Courts

Economist’s evidence inadmissible in Dermot Desmond defamation case against Irish Times, judge rules

Joseph Stiglitz prepared report on newspaper’s coverage of Panama Papers as part of defence of businessman’s action

Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz. Photograph: Natsuko Fukue/AFP via Getty Images

Mary Carolan
Tue Mar 5 2024 - 20:26

Expert evidence from Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz in a defamation case brought by businessman Dermot Desmond against The Irish Times is inadmissible because it is not necessary to decide the issues, a High Court judge has ruled.

Dr Stiglitz had prepared a report dealing with the publisher’s coverage in 2016 of the so-called Panama Papers, based on details within 11.5 million documents leaked from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca which contained financial information about offshore tax entities.

The information was leaked to a German newspaper and shared with The Irish Times and other media outlets through the US-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

In his case against The Irish Times, Mr Desmond claims an April 7th, 2016 article,concerning the Panama Papers, defamed him on grounds that it wrongly meant there was something improper about the manner in which he organised his financial affairs. He also alleges breach of privacy.

READ MORE

The Irish Times denies the claims and has pleaded the article was published in good faith and in the course of a discussion of a subject of public interest, namely the growth of offshore tax and regulatory havens, for the public benefit.

In his ruling on Tuesday, Mr Justice Owens said section 26 of the Defamation Act 2009 gives a defendant who can establish fair and reasonable publication in the public interest a defence to a defamation action.

The main issue in the pretrial application was whether Dr Stiglitz’s proposed evidence is admissible to establish the article was “discussion of a subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit”, within section 26.

Dr Stiglitz’s proposed evidence is that use of offshore havens providing tax avoidance vehicles and regulatory structures which impede transparency has adverse economic effects, he said.

The economist had said the media has a key role in distilling information from the Panama Papers and similar investigations and that publication has resulted in significant public benefit, he said.

The superior court rules provide expert evidence “shall” be restricted to that reasonably required to enable the court to determine the proceedings, the judge said. Such evidence may be received on matters outside common knowledge but the existence of offshore tax havens and use of corporate tax structures to avoid paying tax and to hide wealth are “within common knowledge”, he said.

It will often be obvious from the content of an article that the subject matter has the necessary “public interest” characteristics, he said. “These characteristics are central to investigative journalism.”

The defence of fair and reasonable publication under section 26.1 does not require proof that the public at large, or the economic system, have received some discernible benefit as a result of discussion of a matter of public interest, he said.

Any evidence from Dr Stiglitz which goes to demonstrate beneficial economic effect is a result of publication by the press of disclosures from the Panama Papers is not relevant because proof of this is not necessary, he said. The same point applied to the defence to the breach of privacy claim.

Dismissing allegations of bias or partisanship against Dr Stiglitz, the judge said: “Nothing has been identified which gives me any concern that Dr Stiglitz might be a partisan hack.”

Because the proposed evidence of Dr Stiglitz is not relevant to any issue which must be decided, it is not admissible, he ruled. He will deal with costs matters on March 11th.

Mary Carolan

Mary Carolan

Mary Carolan is the Legal Affairs Correspondent of the Irish Times

LATEST STORIES