject of an investigation by the Irish army's Special Investigation Branch into the purchasing of black market arms from South Africa for the Seychelles. In a statement of claim containing 9 paragraphs summarised hereinafter, it was contended that, in their natural and ordinary meaning, the said article and accompanying pictures meant and were understood to mean that the plaintiff was involved in the illegal purchase of black market arms, that he improperly took leave of absence from the Army to give weapons training, that he was training members of an armed police squad in the Seychelles to act as assassins and also training them in the use of lethal force with illegal, black market weapons, that the plaintiff was working at a lucrative secondary job which conflicted with his primary employment as an Army Ranger, that he was involved in activities which were deeply embarrassing to the Irish Army and that he was forced to retire from the Irish Army due to his involvement in a 'double jobbing' scandal. It was contended at paragraphs (f) and (i) that the article and pictures were understood to mean the plaintiff was the subject of a major military investigation and that there were substantial grounds for believing that the plaintiff had acted in the manner described in the aforementioned paragraphs. The defendant invited this court to dismiss the plaintiff's claim insofar as it related to all paragraphs with the exception of paragraphs (f) and (i). It was submitted on behalf of the defendant that the article made clear at all times that there was a military investigation underway and such a statement could not be equated by an fair-minded reader as meaning that the plaintiff was guilty of the sort of wrongdoing pleaded in the paragraphs of the statement of claim.

Held by Kearns P. in granting the relief sought by the defendant: That the real test for the court was whether the result of the whole article was calculated to injure the plaintiff's character. Having regard to the principles outlined by Lord Reid in the case of Lewis v. Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] A.C.234 concerning reports about ongoing inquiries or investigations and also those outlined in the cases of McGarth v. Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd. [2004] 2 I.R. 465, and Mapp v. Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd. [1998] Q.B. 520 and Charleston v. Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd. [1995] 2 A.C. 65 the plaintiff was not entitled to contend that the meanings contained in the imputations were that he was actually guilty of such behaviour. The article contained many statements to the effect that "allegations" only had been raised, allegations which remained to be proved. Consequently, while a reasonable reader might well take the view that there were grounds for suspicion, he could not, or should not be permitted, to leap from that conclusion to one of guilt.

Reporter: L.O'S.

1 JUDGMENT of Kearns P. delivered the 9th day of August, 2011.

2 The plaintiff is a former member of the Irish Army and in these proceedings claims damages for defamation arising from the publication by the defendant of an article in the Sunday World in its edition dated 27 ^th June, 2010. However, the present application is one brought by the defendant pursuant to s. 14 (1) (a) of the Defamation Act 2009 which seeks to narrow or whittle down the scope of the plaiintiff's claim on the basis that certain imputations ascribed to the article are not reasonably capable of bearing the defamatory meaning contended for by the plaintiff.

3 The relevant section of the Defamation Act 2009 provides as follows:

4 2 "14.-(1) The court, in a defamation action, may give a ruling-

5 (a) as to whether the statement in respect of which the action was brought is reasonably capable of bearing the imputation pleaded by the plaintiff, and

6 (b) (where the court rules that the statement is reasonably capable of bearing that imputation) as to whether that imputation is reasonably capable of bearing a defamatory meaning,

7 upon an application being made to it in that behalf

8 (2) Where a court rules under subsection (1) that -

9 (a) the statement in respect of which the action was brought is not reasonably capable of bearing the imputation pleaded by the plaintiff or

10 (b) that any imputation so pleaded is not reasonably capable of bearing a defamatory meaning,

11 it shall dismiss the action insofar only as it relates to the imputation concerned.

12 (3) An application made under this section shall be brought by notice of motion and shall be determined, in the case of a defamation action brought in the High Court, in the absence of the jury.

13 (4) An application under this section may be brought at any time after the bringing of the defamation action concerned including during the course of the trial of the action."

THE ARTICLE

14 On pages 10 and 11 of the edition of the Sunday World newspaper dated 27 ^th June, 2010, an article appeared under the headings "Exclusive/Members of Elite Unit Moonlighting in War on Somali gangs" and, in even larger lettering, "Spooks in Paradise" with a subheading which read "Irish Army rangers at the centre of a row over training of Seychelles police unit known as 'The Assassins'".

15 Beneath the headings in question were, on page 10, photographs of two men in military attire, one carrying what might be a Kalashnikov rifle and the other, identified as the plaintiff, holding a small child in his arms. Black rectangular squares mask the eyes of both men. Below the headings on page 11 various pictures appear which purport to depict Somali pirates in action above a photograph showing a beach view of the Seychelles. To the right of these photographs, at the extreme right of page 11, appears a further photograph of a person referred to as a "Somali pirate" who is photographed holding a number of guns above a heading "Pirate gangs strike fear on African coast" which constitutes the heading for a further short column by Niall Donald.

16 The article complained of by the plaintiff was written by Nicola Tallant, described as "Investigations Editor" and is in the following terms:

"It has all the elements of a Bond movie or a best-selling crime thriller."

17 Bugs are found by a team of spooks in the offices of the future president of a paradise island nation.

18 Moonlighting special forces troops are called in from abroad to train a police squad dubbed 'The Assassins' and help them battle 21 ^st century piracy on the High seas.

19 And now, as former allies fall out amid a battle for lucrative security contracts, political and military investigations have been launched to get to the bottom of the whole sensational story.

20 But this drama has not been playing out on a movie screen near you. It's the extraordinary real plot of a story unfolding in the sun-soaked Seychelles in the Indian Ocean involving Ireland's elite Army Ranger Wing, a spy firm from Athlone called the 'CIA' and ruthless Somali pirates.

21 A major military investigation is underway into allegations that members of the elite Army Ranger Wing took leave of absence to give weapons training on the island to a squad of armed police nicknamed 'The Assassins'.

22 The Irish army's Special Investigation Branch is also probing allegations that one or more of the trio, Seamus Griffin, Mark 'Fred' Conlon and Mark McEneany, was involved in purchasing black market arms from South Africa for the Seychelles.

Scandal

23 The 'double jobbing' scandal would be deeply embarrassing for the army if any of the allegations are proved.

24 The officers have also been named in a sensational High Court case in Dublin where they are being sued by private investigation firm, Confidential Investigations Athlone (CIA).

25 They are named in the action along with a retired army sergeant Niall Scully, and an ex-military intelligence officer Declan Barber.s

26 Scully is currently heading up the Seychelles police drug squad. Along with Barber he owns Aver International Limited, an Irish based security company with a staff of 12, which is also named on the writ.

27 It is understood that the case involves a row over a multi-million euro contract with the Seychelles President, James Michel.

28 Michel first employed CIA to sweep his office for bugs in the run up to the elections in the Indian Ocean state back in 2005.

29 The Sunday World understands that highly trained 'spooks' employed by the company did indeed find listening devices deep in the walls of his building despite nothing turning up in earlier sweeps by both the real CIA and Israeli intelligence personnel

30 Since his election President Michel, who was educated by Irish nuns, has formed strong links with ex-Irish soldiers, retired gardaí and justice experts who have been taking up lucrative...