Mr Ian Bailey's libel case against eight newspapers should be dismissed because his evidence was "wholly and utterly unreliable", a court heard yesterday. Mr Bailey claims the newspapers linked him to the murder of Ms Sophie Toscan du Plantier.
In his summing up on the ninth day of the case, Mr Paul Gallagher SC, for the newspapers, told Cork Circuit Court that his clients were justified on a number of grounds in naming Mr Bailey as a murder suspect.
Mr Bailey is taking seven defamation actions against eight newspapers: the Irish Sun, the Irish Mirror, the Star, the Sunday Independent, the Independent on Sunday, the Times, the Sunday Times and the Daily Telegraph.
Mr Gallagher said the case should be dismissed or struck out as up to 20 witnesses, including neighbours and former friends, had repeatedly contradicted Mr Bailey's evidence in court.
"We say the plaintiff's evidence is wholly and utterly unreliable and that he sought to mislead the court in many significant respects.
"Every witness called contradicted his evidence in many and crucial respects, including his own witness, Mr Cassidy [a journalist with the Examiner]." The contradictions in evidence, Mr Gallagher said, centred on a range of areas such as Mr Bailey's movements on the night of the murder; whether there was a fire in his partner's garden in the days after the murder; what details Mr Bailey knew of the murder on the morning it occurred; and claims that he confessed to the murder on at least two occasions.
Mr Gallagher said the evidence of Ms Marie Farrell, who says she saw him around a mile from Ms Toscan du Plantier's house at Kealfadda bridge early on the morning of the murder, was compelling. He also singled out the evidence of Malachi Reed who was 14 at the time. He said Mr Bailey told him he had murdered Ms Toscan du Plantier with the words: "I went up there with a rock and bashed her f**king brains in."
He said comments made by Malachi Reed's mother when questioned on the veracity of her son's statement - "I am sorry, but my son is not a liar" - illustrated how strong and reliable a witness he was.
Mr Gallagher said most of the witnesses were reluctant to give evidence, had no "axe to grind" and had to be called on subpoena. He also highlighted Mr Bailey's repeated tendency to try to distance himself from his "confessions" to the murder by insisting he had been talking about what "they" were saying about him.
In particular, he cited evidence heard regarding a New Year's Eve party in 1998, where Mr Bailey allegedly told a neighbour, Mr Ritchie Shelly: "I did it, I did it . . . I went too far." Mr Bailey has claimed he was repeating what others were saying about him.
Mr Gallagher, however, said that not only had Mr Bailey confirmed that the conversation took place, but that the two witnesses, Mr Ritchie and Mrs Rosie Shelly, were adamant they heard him confess to the murder.
"Mr Bailey not only confirmed that he said the words, he confirmed that he believed Mr and Mrs Shelly believed him to be making a confession . . . Mr Bailey has always tried to put another construction on the words," Mr Gallagher said.
When addressing the issue of whether Mr Bailey's reputation had been damaged by the newspaper articles, Mr Gallagher said the man's reputation had already been tarnished by his arrest in connection with the murder, and by public knowledge of his history of violence with his partner, Ms Jules Thomas.
"A person has the right to a reputation, but no person has a right to come into this court and tell lie after lie after lie," Mr Gallagher said. With regard to the articles at the centre of the libel case, which feature headlines such as "Sophie man's shame," "Devil in the hills" and "Murder suspect has no alibi", Mr Gallagher said the entire articles should be fully considered rather than focusing on isolated paragraphs or headlines.
Drawing on case law, such as Albert Reynolds vs the Times, Mr Gallagher said articles had to be considered in their entirety and that paragraphs or headlines could not be "cherrypicked". Mr Gallagher said the newspapers could use the defence of justification in publishing the articles given there was good reason to believe Mr Bailey was a suspect for the murder and a violent man capable of murder.
If justification did not apply, he said there was the defence of partial justification, where a publication did not have to prove all of the charges as long as anything unproven did not materially affect the plaintiff's reputation.
Where justification or partial justification did not apply, Mr Gallagher said newspapers could also use qualified privilege as a defence, given the public interest in the circumstances surrounding the murder.
Furthermore, Mr Gallagher said the issue of consent was an important one as Mr Bailey had provided numerous interviews to media outlets where he had admitted that he was a suspect in the inquiry.
