It is surely unlikely that the De Rossa libel claim against The Sunday Independent could end up yet a third time in the High Court. The second hearing, which ended yesterday with the jury failing to reach a verdict, was a gargantuan exercise, stretching over weeks, with some of the Senior Bar's leading lawyers going the full distance with a number of formidable witnesses - not least the plaintiff, Mr De Rossa. Is there anything to suggest that yet another trial would secure a clear result?
There is no comfort for the Minister in the jury's sole finding that the article on foot of which he sued, shad not accused him of supporting anti semitism and violent communist oppression. But, of course, he had gone into court asking for a great deal more. And the jury clearly did not consider themselves in a position to give him the clean bill of political health which would have come with a finding against The Sunday Independent and its columnist, Mr Eamon Dunphy. It has been a bitter and chastening experience for Mr De Rossa.
Conversely, it is a splendid result for the newspaper. It is not just a good result for The Sunday Independent and Mr Dunphy but for newspapers and journalism in this jurisdiction. One does not have to approve of the sometimes exotic journalism which is practised at The Sunday Independent, nor does one have to be an admirer of Mr Dunphy's sometimes idiosyncratic style, in order to recognise that this is a significant victory for freedom of comment. Mr De Rossa is now the leader of a progressive political party which shares power in the present Government. But he has a past which has to be susceptible to comment whether by journalists or anyone else. Obviously at least some members of the jury took the view that this was Mr Dunphy's entitlement.
That is a healthy thing. And coming on the heels of Mr Albert Reynolds's reverse in the London High Court, it may indicate that the balance is changing in libel proceedings. Not a few politicians and public officials have cleared their mortgages, paid their childrens' school fees or bought their country cottages through the slip of a sub editor's pen or the careless phrase of a hard pressed reporter. The reluctance of the jury to find for Mr De Rossa, notwithstanding the robust, vigorous and caustic treatment he received from Eamon Dunphy's pen, would seem to suggest that there is a change in the climate of thinking; that ordinary people recognise that those who choose public life have to be less precious about what may be said about them.
For one newspaper to acknowledge another's success in a contest such as this is not to lend support to its stance or its policies. The passage of time has proven that many of the views expressed by Mr Dunphy - and others - concerning Proinsias De Rossa and Democratic Left in government were unfounded. They have played their part honourably and efficiently in the present coalition. Mr De Rossa would surely have done better to let his present day role in public life speak for itself and refuse to rise to The Sunday Independent's bait.