RTÉ apology vital to Leech

In concluding evidence yesterday, Ms Leech said she had initiated libel proceedings against RTÉ on the same day of the Liveline…

In concluding evidence yesterday, Ms Leech said she had initiated libel proceedings against RTÉ on the same day of the Livelinebroadcast and these were settled 2½ years later on the morning the case was due to go to trial. She had secured €250,000 damages but it was very important to her to also receive an apology from RTÉ which was read in open court and widely reported on radio, television and in the press.

Ms Leech then read the apology which stated that RTÉ had broadcast a discussion on its Liveline programme on December 16th, 2004, "part of which related to Mrs Monica Leech, the well-known communications consultant". It said comments were made during the course of the discussion suggesting that Ms Leech had secured well-paid State contracts by virtue of having an adulterous sexual relationship with Minister Martin Cullen.

"RTÉ accepts that these allegations were simply untrue and that Mrs Leech was gravely wronged by them," the apology stated. "RTÉ further acknowledges her experience and qualifications for the contracts she undertook."

Ms Leech said that when she had taken her action against Independent Newspapers, she had not received any apology from RTÉ.

READ MORE

Later, closing the case for Ms Leech, Paul Gardiner SC said that, up to December 16th, 2004, Ms Leech was a successful wife, mother and businesswoman who was well regarded in the community. The Livelinebroadcast had damaged her reputation very considerably and the Irish Independentarticle the following day had "destroyed" it, he said.

He said the jury should award "very large" damages to compensate for the hurt and distress caused to Ms Leech, to vindicate her reputation and resoundingly tell the world the claims made on Liveline were untrue.

Closing the case for Independent Newspapers, Eoin McCullough SC urged the jury to read the article as a whole and read it calmly. The jury's task was to decide what the article meant.

The principle at stake here was whether, in a free society, we are entitled to report a newsworthy event, that claims were made and subsequently withdrawn, counsel said. Ms Leech's side was urging the jury to look only at the first six paragraphs of the article which reported the exchange on Livelinebut the jury must read the entire article and assess whether it meant Ms Leech was performing sexual favours for Mr Cullen.

The entire article bore no such meaning, counsel said.

The entire tenor of the article was to "pour cold water" on the suggestion that Ms Leech was having an affair with Mr Cullen, counsel said. This was a straightforward news piece and a full and fair account of the events of the previous day.