The Supreme Court has dismissed Beverly Cooper-Flynn’s appeal against the outcome of her libel action over six RTÉ broadcasts in 1998, affirming the High Court order, including costs against her.
The broadcasts alleged that Cooper-Flynn, then a Dáil Deputy and previously a member of National Irish Bank’s investment staff, had advised a retired farmer, James Howard, not to use a tax amnesty and instead to put undeclared money into an Isle of Man scheme. Howard was identified in a broadcast on 1 July 1998. Cooper-Flynn denied having spoken or corresponded with him and denied encouraging anyone to evade tax.
At the end of a 29-day jury trial, the jury found that the defendants had not proved Cooper-Flynn induced Howard to evade tax by not using the amnesty. It did find that she had advised or encouraged other people referred to in the evidence to evade tax. The jury also found that the unproved allegation about Howard had not materially injured her reputation and awarded no damages. The High Court ordered her to pay the defendants’ costs.
On appeal, Cooper-Flynn sought a new trial and to set aside the costs order in Howard’s favour. She challenged, among other matters, the admission of a 1990 National Irish Bank memorandum, the questions put to the jury, further directions given during the trial, and the directions on majority verdicts.
The Supreme Court rejected each ground. It held that the memorandum was admissible as written confirmation of evidence given under oath by its author, Patrick Cooney, about investment practices in the bank division. Cooney testified that the memorandum had not been sent to Cooper-Flynn, and the jury had been warned to consider her cross-examination in light of that evidence.
The court said evidence about the other customers was properly before the jury and could be relevant to damages. It found no substantial wrong or miscarriage from the way the jury questions and directions were handled. Although the trial judge should have explained that the same group of at least nine jurors should agree on answers to multiple questions, the court said Cooper-Flynn’s counsel had acquiesced in the directions and no significant anomaly or miscarriage had been established.
The court also declined to disturb the costs order. It said the jury’s findings that the allegation about Howard was unproved did not change the overall outcome, because the jury found the broader allegation substantially true and found no material injury to Cooper-Flynn’s reputation. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court order.