Guerin murder libel cases

flogen

Just spotted this now:
http://breakingnews.ie/2006/06/27/story265175.html

John Gilligan and Patrick ’Dutchy’ Holland have lodged libel lawsuits totalling €2.8m claiming defamation in the aftermath of the killing of journalist Veronica Guerin.

Just before 1pm yesterday – on the 10th anniversary of Ms Guerin’s cold blooded murder – the papers were lodged in the High Court of Justice in the UK.

The writs were made following a national television documentary on the death on the mother-of-one.

Holland is claiming against Independent News And Media Limited (Evening Herald) and columnist Gerry O’Carroll for defamation with a value of £1m (€1.4m) sterling, while Gilligan and his wife Geraldine are claiming against RTE and Ms Guerin’s brother Jimmy Guerin for defamation with a value of £1m (€1.4m) sterling.

The timing is pretty cynical in my opinion, but the question I have is this; how can both men file lawsuits in the UK against publications/broadcasters based in Ireland? Neither the Herald or RTÉ is legally available in the UK (RTÉ wasn't even broadcasting in NI back in 1996) so how could they have been libeled in that jurisdiction?

sh_o

Article 5 of the Brussels convention : In matters relating to tort, [the action may be brought] in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred;

If they can show that the information was published in the UK, and establish the other elements of the tort of defamation, then they were defamed there.

Mr Giovanni di Stefano is their lawyer and he seems to be quite 'high profile' :rolleyes:

maidhc

sh_o wrote:

Mr Giovanni di Stefano is their lawyer and he seems to be quite 'high profile' :rolleyes:

A lovely man with lovely clients by all accounts.

So what aspect of the UK law makes it easier for them to succeed over there.. there must be some reason!

dermot_sheehan

maidhc wrote:

A lovely man with lovely clients by all accounts.

So what aspect of the UK law makes it easier for them to succeed over there.. there must be some reason!

Lack of a Dublin jury

sh_o

maidhc wrote:

A lovely man with lovely clients by all accounts.

So what aspect of the UK law makes it easier for them to succeed over there.. there must be some reason!

I may be wrong, but I understand that their lawyer is not able to appear as a lawyer in the courts here - I remeber reading recently that he had to provide an affidavit displaying his legal qualifications and I am not sure if that has occurred yet. I believe that he also took defamation proceedings against Murray CJ in the UK courts. Google may be able to shed more information on this.

On a different note - I do not think that you could find a jury in Ireland that would not already have an opinion on this matter - The UK may be a better forum for this type of action.

maidhc

gabhain7 wrote:

Lack of a Dublin jury

Interesting. It is cases like this that make me want to forget my legal education and join the lynch mob.

Surely Gilligan will fail on the basis of having a bad character if nothing else. How can a drug dealer be lowered in the eyes of right thinking members of society?

dermot_sheehan

Though there is jurisdiction to hear the case (like Reynolds taking his defamation proceedings to London), I can't seem them possibly succeeding. There was nearly enough evidence to send them down for life for murder, where the standard is beyond reasonable doubt, it should easily be able to pass the balance of probabilites.

In any case, fair and accurate reportings of a court proceeding are privileged. Also what's with this Steffano character trying to sue Murray in a forgein court? I assume he was laughed out of court when the concepts of soverign immunity were explained to him and that a judge of a superior court is absolutley privileged in anything he does.

mountainyman

maidhc wrote:

How can a drug dealer be lowered in the eyes of right thinking members of society?

Statistical evidence contrasting perception of cannabis dealers with murderers for one thing.

The case seems valid enough; as they have never been convicted of murdering Ms Gurerin but have been referred to as her murderers surely that is libel.

di Stefano is not a lawyer anywhere (or so it has been reported) certainly not in England or Itlay.
MM

sh_o

gabhain7 wrote:

He will fail and his "lawyer" seems a bit of a chancer.

....

In any case, fair and accurate reportings of a court proceeding are privileged. Also what's with this Steffano character trying to sue Murray in a forgein court? I assume he was laughed out of court when the concepts of soverign immunity were explained to him and that a judge of a superior court is absolutley privileged in anything he does.

In support of balanced reporting - Di Stefano's statement on the matter and also his blog entry on the morning of the 20 April 2006 is worth a read, if alone for entertainment value: http://www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com/blogHome.php4?PHPSESSID=46382ce730ebfdb04d90cf03ecf3d1b7

flogen

sh_o wrote:

Article 5 of the Brussels convention : In matters relating to tort, [the action may be brought] in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred;

If they can show that the information was published in the UK, and establish the other elements of the tort of defamation, then they were defamed there.

Mr Giovanni di Stefano is their lawyer and he seems to be quite 'high profile' :rolleyes:

But this is what I can't understand, the information may have made its way to the UK but it was not published there... the Herald and RTÉ are both unavailable in the UK (except RTÉ which is available in NI, but in a limited capacity and only in recent years). The Herald doesn't even have a website!
My point is that while it was possible for a paper to be sent over to england that doesn't count as being published there, surely they have to sue a publication in the country of its origin?

focusing

You're right. Seems crazy if they're the facts.

Reynolds had to sue in London, since he was libeled only in the English edition of the ST.

I'm glad the Iish courts have stood up to this "lawyer".

Strange how he can't swear an affidavit demonstrating that he's a lawyer somewhere in the EU!

Our man in Havana

sh_o wrote:

In support of balanced reporting - Di Stefano's statement on the matter and also his blog entry on the morning of the 20 April 2006 is worth a read, if alone for entertainment value: http://www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com/blogHome.php4?PHPSESSID=46382ce730ebfdb04d90cf03ecf3d1b7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_di_Stefano makes very interesting reading.