The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Sunday Newspapers Ltd., editor Colm McGinty and reporter Mick McCaffrey against an €85,000 defamation award to former footballer David Speedie. The court also rejected Speedie’s request to increase the award.
The case arose from two Sunday World articles published in April 2011. Speedie sued, saying the articles suggested he was involved in crime or that Gardaí had reason to suspect him of criminal activity. The defendants disputed those meanings. For the first article, they argued it meant only that Speedie associated with known criminals and defended that allegation as true. For the second, they argued that the meanings alleged by Speedie were true.
A jury at the trial before Hedigan J. found that the first article did not mean Speedie engaged in criminal activity, but did mean Gardaí had reason to suspect him of it. It awarded him €85,000. The jury also found that the first article meant he associated with known criminals, and that the second article portrayed him as “treacherous as a snake”; the defendants proved those allegations true. The jury rejected the claim that the second article linked Speedie to the activities of a named person.
On appeal, the newspaper argued that allowing the jury to consider both Garda suspicion and association with known criminals breached the single meaning rule and produced an inconsistent verdict. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. It said these were distinct allegations conveyed by different words, and it was possible for the suspicion allegation to be false while the association allegation was true.
The newspaper also argued that the order of questions put to the jury prevented it from relying on section 16(2) of the Defamation Act 2009. That provision concerns cases involving multiple distinct allegations, where an unproved allegation may not defeat a truth defence if it does not materially injure reputation in light of the remaining true allegations. The Court of Appeal said it did not need to decide the broader legal questions about the provision. The newspaper had not raised this defence when the jury questions were being settled or during closing speeches. By the time it raised the point after a jury query, deliberations had been under way for about three hours. The court held it was too late to change the questions and that the newspaper had waived the point in relation to the Garda suspicion allegation.
The court found no basis to interfere with the jury’s assessment of damages and dismissed the appeal.