The Supreme Court has restored the jury’s findings for Martin McDonagh on two disputed allegations in his defamation case against Sunday Newspapers Limited. It ruled that the Court of Appeal should not have overturned the jury’s rejection of the newspaper’s justification defence on drug dealing and loan sharking, or substituted its own finding that Mr McDonagh was a drug dealer.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice William M. McKechnie on 28 June 2017, records that the newspaper had published an article in the Sunday World in September 1999 identifying Mr McDonagh, though not naming him, as the alleged mastermind of a major drugs seizure in Tubbercurry, County Sligo. He was arrested during the investigation, detained for seven days and released without charge. The judgment says he has never been charged with a drug-related offence.
At the High Court trial, the jury found that the newspaper had not proved Mr McDonagh was a drug dealer or loan shark, but had proved he was a tax evader and a criminal. It awarded him €900,000 in damages. The jury did not answer a further question about whether the unproven allegations materially injured his reputation in light of those it found proved.
The Court of Appeal set aside the jury’s finding on drug dealing and itself found the allegation justified. It also ordered a retrial on the loan-sharking allegation and on the unanswered question. On further appeal, the Supreme Court held that the evidence about the accuracy of Garda interview notes had been put in issue through Mr McDonagh’s repeated denials. Whether to accept the competing accounts was for the jury. The evidence was not so one-sided that its verdict could be treated as perverse.
The Supreme Court also rejected the need for a separate credibility warning on the loan-sharking issue, finding the trial judge’s directions adequate. It said the Court of Appeal had been wrong to set aside the jury’s finding on that allegation. The jury’s liability findings therefore remain intact.
The Supreme Court did not finally resolve what should happen next with damages. It said the unanswered question and the damages award required further consideration; the €900,000 award is not a final outcome of this appeal. The Court invited counsel to make further submissions on the appropriate course. The judgment also records that leave to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision concerning the unanswered question had been refused, and that issue remained relevant to the next steps.