The Supreme Court dismissed Beverley Cooper Flynn’s appeal against a High Court costs order in her libel action against RTÉ, Charlie Bird and James Howard. The court declined to direct a new trial, concluding that the appeal had not established a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.
The case arose from six RTÉ broadcasts transmitted between 19 June and 1 July 1998. Cooper Flynn alleged that the broadcasts meant she had advised Howard and others to evade tax. At the 28-day High Court trial, the jury found that the defendants had not proved she induced Howard to avoid his tax obligations by not using the tax amnesty. It did find that they had proved she advised or encouraged other people to evade tax. The jury then found that her reputation had not suffered material injury because of the broadcasts concerning Howard.
The High Court ordered Cooper Flynn to pay each defendant’s costs. She appealed that order and judgment. In the Supreme Court, Justice Denham addressed her argument that the trial judge had not properly explained the rules for majority verdicts. Under section 95 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924, at least nine jurors must agree for a majority verdict, and the judge must inform the jury of that requirement.
Denham reviewed the earlier Supreme Court decision in Arnott v O’Keefe, which held that the same nine jurors must agree on answers to questions forming parts of a single verdict. She considered that principle did not require the same nine jurors to decide every separate, independent issue involving different defendants in this case. She also noted that the trial judge had addressed majority voting, and that the parties’ lawyers agreed to leave his ruling in place after the jury sought clarification.
The judgment emphasized that the jury’s answer about reputational harm was central to the defamation case and that appellate courts should be slow to overturn jury decisions in such cases. It concluded that, considering the trial directions, counsel’s response, the case’s complexity and the jury’s role, no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice had been established to justify a new trial. Justice Denham agreed with Chief Justice Keane on the other appeal grounds and would dismiss the appeal on all grounds.