THE hearing of the libel action being taken by the Minister for Social Welfare, Mr Proinsias De Rossa, was adjourned in the High Court in Dublin yesterday until next Tuesday following lengthy legal argument in the absence of the jury.
Mr De Rossa, the leader of Democratic Left, is suing Independent Newspapers plc over an article by Eamon Dunphy in the Sunday Independent on December 13th, 1992, when attempts were being made to form a coalition government.
Yesterday was the third day of the hearing, which is before Mr Justice McCracken and a jury. Most of the day was taken up with legal submissions without the jury being present.
When the jury was recalled just before lunchtime Mr Justice McCracken said that certain legal matters had been raised and the parties wanted to consider them.
Following an adjournment, the judge referred the jury to evidence at the end of the previous day, at the very end of the cross examination of Mr De Rossa, when Mr Patrick MacEntee SC, for the defence, had asked him to tell the court about Mr Seamus Costello "and how he met his end". Mr De Rossa had stated that he did not know. Mr MacEntee had asked did he not know anything about it. Mr De Rossa had said that he (Mr Costello) had been shot. Mr MacEntee had asked who shot Mr Costello. Mr De Rossa had said that he did not know who shot him.
Mr Justice McCracken said that at that stage it was permissible for Mr MacEntee to go that far. Unfortunately, he had gone further. He had asked who shot the man who shot him (Mr Costello), and then "who shot the man who shot the man who shot him".
The judge said it was possible the jury might take an inference out of that an inference of fact that perhaps Mr De Rossa was part of the shooting in some way or knew a good deal about it.
Mr Justice McCracken said that Mr MacEntee did not intend to imply that. "It should not be taken in any way by you that any facts are being put to Mr De Rossa about this or that he knew any particular facts about it," he said.
The only thing the jury could have regard to was that Mr De Rossa had said "I don't know who shot him." The judge added: "At that stage, that's the end of it."
In the action, Mr De Rossa claims that the article meant, or was understood to mean, that he had confessed to "special activities" on the part of a political party of which he was leader that he was aware of and tolerated them that the special activities were criminal in nature and consisted of, or included, armed robbery, forging currency, drug dealing, prostitution or the managing of prostitutes for reward, and protection rackets.
The defence admits that the words were published, but denies that they were published falsely or maliciously, as alleged.
It admits that the words complained of meant Mr De Rossa had been leader of a party which had previously received funds raised as a result of criminal activities and that there had been public comment on a letter purportedly signed by him which appeared to refer to such activities.
It is denied that the words meant or were understood to bear the meanings claimed. It is claimed the words were fair comment on matters of public interest.