So ask RTE.
I'm curious whether Ganley actually will sue. I'll be mildly surprised if he does. From experience, RTE tend to be cautious about getting their facts straight. I don't believe for a moment that they straight-out fabricated witness statements.
If he is going to sue - so far we have a threat of legal action, which is little more than PR that can then be used by his supporters to speculate that "he must have basis for doing so". Just as you are now doing, BTW.
Even if he does sue, this does not mean that he has a strong case, or a particularly good basis for legal action. Sometimes it is enough to be seen to be suing, especially if the result of any such case does not come out until after a strategic milestone (such as the European elections).
Given this he may have a good basis for suing, and may win, too - but we don't even have enough information to speculate on this at present, let alone form opinions. All I can say, is that regardless of the strengths his potential case, threatening to sue is a good PR move, as might the PR benefits be of even an unsuccessful case if timed right. This is independent of whether RTE can be sued successfully or not.
I think it highly unlikely that they would have fabricated witness statements. Of course, whether they can subsequently prove they said this, or that they are not simply repeating libellous claims (which are libellous in itself) are another thing.
What I find so funny about this statement is that Declan Ganley did the very same thing to the Lisbon Treaty as RTE are being accused of doing to him...
Source of money and goal are different.
Ganley to sue Rté for defamation over this programme broadcast November 2008
I might have agreed with you three years ago when you posted this, but following Philip Boucher-Hayes's screw up over the Pamela Izevbekhai case, I'd have considerably less faith in their competence. I'm surprised he kept his job after that, TBH.
He took him three years to figure out he was slandered? Very oppurtuntist timing by Mr. Ganley.
I'm sure it's pure coincidence that this case is suddenly ready to go to court within weeks of the "Mission to Prey" fallout.
And the up coming Treaty vote. Ganley hasnt much pull over the media like the gov or large political parties.
So i am sure rte wont be as tough on him as they have in the past. Or a least that what he is thinking.
Legally irrelevant. Indeed, delaying prosecuting a case of libel can actually work against you - a court will ask why you didn't sue at the start when it first happened, and Ganley would have to have a good reason for this.
It's possible that he has attained evidence only recently that would help him win a case, although I don't know how this would help him as the onus of evidence is on the defence and not prosecution in a libel case (maybe evidence supporting claims has instead been 'neutralized'). Perhaps he just wants the publicity for an ulterior motive. Perhaps he didn't have the money to pursue such a case three years ago.
Whatever the reason(s) for his delay they are occult to us; more-so than any other personality in Irish politics Ganley seems to have a scheme within a plan hidden behind a stated intention. Or not.
It's why I find him the most entertaining personality in Irish politics.
Guess the date...
Monica Leech bought a defamation case against a newspaper group in 2009 for articles printed about her in 2004. It was found she was defamed. Go figure the 4+ year timeframe.
The statute of limitations is two years if you can prove that a special reason exists as to why it should be extended from one year.
However if the material is still available then publication is ongoing so possibly the material is available online?
38.— (1) Section 11 of the Act of 1957 is amended—
(a) in subsection (2), by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (c):
“(c) A defamation action within the meaning of the Defamation Act 2009 shall not be brought after the expiration of—
(i) one year, or
(ii) such longer period as the court may direct not exceeding 2 years,
from the date on which the cause of action accrued