Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Issues arising from witness’s evidence to be addressed by direction to the jury
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses application to have entirety of witness's evidence disregarded and to strike out defence of qualified privilege in defamation proceedings, holding that: (a) it had been made clear to the jury that the defendant did not seek to justify any of the impugned statements, and nor was it contended that any of the statements were incapable of bearing a defamatory meaning; (b) to accede to the application would be choosing a nuclear option and a more measured response would meet the justice of the case; and (c) the court would give a direction to the jury to the effect that, insofar as any evidence they had heard from the witness to date or may hear from her or other witnesses conveyed the impression that they will be concerned with determining the true nature of a document shown by the plaintiff, this is incorrect and that is not an issue that they will be given to try and, further, that any evidence that proves or tends to prove the truth of the impugned statements should be disregarded.
Judgment on applications by plaintiff in defamation proceedings - plaintiff seeking direction that the jury disregard all evidence given on behalf of defendant by well-known racehorse trainer - trainer was partway through evidence in chief at time of application - plaintiff also seeking order striking out plea of qualified privilege raised by way of defence to three of the seven publications the subject matter of the proceedings - gravamen of plaintiff’s application that purpose of the evidence given by the trainer was to establish the truth of the impugned statements and that this was wholly impermissible where the only defence pleaded was qualified privilege - plaintiff employed as the head of security for Turf Club and took up this employment after retiring from An Garda Síochána as a superintendent after 30 years’ service - following several criminal prosecutions for offences involving anabolic steroids, plaintiff invited to make recommendations as to how best to ascertain the extent of the abuse and to stamp out the practice - one such recommendation was to work with Special Investigations Unit of the Department of Agriculture, which has statutory powers to enter and search the premises of racehorse trainers for banned substances and to do so without notice - name of trainer giving evidence had been written speculatively on a docket linking her with payment for steroids when the investigative team were trying to trace involvement - plaintiff contends that he was unaware that it was added - factual dispute as to what was shown by plaintiff when witness's yard was searched – whether witness had been giving evidence of truth of statement -whether witness’s evidence was admissible where no plea of truth or justification had been made – whether whether evidence of witness's state of mind only was admissible in order to rebut plea of malice in the event that pleaded defence of qualified privilege was made out – whether witness had to accept that her belief in the truth of the statement was mistaken.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
