A FORMER Government minister, Mr Kevin Boland, who resigned from the Cabinet in 1970, denied in the High Court yesterday that an Irish In dependent reference relating to him was on the level of a minor irritant.
Mr Boland was being cross examined before Mr Justice Kinlen and a jury on the second day of the action in which he claims he was libelled by the Irish In dependent three years ago.
Mr Boland (78), claims an article 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 is claimed this publication constituted a further aggravated libel in that the words implied Mr Boland was charged with or guilty of some disreputable act or conduct short of a criminal offence.
The defence admits the words in the article were untrue in the sense that Mr Boland did not appear before the court in the Arms Trial. It denies the apology constituted a libel. The defence also states that Mr Boland's having voluntarily resigned from Cabinet was a matter of public record.
Mr Nicholas Kearns SC, for the Irish Independent, asked if people had often mixed him up as one of the defendants. Mr Boland said that it happened because of the campaign in the media that the Irish Independent tried to establish. Mr Kearns asked if that was what he was trying to establish, that there was some witch hunt. Mr Boland replied that the article was written by the Northern editor, who could not have made a mistake.
Mr Kearns said Mr Robert Kee, the author, in his book had said Mr Boland had been acquitted in the arms trial. How much had he got? Was it £5,000 with £600 costs? Mr Boland said he did not remember but said he would accept that figure.
Counsel said there were other instances. For instance, Mr Tim Pat Coogan got it wrong in his book as well. Mr Boland said "Yes". He said he got £6,000. Mr Kearns asked about the journal Fortnight in Belfast which had also got it wrong. Mr Boland said it did and he got £3,000 and £500 costs.
Mr Kearns said the same thing happened on Aertel TV. Mr Boland said it was the day Mr Haughey resigned as Taoiseach. He wrote to them. The presenter came out to see him. He received a letter from the director general thanking him. Mr Kearns: "Thanking you for not suing them?" Mr Boland "Yes".
Mr Kearns said that the article complained of was not about him (Mr Boland). He asked what was wrong with the apology.
Mr Boland said it was not an apology. It said "he was charged with no offence". Mr Boland said he was not charged at all. If it was analysed - "was charged with no offence" - that "no" must be a misprint for "an".
Mr Kearns: "Don't you think that is a paranoid and totally artificial inference?" Mr Boland: "No".
Mr Kearns said he would suggest that this mistake was really on the level of a minor irritant. Mr Boland said: "Not to me."
Mr Kearns said that he (Mr Boland) had been described by his own counsel as a "rugged republican". Was he seriously telling the jury that he was appalled by the mistake?
Mr Boland said he did not accept it was a mistake. This was the limit. He had the same right to a good name as anyone else.
Mr Thomas O'Higgins, former TD, Minister and Chief Justice, said he found Mr Boland to be a man of absolute integrity.
The bearing continued today.