A verdict is expected later today in the High Court action by Fianna Fβil national organiser, Mr Seβn Sherwin, alleging he was libelled in an article in the Sunday Independent.
Mr Justice O'Sullivan and the jury heard closing addresses from counsel for the sides yesterday following the conclusion of the evidence on Tuesday. The judge will address the jury today and it is expected to retire to consider its decision this afternoon.
The article, written by Sunday Independent political editor Jody Corcoran and published on September 14th, 1999, stated that property developer Mr Tom Gilmartin had claimed Mr Sherwin asked him at a meeting some nine years previously to make a financial contribution to his sister-in-law's local election campaign.
It was stated Mr Gilmartin claimed the request was made during a meeting at Fianna Fβil headquarters after he had told Mr Sherwin about a £50,000 donation to Mr Padraig Flynn (former minister for the environment and Fianna Fβil treasurer) which was intended for Fianna Fβil.
The report also said that Mr Sherwin had told the Sunday Independent that he "did not solicit any money from Tom Gilmartin for Catherine Sherwin".
It added that Mr Sherwin had confirmed a further claim that he introduced Mr Gilmartin to an American businessman a few weeks after the meeting at Mount Street.
The jury has to answer a number of questions.
The first is whether the words complained of meant or were understood to mean that Mr Sherwin wrongfully solicited money from Mr Gilmartin for his sister-in-law; that Mr Sherwin was prepared to exert a political influence in return for a donation from Mr Gilmartin for Mr Sherwin's sister-in-law; that Mr Sherwin sought money from Mr Gilmartin for his personal use in return for introducing Mr Gilmartin to a US businessman; that Mr Sherwin was aware 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"; and that Mr Sherwin, by seeking money from Mr Gilmartin, abused his position as Fianna Fβil party national organiser.
If the answer to the first question is Yes, the jury has to answer whether the words were substantially true in substance and in fact. If the answer to that is No, the jury is asked to assess damages.
Mr Kevin Feeney SC, for the defence, told the jury it must read the article as a whole to decide what the words meant.
It was his case that Mr Sherwin's claim was based on a reading of the article which implied wrongful actions and abuse which were just not there.
Mr Feeney added that the defence was pleading justification and that if the article was true, it was not defamatory. The jury had to decide if Mr Sherwin asked Mr Gilmartin for money for his sister-in-law.
Mr Garrett Cooney SC, for Mr Sherwin, said the article amounted to a "hatchet" job on Mr Sherwin and his sister-in-law. The text was written to support the headlines. Tucked away at the end of the article was part of a denial Mr Sherwin had issued.