Lawyers for RTÉ have told the High Court it should ignore a "threat" from businessman Denis O'Brien to "review his arrangements" with all Irish banks if he loses his injunction application.
David Holland SC, defending the broadcaster in an application by Mr O’Brien and IBRC to prevent it airing a story about his debts with IBRC, said the billionaire “should find some other horses to frighten”.
“No sovereign State should put up with that sort of threat,” said Mr Holland.
Much of this morning’s proceedings, the third day of the injunction hearing, cannot be reported due to restrictions on the media imposed following an application by Mr O’Brien.
The restrictions cover any detailed references to the contents of a 2013 letter written by Mr O’Brien to the liquidator of IBRC, Kieran Wallace.
It can be reported that the letter referred to a “request” from Mr O’Brien to the bank, and that it outlined his debts and also addressed his repayments.
The letter forms the basis of the RTÉ story that Mr O’Brien is trying to prevent, on the basis that it will breach his privacy and damage his interests.
There would have been no point in RTÉ broadcasting a report which anonymised businessman Mr O'Brien's affairs relating to Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC), the High Court heard.
It would be a boring report of the “Small Earthquake in Chile: Not many dead” type which essentially sucks the lifeblood out of the story, Mr Holland said.
Mr Holland said freedom of the press is the lifeblood of democracy and for that to happen the blood “must actually flow”.
Counsel said there would be no point in RTÉ broadcasting a story like “Some debtor sought an extension of his loan for a very long time”.
The courts should not be asked to make “editorial fine judgments” as to what was to be published.
What the O’Brien side was asking the court to play a “game of journalistic jenga” in which bits of information are pulled out in the hope the whole story will collapse, counsel said.
A story is not the sum of its individual parts and the court should look at the story in the round if freedom of expression is to be vindicated.
Mr Holland also criticised a part of one of Mr O’Brien’s affidavits in which he said if the court did not grant the injunction, it would cause him and others to “review all arrangements with Irish banks”.
“No sovereign state or court should put up with that kind of threat,” Mr Holland said.
What Mr O’Brien does about his banking affairs, and whether he decides to locate them here or elsewhere is a matter for him but it had nothing to do with the court’s considerations.
Mr Holland also reiterated his argument made on Wednesday that Mr O’Brien was not a private but a public figure by virtue of his extensive business and media interests.
The case continues.
