The High Court has rejected a bid by a newspaper to halt a libel action brought against it by a brother of convicted rapist Larry Murphy.
Thomas Murphy and his partner Helen Nolan are suing the Sunday World over an article published shortly before the rapist's release from prison.
Larry Murphy (47) was released in August 2010 having served ten-and-a-half years of a 15 year sentence for the rape and attempted murder of a young woman in February 2000 in the Wicklow mountains.
His victim, who had been repeatedly raped before he put a shopping bag over her head in the boot of his car, was saved when two late-night hunters stumble upon the scene and recognised Murphy who fled but was later arrested.
Thomas Murphy and Ms Nolan claim the Sunday World story, published on July 11th, 2010, wrongly meant they were renovating a garage in their home at Baltinglass, Co Wicklow, to accommodate Murphy upon his release.
The couple also claim the article wrongly meant they were unconcerned about the feelings of the local community and about the offences Murphy had been convicted of and their effect on the community.
They say they had never offered to accommodate Murphy and that claims in the article they were going to "stand by" him when he got out of jail were not true. They also claim the article wrongly meant they had a "callous attitude" to the local community.
The newspaper denies the words in the article carried the alleged meanings.
In a pre-trial application, the newspaper yesterday asked the court to dismiss the action under Section 14 of the 2009 Defamation Act which allows a judge sitting without a jury to rule as to whether a statement, over which a libel action is brought, is reasonably capable of bearing the imputation complained of.
Mr Justice George Birmingham dismissed the application after saying it seemed to him the article was capable of bearing the meanings contended by Mr Murphy and Ms Nolan.
Earlier, Oisin Quinn SC, for Sunday Newspapers Ltd, trading as the Sunday World, argued the article was published in the public interest in relation to what is to happen to someone like Larry Murphy on his release from jail.
This publication was in the context of Larry Murphy being a person who had not availed of rehabilitation while in prison although he had been convicted of a very serious crime, counsels aid.
The article was clear and replete in tone and in tenor that there was a fear within the community about his impending release, counsel said.
A reasonable reading of it would conclude it did not mean Thomas Murphy and Helen Nolan actually agreed to accommodate Larry and had renovated their garage, he said.
While that was not to say there were not people who would draw this conclusion, that was a different matter entirely and the article could not really be capable of the meanings put forward by the couple, he said.
Des O'Neill SC, for the couple, said the article was clearly libellous because it exposed his clients to hatred and caused them to be shunned as members of society.
The meanings of the words in the article were not strained or contrived but should be read in their ordinary and natural meaning, counsel said. It was not true that his clients had at any time agreed to allow Larry Murphy reside with them in their home, he said.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Birmingham said, if there was a group of people having a Sunday afternoon drink in a west Wicklow pub on the day of the publication of this article, it was possible one of them would say, on a careful reading of the article, it was not going as far to say Larry Murphy was going to reside in the community.
However, the judge added, it seemed to him more likely that voice would be drowned out by others in the group who would say it was quite clear the Sunday World was reporting on something that was going to happen shortly.