The High Court has narrowed the meanings a former Irish Army member can rely on in his defamation action against Sunday Newspapers Ltd over a 2010 Sunday World article.
In a judgment delivered on 9 August 2011, President of the High Court Kearns ruled on the newspaper’s application under section 14 of the Defamation Act 2009. The application challenged whether the article could reasonably bear several meanings pleaded by the plaintiff. The newspaper did not challenge the pleaded meanings that he was the subject of a military investigation or that there were substantial grounds for believing he had engaged in the alleged conduct.
The article reported allegations that Army Ranger Wing members had taken leave to train armed police in the Seychelles, and that one or more named men had been involved in buying black-market arms. It said an investigation was under way and described the allegations as unproved. The plaintiff argued that the article’s overall presentation, including its reference to his retirement, could imply that he had actually engaged in the pleaded conduct.
The newspaper argued that reporting an investigation did not amount to saying that the plaintiff was guilty. The court assessed the article as a whole, applying the standard of what an ordinary, reasonable reader would understand.
Kearns held that the plaintiff could argue that the article conveyed there were substantial grounds for believing he had acted in the ways described in the challenged allegations. But he could not claim that the article meant he was actually guilty of those acts. The judge noted that the article referred repeatedly to allegations and to an ongoing investigation, with no suggestion that it had reached a conclusion or made adverse findings against the plaintiff. It also reported the then Defence Minister’s position that it was inappropriate to comment before the investigation concluded.
The court therefore confined the claim to the pleaded meanings that the plaintiff was the subject of a major military investigation and that there were substantial grounds for believing he had engaged in the alleged conduct. It granted the relief sought on the newspaper’s motion. The judgment determined the scope of the meanings available in the claim; it did not decide whether the allegations were true or whether the plaintiff was liable to receive damages.