The Supreme Court has set aside a jury verdict against Monica Leech in her defamation action against Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Limited, ruling that the verdict was unsafe after the jury received an inadequate explanation of how to assess the article’s meaning.
In a judgment delivered by Mr Justice William M. McKechnie on 19 December 2014, the court allowed Ms Leech’s appeal from the High Court’s dismissal of her action. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the article was defamatory or assess damages. Its order set aside the jury’s verdict; the judgment said a retrial should be ordered.
The case concerned an article published in the Irish Independent on 17 December 2004, reporting a caller’s lewd remarks during a live RTÉ Radio Liveline programme. Ms Leech’s case was that the article conveyed that she had an adulterous relationship with then Minister Martin Cullen, including oral sex, in return for a well-paid employment contract. The newspaper denied that the article carried those meanings and relied on defences including truth, fair comment and qualified privilege.
At the 2007 High Court trial, the jury was asked whether the article meant that Ms Leech had adulterous sexual relations with Mr Cullen, and whether she had performed oral sex for him to obtain a well-paid contract. It answered no to both questions, and the action was dismissed.
On appeal, the Supreme Court considered the jury’s question about what it meant for the article to “bear the meaning” pleaded. The trial judge first explained that the phrase meant “does it mean?” and discussed factual inferences. After the plaintiff’s counsel objected, the judge agreed to recall the jury and explain that meaning could include what a reasonable reader would infer from the article as a whole. But the jury returned with what the foreman said was a decision before that further direction. The judge told them to listen and reconsider; they returned shortly afterwards with the same answers.
Mr Justice McKechnie held that the law permits a jury to find an implied or indirect defamatory meaning from the words, even if it is not stated literally and requires no special outside facts. He considered the initial explanation wrong on that point and the further direction likely inadequate. Given how quickly the jury returned, the court could not be sure the jurors had understood and applied the further direction or reconsidered their earlier decision. The circumstances raised a reasonable apprehension that the verdict was reached without meaningful consideration of the correct direction and also failed to ensure fair procedures.
The judgment also addressed the use of Ms Leech’s settled proceedings against RTÉ, which arose from the broadcast. Those proceedings had been compromised in 2007, with RTÉ agreeing to pay €250,000 and costs. The court discussed the statutory conditions for using prior compensation to mitigate damages, but said it was unnecessary to go further on that issue in light of the order setting aside the verdict.