EAMON Dunphy's article sought in a nasty and unpleasant way to "put the boot into Proinsias de Rossa", counsel for Mr De Rossa told the jury.
Mr Paul O'Higgins SC added that the article, published in the Sunday Independent on December 13th, 1992, was based on "tattle and rumour".
A decision in the action is expected today after Mr Justice Moriarty has given his summing-up to the jury of nine women and three men.
In his closing address, Mr O'Higgins said that in essence the Sunday Independent's case was that the article bore none of the meanings contended by Mr De Rossa.
It would have been open to the defendants to come into court and say the article did mean what was alleged but involved statements of fact and fair comment. Neither of those things had been suggested by the defence.
Independent Newspapers accepted that if the article meant what Mr De Rossa claimed it meant, it was untrue and defamatory and that he was entitled to damages, said Mr O'Higgins.
Mr O'Higgins suggested that it was overwhelmingly clear that the effect of the article would be to undermine Mr De Rossa in the eyes of any reasonable person.
Mr Dunphy had claimed he was not suggesting that Mr De Rossa was unfit for government at the time of the article. This was at clear variance with what the article must and could only mean.
Mr O'Higgins said that to suggest that the article related to Mr De Rossa's reference to "special activities" in The Irish Times interview - rather than to the Moscow letter - was almost impossible to take at face value. If Mr Dunphy was saying that Mr De Rossa was not the author of the Moscow letter and did not know about special activities, then his article was the place to say it.
It was perfectly clear that the reference to "special activities" was the reference in the Moscow letter. The interview in The Irish Times was about the Moscow letter.
Mr Dunphy had said he had not suggested that Mr de Rossa was aware of illegal activities involving the Workers' Party. This was implausible as Mr Dunphy's article had stated: "There is evidence strengthened by revelations in The Irish Times this week that De Rossa was aware of what was going on."
The plain meaning of the article was that the interview in The Irish Times had strengthened previous evidence that Mr De Rossa was aware of the "special activities" that were going on.
Mr O'Higgins said that in allowing Mr De Rossa the benefit of the doubt, Mr Dunphy knew precisely what those words meant. They were used in criminal cases where somebody was widely believed to be guilty of something but was given the benefit of the doubt.
Mr O'Higgins asked was it not perfectly clear that the article was saying that because Mr De Rossa knew about and because he was involved in and tolerated activities, as proved by his reference in the Moscow letter, he was not a man fit for government and was not a decent man and should not form part of the Labour Party's contemplations?
The article was not just one about Mr De Rossa in general and the Moscow letter. It was an article which in a nasty and unpleasant way sought to "put the boot into Mr De Rossa" by dragging in whatever unpleasantness, and nastiness could be dragged in.