THE former Taoiseach, Mr Albert Reynolds, should he awarded up to £125,000 sterling in damages from the Sunday Times for the hurt and damage to his reputation, his counsel, Lord Gareth Williams QC, told a libel jury yesterday afternoon.
Concluding his closing speech, Lord Williams described the Sunday Times article which accused Mr Reynolds of lying to the Dail and misleading his colleagues as an example of "shoddy and shabby" journalism which had "tried to damage" his reputation.
"It undoubtedly wounded him deeply. And for which the Sunday Times has no excuses and for which they have made no apology. Cruellest of all, they had it (the truth) all there in the Irish edition. So it is just a fair trial for an Irishman," he said.
Lord Williams told the jury that Mr Reynolds was entitled to damages from the newspaper because of the injury to his reputation, the wound and hurt to his feelings and to vindicate his name, but suggested the award "should be nothing insane."
He said "I do not know the pain he has had to bear. We can guess at it. That is all we can do... you know who he is, he says he doesn't know what people think. The Sunday Times in their brutalist way says it doesn't matter, after all, it is only Albert Reynolds and he doesn't live here."
However, Lord Williams reminded the jury that Mr Reynolds's eldest daughter Miriam had described in detail the effect of the trial upon her father. Patting her on the shoulder as she sat beside her father, Lord Williams added: "She was not cross examined, wisely you may think, because if ever the truth is shown out of a person, it shone out of her."
After stating that Mr Justice French might instruct the jury in this summing up that £125,000 was "excessive", Lord Williams said he would not argue against that, but suggested that £45,000 should be an "absolute base minimum."
Lord Williams recalled a recent libel case which the Sunday Times lost against the American businessman, Mr Victor Khiam. Although the paper apologised within three weeks of alleging that Mr Khiam had gone bankrupt, he still received £45,000 in damages.
"There is no apology here: £45,000 should be an absolute base minimum and not more than £125,000. I suggest the figure should be at the upper end of that bracket," he added.
Lord Williams said that the conduct of the Sunday Times during the trial had exacerbated Mr Reynolds's hurt as it had deliberately "smeared" his reputation to hide the fact that it did not have a case.
He recalled that Mr James Price QC, the newspaper's counsel, had repeatedly stated during his cross examination of Mr Reynolds that the issues were "simple enough for a prime minister to understand." The Sunday Times had also "dragged up" the beef tribunal and the Masri passport affair, when "they knew Mr Reynolds had been vindicated."
"Why do they drag it all out in front of you? It is the same reason my dirt will do, even for a prime minister," he added.
Recalling evidence from both Mr Alan Ruddock, the journalist who wrote the alleged libellous article, and Mr John Witherow, the editor of the Sunday Times, Lord Williams told the jury they had acted maliciously by printing the story and "their own answers convict them."
Lord Williams said Mr Witherow had described the story as a news analysis piece, but had admitted he was concerned that the paper, was printing a "radically different" article in its Irish editions.
"What do you do when you analyse something?" asked Lord Williams. "You look at this, you look at that, and come to a conclusion. They did that in Ireland but why not here? They did not want to know the truth."
After stating that Mr Ruddock had also admitted that he had not made "a single note" while researching his article, Lord Williams pointed out that he had failed to contact Mr Reynolds, or outline his defence in the piece.
"I am not saying a prime minister is God's representative here on Earth, but he is worthy of some courtesy. You have seen the language, you have seen the abuse. Fairness and justice is the watchword here. The flag that we marched behind," he said.
The trial was adjourned until tomorrow because a second juror has to attend a funeral today. Mr Justice French will begin his summing up and it is expected the jury will retire to consider its verdict on Monday.