SUPREME COURT:COLEMAN -V- MGN LIMITED Supreme Court. Neutral citation (2012) IESC 20
SUPREME COURT
Judgment was delivered on March 15th, 2012, by the Chief Justice, Mrs Justice Susan Denham, with Mr Justice John Murray, Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman, Mr Justice Nial Fennelly and Mr Justice Donal O’Donnell concurring.
JUDGMENT
An appeal by Mirror Group Newspapers against a High Court refusal to strike out defamation proceedings against the Daily Mirror newspaper was allowed, and the court stated it had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the proceedings.
BACKGROUND
The proceedings were taken by the plaintiff, who lives in Claremorris, Co Mayo, against Mirror Group Newspapers in Canary Wharf, London. These arose from an article and photograph, which included the plaintiff, published in March 2003 in the Daily Mirror under a heading “Yob War – Boozy: Lads on a typical night out in Britain”, which outlined measures announced by the then British home secretary David Blunkett to control behaviour on the streets.
These included police powers to close “crack dens”, fixed fines of £80 for “yobs” between 16 and 18 and instant fines for parents of under-15s.
Mr Coleman claimed that the article and the juxtaposition of the photograph meant he was a “yob” and a drunkard, guilty of criminal conduct, a drug dealer, someone who should be investigated by the police and subject to criminal sanction and had engaged in anti-social behaviour.
He claimed the photograph was republished in September 2003 to accompany another article on binge-drinking in Britain. He also claimed the newspaper was circulated in Ireland. He claimed he had been defamed and had suffered loss, damage and expense, and he brought a claim for aggravated, exemplary and punitive damages.
The newspaper sought an order that the High Court decline jurisdiction to hear the case. On January 15th the High Court refused the motion. Mr Justice Peter Charleton said: “I have to take a statement of claim as being true in very respect.” Turning to the question, “Where does the libel occur?” he said: “With internet publications nowadays, a recording from Saudi Arabia might end up in Ireland on the news.”
He added that the plaintiff was within his rights to choose the jurisdiction. “He may not be able to prove publication but he could prove it if someone brought back a copy of the paper from the United Kingdom. There could be rumours flying around from emigrants and migratory workers from the United Kingdom.” MGN appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court.
When the appeal came before the Supreme Court in October 2010, it was indicated that there was evidence of the circulation of the newspaper in question in Ireland, but this evidence was not before the court and time was given to the plaintiff to file further evidence.
When the hearing resumed on March 8th, counsel for the plaintiff said the claim was now one of internet publication based on jurisprudence and the fact that the Daily Mirror was online every day. Counsel for the plaintiff admitted there was no evidence of publication of this article on the Daily Mirror site. The case now hinged on the issue of publication on the internet, through an archival site, UKPressOnline.
The case had therefore changed since last before the court, when it was stated there was evidence of the newspaper being available in Ireland.
DECISION
The case was now one where it was the plaintiff’s case that the defamation was published on the internet, specifically the Daily Mirror online and UKPressOnline, a subscription-based archival website. There is no general access other than to a thumbnail miniature of part of the article and photograph, and it was agreed that the plaintiff could not be recognised on this thumbnail. His name was not mentioned in the article, so he could not be identified by a search. The appeal had shifted as it progressed through the court, the judge said.
There was need for evidence of a publication to establish a tort of defamation. There was no evidence that the Daily Mirror was published online in 2003. There was no evidence that the daily edition of the paper was on the web in 2003. There was no evidence of any hits on any such site in this jurisdiction. There were therefore fatal flaws in the plaintiff’s case.
The basic grounds on which the plaintiff now moved his case were never pleaded and were not established in evidence. Neither on the pleadings nor on the evidence did the court have jurisdiction, and the appeal was allowed.
The full judgment is on courts.ie.
Declan McGovern SC and John D O’Donnell BL, instructed by Michael McDarby, Ballinrobe, for the plaintiff; Ronan Murphy SC, instructed by McCann Fitzgerald, for the defendant