A CONDITIONAL order for the sequestration of the assets of In dependent Newspapers plc was made by Mr Just ice Carney in the High Court yesterday, following complaints by the Minister for Social Welfare, Mr De Rossa.
Mr De Rossa complained about articles in the Sunday Independent of November 24th, 1996.
Mr Frank Clarke SC, for Mr De Rossa, quoted extensively from articles by Mr Eamon Dunphy band Mr Gene Kerrigan in relation to a recent libel action by Mr De Rossa against the newspaper. The articles were published following the discharge by Mr Justice McCracken of a jury after a nine day hearing of Mr De Rossa's libel action.
Mr Clarke said that Mr Dunphy's article as a whole had an a impression which would leave a potential juror coming to the case with the impression that Mr De Rossa had pulled the plug on an unmeritorious case, based on unmeritorious grounds, and had been allowed get away with it because of the profound sense of unease about the way justice was administered in this State.
Mr Clarke read an affidavit by Ms Eimer McKenna, solicitor for Mr De Rossa, who said that on November 24th the Sunday Independent published three articles concerning the case.
Ms McKenna said she believed the effect of the articles both in their specific terms and taken as a whole, was to attempt to prejudice Mr De Rossa's position as a litigant against Independent Newspapers.
In particular she believed, and was advised, that the effect and intention of these articles appeared to be to give the impression that a dishonest and unjustified application was made to discharge the jury in circumstances where the impression was given that Mr De Rossa's case was not running well.
There was a clear implication in one of the articles that Mr De Rossa would not, in fact, resume his action against Independent Newspapers, she added. This could clearly have the effect of leading persons who might be jurors at the trial to believe Mr De Rossa was only re entering the matter reluctantly and with little hope of success. In addition, it was contended that the decision of Mr Justice McCracken was incorrect.
Ms McKenna said she also believed there was an attempt to intimidate counsel acting on behalf of Mr De Rossa by virtue of the factually inaccurate and deliberately abusive nature of the article written about one of Mr De Rossa's counsel.
Ms McKenna said that at an early stage in the libel proceedings independent Newspapers accepted that Mr De Rossa had not signed a letter dated September 15th, 1986, allegedly sent by the Workers Party to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
However, the attitude taken by counsel for Independent Newspapers on this point was not consistent. In particular, on the fourth day of the hearing there had been a significant exchange in front of the jury concerning the questioning of Mr De Rossa by counsel for the newspaper.
Counsel for the newspaper had described the letter in question as "a letter that you wrote". This had been withdrawn and it was then described as a letter "which you were alleged to have written and signed". After further objection, counsel for the newspaper described it as "a letter that bears your name, whether it is your signature or not is a matter in issue".
At this stage in the trial the newspaper had withdrawn any suggestion that the letter was signed by Mr De Rossa and there was no allegation before the court that Mr De Rossa had signed the letter.
This manner of conduct of the case, said Ms McKenna, was clearly a matter of concern to Mr De Rossa and his legal advisers. Notwithstanding this, it had been made clear on a number of occasions by counsel for Mr De Rossa that, given his unusual situation, he could not afford discharge of the jury.
On the third day of the hearing (as a result of an error in reporting by RTE) Mr Justice McCracken stated: "I am sure the press will take great care that reporting is accurate, because words are very important; individual words are very important, but obviously mistakes can be made. So long as they are remedied immediately, they probably do not do any harm."
Ms McKenna referred to a number of articles published in the Sunday Independent of November 10th. These articles had been brought to the attention of Mr Justice McCracken the following Friday.
The comment made by the judge was: "I don't think, by the way, this only applies to the defendant's newspaper. I think that it is a general comment which should apply to all newspapers. They certainly can report what happened in court, but comments should be restricted at this age because of the fact that the jury are going to read newspapers and they must decide the ease on what they hear in court and not on the opinion of journalists, however noteworthy that opinion might be or however noteworthy the journalists might be..."
Ms McKenna said that on November 17th Independent Newspapers published a number of articles concerning the action. On the next day of the hearing, November 19th, the jury was discharged on Mr De Rossa's application.
Ms McKenna said that counsel for Mr De Rossa had indicated terms on which the matter could be dealt with without discharging the jury. These terms were not acceptable to independent Newspapers, which had instructed its counsel to state that it "stood over" Mr Kerrigan's article.
Mr Clarke said that, in relation to the article by Mr Kerrigan on November 17th, Mr Justice" McCracken had held there was a real and substantial risk that the jury might well have been confused and come to the wrong decision because of what was included in that article.
Mr Justice Carney said it seemed to him that Mr De Rossa was entitled to a conditional order for the sequestration of the assets of Independent Newspapers Ltd in respect of such assets as lay within the jurisdiction of the court. He fixed the return date ford next Monday week.