The High Court has refused Gemma O’Doherty’s application to strike out James Guerin’s defamation proceedings, ruling that the claims should be determined at a jury retrial.
Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan delivered the judgment on 12 March 2025. The case is awaiting a new trial date after a jury failed to reach a verdict at the first trial in November 2023. The court’s decision concerns only the application to end the proceedings; it does not determine whether either party was defamed.
Mr Guerin, a politician and brother of the late Veronica Guerin, sued over O’Doherty’s July 2019 social media posts. The judgment says the claim concerns a reference to the “paedophile brother of Veronica Guerin”, which Mr Guerin says was defamatory because it did not clearly identify the brother being discussed. O’Doherty admitted publication, which the judgment says was not in issue on this application.
The claim was later expanded to include alleged publications from November 2023 to January 2024. Mr Guerin alleges those publications were defamatory and included claims that he was corrupt, had lied to a jury and had committed criminal offences. These are allegations in the pleadings, not findings made by Ms Justice Phelan. O’Doherty denies liability and maintains a counterclaim against Mr Guerin.
O’Doherty argued that her reporting referred to a third party and was protected by statutory privilege for fair and accurate reports of court proceedings. Mr Guerin disputed that the reports were fair and accurate and argued that the question required evidence. The judge said these issues were for determination at trial, including by a jury where appropriate. She also rejected as unsubstantiated O’Doherty’s assertions that the action was brought to silence her journalism or was improperly funded.
Ms Justice Phelan said the pleaded defamation claim disclosed a cause of action and that the hung jury meant she could not conclude the case was bound to fail. She found no basis to strike it out as an abuse of process. She refused the application.
The judge’s preliminary view was that Mr Guerin should receive the costs of the application. She gave the parties two weeks from electronic delivery of the judgment to seek a further listing to address the precise costs order. If no listing is sought within that period, an order in the indicated terms will be perfected.