A FORMER government minister, Mr Kevin Boland, who resigned in 1970, claimed in the High Court yesterday he was libelled in an article in the Irish Independent three years ago.
The article, on January 28th 1993, was headed "Government fear of Marxist IRA led to the backing of Provo split". Mr Boland (78) claims the article wrongly stated he had appeared before the court in the Arms Trial and had been dismissed as a Minister by the then Taoiseach Mr Jack Lynch, in 1970.
Mr Boland claims the defendants falsely and maliciously wrote: "The events which led to the infamous Arms Trial of 1970, in which government Ministers Charles Haughey, Neil Blaney and Kevin Boland appeared before the court along with an officer in the Irish Army, Captain James Kelly and others, were all unfolded again in last night's BBC documentary in the Timewatch series in which the reporter was Peter Taylor, who has done a number of controversial programmes on the North.
"Although Mr Blaney and Mr Boland allowed themselves to be interviewed for the programme, two of the other principal players in the drama that has bedevilled the Fianna Fail Party and Irish politics since then did not.
"Jack Lynch, the Taoiseach at the time who dismissed these Ministers, and Mr Haughey who made a political comeback, became leader and Taoiseach in a party coup some years later, declined to be interviewed."
Mr Boland claims words in the article meant he had been charged with serious criminal offences in relation to firearms; and that as a government Minister he had been dismissed by Mr Lynch.
It is claimed that at 8.15 p.m. on January 28th, 1993, he delivered to the defendants a letter requesting immediate withdrawal of the false allegation and requesting an apology to be agreed in advance.
The newspaper published a reference to the article on February 5th under the heading "Kevin Boland" and stating: "Our article incorrectly stated that Mr Boland had appeared before the court in the Arms Trial of 1970. Mr Boland was, of course, charged with no offence and was not a defendant in this trial. We wish to apologise to Mr Boland for any distress or embarrassment caused by our error."
It is claimed this publications constituted a further aggravated libel. It is also claimed that, insofar as the February 5th publication could be construed as being or having the effect of an apology, the words implied that Mr Boland was charged with or guilty of some disreputable act or conduct short of a criminal offence; and implied he was or may have been a defendant in some criminal trial related to the Arms Trial.
The defence admits the words published in the article were untrue in the sense that Mr Boland did not appear before the court in the Arms Trial. It denies the apology constituted a libel. It stated that Mr Boland having voluntarily resigned from the Cabinet was a matter of public record and was generally known. It is denied the words bore or were understood to bear meanings claimed.
Mr Harold Whelehan SC, for Mr Boland, said his client was never under suspicion for whatever led to the Arms Trial. The then Taoiseach, Mr Lynch, had made it clear that Mr Boland's resignation was of his own volition and without any push.
He resigned on a matter of principle. He chose obscurity and resigned from politics about 5 years ago. He had chosen what he said was principled obscurity.
In evidence, Mr Boland said that when the Cabinet resignations of Mr Blaney and Mr Haughey were requested they did not give them. He (Mr Boland) submitted his resignation after Mrs Haughey and Mr Blaney had been asked by the then Taoiseach to resign.
From the word go he had been associated with Mr Blaney and Mr Haughey and then it changed and he was reported as being involved in the whole arms scandal. People became so accustomed to caving the three of them named in the same breath that when it began to be stated as a fact, he objected and in some cases took action.
When he read the Irish Independent article his immediate reaction was that it was something planned and could not have been a mistake. It was written by the Northern editor, Mr John Devine, and he was an expert on the situation.
The hearing continues today.