The High Court has refused an application by Paudie Coffey to discharge the jury in his defamation trial against Iconic Newspapers Ltd, trading as The Kilkenny People, and Sam Matthews.
Mr Justice Bernard J. Barton ruled on 23 November 2018 that the questioning challenged by Coffey had not materially crossed the line between evidence about the impact of the article and evidence about its meaning. The trial was at an early stage, and the judge concluded a fair trial could still be held.
Coffey’s application concerned the defendants’ proposed questioning of former Irish rugby international Mick Galwey. Coffey argued that evidence Galwey regarded the article as a joke would intrude on the jury’s role in deciding what meaning reasonable members of society would place on it. He submitted that the jury could not be protected from prejudice through further examination or a direction from the court.
The defendants opposed the application. Their counsel said Galwey was the only person Coffey had identified as commenting to him about the article. The defendants said they had learned of Galwey’s involvement, including an email to Coffey’s cousin that was forwarded to Coffey, only when Coffey gave evidence. They argued that it was proper to explore those matters in cross-examination and to ask Coffey about Galwey’s reaction, without asking the witness to interpret the article.
The judge said it had not been claimed that the article was published in jest. No application had been made for a ruling on whether the words could bear the meanings Coffey alleged, or any defamatory meaning. Those questions, including whether the article harmed Coffey’s reputation, remained for the jury.
The court distinguished reputational harm from whether published material was abusive or had upset Coffey. Hurt or offence alone did not establish the defamation claim, although other consequences could matter when damages were assessed.
Barton J said Galwey would not be permitted to give evidence about the meaning he attributed to the article. His reaction, as described by Coffey in evidence, could be explored. The jury would later be directed on the law and its exclusive role in deciding the meaning reasonable members of society would likely place on the article.
The application was refused. The ruling did not determine the article’s meaning, whether it was defamatory, or the outcome of the trial.