The judgment on Mr Albert Reynolds's appeal in the Court of Appeal in London arising from his libel action against the Sunday Times is likely before the end of next month, it was indicated yesterday.
Lord Chief Justice Bingham said at the end of the seven days of appeals and cross-appeals that the court would give judgment as quickly as it could. Certainly it would be aiming to do it before the close of the law term, which is at the end of July.
The hearing had been before Lord Justice Bingham, Lord Justice Hirst, and Lord Justice Robert Walker.
The former Taoiseach had been present throughout the proceedings, flanked by his solicitor, Ms Pamela Cassidy, and other members of his legal team. He followed the case step by step, studying the documentation.
The article complained of centred on November 1994 when the Fianna Fail/Labour coalition collapsed and Mr Reynolds resigned as Taoiseach. This followed confusion over the appointment of Mr Harry Whelehan SC as President of the High Court and the delay in the extradition of the paedophile priest, Brendan Smyth. Mr Whelehan subsequently resigned.
The article, which appeared only in the English editions, alleged that Mr Reynolds had lied to the Dail. The jury found that the words were defamatory but awarded zero damages. The judge subsequently made an award of one penny.
The jury also decided that the newspaper had not acted maliciously in publishing the article. Mr Reynolds would be liable for the costs of the case as the award did not meet an offer of £5,005 from the newspaper.
The appeals were noticeable for the ease with which the judges grasped the intricate details of the case, particularly the chronology of the events leading up to the collapse of the government.
Throughout the case, Lord Justice Hirst, an acknowledged expert in defamation law, asked questions and made statements, particularly about the summing-up of the trial judge, Mr Justice French. The judge's charge to the jury was the essential argument in Mr Reynolds's appeal for a retrial.
One of Lord Justice Hirst's most memorable remarks was: "The judge's job, surely, is to make sure the jury see the wood for the trees and to mark the right trees, and he starts off marking the wrong trees. That's what worries me."
The newspaper started last Tuesday week by appealing a decision that qualified privilege did not apply to the article. Yesterday, the arguments concluded on both sides. The case had opened when the Sunday Times argued that it had the right to publish.
The qualified privilege arguments are particularly relevant; if the judges rule that the Sunday Times had qualified privilege, all the other appeals by Mr Reynolds must fail.
Lord Lester QC gave a definition of the newspaper's case. He said: "Qualified privilege was there to enable newspapers and others to report on politicians, even when they get it wrong, providing there is no malice."
Mr Andrew Caldecott QC, for Mr Reynolds, argued that qualified privilege applied only where the report was fair and accurate and where a newspaper was reporting what people had said.
Mr Reynolds sought a retrial essentially on the basis of the misdirection of the jury by Mr Justice French.
Mr Caldecott argued that he misrepresented the case to the jury and key matters on documents and chronology were completely confused.
Mr Caldecott said the issue put to the jury was whether Mr Reynolds lied to the Dail in his speech on Tuesday, November 15th, 1994. However, he said, the judge identified the issue as being whether Mr Reynolds knew on the previous Monday whether there had been another extradition case, the Duggan case.
At this stage, Mr James Price QC, the lawyer who represented the newspaper at the trial, took over the defence of Mr Reynolds's appeal from Lord Lester.
Lord Justice Hirst continually challenged Mr Price during his submissions. Mr Price said it was a simple case. Lord Justice Hirst said whether Mr Reynolds was a liar or not was simple but to get there was a very complex story as to who knew what and when.
Mr Price argued that the judge's mistakes in the summing-up did not justify a retrial. He questioned why Mr Reynolds had brought the trial in England and not Ireland where, he claimed, the newspapers had said as emphatically as they could that he had lied to the Dail.
He said the motivation for suing the Sunday Times was to avoid a libel trial in Ireland, where witnesses not favourable to Mr Reynolds could be subpoenaed.