Reynolds to seek retrial and appeal jury's zero damages

THE former Taoiseach, Mr Albeit Reynolds, is to appeal against the London jury's award of "zero damages" following his Sunday…

THE former Taoiseach, Mr Albeit Reynolds, is to appeal against the London jury's award of "zero damages" following his Sunday Times libel victory and is to seek a new hearing.

Mr Reynolds lodged his grounds for appeal at the High Court in London yesterday. It is believed it could take up to 18 months before the case is heard.

In a statement issued through his solicitor, Ms Pamela Cassidy he said: "I am appealing against the jury's verdict on malice and damages. I have been strongly advised by my legal team that there were errors of law in the summing-up, that there were many misdirections over the facts and that overall the summing-up was unbalanced and grossly unfair.

"That the jury found in my favour on truth I can only conclude that their approach to malice and damages was conditioned by the numerous errors in the summing-up. For example, the judge told the jury he could see no difference between an opinion piece and a news feature. That was central to my case on malice which the judge completely failed to sum up to the jury.

READ MORE

"It is not appropriate for me to go into all the details of these errors before the matters are adjudicated upon by the Court of Appeal.

Ms Pamela Cassidy said the Court of Appeal hearing should last five days and it was "unlikely" that a retrial would cost Mr Reynolds a further £1 million in legal fees.

It is understood that the Sunday Times is considering an appeal to the House of Lords on the grounds of qualified privilege, a legal device which in some cases protects publication of matter raised in parliament or in the courts.

Mr Reynolds, interviewed on RTE Radio's Liveline by Marian Finucane yesterday, made the points contained in his statement. He also said that the judge in his summing up failed to tell the jury "that during the case the Sunday Times withdrew fair comment as part of their defence. That, too was fundamental to my case and would have been fundamental to the jury in their deliberations."

He continued: "Fundamental issues of law, fundamental issues of fact were not summed up properly by the judge, and I simply could not walk away from that kind of situation.

"We feel we were so badly, wronged we have to seek justice, Mr Reynolds added.