The Supreme Court has allowed Monica Leech’s appeal against a jury verdict for Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Limited, finding the verdict unsafe because of how the jury received a final direction and returned its decision.
Ms Leech had sued over an Irish Independent article published on 17 December 2004, which reported offensive sexual remarks made about her by a caller to RTÉ’s Liveline programme. The jury at her 2007 trial found that the article did not mean she had adulterous relations with then Environment Minister Martin Cullen, or had performed oral sex for the sake of a well-paid contract. The High Court proceedings were dismissed on foot of that verdict.
The case went to the jury on whether the article bore either of those meanings and, if so, what damages should be awarded. The newspaper had abandoned its fair comment and justification defences at the start of the trial. It also relied on a public-interest qualified privilege defence, described in the judgment as the “Reynolds” defence. The trial judge ultimately ruled that defence could not go to the jury because the newspaper had called no evidence to establish responsible journalism.
During deliberations, the jury asked what it meant for the article to “bear the meaning”. The trial judge first explained the word “inference” in a way he later accepted was inappropriate. After submissions from counsel, he recalled the jury and explained that meaning could include what an ordinary reader would infer from the article as a whole. The foreman then said the jury had already made a decision. The judge directed the jury to go back and reconsider, but it returned with its verdict for the newspaper within minutes.
Justice Dunne applied the test of whether a reasonable and fair-minded observer would see a danger, in the sense of a possibility, that the jury had made up its mind before the final direction and had not reconsidered its decision. She concluded that the circumstances created that possibility and that the verdict was unsafe. She also concluded, as a separate reason, that the final explanation had not clearly resolved the confusion caused by the earlier explanation about inferences.
The Court allowed the appeal. The judgment does not record a retrial order or determine the underlying defamation meanings; it sets aside the jury verdict as unsafe.