A GARAGE owner, Mr John Traynor, was granted an injunction by the High Court yesterday preventing publication by the Sunday Independent of an article relating to him by the late Ms Veronica Guerin.
The injunction also prevents publication of an article by others employed by the newspaper from information supplied by Ms Guerin and alleging, inter alia, that Mr Traynor was involved in the sale or supply of illegal drugs.
Mr Kevin Feeney SC, for the newspaper, indicated it might apply to the court later in the week in relation to a draft article for possible publication. Mr Justice Barron said the newspaper could take steps in relation to another proposed article but could not apply to court in relation to yesterday's order.
Mr Traynor (48), of Glenvara Road, Templogue, Dublin, stated in an affidavit opened in court on Monday that he had never been involved in the sale, supply or importation of illegal drugs.
Mr Justice Barron, in his judgment yesterday, said the application was to restrain publication of an article written by Ms Guerin and alleging inter alia that Mr Traynor was involved in the sale or supply of illegal drugs.
The application was grounded on two affidavits of Mr Traynor. Although the affidavits dealt with the relationship between Mr Traynor and Ms Guerin over 20 months, the essential material to the application dealt with events over a relatively few days at the beginning of June.
The affidavits dealt with meetings between Mr Traynor and Ms Guerin in the course of which she indicated to him there was evidence that he was involved in illegal drugs. The nature of the allegations varied but the general tenor seemed to be that a story would be published indicating his involvement.
There were suggestions in the affidavit that Ms Guerin did not believe the allegations but was being forced by her editor to publish the article.
Mr Traynor denied any involvement and alleged Ms Guerin was aware the allegations were false but was being forced by her editor to stand over them.
In support of the application, it was said that if the article was published it would put both Mr Traynor and his family's lives in dancer.
The judge said Mr Adrian Hardiman SC, for Mr Traynor, had referred to various principles of law. He had stated the authorities had power to restrain publication of a libel but that that power would not be exercised if there was a plea of justification which was likely to succeed and that the application should be dealt with on the evidence available at the interlocutory application.
Mr Justice Barron said Mr Hardiman had referred to a passage in a previous case that there had to be some evidence that the plea of justification was likely to be successful.
The defendants had not gone into evidence and no affidavit had been sworn on their behalf. It was suggested that the unfortunate death of Ms Guerin prevented them from putting matters on affidavit. He (judge) was not so sure that was a fair way of putting it.
There were allegations against the editor which the editor could have dealt with. There was a question as to whether they ought to have indicated how they were going to substantiate the article. They had not done so and had stated they were not obliged to do so.
Mr Justice Barron said it was necessary to refer to Ms Guerin's murder and to stress that the event was totally unrelated to the present proceedings.
It was significant that as she was the writer of the article, the defence would have to approach on the basis that she would be unable to give sworn evidence at the trial.
Mr Justice Barron referred to various legal authorities and said, that, ultimately, what one had to determine was a proper consideration of the allegations that the statements were true and that they would be justified.
One other matter he would like to dispose of was the allegation that there would be a danger to Mr Traynor in the event of publication. It seemed that this was something that must not be minimised. It was only fair to point out that the dangers were not brought about by the operation of the law of defamation but by extraneous considerations.
The court would not ignore such dangers but they would only be taken into account if there was an equal balance of consideration of other relevant matters.
The principle relied on by the defence was that it did not have to swear an affidavit and merely state it was pleading justification and would establish that. Mr Justice Barron said he regretted to say there was no justification for that submission.
It was proper to give consideration to the defendants' statement. In the present circumstances, there was nothing put forward by the defence which would justify the defendants being allowed to make that statement even on affidavit and no more.
Mr Justice Barron said he was facing a situation where he was asked to decide on unsworn testimony as against sworn testimony.
The Constitution required that justice be administered in court and in public. The court could hardly be seen to accept an unsworn statement as against a sworn statement to the contrary. It seemed the defence on the motion would fail and he proposed granting the injunction.
Mr Justice Barron said he was, not sure of the form the injunction should take as there was no evidence before him of the nature of the article.
Mr Feeney said there had been developments since Monday. There was now a draft article in preparation. It was the intention of the newspaper even if an injunction were granted to seek to be entitled to publish. They intended to do that this week.
They would he anxious to have liberty to apply tomorrow or Friday on affidavit with a draft article which it was intended to publish and exhibit as part of that affidavit. There would be nothing published between now and then.
Mr Justice Barron said this was application for an interlocutory injunction. It was not an application to bargain as to what form of article may or may not be permitted. He was dealing with the evidence before him and he proposed making an order. He found it difficult to find what form of order he should make.
He was somewhat surprised that he was not informed on Monday that there was no article in existence.
Mr Feeney said the article of necessity was in draft form. It was not complete. The article which it was the intention to publish would be affected by the events which had occurred.
Mr Justice Barron "I don't think we are on the same wavelength." Was he being told the article had been drafted since Monday or that it was in draft form on Monday?
Mr Feeney said the article was in preparation or being drafted which took account of the information. There were documents which it was intended to incorporate in an article. There was no article in draft form. There was a draft in the most basic sense in existence.
If an order was made, there was a desire to publish an article next Sunday. That article would be written to a large extent by people who were living but it would have reference to the information which was gathered by Ms Guerin.
Mr Stephen McCann, counsel for Mr Traynor, said he wished the court to make an order. It was only on the insistence of the defendants that the case was heard on Monday.
Mr Justice Barron said he would not make any final determination about any proposed application. But he found it strange that the defendants, having had an opportunity to defend a motion and having, in effect, failed to defend it, should now say they intended to take a second bite at defending the application.