An Irish Times columnist Mr John Waters has won his High Court libel action against the Sunday Times over an article by gossip columnist Ms Terry Keane which, Mr Waters claimed, meant he was a bad father. He was awarded damages of €84,000 and costs.
The total costs of the five-day action are estimated at about €250,000. After the jury of six women and five men had returned its verdict, Mr Justice Kearns allowed a stay until Wednesday next to give time to lawyers for the defence to take instructions on whether they wanted a longer stay to allow an appeal.
One juror who had been present last week was excused from attending yesterday because of a commitment. The 11-member jury's decision came after deliberations of just over 21/2 hours.
Mr Waters sued Times Newspapers Ltd, Victoria Street, London, publisher of the Sunday Times, over the article by Ms Keane published on June 18th, 2000. This was some days after Mr Waters had given a 30-minute address to the audience at the Abbey Theatre before the opening of a performance of the Greek tragedy, Medea.
The article called Mr Waters "Ireland's foremost masculinist" and referred to his pre-performance talk at the Abbey, saying he had used it for "a gender-based assault". The concluding two paragraphs stated: "His un-credo makes me cringe and my sympathy goes out to his toddler, R≤is∅n. When she becomes a teenager and, I hope, believes in love, should she suffer from mood swings or any affliction of womanhood, she will be truly goosed. And better not ask Dad for tea or sympathy . . . or help.
"He also left the stage quickly, thus depriving his audience of any right of reply. But I suppose we can hardly expect him to let a woman have the last word."
It was claimed by Mr Waters that the words in the article meant he was a bad father and that his daughter deserved sympathy or pity as a consequence of his failings as her father. The defence denied the words bore the meanings claimed.
In its verdict, the jury found the words in the article did mean Mr Waters used his address in the Abbey to mount a gender-based assault, having been told by the judge to give such an answer. But they found that meaning was not true in substance or in fact.
The jury also found the words meant Mr Waters was a bad father who would unfairly withhold sympathy and help from his daughter in later life and that he had behaved in an unfair and cowardly way by denying his audience in the Abbey a right of reply.
In his closing address to the jury, Mr Justice Kearns said its approach did not require "rocket science". They should adopt a detailed, surgical and analytical approach, bring "buckets of common sense" and go about its deliberations in a calm and dispassionate way.
Describing the case as a relatively simple one, he said there were three issues the jurors would have to decide. The first concerned the meaning of the words in the article and, if they found for Mr Waters on that, they would, in effect, have decided that defamation occurred. The defence was denying the words carried the meaning which Mr Waters and his legal team said they did. The second issue was whether the Sunday Times had made out a justified defence. The third issue was damages.
The judge said the appropriate meaning of the words should be the type of meaning the average reader would get from reading it. The article should be looked at as a whole. If the jury decided on damages, they should be proportionate to the injury suffered.
Earlier, Mr Eoin McCullough SC, for the defence, said that as a result of a ruling by the judge, the jury did not have to consider the issue of fair comment. The central issue was the meanings of the words in the article and whether they bore the meanings of which Mr Waters had complained. The case was unusual in featuring a dispute between two well-known and controversial characters. Mr Waters in his Irish Times column said things to get the readers talking. His articles were not only controversial, but the language was forceful. Ms Keane had said that for 12 years prior to 1999, she was the person whose name was given to a gossip column in the Sunday Independent.
Mr McCullough told the jury it was not to assume that if the words used in the article by Ms Keane about Mr Waters were true, this made Mr Waters a bad father. Being criticised or given out to by an unsympathetic father did not make one a bad father or parent. Mr Waters was not a bad parent if he failed in one respect or another to offer sympathy or help to his young daughter. It was simply not true to say the article suggested he was a bad father.
Mr Gerry Danaher SC, for Mr Waters, said libel was about reputation and Mr Waters had said his reputation was priceless. Mr Waters had a reputation as a father. In difficult circumstances, he was able to play a vital and central role in relation to R≤is∅n. He had had to fight a legal battle to establish that right.
There had been an attempt to portray Mr Waters as some form of obsessional paranoid dealing with only one issue. A number of his articles had been put to him, but he had joined The Irish Times in 1995 and had written some 350 columns. All of those could have been put to him to give a true impression of what he was.