Month: January 2011

Lowry fails in ruling on Smyth claim

Independent TD Michael Lowry arriving at the Moriarty Tribunal in Dublin Castle in April 2009. Photograph: Matt Kavanagh/The Irish Times

Related

• Smyth to fight Lowry application | 21/10/2010
• Judgment reserved in Lowry case | 17/12/2010

 

COLM KEENA Public Affairs Correspondent

Independent deputy for North Tipperary Michael Lowry has failed to get a summary ruling in a defamation case where he claimed journalist Sam Smyth had accused him of being a thief.

Judge Margaret Heneghan delivered judgment today in a case under the 2009 Defamation Act where Mr Lowry was seeking a summary ruling that comments by Smyth were defamatory, that Smyth had no reasonable defence to the comments, and that an order for a correction should be made.

In a hearing in December Smyth had argued that he had not called Mr Lowry a thief, but that he did believe the politician was a liar and a tax cheat.

Judge Heneghan said she had read through the exhibits attached to Smyth’s affidavit, which included matters to do with the McCracken and Moriarty tribunals, Mr Lowry’s dealings with Dunnes Stores, his personal statement to the Dáil in 1996, and the two publications that Mr Lowry is alleging were defamatory.

She said the question was whether it was “too far fetched” to believe Smyth had a defence. She had found it was not so. She did not find the material incompatible with the defences put forward. The matter would have to be resolved in a full hearing, she said.

Smyth had argued that he could defend himself on the grounds of truth, honest opinion and fair and reasonable comment.

During an appearance last year on the TV3 programme Tonight with Vincent Browne  Smyth had said: “The first that we caught sort, on video with hand in till was Michael Lowry.”

He later said he was referring to Mr Lowry being engaged in tax fraud.

In an article in the Irish Independent  around the same time he referred to the Moriarty tribunal investigating property transactions with a total value of £5 million sterling, in the context of its inquiries into the 1995 mobile phone licence competition.

Mr Lowry said the comment on TV3 was understood to mean that he was a thief, a corrupt politician, was unfit to be a TD and was dishonest and untrustworthy. Thief apart, he made identical claims about the Irish Independent  article.

He was not in court. When Smyth’s counsel Eoin McCullough SC asked for costs, Mr Lowry’s counsel, Michael Giblin SC, said he would like to discuss the ruling with is client. Judge Heneghan adjourned the matter of costs to a date to be decided.

The 2009 Defamation Act introduced a mechanism whereby defamation cases could be tried summarily in situations where the court found there was no arguable defence.

 

Lowry defamation case proceeds to full hearing

Updated: 13:31, Monday, 31 January 2011

 A Circuit Court judge has rejected an application by Independent TD Michael Lowry for a summary judgment for defamation against journalist Sam Smyth.

1 of 1

Michael Lowry – Says article inferred that he was a corrupt politician

Related Stories

• Lowry begins defamation case against Smyth
• Michael Lowry’s defamation action is adjourned

A Circuit Court judge has rejected an application by Independent TD Michael Lowry for a summary judgment for defamation against journalist Sam Smyth.

Circuit Court Judge Margaret Heneghan today accepted Mr Smyth’s contention that he has an arguable defence to the allegation by Mr Lowry and that the case could proceed to a full hearing.

Mr Lowry had sought a summary ruling in the Circuit Court under the 2009 Defamation Act.

However, Judge Heneghan said Mr Lowry had not established that Mr Smyth had no defence.

The case centres on comments made by Mr Smyth concerning the McCracken and Moriarty tribunals and their inquiries into matters relating to Mr Lowry’s finances.

Mr Lowry alleges that Mr Smyth made false and defamatory remarks about him in an article in the Irish Independent last May and a month later on the Tonight with Vincent Browne programme on TV3.

Mr Lowry claims that the Irish Independent article inferred that he was a corrupt politician and that it was a false and malicious article.

He claims that on the TV3 programme, Mr Smyth made a comment that implied he was a thief.

Mr Smyth is standing over his comments, arguing that they were true and based on his honest opinion.

31
01
2011

The Court of Appeal today handed down judgment in the case of JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd ([2011] EWCA 42).  In allowing the appeal against the order of Tugendhat J ([2010] EWHC 2818 (QB)) the Court ordered that the claimant’s anonymity should be restored.  Although the Court stressed that each decision is fact sensitive, this approach seems likely to be followed in most types of privacy injunction cases.  This eagerly awaited decision adds to the growing body of case law concerning reporting restrictions where an injunction has been granted to restrain publication of information about a claimant’s private life.

The JIH judgment makes interesting reading for two reasons. First, it contains an important discussion about the ways in which reporting restrictions should be tailored in order to best serve the public interest in open justice whilst still providing adequate protection for the parties’ Article 8 rights. Recognising that there is a usually tension between disclosing the identity of the parties to a claim and disclosing the nature of the information that is the subject of the claim, the court plumps for the latter on the facts of JIH. In so doing, the court offers strong support for those who believe that the public interest is usually better served by disclosure of details about the injuncted information itself (together with anonymity for the claimant if necessary) rather than publication of the bare fact that a named individual has obtained an injunction in respect of unspecified information.  Secondly, the judgment also provides an authoritative general summary of the principles that the courts will apply when deciding whether or not to grant anonymity in a privacy claim. This will serve as a useful reference point for practitioners, clients and judges in future cases.

The Court of Appeal has discharged an order the effect of which would have been to postpone the reporting of an important criminal case for several months.  The case relates to the shocking murder of a 15-year-old boy last year in front of hundreds of commuters during the rush hour at London’s Victoria Station.  Following the lifting of reporting restrictions, the case has been widely reported, including here and here.

… The Court of Appeal’s judgment has not, so far as we know, been transcribed or reported elsewhere.

1. Citizens everywhere have a democratic right to know what a government does in their name;
2. Governments and their public servants bear sole responsibility for protecting properly classified information;
3. Outsiders who receive or communicate confidential government information should not be prosecuted unless they have obtained it by fraud or bribery or duress;
4. National security exceptions should be precisely defined, should protect the identity of sources who are at risk of reprisals but should not stop whistleblowers from revealing human rights violations – the public has, at the very least, a right to know when a war fought in its name is killing innocent civilians through illegal targeting decisions.