An article in the Sunday Independent which described two judges as "mobile phone freaks" was interpreted by one of them as meaning he was "some sort of weirdo", the High Court heard yesterday.
Judge Joseph Mangan (55) is suing the Sunday Independent for libel over the article by journalist Gene Kerrigan, published on the front page of the newspaper on March 22nd, 1998.
The judge told Mr Justice Barr and a jury that when he read the article describing him and another judge as "mobile-phone freaks" after his phone rang when he was presiding at a District Court, he felt greatly embarrassed, upset and demeaned.
He was angered by the article which, he said, asserted that he was bringing the court into disrepute and meant he was not fit to hold office.
The judge claims he was libelled by the article which referred to his mobile phone ringing while he presided at a court sitting in Tallow, Co Waterford, on March 13th, 1998.
Independent Newspapers pleads the words were fair comment on a matter of public interest, namely the discharge by members of the judiciary of their judicial functions and their conduct in court. The defence denies Judge Mangan was damaged in his character or that he had suffered distress or embarrassment. Mr Garrett Cooney SC, for Judge Mangan, yesterday read out the article, which said the "two mobile phone freaks [Judge Terry Finn and Judge Mangan] may well have brought the courts into disrepute, but it's not entirely their fault."
The article stated: "As for Judge Finn throwing a journalist into a cell because the poor hack's mobile phone rang and Judge Mangan, on the same day in a different court, leaving his mobile phone switched on so that he could take a call in mid-case; it is obvious that a little consistency is called for."
It continued: "We suggest that mobile phones be banned from courts. Given the kind of dodgy characters you get in courtrooms, allowing the use of mobile phones could soon result in drug deals being arranged by mobile phones, right there in front of the judge.
"It is far preferable that barristers make their cocaine purchases in the usual place - a lane off Leeson Street and a car-park not unadjacent to the Law Library."
Mr Cooney said the article was intended to be humorous, but the newspaper was not entitled to drag his client into it. In evidence, Judge Mangan said the accommodation at Tallow court was "frugal" with no secretarial back-up and no phones. His District Court clerk had informed him shortly before the court sat that a health board was requesting a special court sitting which the judge suspected might concern an emergency order.
Judge Mangan said he had a mobile phone, issued to him for the very purpose to which he had put it at the Tallow court sitting.
Before the court started, he rang the District Court clerk's office in Clonmel, but the clerk could not then take the call and the judge asked that his call be returned at the earliest opportunity. He took his mobile phone into court, switched it on and placed it on the bench.
In general, he preferred that mobile phones would not ring in court as they interrupted court business and were not fair to litigants seeking to have their cases properly heard.
Shortly after the court sat, his mobile phone rang, he said. He adjourned the court for five minutes, left the court with the District Court clerk, took the call and arranged for a special court sitting.
He believed the newspaper had totally misrepresented what had happened and was astounded that the journalist had not taken the trouble to establish the facts.
Judge Mangan said he was as sure as could be that the telephone call was from Clonmel District Court office.
Mr Kerrigan had not taken the trouble to ascertain the circumstances in which the call was taken.
Judge Mangan agreed the first contact he made with the newspaper following the article was 17 months after publication.
A clarification on page three which had been offered by the newspaper would have been entirely inadequate, he said. An apology on page one was what was called for.
Mr Joseph Cuddigan, a Cork solicitor, said that when the mobile rang and the judge had left with the District Court registrar, no one was in any doubt that it was court business.
The hearing continues today.