Monica Leech Trial

JM434

An award of €1.87 million :eek: WOW!

That is just unbelievable. I know juries can be unpredicatable but this is simply crazy. Surely we need to adopt the British guideline system for use by juries when awarding damages, as advocated by Denham in the De Rossa case. I know there is a large degree of judicial deference to the decisions of juries, especially in defamation cases, but the Supreme Court has to reduce the damages here.

Jim_Are_Great

JM434 wrote: »

the Supreme Court has to reduce the damages here.

Why?

JM434

Jim_Are_Great wrote: »

Why?

It is out of proportion with any libel damages that have been awarded in this country before. I realise that it was a horrific attack on Ms. Leech from, frankly, a rather odious publishing group but the sum is still crazy. Sure Prionsias de Rossa only got £350,000 from Independent Newspapers for a much more damaging personal attack.

Amalgam

It is out of proportion, but so are the mud slinging\profiteering habits of the various s--t rags that pass for newspapers. If it forces better umm.. journalistic procedures, then that has to be for the better.

McCrack

I have no doubt this will be appealed on quantum. Juries should be abolished for defamation. This being yet another example why.

Jim_Are_Great

So, hypothetically, what would people consider a more appropriate sum, considering the extent, profile and seriousness of the allegation, as well as the fact that the whole story had no apparent foundation in reality? A woman's reputation was damaged, her business ruined and her family put through some serious trauma. If there should be no juries, how better to assess damages in these cases?

driverite

The Herald wrote 15 different articles about her, I think the paper got what it deserves, They wont be a quick to do it the next time.

I have a suggestion for them "dont libel people and they wont sue you" i wont even charge them for that advice.

Zenga

I think the sum of 1.8 million is possibly even too little.

Firstly the womans name was tarnished, She may have lost personal relationships due to this scandal.

Secondly her business, which by all accounts was doing very well at the time was severly damaged, so much so that she hasnt taken an active role in the business for the last 4 years, and considering she was on a couple of hundred grand a year this is a substantial sum to lose

Thirdly the allegations were completely untrue, it was a fabrication made up to sell newspapers which it did by the truckful. If you consider that she was covered in 15 articles, the newspaper no doubt made extra revenue off her back, this should of course be taken off them.

Finally a message needed to be sent to the newspapers, if you print lies expect to pay. The press has a free role in Ireland at the moment. The fact is, it has been economical to print lies about someone in the past, as the extra revenue from the story generated more than the potential payout. This lead to sloppy journalism and outright lies being printed. Any paper that does this should be shut down imo. If I want to read lies I can always go to the British National Party and read their paper or something.

Dante09

Does anyone know who her solicitors were?

Judgement Day

Don't like Martin Cullen or Monica Leech, but the hatchet job by the Indo deserved to be punished. The Indo has long been synonymous with gutter journalism and I wouldn't wrap chips in it - remember the outrageous stories about the death of Liam Lawlor in Moscow - another corrupt chancer but he didn't deserve the rubbish the Sunday Indo published about the circumstances of his demise. Hopefully, this award will concentrate minds and improve standards of journalism at the Indo group but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Our man in Havana

Dante09 wrote: »

Does anyone know who her solicitors were?

McCann Fitzgearld by the looks of things.

Wisesmurf

Bond-007 wrote: »

McCann Fitzgearld by the looks of things.

Yep, correct.

Tom Young

For sure, was McCann Fitz.

Johnny Utah

Dante09 wrote: »

Does anyone know who her solicitors were?

Yes.............. [SNIPPED]

Johnny Utah

Zenga wrote: »

I think the sum of 1.8 million is possibly even too little.

Firstly the womans name was tarnished, She may have lost personal relationships due to this scandal.

Secondly her business, which by all accounts was doing very well at the time was severly damaged, so much so that she hasnt taken an active role in the business for the last 4 years, and considering she was on a couple of hundred grand a year this is a substantial sum to lose

Thirdly the allegations were completely untrue, it was a fabrication made up to sell newspapers which it did by the truckful. If you consider that she was covered in 15 articles, the newspaper no doubt made extra revenue off her back, this should of course be taken off them.

Finally a message needed to be sent to the newspapers, if you print lies expect to pay. The press has a free role in Ireland at the moment. The fact is, it has been economical to print lies about someone in the past, as the extra revenue from the story generated more than the potential payout. This lead to sloppy journalism and outright lies being printed. Any paper that does this should be shut down imo. If I want to read lies I can always go to the British National Party and read their paper or something.

[SNIPPED]

Tom Young

Zenga wrote: »

I think the sum of 1.8 million is possibly even too little.

I think its excessive.

Zenga wrote: »

Firstly the womans name was tarnished, She may have lost personal relationships due to this scandal.

Yes - I agree with you. The jury found correctly - She was libeled and 'may' have lost personal relationships - no evidence to that effect save for her own testimony.

Zenga wrote: »

Secondly her business, which by all accounts was doing very well at the time was severly damaged, so much so that she hasnt taken an active role in the business for the last 4 years, and considering she was on a couple of hundred grand a year this is a substantial sum to lose

There was no evidence adduced at trial to this end. What I mean is technical evidence, before this one is challenged. There was no accounts produced, it is merely conjecture and based on oral evidence that the effect was there.

Zenga wrote: »

Thirdly the allegations were completely untrue, it was a fabrication made up to sell newspapers which it did by the truckful. If you consider that she was covered in 15 articles, the newspaper no doubt made extra revenue off her back, this should of course be taken off them.

The jury found this, so yes.

Zenga wrote: »

Finally a message needed to be sent to the newspapers, if you print lies expect to pay. The press has a free role in Ireland at the moment. The fact is, it has been economical to print lies about someone in the past, as the extra revenue from the story generated more than the potential payout. This lead to sloppy journalism and outright lies being printed. Any paper that does this should be shut down imo. If I want to read lies I can always go to the British National Party and read their paper or something.

I partially agree. The quantum is excessive in this case and no doubt it will ping-pong up and back between the Supreme Court and High Court in the intervening period.

Tom

Wheely

I think its a joke. Our defamation laws are a big stupid joke.

Dante09

I would have to disagree. Juries are there for a reason-their award of 1.8m represents what a common, reasonable man would have awarded. Isnt that the point? The woman was blatantly libeled....end of. Newspapers need to learn to take more care.
Barrington J said on the Vincent Browne show a few nights ago that for the Supreme Court to dictate the jury on the limits they should place on their awards, would detract from the whole concept of jury autonomy. In my opinion, juries should have the full freedom to make the awards they feel are necessary as in defamation trials they are there to ensure that the name of the defamed person is fully vindicated. The stories published about Leech were complete and utter lies. Had the jury awarded anything less than they did, there may have been doubts within public opinion as to the potential truth of some of what was published. Thats just my opinion.
Apart from the lack of guidance to juries re awards, what else is wrong with our defamation laws?

Wheely

A constitutional right to a good name? In a Western liberal democracy is completely out of place? And to put it on an equal, and in this jurisdiction in reality probably a higher level than freedom of expression is ridiculous.

Written in to the constitution by good old Dev as a way of protecting politicians from investigative journalism.

Also following Bladet Tromso our libel laws are most likely in violation of the ECHR which allows for limited libel provided its in the public interest. 800 quid a day of taxpayers money for what exactly? Im a member of the bloody public soon to be a taxpayer and Im bloody interested in where my money is going and why?

The defence of justification is far too difficult to prove in this jurisdiction, the Constitution prevents our judges from adopting a NYT v Sullivan type approach which IMO is very much needed here given the culture of corruption among our elected officials.

And also being very careful not to libel anyone, I'm far from convinced of the "falsity" of any allegations made.:)

The quantum of damages is a different issue altogether, its the substantive law on defamation i have a problem with. Though allowing juries to award such high damages acts as a form of censorship and after these awards i wouldn't be surprised if the intensity of investigative journalism suffers.

Just my two cents..........:):)

Wheely

Dante09 wrote: »

The stories published about Leech were complete and utter lies.

:rolleyes:

legal eagle 1

I think the damages in this case were excessive but, does the new defamation bill not offer the Judge an opportunity to address and give guidance to the jury as regards the quantum of damages they should award, did this happen in this case?
I think when you look at this case say in light of the PIAB's book on damages to be awarded for physical injuries, a person who gets paralysed from the neck down gets something like €400,000 i think , in the same light as a person who loses both legs only gets a maximum of €200,000(now its been a while since i've looked at the book so i could be wrong with these). But, can you honestly say that Monica leech has suffered say five times more pain and anquish than a person who is paralysed from the neck down...............i dont think so! Like she was accused of having an affair with Mr Cullen, for 1.9 million...................im sure alot of us would even carry on an affair with him for that sort of money! haha:D

Nolanger

Here's what I don't understand: wasn't Cullen libelled too? Why didn't he sue?

Our man in Havana

Politicians rarely sue for libel.

Nolanger

or men .

legal eagle 1

He probably loved the fact people thought he was getting women:D haha

nuac

If teh Herald had published a single news item, and on receiving a complaint published or offered to publish a correction any award should be small

HOwever to keep the story going over 15 issues entitle Monica Leech to heavy damages.