A High Court action by RTÉ broadcaster Paddy O'Gorman for libel in a newspaper article was suddenly halted yesterday after complaints that another newspaper article about the first day of the case was prejudicial.
Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne discharged the jury in the case and a new trial date will have to be set. The article deemed prejudicial was published in the Irish Daily Mail, which is owned by Associated Newspapers, the newspaper group being sued by Mr O'Gorman.
Mr O'Gorman (50) had sued Associated Newspapers over an article published on December 14th, 2003, in another of its newspapers, then titled Ireland on Sundaybut now the Irish Mail on Sunday. He claims that the article accused him of displaying a "perverted sexuality" during his participation in the RTÉ TV show Celebrity Farm.
After hearing submissions from both sides yesterday morning about a "colour" story on the first day's evidence published in that day's Irish Daily Mail, Ms Justice Dunne said the colour piece had "gone beyond the bounds" of what is permitted in the covering of trials heard by juries and discharged the jury.
Counsel for Mr O'Gorman, Declan Doyle SC, applied for discharge of the jury because of a "sensationalist" front-page reference in the Irish Daily Mailto the first day of the trial and a "highly prejudicial" colour piece article by Patrice Harrington on page 11.
He said the colour piece was a kind of closing speech which the newspaper's lawyer might make to a jury but was published in a newspaper before Mr O'Gorman had concluded his evidence and before any other witnesses had given evidence.
Eoin McCullough SC, for Associated Newspapers, said juries should only be discharged in the most extreme circumstances and that was not the case here. He said the Irish Daily Mailand I rish Mail on Sundaywere two different newspapers which did not have the same editor or staff and argued that the colour piece contained legitimate comment.
Ms Justice Dunne said while the court was generally slow to discharge a jury, the main issue was whether one of the parties would get a fair trial. While she could ask the jury not to read the article, there would be a great temptation to do so. Sections of the article were prejudicial, particularly as it dealt with matters which the jury was going to have to consider, she found.
Newspapers were entitled to comment but this article went beyond the bounds of what is permitted, she said. Very little could be done to repair the damage. She added that she would deal later with the issue of who would pay the costs to date.