MR Reynolds was suggesting there was something "uniquely dreadful" about the article written about him in the Sunday Times. Yet practically the entire Irish press was calling him a liar in language "considerably fruitier" than that used by the Sunday Times, according to Mr James Price QC, counsel for the newspaper.
Mr Price was finishing his summing up to the jury yesterday on the 16th day of the Reynolds libel trial in London.
He told the jury that livelihoods were at stake in this trial. "Mr Ruddock at the moment is looking for a job."
On the question of damages, he said that this would not arise [if the jury concluded that the article was in substance true. If they did not, they should take into account a number of factors in assessing damages.
First, they should consider to what extent it was true, and reduce damages accordingly.
The article complained of was not published in Ireland, where Mr Reynolds lived and worked. People were not coming up to him to refer to it, his children were not being taunted.
He had told the court that he had spoken to conferences in Britain, and was in demand from the media when Ireland was being discussed. There was no evidence that this was drying up because of the article.
They should consider the effect it had on people where the article was read. "How many people in England, Scotland and Wales will remember, without being told, who Albert Reynolds is at all? Did you remember who Albert Reynolds was at the start of this trial? Two years after the event the effect is minimal.