WHEN Mr Justice French finished his instructions to the jury yesterday at 12.30 p.m. Lord Gareth Williams stood up and asked if he could raise some matters before the jury was sequestered.
The jury retired, but was told not to discuss the case until the legal argument had taken place and any necessary points made.
When it returned at 12.55 p.m., Mr Justice French drew its attention to a question asked of Mr Ruddock by Lord Williams as to whether he knew when he wrote the article that the Fitzsimons letter of advice had not reached Mr Reynolds until 9 p.m. on the Tuesday, to which Mr Ruddock had said he did not recall whether he knew or not.
Mr Justice French read from the transcript: "If you had been aware of it it would have been very dishonourable and dishonest, I suggest, to put that sentence in, `Reynolds had known all along that Whelehan's excuse did not hold water', would it not?, to which Mr Ruddock's reply was `yes'."
He also read another section of the transcript, when Mr Ruddock was asked what Mr Finlay had said about whether Mr Reynolds had the letter before or after the Dail speech on Tuesday, and Mr Ruddock had replied: "My impression was quite clearly that whether he had the letter or not the clear implication was that they knew the significance of the case on Monday."
Following the legal arguments, she also made some additional points to the jury on the question of damages. He said a number of general principles needed to be considered that the purpose of damages was to compensate and not to punish; that the jury should, in determining the sum, have regard to what income it might generate in interest and the purchasing power of money.
He also pointed out that damages were relevant to vindication, and should be considered in the light of the circulation and readership of the publication.
The jury was then asked to retire at 1.05 p.m.