The Court of Appeal allowed appeals by Sunday Newspapers Limited, Colm McGinty and Nicola Tallant, ruling that a June 16, 2013 Sunday World article could not reasonably bear the meanings of actual wrongdoing pleaded by Patrick Benedict Gilchrist and Isabel Rogers in their defamation claims.
In a judgment delivered by Ms Justice Irvine on June 21, 2017, the court decided the newspaper’s applications under section 14(1) of the Defamation Act 2009. It held the High Court had erred by considering the impression created by a separate article published the previous week when assessing the later article’s possible meanings.
Gilchrist, a former Garda Detective Inspector who had worked in the State’s Witness Protection Programme, and Rogers, a psychotherapist retained to provide services in that context, brought separate claims over articles published on June 9 and 16, 2013. The newspaper’s appeals concerned only pleaded meanings attributed to the June 16 article. The claims over the June 9 article were not determined by these appeals.
The June 16 article referred to allegations about spending connected with the protection of witness Dave Mooney, including claims about fees, travel and accommodation. The court said it had to assess that article on its own, without relying on the June 9 article. The earlier article had been published as a standalone report a week before, with no indication that it was part of a continuing series. The later article’s reference to the previous week’s coverage did not make the two sufficiently connected for the earlier report to form part of the relevant context.
The court then considered whether the June 16 article could support the pleaded meanings that Gilchrist and Rogers had committed the alleged misconduct. Justice Irvine said the article repeatedly referred to investigations and allegations in connection with an upcoming High Court case. A reasonable reader might be suspicious, the judgment said, but would distinguish a report of suspicion or investigation from an assertion of guilt. The accompanying photograph was also not capable of conveying actual guilt.
The court therefore ruled that the June 16 article was not reasonably capable of bearing the pleaded meanings. It allowed the newspaper’s appeals and determined the section 14 applications itself rather than sending them back to the High Court, given the imminent trials. The ruling addressed the scope of meanings available for the June 16 article; it did not decide the underlying defamation claims or the claims relating to the June 9 article.