The Supreme Court has reserved judgment on an appeal by Fianna Fáil TD Beverley Cooper-Flynn against the outcome of her failed High Court action alleging libel in a series of RTÉ broadcasts.
The 1998 broadcasts included claims that the Co Mayo deputy had encouraged or assisted a number of people in tax evasion.
The two-day appeal hearing concluded yesterday afternoon before the five-judge court and the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, said the court was reserving its decision.
The appeal is against findings by a High Court jury in March 2001 in proceedings brought by Ms Cooper-Flynn (36), a former financial adviser with National Irish Bank, against RTÉ, journalist Charlie Bird and a retired farmer, Mr James Howard.
After a 28-day hearing, Ms Cooper-Flynn had failed to get damages when the jury decided her reputation had suffered no material injury as a result of the RTÉ broadcasts of June and July 1998. She was later directed to pay the costs of the action, estimated at some £2 million. RTÉ had indemnified Mr Howard against costs.
Ms Cooper-Flynn had claimed that, in the RTÉ broadcasts, words were used which meant she had instigated a scheme whose object was the evasion of the lawful payment of tax. In some broadcasts, Bird interviewed Mr Howard (71), formerly of Ardcath, Co Meath, and now of Acorn Way, Wheaton Hall, Drogheda, Co Louth.
In response to four questions the jury decided:
Question 1: that the defendants had not proved Ms Cooper-Flynn had induced Mr Howard to evade his lawful obligation to pay tax by not availing of the tax amnesty.
Question 2: that the defendants had proved she advised or encouraged other people (referred to in evidence) to evade tax.
Question 3 asked if Ms Cooper-Flynn's reputation suffered material injury through the matters published about Mr Howard. The jury answered No.
Question 4 asked the jury (only if they had answered No to questions 1 and 2) to assess damages. The jury awarded no damages.
Yesterday, in submissions for RTÉ and Charlie Bird, Mr Kevin Feeney SC opposed all the grounds of appeal and said there were many legal authorities to the effect that an appeal court should not overturn a jury verdict unless it was satisfied a substantial wrong had been done, that the trial was unfair or appeared to be unfair.
That was not the situation in this case.
Even if there was a misdirection over majority voting, the procedure by which the verdicts were reached was agreed to by all parties, including Ms Cooper-Flynn and a majority of the jury had found that the allegations against Ms Cooper-Flynn had not materially affected her reputation, he argued.
The High Court jury had found that evidence before it had established that Ms Cooper-Flynn advised and encouraged tax evasion and that her true reputation was so.The jury had concluded Ms Cooper-Flynn had advised and encouraged four people who gave evidence to the court to evade tax. Given that finding, the jury had also gone on to find her reputation was not affected by the RTÉ broadcasts.
Mr Feeney also rejected arguments on behalf of Ms Cooper- Flynn that the trial judge had wrongly decided to recharge the jury.
Mr Paul O'Higgins SC, for Mr Howard, said both sides were clear at the end of the trial, before the jury was recharged, that any nine jurors could reach a verdict on Questions 1 and 2. The jury had gone out to consider its verdict and had asked about the formation of a majority on Question 3.
The judge had directed them about the formation of a majority on Question 4 and, after Mr Feeney told the judge that the jury's query related to Question 3, the judge had addressed Question 3 but did not give directions on the formation of a majority.
Ms Cooper-Flynn's counsel had agreed to "leave it at that".
