The Bailey libel case attracted enormous media and public interest as it aired, for the first time in court, allegations surrounding the brutal murder of French film-maker, Ms Sophie Toscan du Plantier, in December 1996. Although Ian Bailey was arrested twice and questioned, no one has ever been charged in connection with her death.
Mr Bailey sued eight newspapers for saying he was the chief suspect and they vigorously defended the action.
Yesterday's judgment was a victory, even if an incomplete one, for the newspapers involved. Judge Patrick Moran found that six of the eight were justified in what they had written about Mr Bailey, though he found that Mr Bailey had been defamed by an allegation, included in articles published by the Sun and the Irish Daily Mirror, that he had been violent to his former wife.
Mr Bailey brought the case in the Circuit Court, where the maximum damages are €35,000, rather than the High Court, where there is no limit on damages, even though it is hard to imagine a more serious libel than the one he alleged - that he had been "branded a murderer".
There must have been a temptation for the newspapers to settle and avoid the considerable costs they have incurred by contesting a two-week case via two senior and one junior counsel and a team of libel specialists from a firm of solicitors. Despite their victory, they are unlikely to recover their costs from the plaintiff, as they must have known.
So they fought this case on a question of principle - that the media must be free to publish what it believes to be true, even if this is damaging to a person's reputation.
In his balanced judgment, Judge Moran vindicated this decision. After examining the evidence he found, on the balance of probabilities, that what the newspapers wrote was justified.
He also stressed that the alleged defamatory statements must be read in context, and pointed out that they were always accompanied by Mr Bailey's denials of any wrong-doing.
His decision that Mr Bailey was defamed by the allegation he had used violence against his former wife deprived the newspapers involved of a ringing victory.Nonetheless, the case sends out a message that plaintiffs should not expect the media to roll over and pay up when threatened with a libel action. It demonstrates also that financial cost is not the first consideration in fighting such an action.
This case illustrates yet again the need for urgent reform of our libel laws. The original claim was issued in 1998. The defence was submitted in 2000. Yet the case was not heard until the very last days of 2003. There is no legal mechanism to force libel cases to proceed expeditiously. As a result, the passage of time inevitably withers some of the evidence, rendering the task ever more difficult for those charged with delivering judgment in such cases.