THE ONUS of proof in a libel action is on the person who thinks - he/she has been libelled (the plaintiff). However, the standard of proof is "on the balance of probabilities", not, as in criminal cases, "beyond reasonable doubt".
He/she must prove that something which has been published about him/her is untrue; that it damaged his/her good name; and that it did so in the eyes of reasonable, right-thinking people.
A libel trial will involve these different elements. First, the plaintiff will seek to prove that the statements about him/her, or an innuendo contained therein, are untrue. This will involve producing evidence to contradict them and, if innuendo is involved, proving that the meaning complained of is there.
However, a statement could be untrue but not damaging, i.e. stating someone was born in Dublin in 1950 when, in fact, he was born in Donegal in 1952. This would not be libellous.
However, such a statement could damage the credibility of the journalist and the publication involved, casting doubt on other more contentious statements where proof is unavailable.
Secondly, the plaintiff has to prove that the statement was damaging. This can be difficult. For example, in the Albert Reynolds libel trial, much time was spent trying to define the term "gombeen man". Mr Reynolds felt it was a damaging description while the author of the article, Alan Ruddock, said it was not, being merely a description of a type of businessman.
This raises the third point: the damage must be obvious, not just to the plaintiff but to "reasonable, right-thinking people". Therefore, plaintiffs often produce witnesses to say how shocked they were to read this statement about the person concerned.
Friends and family might also give evidence of the depression into which the plaintiff was plunged by the allegation. However, these witnesses must be seen by the jury as reasonable and right-thinking. The opinions of people with what are seen as extreme or very unusual views carry little weight.
The reputation of the person before the alleged libel is also relevant. For example, if the individual had convictions for assault, his chances of successfully suing for libel a publication which described him as a well-known thug would be limited. On the other hand, an allegation of dishonesty against a well-known businessman, if not proved, would be treated very seriously in a libel court.