A jury will return to the High Court today to resume consideration of its verdict in the action by the Fianna Fβil organiser, Mr Sean Sherwin, in which he alleges he was libelled in an article in the Sunday Independent.
After deliberating for about three hours yesterday evening, the jury asked Mr Justice O'Sullivan if they might adjourn until today. The judge agreed and said it could resume at 10.30 a.m. today.
Mr Sherwin (54), of Cappaghmore, Clondalkin, Dublin, has claimed he was libelled in an article written by Sunday Independent political editor, Jody Corcoran, and published in the newspaper on February 14th, 1999, under the headline: "FF organiser sought election cash for his sister-in-law: Gilmartin".
He claimed the article meant he had solicited money from property developer Mr Tom Gilmartin for his sister-in-law Ms Catherine Sherwin. Ms Sherwin was an unsuccessful local election candidate. Mr Sherwin claimed the story was false and damaging to him.
Independent Newspapers plc denied the words complained of bore or were understood to bear the meanings claimed. Without prejudice to that denial, it also pleaded the words in the article were true in substance and in fact and denied Mr Sherwin was damaged in his character as national organiser or brought into public contempt.
The 10-day trial heard detailed evidence from Mr Sherwin, Mr Gilmartin, Mr Corcoran and others.
Evidence finished on Tuesday and the judge concluded his lengthy charge just after 4 p.m. yesterday.
The jury has to answer three questions, the first question sub-divided into five parts.
The first question asks the jury to decide if the article meant or was understood to mean that (a) Mr Sherwin had wrongfully solicited money from Mr Tom Gilmartin for his sister-in-law; (b) Mr Sherwin was prepared to exert a political influence in return for a donation from Mr Gilmartin for Mr Sherwin's sister-in-law; (c) Mr Sherwin sought money from Mr Gilmartin for his personal use in return for introducing Mr Gilmartin to a US businessman; (d) Mr Sherwin was aware that Mr Gilmartin gave a US businessman £40,000 in circumstances which made it clear to Mr Sherwin that Mr Gilmartin was being treated as a "sucker"; (e) Mr Sherwin, by seeking money from Mr Gilmartin, abused his position as national organiser of Fianna Fβil.
If it answers Yes to any part of question one, the jury is asked in question two if the words are substantially true in substance and in fact. Question three asks the jury - if it answers No to question two - to assess damages.
At 6.30 p.m. yesterday, the jury forewoman said a majority had agreed on question one and wished to know what number was required to reach a decision on question two.
The judge said at least nine of the same majority who had agreed the decision on question one must agree a decision on question two.