Saying Nothing: Gerry Adams win against the BBC tells us everything and nothing about Irish Defamation Law

On 30 May, a jury in a High Court trial in Dublin awarded well known former Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams a sum of €100,000 in damages for defamation. The jury found that Adams had been defamed in a BBC Spotlight television programme that had been broadcast in 2016. Mr Adams had claimed that the Spotlight programme suggested that he sanctioned the 2006 murder of former Sinn Fein official and British agent Denis Donaldson. The jury findings and award tell us a few things about the current state of defamation law in Ireland. 

Jury awards are always notoriously difficult to predict

The Adams’ case confirmed the long-held belief on jury awards. It has been widely reported in the media that the general makeup of the jury were persons in the 25-35 age bracket. It has also been reported that people of this age would generally have a limited knowledge about the Troubles in Northern Ireland and the role that Adams played during that period.

Mr Adams had sought to portray himself as a peacemaker given, in particular, his role in the Good Friday Agreement. The BBC called Adams reputation into question and sought to portray him as a former senior member of the IRA’s Army Council during a time when the IRA was involved in violent and murderous activities. Adams has consistently denied being a member of the IRA.

There has been speculation in the media that if the jury was older then they might have had a greater knowledge of the Troubles and the result could have been different for Mr Adams. In any event, it does not seem that we will have many more jury trials in this jurisdiction. As has been well publicised, the current version of the Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024 (“the Bill”) seeks to abolish juries. While there have been some staunch defenders of juries in High Court defamation trials, all current indications are that when the Bill is enacted, juries will ultimately be abolished and the unpredictability of their awards, which tends to favour plaintiffs more than defendants, will be a thing of the past. 

Public Interest Privilege Defence fails yet again

The BBC relied on the defence of “fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest” pursuant to the Defamation Act 2009. That defence enables a publisher to defend a defamation claim even where they have published false information, but where they have done so in good faith having followed appropriate journalistic and editorial standards. The defence is regarded in legal circles as overly complex and difficult for a jury to understand.

Given the perceived difficulties with the defence, it was proposed in the Draft General Scheme of the Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024 that the defence be simplified. However, that proposed reform is not included in the current version of the Bill. While the Bill may yet be subject to changes, a failure to amend this defence would be worrying for media defendants in defamation claims. This defence is often relied on by the media in defending defamation claims as proving the truth of allegations can sometimes be challenging for a variety of reasons. There has yet to be a High Court case in this jurisdiction where this defence has been successfully relied on. 

Adams only awarded “medium” damages

In 2022 in a case of Higgins v Irish Aviation Authority, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for damages in defamation claims. While the Supreme Court was at pains to point out that these guidelines were not binding, given that they have emanated from the Supreme Court they have carried significant weight in valuing defamation claims. Those guidelines put damages awards into various categories. On one end of the scale, the Supreme Court said that an appropriate award for a “moderate” defamation would be in the range of 0 to €50,000. At the other end of the scale, there were “exceptional” cases that might warrant an award above €300,000. The Supreme Court believed that an appropriate award for a “medium” defamation would be between €50,000 and €125,000.

In the Adams’ case, the jury deemed a €100,000 award to be appropriate. It is difficult to interpret that decision. Adams’ claim was that he had been accused by the BBC of sanctioning a murder. It is hard to conceive of a more serious allegation. However, the jury did not award damages reflecting a “serious” “very serious” or “exceptional” defamation. Rather, they deemed the defamation to be “medium”, albeit towards the higher end of that bracket. Only the 12 jurors know how they came up with this figure. The evidence given on behalf of the BBC may have encouraged the jurors to award a smaller sum notwithstanding the very serious allegation that they found was levelled at Mr Adams by the BBC broadcast.

There are not very many awards in Irish High Court Defamation cases against which to compare this award. An award of €140,000 was made to former Irish presidential candidate, Peter Casey, by the High Court in late 2024[i]. That claim related to allegations made on social media that Mr Casey had rented substandard accommodation to the State to house refugees and that he was engaged in some form of human trafficking for profit. 

The High Court found that the allegations were false and awarded Casey €140,000. However, those proceedings were not defended by the defendant, unlike the BBC proceedings which were staunchly defended over a period of four weeks. On the face of it, the allegations levelled against Mr Adams were far more serious than those levelled against Mr Casey. There is no real precedential value in jury awards as none of the jurors who awarded Mr Adams €100,000 will sit in another jury in a defamation case. A different jury could have led to a wildly different outcome. It does not seem that the award in the Adams’ case gives any real guidance as to how juries will apply the Higgins guidelines on damages. In any event, in light of the progress and contents of the Bill, it does not seem that there are going to be too many more jury defamation awards in this jurisdiction.

Conclusion 

The BBC may yet appeal and they are still within time to do so. If there is an appeal then any decision given by the Court of Appeal will be of much more assistance in terms of determining where the Irish law on defamation stands currently. In light of changes that are likely to be made by the Bill if and when enacted, it may well be that Adams v BBC was a very expensive show trial which does not provide any clear guidance on the applicability of Irish defamation law, even as it stands. In that respect, it could be said that the outcome of this case really does say nothing.

[i] High Court awards €140,000 damages for defamatory Facebook post – Read more