The Supreme Court has set aside a jury verdict dismissing Alan Bradley and Wayne Bradley’s libel claims against Independent Star Newspapers Limited and ordered a retrial in the High Court.
The claims concern a Star Sunday article published on 13 June 2004. It described two unnamed brothers as leaders of a dangerous criminal gang and attributed armed robberies, gun crime, money laundering and other serious criminal activity to them. The article used digitally disguised photographs and called the men “The Fat Heads”.
The brothers alleged that readers would understand the article to refer to them and that it defamed them. The newspaper denied that they were identified and denied the pleaded meanings. It also pleaded justification, but the High Court judge ruled before trial that the particulars supplied did not meet the libel’s alleged sting: suspicion of criminal involvement was not the same as pleading that the men had committed the crimes described.
At the joint trial in 2006, the jury found that the brothers were not identified in the article. It therefore did not consider damages. The Supreme Court heard appeals concerning, among other matters, evidence of a second Star Sunday article published on 22 August 2004. That later article named the brothers, referred to the first article and reproduced it.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Fennelly, the Court concluded that the second article should have been admitted for the jury to consider when deciding identification. He distinguished that use of the later publication from treating the publisher’s intention as the test: Irish law asks objectively whether readers who knew the plaintiffs would understand the words to refer to them. Justice Fennelly also found that a witness should have been allowed to recount that people at Finglas market identified the brothers as the men in the article.
The Court also addressed evidence the newspaper called about the brothers’ reputations. It held that general reputation evidence may be admissible in mitigation of damages, but must not become evidence that the allegations were true. The judgment noted concerns about evidence suggesting involvement in crimes beyond those alleged in the article and stressed the need for careful control at any retrial.
The jury’s verdict was set aside and the actions were remitted for retrial. Justice Fennelly added that the actions concerning both articles should be heard together or consolidated; future procedural steps were left to the parties and the High Court.