The Court of Appeal allowed Sunday Newspapers Limited’s appeal against the entirety of a jury verdict that Martin McDonagh had been defamed by a Sunday World article, dismissed his claim over the drug dealing allegation, and ordered a new trial on the loan sharking allegation.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Gerard Hogan on 19 October 2015, concerned an article published on 5 September 1999 under the headline “Traveller is new drug king.” The jury had found that the newspaper failed to prove Mr McDonagh was a drug dealer or loan shark, but proved he was a tax evader and criminal. It awarded him €900,000. The jury did not answer a required question about whether the unproved allegations materially injured his reputation in light of the charges it found true.
The Court of Appeal held that the jury’s finding against the newspaper on drug dealing could not stand. It said the evidence, considered as a whole, overwhelmingly showed that Mr McDonagh was involved in the drugs shipment seized in Tubbercurry, County Sligo. The judgment relied on evidence about his trip to the UK with a person later convicted in connection with the drugs, his meetings with other people connected to the seizure, Garda interview notes attributed to him, and substantial funds in bank accounts for which the court said there was no satisfactory explanation.
Mr McDonagh denied involvement in drug dealing and denied making the statements recorded in the Garda notes. The court acknowledged that he had never been charged or convicted of a drugs offence. It nevertheless concluded that the newspaper had proved the drug dealing allegation on the balance of probabilities and dismissed that part of his claim.
The court treated the loan sharking allegation differently. A Garda witness said Mr McDonagh had admitted charging 100% interest on loans; Mr McDonagh denied making the statement, and a character witness said he had never heard of him being involved in loan sharking. The court said the evidence on this issue was limited and that a properly instructed jury might find for Mr McDonagh. But the jury had not been told that the Garda evidence carried considerable weight because it had not effectively been challenged, or that Mr McDonagh’s credibility had been compromised. The verdict on that allegation therefore could not stand, and a new trial was directed on that issue alone.
The court also held that the jury was legally required to answer the unanswered question before assessing damages. It set aside the entire verdict and left the damages question undecided, saying it was unnecessary to address the appeal against the amount.