A High Court judge yesterday rejected a claim by an English barrister, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC, that a booklet written by him could not give rise to a claim for defamation by two members of the Birmingham Six.
Two members of the six, Mr Hugh Callaghan and Mr Gerry Hunter, have brought proceedings against Sir Louis and the booklet's publisher, Gerald Duckworth and Company Ltd, of London, claiming the booklet defames them in that it seeks to deprive them of the presumption of innocence following the quashing of their wrongful convictions following the Birmingham pub bombings of 1974.
Yesterday, while rejecting claims by Sir Louis and his publishers that the contents of the booklet could not give rise to a defamation action, Mr Justice O Caoimh stressed he was not ruling or expressing any view on the merits of the defamation claims brought.
The judge added that he was satisfied that Mr Blom-Cooper had raised issues of particular importance which had not been fully addressed previously by the courts in this country.
He believed the points of law raised before him were such that Sir Louis should be permitted to amend his defence in the light of the court's ruling, with liberty to Mr Callaghan and Mr Hunter to amend their claims.
Mr Callaghan and Mr Hunter, with four other men who became known as the Birmingham Six, were the victims of a miscarriage of justice in England.
Mr Callaghan and Mr Hunter pleaded that the booklet, The Birmingham Six and Other Cases and subtitled Victims of Circumstances had defamed them. In particular they complained that the booklet, through inference and innuendo, meant that the quashing of their convictions by the English Court of Appeal did not imply that they were entitled to be presumed innocent.
Sir Louis and Duckworths claimed that the statements, convictions, opinions and ideas in the booklet did not give rise to a defamation action.
Mr Justice O Caoimh rejected arguments that Sir Louis was entitled under the Irish Constitution, the treaty establishing the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights to express freely the statements, convictions, opinions and ideas in his booklet and, therefore, the publication could not give rise to a defamation action.
Mr Justice O Caoimh said the court must recognise that the Constitution gave recognition and expression both to the freedom of expression and to the right to a person's good name. It was accordingly necessary that the law should balance these rights in an appropriate manner.
He was not satisfied that the correct approach was to say that the right to freedom of expression should be viewed as paramount to the right to one's reputation.
He was satisfied the right to freedom of expression could result in a situation where, in the context of a democracy, the position of the press and other organs of public opinion had to be respected and protected, having due regard to the right of one's reputation.