MR ALBERT REYNOLDS'S eldest daughter, Miriam, told a libel jury yesterday afternoon that her father's court case against the Sunday Times newspaper had been a "nightmare" for the family.
In a breaking voice, Ms Miriam Fogarty described in detail the effect of the case upon her family and the "stress" her father had suffered during his six days in the witness box.
"Dad doesn't openly discuss his hurt or feelings with his children - it is more of a case of observing his hurt by what he doesn't say. Obviously he wouldn't be putting us through this if it [the article] didn't hurt ... He is obviously exhausted, obviously getting increasingly worried about my mother who is getting increasingly stressed out.
"Obviously she is not here for the cross examination but I phone her every day at lunchtime. Basically it has been a nightmare," she said.
Ms Fogarty, who lives in Edinburgh and is a tax consultant, was Mr Reynolds's second and last witness. After describing her family as "extremely close", she told the jury she was "absolutely furious when she read the Sunday Times article on November 20th, 1994, which accused her father of misleading the Dail and lying to his colleagues.
"I was absolutely furious. I read the article from start to finish and my heart was literally thumping at that stage ... When I finished the article I calmed myself down and took a deep breath to decide what to do," she said.
After telling the jury that her father was "very upset" that weekend following his resignation and the downfall of his government, Ms Fogarty said she rang her father and read the article to him. "I didn't think it was right or fair that the Sunday Times should get away with it," she added.
Following the first day of the hearing last week, Ms Fogarty told the jury, her father's solicitor had given them a "bundle" of articles to read from the Irish media detailing the events leading to his government's downfall. They then found another alleged libellous article in the Sunday Independent newspaper.
"Dad put the articles in front of him and basically divided them in two. He glanced at the Gene Kerrigan article and gave it to me to read. I gave it back to him and asked him to read it himself. I think he said one of two things, either `Jesus, that's worse,' or `Jesus, that's as bad'," she said.
As Ms Fogarty left the witness box, Lord Williams QC, for Mr Reynolds, informed the jury that was the end of his case. Mr James Price QC, for the Sunday Times, immediately said he had been led to believe that Mr Reynolds would be calling more witnesses.
Opening the case for the Sunday Times, Mr Price told the jury he would not make a speech and called his first witness, Mr Alan Ruddock, one of the journalists who wrote the article in the English editions of the newspaper.
After outlining his journalistic career to the jury, Mr Ruddock, who was born and educated in Dublin, said he was appointed Irish editor of the Sunday Times in April 1993, more than a year before he wrote the article.
Mr Ruddock said he realised there was a "weakness" in the Irish Sunday newspaper market and proposed to the then editor of the Sunday Times, Mr Andrew Neil, to "editionalise" the paper.
"In 2 1/2 years it doubled its sales . . . By the time I left at the end of January it was selling 100,000 copies, so it was deemed to have worked, certainly," he said.
Asked by Mr Price if the Irish and English editions of the paper treated stories differently, Mr Ruddock said it was a "frequent and regular practice" because an English audience did not have the "appetite" for detailed Irish political stories unless they related to the peace process or relations between the two countries.
"It was a question of carving out an identity for the paper in Ireland . . . In the English edition of the paper you would have to explain and explain and explain who the characters are. The English audience would never have heard of Noel Dempsey . .. It is rare for there to be a radically different account. I suppose there would be a more judgmental account in England," he said.
Turning to the allegedly libellous article, Mr Ruddock said he was "surprised" that Mr Reynolds was upset by the phrase "Mr Spring had done a deal with the devil".
"It is a phrase in common usage to describe two highly unlikely partners getting together. Mr Spring said at the time he couldn't see how any party could coalesce with Fianna Fail unless it underwent radical transformation," he said.
Asked to describe his perception of Mr Reynolds's political standing, Mr Ruddock told the jury it was "mixed" because he was "clearly a very tough political opponent" but he was also a key player in the peace process.
Recalling the events that led to Mr Reynolds's resignation, Mr Ruddock said there was "wall to wall" coverage in the media about the delays in the extradition of the paedophile priest, Brendan Smyth.
After telling the jury that he watched Mr Spring's speech announcing his party's decision to resign from the government on November 16th, 1994, in a public house, Mr Ruddock added: "Everyone went quiet. It may sound bizarre, people going to a public house to watch a politician giving a speech, but it went very quiet and everyone watched. My understanding was that Mr Spring stated quite clearly that he had been lied to and the House had been lied to.
"He didn't say that explicitly in the Dail but that was my impression and that was certainly perceived by the media covering the speech," he said.
Mr Ruddock said he decided his article for the English paper should explain the background to the "lack of trust" between Mr Spring and Mr Reynolds because he believed the English audience would find the issues confusing.
"I tried to lay out the background as to why one man believed he had been lied to and why he wouldn't trust the Taoiseach, his partner in government," he added.
The hearing was adjourned until today. The trial is expected to end next week.