Lowry fails in ruling on Smyth claim

Independent TD Michael Lowry arriving at the Moriarty Tribunal in Dublin Castle in April 2009. Photograph: Matt Kavanagh/The Irish Times

Related

• Smyth to fight Lowry application | 21/10/2010
• Judgment reserved in Lowry case | 17/12/2010

 

COLM KEENA Public Affairs Correspondent

Independent deputy for North Tipperary Michael Lowry has failed to get a summary ruling in a defamation case where he claimed journalist Sam Smyth had accused him of being a thief.

Judge Margaret Heneghan delivered judgment today in a case under the 2009 Defamation Act where Mr Lowry was seeking a summary ruling that comments by Smyth were defamatory, that Smyth had no reasonable defence to the comments, and that an order for a correction should be made.

In a hearing in December Smyth had argued that he had not called Mr Lowry a thief, but that he did believe the politician was a liar and a tax cheat.

Judge Heneghan said she had read through the exhibits attached to Smyth’s affidavit, which included matters to do with the McCracken and Moriarty tribunals, Mr Lowry’s dealings with Dunnes Stores, his personal statement to the Dáil in 1996, and the two publications that Mr Lowry is alleging were defamatory.

Lowry defamation case proceeds to full hearing

Updated: 13:31, Monday, 31 January 2011

 A Circuit Court judge has rejected an application by Independent TD Michael Lowry for a summary judgment for defamation against journalist Sam Smyth.

1 of 1

Michael Lowry – Says article inferred that he was a corrupt politician

Related Stories

• Lowry begins defamation case against Smyth
• Michael Lowry’s defamation action is adjourned

A Circuit Court judge has rejected an application by Independent TD Michael Lowry for a summary judgment for defamation against journalist Sam Smyth.

Circuit Court Judge Margaret Heneghan today accepted Mr Smyth’s contention that he has an arguable defence to the allegation by Mr Lowry and that the case could proceed to a full hearing.

Mr Lowry had sought a summary ruling in the Circuit Court under the 2009 Defamation Act.

However, Judge Heneghan said Mr Lowry had not established that Mr Smyth had no defence.

The case centres on comments made by Mr Smyth concerning the McCracken and Moriarty tribunals and their inquiries into matters relating to Mr Lowry’s finances.

Mr Lowry alleges that Mr Smyth made false and defamatory remarks about him in an article in the Irish Independent last May and a month later on the Tonight with Vincent Browne programme on TV3.

27
01
2011

… Bridget O’Rawe v William Trimble Limited … [2010] NIQB 135 … is one of the few libel cases to go to trial in recent times in Northern Ireland and the judgement is not only extremely detailed but provides long awaited clarification from the bench in relation to qualified privilege and particularisation of pleadings.

Events: “Libel reform: in the public’s interest?” – video now available

15
01
2011

The Media Standards Trust has now posted video footage of the MST/Inforrm event on 11 January 2011. This can be accessed on You Tube in a number of parts from the image below.

Libel reform and the public – review of MST/INFORRM debate at Gray’s Inn – Gavin Freeguard

12 01 2011

Could libel reform have a damaging impact on the public’s access to justice? This was one of the key questions to emerge last night from ‘Libel Reform: in the public’s interest?’, a public debate organised by Gray’s Inn in association with the Media Standards Trust and INFORRM.

Chaired by Helena Kennedy, an audience of lawyers, journalists, politicians and campaigners listened to the panel range over everything from the affordability of libel claims, the difference between individual bloggers and large media organisations and whether libel is too ‘claimant friendly’, to standards in journalism, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and the impact of the government’s libel reform bill (expected in March) on news reporting.

The summary of the event in this long post (also available here) is very interesting indeed.

Another interesting post on the issue of libel reform is Opinion: “Balancing Libel Reform” – Kevin Marsh, arguing that we must be slow to reform libel laws because, whatever journalists profess, “not all journalism is honest, well-sourced, fair-minded or in the public interest”. In similar vein, but more strongly, Paul Tweed argues that the current libel laws keep journalists honest:

The irony is that the UK broadsheets are generally regarded to be among the most credible and respected in the world, which is in no small measure due to our fair and balanced libel laws!