THE Sunday Independent took the coward's way out in its defence of the case taken against it, Mr De Rossa's senior counsel told the High Court yesterday.
Mr Adrian Hardiman SC, for the Minister for Social Welfare, had opened the libel case against the newspaper. Mr De Rossa is expected to take the witness stand today.
Yesterday Mr Hardiman said the Sunday Independent had amended its defence and was now saying that Mr De Rossa had signed the "Moscow letter" but had not knowingly signed it.
The "Moscow letter", dated September 15th, 1986, was purportedly sent by the Workers' Party to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union seeking funds of over £1 million.
Mr Hardiman, in his opening address to the jury, said that the newspaper's defence that Mr De Rossa signed the letter but did not knowingly sign it seemed to him like Alice in Wonderland. It was utter nonsense. Mr De Rossa either signed it or he did not.
"Does it mean he signed it when he was asleep? Does it mean somebody slipped it in with his ESB bills?" asked Mr Hardiman. "Did he sign it in a hypnotic trance or was it some trick?
It was not until three weeks ago, on February 7th, that the fecund mind that directed the Sunday Independent came up with this point of view.
There was not a nine year old in this country who would produce such an extravagant and fanciful view as what the Sunday Independent produced.
The importance of the case from Mr De Rossa's point of view could not be overstated. He had tried everything to get a simple retraction. They had never retracted it and he was forced to take legal proceedings.
Since the time of the article, Mr De Rossa had tried to get on with his life as best he could by telling everyone that the article was complete lies and that he was taking the newspaper to court. In that way, he had got through the last few years. He had been successful to the degree that his party had picked up two seats in by elections and was now part of the present Government. But he was very much on trial and the jury would decide the issue.
The central question was had Mr De Rossa's reputation been unjustly attacked in the article?
He told the jury that they were all powerful but they could not "unwrite" what had been written or force the Sunday Independent to print a retraction. The only thing they could do was award Mr De Rossa damages which would reflect the seriousness of the libel. Mr Hardiman said he defied the defendant to mention any more serious libel on any politician or government Minister in this State in 70 years of independence.
It was not an easy thing to be forced into court against the Sunday Independent, a mighty newspaper. The newspaper could say they should not have published the article, or alternatively they, could set out to make life very difficult for Mr De Rossa.
"They can say: `We may lose, but before you get a penny we'll put you through hell,'" said Mr Hardiman. The Sunday In dependent could say that they had the resources to do this and even if it did no good in this case, it could put other people off. That was what an unscrupulous paper would do, but he did not know if [the Sunday Independent] would.
If they fought it in that way, the jury would know by the cross examination by the newspaper's counsel. If its counsel started trawling through aspects of his life or questions that had nothing to do with the article but were directed to embarrass Mr De Rossa, that was what the newspaper would be saying, that they would put Mr De Rossa through hell.
They would do anything to drive the article from the jury's mind. They would go back 14 years and ask if he knew certain people in an effort to avoid the article. The jury was entitled to ask if the line of questioning was designed for a legitimate purpose or to punish Mr De Rossa for daring to take on the media.
Mr De Rossa would tell the jury all about himself and the effect the article had on him. This was a paper which, as it was perfectly entitled to do, decided it did not want to see Mr De Rossa or his party in government. The newspaper was afraid that Dick Spring was going to bring that about, so they decided to do what Senator McCarthy had done so many years ago in America, to just tell a lie.
The newspaper would be quite certain that the negotiations for a new government would be well over before Mr De Rossa nailed the lie. Just because a man was a public representative did not mean he could be accused of drug dealing, armed robbery or protection rackets just because they did not like his politics.
Journalists were perfectly entitled to have a view of politics. But that was not what the actions was about. Eamon Dunphy was perfectly entitled to say: "I would not touch Democratic Left with a" barge pole and I do not think Dick Spring should either." He had a democratic right to say that.
What Eamon Dunphy could not, say was that Mr De Rossa wrote the "Moscow letter" and was, therefore aware of forgery, prostitution, protection rackets, and whatever else was mentioned in the article.
When Mr Hardiman concluded his opening address there was, legal argument in the absence of the jury. When it returned, Mr Justice Moriarty said Mr Hardiman had referred to the fact that no retraction was offered or provided when the request was made.
The judge said it did transpire, and Mr Kevin Feeney SC, for the Sunday Independent, reminded him, that in fact his clients did offer a right of reply entitling Mr De Rossa to have an article published.