A SUNDAY newspaper had deliberately set out to destroy the reputation of the Democratic Left leader, Mr Proinsias De Rossa, the High Court was told yesterday.
It was also claimed on behalf of Mr De Rossa that there were elements in politics and the media who had been prepared to "stop at nothing" to frustrate Democratic Left's efforts to play a leading role in Irish politics.
Mr De Rossa, now the Minister for Social Welfare, claims he was libelled in an article by Eamon Dunphy in the Sunday In dependent more than four years ago. He is suing Independent Newspapers plc.
He claims' that on December 13th, 1992, the newspaper published words which meant and were understood to mean that he had confessed to "special activities" on the part of a political party of which he was leader, and that he was aware of and tolerated such "special activities", which were criminal in nature.
It is also claimed the words meant that the criminal activities consisted of or included armed robbery, forging of currency, drug dealing, prostitution or management of prostitutes for reward and protection rackets that Mr De Rossa had knowingly accepted funding, or allowed his party to accept funding, derived from those activities and that he was knowingly party to such activities.
Independent Newspapers admits it published the words but denies they were published falsely or maliciously as alleged.
It claims the words mean Mr De Rossa was "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 signed but not knowingly signed by him which appeared to refer to such activities. In that sense, the words complained of were true and accurate."
The defence pleads that the words complained of were fair comment on a matter of public interest.
Mr Adrian Hardiman SC, for Mr De Rossa, said the Sunday Independent, which has a readership of more than one million people, had deliberately set out to destroy the reputation of his client.
It had done so in the most dramatic way possible by associating him with a series of truly appalling crimes, including armed robbery, drugs, prostitution and protection rackets.
The allegations were based on a bogus letter which not even the newspaper would now say had been written by Mr De Rossa. He challenged the defendants to say if they were aware of a more serious libel published in Ireland in respect of a public figure.
Counsel said Mr De Rossa had been for 30 years involved in the political process in one way or another - as a candidate, party worker, housing activist, TD since 1982, party leader and Minister.
The Sunday Independent was a highly influential newspaper, with many columnists who were household names, including Mr Dunphy.
Mr Hardiman said the timing of the article was of great importance to understand the sheer malice that lay behind the lie at the centre of the article.
There had been a general election and negotiations were taking place on the formation of a multiparty coalition. Mr De Rossa's party was in negotiations.
In the context of stopping Mr De Rossa becoming a member of government at all costs, the newspaper calculated to tell a very grave lie about him, confident in the fact that he could not track it down until long after the negotiations were over.
People who knew Mr De Rossa knew him to be a decent and honourable man, absolutely opposed to crime and subversion of any kind.
The central lie was that Mr De Rossa had made reference to "special activities" and thereby proved that he knew about them. That was the outright lie. Mr Dunphy wrote it and the Sunday Independent published it.
Mr Hardiman said Mr De Rossa had sought a retraction of the lie and a contribution to charity and the newspaper refused.
He told the jury how Mr De Rossa was born in the inner city of Dublin and was one of a family of 12. His mother ran a small greengroccer's shop.
His father was originally a farm labourer and later set up a vegetable business. The plaintiff ran it for a time. His family were not politically active but held nationalist views.
For 25 years, he had strongly denounced violence and successfully encouraged others from the same tradition to do so. He did that despite a childhood so steeped in the nationalist tradition that he was a member of Na Fianna, the boys republican group founded by Padraig Pearse.
This was the time of the Border campaign in the 1950s which led him and hundreds like him towards Sinn Fein and briefly towards the IRA. As early as the 1950s, he was developing an abhorrence of violence. He left while still a teenager, having been interned, and devoted himself to the housing action campaign.
At that stage, Mr De Rossa was not a prominent figure or political person. He was a grassroots activist, not even well known in his own political circles. His election to the Dail in 1982 was based on more than a decade of "hard slog" in his constituency.
During that time, he had supported those from his own tradition who opposed violence. He was instrumental in leading that tradition away from violence. There was no one in national political life who would doubt Mr De Rossa's absolute personal commitment to peace.
He had led a long struggle for openness in the Workers Party, of which he was elected leader in 1988. That was by and large successful.
In 1991, when he introduced a new constitution, he failed to get the required two thirds support. He left the party, taking six of the seven TDs, 30 of the 40 councillors and 80 per cent of the membership. Shortly afterwards, Democratic Left was formed.
In 1992, there were elements in politics, the media and the old guard of republican socialism who were shocked at DL's involvement in negotiations to form a government and who would stop at nothing to frustrate the party's aspirations.
Mr Hardiman said a bogus letter made its appearance in October 1992, and was printed in full in The Irish Times on October 26th that year.
The Sunday Independent attributed the letter and the phrases it contained to Mr De Rossa and having stated the falsehood went on to milk it.
The letter, dated September 15th, 1986, purported to be a request from the WP to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union for funds of £1 million. It purported to set out the WP's financial position.
It claimed a shortfall between the party's expenditure and income had in the past been met by "special activities". These were not possible to detail, the letter added, "because of reasons we are sure you will understand".
Mr Hardiman said the article - which referred to efforts to form a new government - stated there were people who were "prepared to ignore Democratic Left leader Proinsias De Rossa's reference to the special activities' which served to fund the Workers' Party in the very recent past.
"The special activities' concerned were criminal. Among the crimes committed were armed robberies and forgery of currency."
Mr Hardiman said one of the extraordinary things about the case was that the Sunday Independent was now saying the article did not mean that at all. It was saying it meant Mr De Rossa signed the letter certainly, but not knowing.
Counsel said that when the Sunday Independent put in its first defence in May 1994, it did not assert that Mr De Rossa wrote or signed the letter, but it still did not publish a retraction. It allowed the lie to linger.
It was sickening for Mr De Rossa to see his name associated with the activities mentioned in the article, counsel added.
If he allowed himself to be associated with such activities he would never be able to hold up his head again in political or private life. He challenged the author of the article and the editor, Aengus Fanning, to go into the witness box and stand over it.