Sir, – Conor Brady (Opinion, February 20th), in his article about the Denis O’Brien Daily Mail libel case, says he finds himself “somewhat puzzled by the jury’s conclusion that Paul Drury got his facts – as opposed to his interpretation – wrong”.
Well as the reporter at the centre of this case, let me say that I believe that in relation to my role and my reports from Haiti the jury got it spot-on when they said the Daily Mail article was not based on fact.
A lot has been spoken about in the aftermath of this libel trial on the facts of the case.
So could I add one other fact into the mix?
Last year the Daily Mail’s solicitor wrote to me on a number of occasions informing me that I had “evidence of use to give the court” and that it would “be necessary to subpoena” me.
The fact is that in the end the paper never issued that subpoena for me to give evidence. Of course that is their right. But for me it says a lot. – Yours, etc,