ONE might forgive the Guardian devoting five pages to its victory in the libel action taken by the former Tory MP, Mr Jonathan Aitken. Such victories tend to be rare.
The Guardian was able prove the absolute truth of a central allegation, and so Mr Aitken withdrew the case.
The newspaper was able to show that Mr Aitken had lied - and was willing to allow his daughter to lie in evidence she gave on his behalf. It has called on the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute Mr Aitken for perjury.
If a similar case was taken here the odds are an Irish newspaper or other media organisation would have been forced to settle and offer money. The Irish media, comprised mostly of small companies, have tended to avoid the risk of highcost legal actions. In the Irish system only 20 out of 100 cases go to court and of that 20 the media win only four. With the odds so stacked against the media, it is obvious why few make it to court.
The Guardian has won its four last cases. In all those cases it has been able to show it has performed its duty as a public watchdog and that it was justified in publishing particular stories in the public interest.
In defamation cases, truth offers the best defence. However, one of the problems is that, unlike other civil cases, there is a presumption in favour of the plaintiff, who merely has to show the words referred to him or her and were published by the defendant. The onus is on the defendant to prove the statement is true, rather than the person making the complaint proving it was untrue.
For the media this means demonstrating the statement is true according to a legal rather than a journalistic standard. The statement deemed to be a libel must be substantially true, irrespective of any context.
This presents a difficulty for journalists protecting the confidentiality of their sources, who might be unwilling to appear in court and offer proof.
While in Britain judges and juries seem to be changing their attitude towards libel cases the position in Ireland is getting worse. Despite a 10 year campaign by newspapers and the National Union of Journalists for the reform of the libel laws, the number of cases has increased and the awards are getting higher.
The Guardian's legal correspondent, Ms Clare Dyer, said "the Guardian's winning streak is seen as an encouraging sign by newspaper lawyers, after a long run of cases in which it seemed that suing a paper was as good as a winning lottery ticket."
In this country State defamation is still a valuable lottery ticket with little risk attached for the plaintiff.
In the recent election, only the Labour Party included a provision to reform the defamation laws in its manifesto, even though the party leader, Mr Spring, seemed to be unaware of this commitment.
In a reply to a recent NUJ survey of attitudes to defamation and other reforms in the media law, both Fianna Fail and Fine Gael indicated no desire to change the law, even though the Law Reform Commission recommended wide changes as far back as 1991.
The political establishment has been willing in recent years to relax censorship. Section 31 of the Broadcasting Act was not renewed, Freedom of Information legislation has been passed and will come into effect next year and there is pressure to abolish or change radically the Official Secrets Act.
However, go through the cuttings library of any Irish newspaper and under libel you will find a who's who of the most well known and prominent people in Irish society. The laws of defamation offer protection to the establishment, and particularly the political establishment, from too much public scrutiny. There is no legal aid, so plaintiffs must have the money for actions. Not surprisingly, lawyers comprise the greatest number of plaintiffs, while politicians constitute 23 per cent.