The High Court has withdrawn a defamation action against Iconic Newspaper Limited from the jury, ruling that no properly directed jury could reasonably find that a Kilkenny People court report was not fair and accurate.
Ms Justice Reynolds delivered the ruling on 13 July 2021, at the end of the evidence. The defendant had applied to have the case withdrawn from the jury, relying on the defence of absolute privilege for fair and accurate reports of public court proceedings or decisions under section 17(2)(i) of the Defamation Act 2009.
The article, published on 19 February 2016, reported that Michael Reilly had received a suspended prison sentence, a fine and a six-year driving disqualification at Kilkenny District Court. The plaintiff, a practising consultant engineer from Ballycullen, Mullinahone, said the report wrongly identified him as the person convicted and falsely portrayed him as a criminal with previous convictions. The newspaper disputed that the article referred to him and argued that it accurately reported the public proceedings.
The ruling records that the driver stopped in Kilkenny in June 2015 gave his name as Michael Reilly of Ballycullen, Mullinahone, and that the court minute book and certified orders recorded that address. The plaintiff’s evidence was that he was the only Michael Reilly in Ballycullen or Mullinahone. A detective Garda called for the plaintiff said another Michael Reilly lived in Mullinahone at the time, in a different townland about two kilometres away.
The court reporter testified that she prepared her draft from contemporaneous notes and checked details against the court minute book. She said she rechecked her notes and records after the complaint and remained satisfied the report was fair and accurate. Sergeant Gordon said he believed he had read the accused’s name and address into the District Court record, as was his usual practice. The judge said that evidence was not meaningfully challenged and there was no contrary evidence.
The judge held that the report matched the court records and the decision made public by the District Court. She concluded that no jury could reasonably find it unfair or inaccurate and withdrew the action from the jury. The ruling also noted that the newspaper had offered to publish a clarification saying the plaintiff was not the person referred to in the article; the plaintiff did not accept that offer. The ruling does not state a damages award or other further order.