The Circuit Court granted Barry Watters a declaratory order under the Defamation Act 2009 over an article published by the Irish Daily Star on Sunday on 5 September 2010. Judge J. Mathews ruled that the article was capable of conveying defamatory imputations in its context, and that Watters retained a reputation capable of being damaged despite his criminal convictions.
The article, headed “Larry’s Secret Shower Buddy”, alleged a relationship between Watters and Larry Murphy while both were in Arbour Hill Prison. Watters denied the claims, including that they showered together or were part of a group of friends. He said the article further harmed his efforts to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society. These were his submissions and affidavit evidence.
The newspaper denied that the article was defamatory. Its managing director’s affidavit addressed Watters’s convictions and argued that the publication could not further harm his reputation. The judge accepted that the convictions had substantially diminished his reputation, but rejected the argument that it had been reduced to nothing. He referred to Watters’s guilty pleas, expressions of remorse, treatment efforts and stated aim of rehabilitation.
The judgment also records a letter from the Arbour Hill governor stating that, after reviewing the article and consulting staff, the governor was satisfied there was “absolutely no truth” to its claims about Watters’s conduct in the prison. That was the governor’s stated position, cited by the court as capable of corroborating Watters’s affidavit.
Judge Mathews concluded that the article, presented as investigative journalism and making sensational allegations, could convey the pleaded imputations when read as a whole. He granted the declaration under section 28. He also held that Watters was entitled to a correction order under section 30 and an order under section 33 prohibiting further publication of the statements covered by the application.
The judgment did not set out the wording or publication details of a correction. The judge agreed that the parties should try to agree its wording, timing and placement, and said the court could direct publication of a summary of its judgment if they could not agree. The source does not state the terms of the section 33 order or address costs in the concluding passage.