Jury in Gerry Adams defamation case expected to begin deliberations next week

High Court reporters

The jury in Gerry Adams’s High Court defamation action against the BBC is expected to begin deliberations next week.

Mr Justice Alexander Owens told the jury of seven men and five women that at least nine of them must be in agreement in coming to a decision in the case.

The former Sinn Féin leader claims a BBC Spotlight programme and a related article published in 2016 defamed him by falsely accusing him of sanctioning British agent Denis Donaldson’s killing at a cottage in Glenties, Co Donegal, in 2006.

He described the allegation as a “grievous smear”.

The BBC denies it defamed Mr Adams, who insists he had no involvement in Mr Donaldson’s death, for which dissident republicans claimed responsibility for in 2009.

On Friday, Mr Justice Owens addressed the jury on the key questions they are to consider when coming to a verdict in the case, and summarised part of the evidence heard over the course of four weeks of the trial.

The judge said the onus was on Mr Adams’s side to prove that the statements complained of in the broadcast and article were defamatory, that they mean he sanctioned the killing of Mr Donaldson.

The BBC says the statements did not defame Mr Adams. It is the broadcaster’s case that the statements were couched as allegations, and should be considered in the context of the wider broadcast and article.

The judge said it was the jury’s role to decide what the words complained of mean to a reasonable member of society.

If the jury find the statements mean what Mr Adams says they do, then they must consider the BBC’s defence of fair and reasonable publication in the public interest.

The onus of proof in this defence is on the BBC, the judge said.

Mr Justice Owens told the jury they’d heard a great deal of evidence on the public reputation of Mr Adams, but noted that this was not relevant until considering the question of damages.

The jury will only consider damages if they find the statements to mean what Mr Adams has pleaded, and if they reject the BBC’s defence.

On Thursday, BBC senior counsel Paul Gallagher claimed the case was Mr Adams’ cynical attempt to launder a reputation of being in the IRA and on its decision-making body, known at the army council.

Mr Adams’s senior counsel Declan Doyle said the BBC was “deliberately and cynically” ignoring Mr Adams’s reputation for peace and reconciliation.

The judge said the BBC’s argument in relation to Mr Adams’s reputation was simple: they say his reputation is bad and they say he should be given nominal damages.

The judge said the BBC say the jury should “send [Mr Adams] packing”, with a euro – or even a cent – in damages, if it comes to that.

Mr Adams’s case is that he has a public reputation for ing the move to the peace process in Northern Ireland, the judge said. Mr Adams’s lawyers have argued that their client should receive “very substantial” damages of at least €200,000.

The judge reiterated to the jury that allegations made about Mr Adams in newspapers, books and in other publications – put to Mr Adams by the BBC’s lawyers during the trial – were not proof “that he was involved in nefarious activities”. They are, however, relevant to his public reputation, he said.

The judge noted that Mr Adams freely itted these allegations were made about it, and are in the public domain. He also notes the allegations have been denied by Mr Adams.

Also relevant are recordings of Mr Adams giving speeches or press conferences, or clips of him meeting leaders such as Bill Clinton and Nelson Mandela.

The judge said it was for the jury to decide what Mr Adams’s public reputation is.

The judge said they were being asked if his reputation was of a man who approved murder of others and was involved in terrorism, or a man who persuaded others to stop violence, leading to a permanent cessation in violence in Northern Ireland.

The judge said they could decided his reputation is a mixture of both propositions, or more one than the other.

He said that they should only consider his reputation in this jurisdiction, not in Northern Ireland, or anywhere else.

The judge said that in considering a witness’s evidence, the jury should consider if they “have an axe to grind” or is withholding something.

He said they should consider the internal consistency of their evidence, to consider if their is credible.

The case returns on Tuesday.