A television producer, Mr Sean McPhilemy, yesterday won his libel action against the Sunday Times newspaper over an article in 1993 which claimed his documentary programme, The Committee, alleging the existence of a loyalist conspiracy to murder Catholics and republicans in Northern Ireland, was a hoax.
At the end of a nine-week trial at the High Court in London, the six men and six women of the jury unanimously held that Mr McPhilemy was defamed in the article and awarded him u£145,000 sterling damages, only u£5,000 less than the recommended ceiling for damages awards.
The jury also concluded that the Sunday Times did not prove on the balance of probabilities that a loyalist committee co-ordinating the murder of Catholics and republicans, which was the subject of Mr McPhilemy's documentary, did not exist.
The Sunday Times was also ordered to pay Mr McPhilemy's costs, which could amount to more than u£1 million. The newspaper is seeking leave to appeal the verdict.
In a statement issued last night the managing editor of the Sunday Times, Mr Richard Caseby, said the libel action had been a very important case to fight.
"The programme put lives at risk and raised other most serious issues. Nineteen out of 21 alleged members of the committee appeared in court for the Sunday Times. They stated their innocence, and their evidence was not challenged. In those circumstances the jury's verdict causes us obvious concern," the statement said.
After the jury delivered its verdict on the seventh day of its deliberations, Mr McPhilemy (52) hugged and kissed his solicitor, Ms Tamsin Allen, and his supporters who sat with him at the back of Court 14. He then left the court to telephone his wife, Kathleen, and members of his family to tell them the result.
Wiping away tears and speaking in a faltering voice, Mr McPhilemy thanked his family and legal team for their support. He said he had brought the libel action against the Sunday Times to prove he was an honest journalist.
The Sunday Times denied libel, arguing that Mr McPhilemy's documentary, produced for the Channel 4 Dispatches series in 1991, was little more than a "collage of unsubstantiated rumours and fabrications" based on lies told by his main source, Mr Jim Sands, who claimed he was a member of the committee.
The documentary claimed a committee of Protestant businessmen, local councillors, politicians and RUC officers, called the Ulster Central Co-Ordinating Committee, conspired with loyalist paramilitaries to murder republicans and Catholics.
In 1998 Mr McPhilemy wrote a book called The Committee, which was published in the US, naming alleged members of the committee. It was claimed that the Ulster Unionist Party leader, Mr David Trimble, associated with and assisted members of the committee who were responsible for the murder of members of his constituency, but under cross-examination during the trial Mr McPhilemy made a qualified retraction of the allegation.
Mr Trimble was called as a witness for the Sunday Times during the trial and vigorously denied the allegation in the book, describing it as "grossly offensive".
A spokesman for Mr Trimble said yesterday the verdict did not prove that the committee, as alleged in the documentary, did exist. And he added: "It should be noted that Mr McPhilemy admitted in court that he had no evidence regarding Mr Trimble's involvement in a so-called committee and as a result withdrew all his allegations against Mr Trimble."
The atmosphere in Court 14 was noticeably tense when the forewoman of the jury was asked by the court associate: "Have the Sunday Times proved on the balance of probabilities that there was no Ulster Central Co-Ordinating Committee?" The response was a clear "No".
And again the answer was "No" when the forewoman was asked: "Have the Sunday Times proved on the balance of probabilities that he was reckless as to the truth of the programme's allegations as to the existence or activities of the committee?"
The forewoman was then asked: "Have the Sunday Times succeeded in proving on the balance of probabilities that the article of 9th May, 1993, was substantially accurate?" Once more the forewoman replied firmly: "No".