The High Court ruled that Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd could not put a public interest defence to the jury in Monica Leech’s libel action, while finding her claim was sufficient for the jury to consider. The ruling was made during the trial on 27 June 2007. The judgment does not record the jury’s eventual decision or any final order on damages.
Ms Leech sued over a newspaper article published on 17 December 2004. It reported that a caller had made an allegation during a live radio programme the previous day, claiming Ms Leech, a communications consultant, had an improper relationship with a government minister and that this explained paid work she did for the minister and the relevant department. The court’s account says the allegation broadcast by RTÉ was incorrect.
In an earlier ruling during the trial, Mr Justice Charleton said a public interest defence could arise where a publication as a whole concerned a matter of public interest and the steps taken to gather and publish it were fair and responsible. He said considerations could include whether the plaintiff was asked for comment, whether the article gave the gist of her side, and the practical realities of news gathering. He did not decide then whether the defence could be raised on the evidence in this case, saying he would hear the evidence first.
At the close of evidence, Ms Leech was the only witness and the defence called no evidence. The newspaper asked the court to find its public interest defence made out and withdraw the plaintiff’s case from the jury. The judge said the claim was sufficient to be considered by the jury and that he could decide whether there was evidence for a defence to go before them. He declined to decide the defence himself in a way that would displace the jury’s role in the libel trial.
The judge found that the public had a sufficient interest in matters concerning the national broadcaster’s handling of its live programme, including the reported absence of a delay that might have prevented the caller’s allegation from being broadcast. But he found the evidence did not support responsible and fair journalism. He identified unanswered questions about checking the allegation, assessing the caller’s reliability and seeking Ms Leech’s response. With no defence evidence on those matters, he ruled that the public interest defence would not be put before the jury.