IN an unprecedented move, the Sunday Times yesterday began a test case against former Taoiseach Mr Albert Reynolds, to fight for press freedom and a change in English law.
Although Mr Reynolds successfully sued the newspaper over accusations that he was a liar, the Sunday Times will now argue it was justified to print the article on the basis of qualified privilege because the jury agreed that it had correctly reported Mr Dick Spring's reasons for leaving the government. Therefore, the alleged libellous comments should be covered by parliamentary privilege.
Opening the newspaper's case on qualified privilege at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC described Mr Reynolds's libel hearing as a "classic case" of a politician using the existing law to vindicate his public reputation by suing any, newspaper which printed allegations made by his colleagues in the Dail.
After stressing that the issue was, a matter of freedom of speech, Lord Lester said the central question was whether a newspaper was liable when it reported matters defaming a politician if it was published in good faith and was accurate.
"The Sunday Times seeks to obtain a clarification of the law on this critically important issue ink the interests of itself, its journalists, its readers, the press and the public.
"If it is correct in its submissions, it will follow that Mr Reynolds ought not to have obtained a verdict in his favour at all and that he will be liable for the costs incurred in pursuing an unnecessary trial," he said.
However, Mr Andrew Caldecott QC, for Mr Reynolds, told Mr Justice French that if the newspaper had published the former Taoiseach's explanation to the Dail over the delays in the extradition of a paedophile priest alongside Mr Spring's reasons for ending their coalition, then Mr Reynolds could not have sued.
"If they had fairly and accurately reported the proceedings of the Dail, then they could have made the most robust comments and expressions of opinion that, they might have wished.
"In particular, they could have said that the newspaper interpreted Mr Spring's speech as accusing Mr Reynolds of lying. They could have said in their opinion Mr Reynolds's explanation in the Dail was unconvincing ... provided you are honest you can express any opinion you like," he said.
Lord Lester then asked whether it was fair that a British or Irish politician could not be sued for any libel "uttered in parliament, however gross but was free to sue the media for a libel relating to these political proceedings.
"If a British politician must, as we submit, have to prove actual malice in such circumstances, does the same apply to a foreign politician - I hope Mr Reynolds does not take offence, as a resident of west Cork and a lover of Ireland, I would not want the term to be seen as pejorative - who is similarly immune from libel proceedings in his own country, where the subject matter of the publication is of legitimate public interest and concern to readers in this country as well as his own?" he asked.
Such was the determination of the Sunday Times to fight this point of law that Lord Lester repeatedly stressed that the paper would pay its own costs if Mr Reynolds lost. He also indicated that if the paper lost then it would immediately appeal.
Lord Lester quoted from cases in the US, Australia and the European Convention of Human Rights to support his argument but said these issues had not previously been answered by "any authoritative and binding precedent" in England.
"The defendants' defence of common law privilege is based on the fact that the words complained of constituted political speech," he said.
However, in his opening speech, Mr Caldecott denied that the issue was a matter of public interest and said the scope of the Sunday Times's argument was so wide that it could result in a perversion of the truth.
"We have heard lots of references to Mr Reynolds's role in the ceasefire. If he were accused, say on Irish television, of being a compulsive liar whose word is not to be trusted, then under this argument he cannot vindicate himself or have any sureness of being vindicated because the journalist can say: `That is what my sources said at the time and I believed them'."
Mr Caldecott also pointed out, that the Court of Appeal has made, it clear many times that granting qualified privilege to newspapers "is a step to be approached with considerable caution".
The hearing was adjourned until today.