A JURY in the High Court yesterday awarded damages of £75,000 to a former Minister, Mr Kevin Boland, who claimed he was libelled in a newspaper article three years ago.
Mr Boland (78), who resigned from the Cabinet in 1970, claimed that an article in the Irish Independent on January 28th 1993, wrongly stated that he had appeared before the court in the Arms Trial in 1970 and had been dismissed as a Minister by the then Taoiseach, Mr Jack Lynch.
On February 5th, 1993, the newspaper, in a reference to Mr Boland, said the article had incorrectly stated that he had appeared in court in the Arms Trial. It added: "Mr Boland was, of course, charged with no offence and was not a defendant in this trial. We wish to apologise to Mr Boland for any distress or embarrassment caused by our error."
It was claimed this publication constituted a further aggravated libel in that the words implied Mr Boland was charged with or was guilty of some disreputable act or conduct short of a criminal offence.
The defence admitted the words in the article were untrue in the sense that Mr Boland did not appear before the Arms Trial. It denied the apology constituted a libel and stated that Mr Boland's resignation from Cabinet was a matter of public record.
Yesterday, after almost two hours, the jury found that Mr Boland had been defamed. Mr Justice Kinlen gave judgment for £75,000 and costs. The question of a stay in the event of an appeal will be raised in court next week.
Mr Nicholas Kearns SC, for the defence, asked for a stay for an appeal. Mr Harold Whelehan SC, for Mr Boland, said there could be no appeal on the question relating to the defamation finding.
Mr Justice Kinlen said he had been asked by Mr Kearns, following his closing address to the jury, to discharge himself and the jury in the case for the bias he had allegedly showed.
Mr Whelehan said that perhaps it would be inappropriate for the judge to consider a stay. He thought the application should be made to the Supreme Court and that was the correct procedure. He added that he would undertake not to execute the orders for eight days. Mr Kearns said he would take instructions on the question of a stay.
Mr Justice Kinlen said he wanted the case mentioned next week. He would make no order at the moment on the stay.
Earlier, in his address to the jury, Mr Justice Kinlen said various newspapers had accused Mr Boland of having been charged or dismissed from government. He wanted to keep the record straight. He was going into his "twilight years" and wanted, when he left this world, a proper record.
He said counsel for the Irish Independent had accepted that it made a mistake and pointed out five or six other publications had made a similar mistake. In fact, Mr Boland was not or dismissed from government.
Mr Boland said he had been defamed and wanted an apology damages. The defendants they had made an apology as was practical. It was for the jury to decide if it was an apology and if it was given in mitigation of damages.
Mr Kearns told the jury the defence accepted it had made mistakes in the article. Five or six other journalists or writers had made the same mistake. Mr Boland seemed to think the Irish Independent made more than a simple mistake and that, in the apology, the newspaper was trying to "get at him".
If the newspaper was trying to get at Mr Boland, was this not a very strange way of doing so? This was the only complaint he had against the newspaper in 26 years.
Mr Whelehan told the jury his client had retired from politics and chosen obscurity rather than continue in a profession which he felt had been dishonoured. He was a man who made his decisions and stuck by them. He left politics with nothing but his reputation. He had put a great deal more into politics than he ever got out of it.
The newspaper had admitted that what it published was wrong but said Mr Boland had not been defamed. That defied logic. There was no way it could be said Mr Boland was charged with a serious criminal offence and that that did not reflect on him. To suggest somebody had been dismissed from government when he had in fact resigned on a matter of principle was highly defamatory.