Noelle Campbell-Sharpe Vs Magill

Dublin publisher, Ms Noelle Camppbell-Sharpe claimed in the Circuit Civil Court last week that she was libelled by an article in the Wigmore column of Magill magazine last Christmas, which alleged that she had launnched Success magazine with the aid of government funds, three years ago.

Ms Campbell-Sharpe, Campenella, Marino Avenue West, Killiney has sued the former Magill editor, Mr Co lm Toibin, journalist, Eamonn MeeCann who wrote the piece, Magill Publications Ltd, Lithographic Univerrsal Ltd, the printers and the distribuutors, Newspread Ltd, for defamation.

In her statement of claim, the plainntiff said the words published Were understood to mean that she had corruptly induced a government minisster and a civil servant to unlawfully apply public resources to privately enrich herself. It also implied she commmitted a criminal offence which meriited a prison sentence.

Opening Ms Campbell-Sharpe's case before Judge Frank Martin, Mr Colrn Condon, SC commented that it was the most grievous defamation he had come across,

The action, he said, arose out of an article published in the Wigmore column of the Christmas 1984 issue, which referred to a "Who's Who" book just launched by Maureen Cairnnduff. The last two paragraphs were about the launch of Success magazine by the plaintiff.

It alleged that for the launch of the publication in 1982, "the PR puff was written by a civil servant, typed and printed at taxpayers' expense and disspatched by government courier to journalists, broadcasters, ad-persons all. over Dublin, the entire operation hwhich would have cost Ms Sharpe a couple of grand to organise on her own - having been sanctioned by the then minister, Albert Reynolds, Everyybody involved in that scam should be in the slammer too.

"These lightminded libertarians who complain that there are too many people in Irish prisons and campaign for non-custodial sentences have got it all wrong. It's not that there's too many people in our jails. It's that they are the wrong people."

Mr Condon, SC said there was an allegation of a grave criminal offence. "There is not an iota of truth in the 'statements made. This could have been discovered by the merest enquiry on the part of the defendants," he added. He told the court an apology acknowwledging that the allegations were false, a statement that Magill were endeaavouring to retrieve unsold copies and an agreement to pay substantial damaages was sent to the defendants and should have been published in the way requested, in the national newspapers. "Nothing happened in response to that," he commented.

A "purported apology" appeared in the February issue of Magill which did not follow the form requested and no effort was made to stop the circulaation of the magazine. Counsel concluuded that the last paragraph was "a gross aggravation of defamation."

Ms Noelle Campbell-Sharpe said in evidence that she employed a firm, Michael 0 'Reilly and Partners to handle the launch of Success magaazine, in 1982 at a cost of £5,000.

The Wigmore article was brought to her attention by a friend who teleephoned her. "I felt I had been the tarrget of a lot of sniping in the press from my competitors. It made me feel cheap and degraded especially when friends asked me 'was there any truth in it," she said.

Asked by her counsel, Mr Colm Condon, SC if the press release for the launch was written by a civil servant or typed at the taxpayers' expense she answered "No." She denied that a government courier was used and reeplied "Absolutely not," when asked if she had received any help from the state or Mr Albert Reynolds, TD for the launch.

Referring to the sentence, "Everyybody involved in that scam should be put in the slammer too," Ms CampbelllSharpe said it implied she was a crimiinaland had conspired with a memmber of government to defraud the taxxpayer.

Cross-examined by Mr Aidan Browne, SC for Magill she said that Mr Albert Reynolds, who was Minister for Industry and Energy at the time, was present at the reception in the Berkeley Court Hotel for the launch of Success on March 30, 1982.

She said he was the principally invited guest and gave a speed). praising the enterprise. Ms Campbell-Sharpe pointed out that she was very serious in the connotations she took from the article and she would not regard it as whimsical.

Mr Aidan Browne, SC referred to another article which appeared on the same page of the Wigmore column, to the court. Judge Martin insisted that counsel read the item in full.

"The scene is the fifth floor of Leinster House, Fianna Fail press office, just up the corridor from The Leader's Room. The time, significantly is round about lOam Thursday 29 Novem ber. In the Fianna Fail press office stands dapperly dressed and urbanely witty P.J. Mara sweating. He has just seen this morning's Hot Press, which features the great John Waters in with The Leader, in the course of which conversation The Leader uses one 'Jazus', one 'Jesus Christ', seven 'fucks' and three 'shits', It is the most effective and perfectly pitched interrview given by an Irish politician for aeons but Mara, who set the gig up, can't be certain The Leader will see it like that .... "

Ms Campbell-Sharpe said she would have thought it distasteful.

Witness said she took the reference to Maureen Cairn duff seriously and she would advise her to make represenntations. "The entire passage was hurttful to me. The reference to me was to support a reference to Maureen Cairnnduff. She was upset and felt she could not take on Magill," she commented.

Ms Campbell-Sharpe said she could not work for a week afterwards but she admitted to counsel that she had gone to two receptions given by the publishers of Magill. "I was at a recepption to launch the centenary magazine and another to launch the book on Ethiopia. I bought one hundred copies of the book. It would have been small of me not to attend when charity was involved," she said.

The apology published in the Febbruary issue of Magill, she said, was not the one asked for and she was not satissfied with it. "The implication had carried to people who knew me in the business. Magill has different types of readers and I was not satisfied the same readers would see it. I complained of the inference that I was a criminal," she added.

Under further cross examination by counsel for Magill, Ms CampbelllSharpe stated that the first time she saw the apology was in court but her solicitor had conveyed it to her over the phone. "Yes, it does withdraw the allegations. The damage had been done, money is not the case. It is a scurrilous piece of journalism and no apology would satisfy me," she said.

Asked if she was aware that a similar allegation that she had used governnment funds to launch Success, appeared in The Sunday World three years ago, witness answered she was not. "Perrhaps Magill would be taken more seriously. It was not brought to my attention, I did not realise Eamonn McCann had offended me twice. Is it in the statutory period? I am glad you brought it to my attention."

As a publisher, Ms Campbell-Sharpe said she would feel a responsibility to recall the magazine in such cirrcumstances.

Mr Ronnie Simpson of Michael O'Reilly and Partners said he worked on the launch of themagazine. He said that his work was not assisted by state funds.

Dail deputy, Mr Albert Reynolds told the court the article had come to his attention. Asked if there was any vestige of truth in the allegations, he replied "None whatsoever. I reacted to it. I got no satisfaction, yet," he said.

Cross-examined by Mr Aidan Browne, SC for Magill Mr Reynolds said he did speak at the launch of Success magazine and his script had been prepared by his private secretary. He said he made two requests to Magill on his own behalf, the first through the Fianna Fail Press Office.

Freelance journalist, Mr Frank Fitzzgibbon who said he had been an editor of Success magazine, said that when he saw the Wigmore article, he did not know what to make of it. "I took it very seriously. I thought it was a poliitical statement and was scurrilous. There was a suggestion that the magaazine, an independent monthly business magazine, was the organ of a political party and influenced by the Flanna Fail government."

Success, he said, had a circulation of about 10,500 copies a month at the time. He knew the statements in the article were not true and the suggesstion everybody should be put in jail was ridiculous. "It was absolutely scurrilous," he said.

Under cross-examination by Magill counsel, Mr Aidan Browne, SC Mr Fitzgibbon said he believed in fair comment and he acknowledged that journalists are not entitled to invent facts and comment on them.

He agreed a five page cover story on the Sunday Tribune and its editor, Mr Vincent Browne appeared in the August 1984 issue of Success. While there were references to Mr Browne, he agreed he did not interview him. "He said the time was not opportune. The story was based ona number of sources and I am satisfied with the information that was given. I am also satisfied it was correct and factual. Inaccuracies were never brought to my attention," he said. Witness added that the information came from his sources and "a certain amount from my own knowledge."

Clothing manufacturer, Mr Brian Tucker, said in evidence that he had known the plaintiff for years and had business dealings with her magazines. "I doubted the truth in it. I thought the allegation was that she had orgaanised the launch of Success by using taxpayers' money." Under crossnation Mr Tucker said he had adverrtised in magazines published by Ms Noelle Campbell-Sharpe and had contiinued to do so since the publication of the offending article.

Mr Vincent Browne told the court he was majority shareholder of Magill at the time. Magill had a circuulation of 33,000 a month and pubblished fourteen issues a year.

He said he did not usually see editoorial material prior to publication - he reserved only the right to vet covers of the magazine, but was not consulted on the Christmas 1984 cover. Freelance contributor, Eamonn McCann wrote Wigmore. The purpose of the column, Mr Browne said, was to leaven the editorial content of the magazine with "short snippity items of a humorous nature." He said he could not recall reading the article in question until he got a solicitor's letter a week after publication.

"It is our experience on fortnightly issues that on the first day of publicaation, we would sell half the volume of copies. Withdrawing the magazine would have been pointless," he explained.

Mr Browne said he was disturbed by the whole thing when he read the piece. "Journalistically it was bad and irresponsible. I was particularly conncerned about the innuendo in relation to Albert Reynolds, TD. From a libel perspective I did not think the issue serious. My reaction was as a journalist. I thought it irresponsible. It was prima facie untrue, I did not have to know anything about the launch of the publication.

"I thought the imputation against Albert Reynolds unfair, albeit in a lighthearted jocose sense," he commmented.

Witness explained that a conventional and frequent form of humour is the juxtaposition of a serious issue with a trivial issue. "It was attempted in a very heavy handed way. The author's preoccupation to liberate the working class leads him to be heavy handed. Anybody who treated the issue seriously did not read the whole thing or did so from a blinkered persspective.

"The seriousness of going to jail with the trivial offence of appearing in a book colours the article and suggests that it be treated in a lighthearted manner," he added.

Among those mentioned in the "Who's Who" book, Mr Browne said was the editor of Magill, himself and probably Judge Frank Martin. "It is quite preposterous to think we should be put in jail, because we appear in the book," he said. "Flattery will get you only so far, Mr Browne," said Judge Martin. Mr Browne went on to say that all the members of Cabinet, Suppreme and High Courts were mentioned in the book.

Mr Browne pointed out that he immmediately enquired of the editor, Mr Toibin why it had been published beecause "in my view it was unfair to Albert Reynolds. I am not discounting the issue of Ms Campbell-Sharpe. The person the allegations damaged was primarily Albert Reynolds."

Witness said he asked that an apoloogy to Mr Reynolds and the plaintiff be printed but he was subsequently told that due to informal contact between the editor and Ms CampbelllSharpe, she was treating the issue, on reflection, as jocose.

On discovery this was not the case, Mr Browne wrote an apology and it was printed in the first available issue, February 1985. He explained that the January issue was a centenary edition and there were unusual scheduling arrangements for it.

"The issues complained of were retracted in the apology. I am surprised she' was as disturbed as she said and did not bother to read the apology. That would suggest indifference.

"People outside of newspapers treat the press too seriously. Anything deroogatory of them appears to be the end of the world, but people involved in journalism have a broader view and are less disturbed," witness commented.

Asked by counsel, Mr Aidan Browne, SC if he had seen an article about himself and the Sunday Tribune in the August 1984 edition of Success magazine, Mr Vincent Browne stated that he had. He said in evidence that the article was littered with untruths. "I could identify six serious libels," he said. "The first was that I had improperly entered into an agreement with Mr Tony Ryan to ennsure that there was no mention in the Sunday Tribune of himself, of Guinnness Peat Aviation, of another direcctor, Arthur Walls, and of Clery's department store. For an editor to enter into such an agreement would be entirely improper. No such agreeement was ever entered into or even disscussed. The suggestion that I entered into any such agreement was grossly defamatory of me as editor of the Sunday Tribune. '

He said there was a suggestion that he had victimised a journalist on the paper because of remarks he purporrtedly made about him (Mr Browne) at a union meeting, comparing him unfavourably with the former prooprietor of the Sunday Tribune. This suggestion was defamatory and totally untrue. "I know for certain that the journalist in question never made the remark in question," said Mr Browne. There was the accusation that he had victimised two other members of the journalistic staff of the paper - the two journalists in question have since been promoted.

There is the accusation that he had perpetrated a con-job on the journaalists on the Sunday Tribune by preetending last July that the financial situation of the paper was different to what it actually was. There was the suggestion that he had somehow threaatened the advertising. manager of the company, thereby forcing her to join the ITGWU. This too is wrong. She joined the union at his urging. Finally there is the suggestion that he had pretended to journalists at Christmas 1982 that monies they were then reeceiving were "coming from me rather than from the new investor" - that he had purported to act as Santa Claus. "That too is defamatory and totally untrue," said Mr Browne. "The opening paragraph was suffused with malice and lies," he said.

"There is the additional point that the author of the article, Mr Frank Fitzpatrick (sic) requested an interrview with me in connection with the article. I agreed to give an interview. Subsequently when I heard that the article was going to press I telephoned Mr Fitzpatrick (sic) and asked him why he hadn't interviewed me. He didn't say that the reason he didn't do so was because I had refused, as he said in evidence today. He said that the reason he didn't interview me was because he had changed his mind and that it wasn't that article anyway. I asked what kind of article was it that excluded an interview with the primary source. He said that that was his deciision. I said this was an extraordinary journalistic practice and that 1 intennded publishing and exposing this kind of extraordinary journalistic behaviour. I foolishly went on to say that for that purpose I had taperecorded the connversation - lhad not done so in fact."

"I believed I would have won on anyone of these points. I bore Ms Campbell-Sharpe no ill-feeling as a result of the article and did not conntemplate a legal suit. I don't believe people in journalism should be using the libel laws to bring cases. In my view we should be trying to change (them and promote freedom of the press," he added.

Judge Martin intervened when Mr Browne stated that journalis.ts should not be exploiting the libel laws but attempting to have them reformed as they were against the public interest. "You will not use this court as a platform for your ill considered views," said Judge Martin. Later he invited Mr Browne to state why the libel laws were against the public interest.

Mr Browne stated that one of the clearest instances in which the libel laws were against the public interest was the imposition of a judicial proof on material written by journalists. Journalists could know, for instance, of a case of fraud and have established that through thorough journalistic routines - a number of independent witnesses, possibly supported by docuumentary proof and then an interview with the primary source. However it might well be impossible to establish this judicially because witnesses might be afraid to give evidence because they might be afraid of their jobs or even for their lives.

This was clearly a case where the public interest would not be served by the existing libel laws.

Mr Browne later went on to say that the situation whereby printers, . distributors and others, entirely uninnvolved in the publication of material were open to prosecution was another inhibition on the freedom of the press. This was because it posed another threshold over which journalists had to cross to get the information to the public. Printers and distributors, beecause of the present law, sometimes demanded to censor certain material.

Mr Browne stated there had been the ludicrous case some years ago whereby somebody at their printers saw an article which was in course of being printed and believed it was libelllous. He insisted that the production be stopped and that the article be withdrawn. Subsequently the person alleegedly defamed wrote a solicitor's letter to the printers complaining about the refusal to publish the piece.

Cross-examined by Mr Colm Conndon, SC for the plaintiff, Mr Browne said the magazine frequently received demands for apologies, sometimes even to be broadcast on R TE, but with the passage of a few days the person involved usually took a more sober view.

He said that out of a sense of obligation to the readers he would have been keen to correct it, but "to say it was a grievous defamation as you have come across is ridiculous."

The use of the word "slammer", he said suggested frivolity but he agreed the comment was over the top. "It was unfair to Albert. Reynolds and to a lesser extent to Ms CampbelllSharpe. If it was taken literally it suggested that Albert Reynolds was the instigator of a piece of corruption - the fraudulent conversion of public funds. Albert Reynolds is the primary person to be aggrieved.

"To a lesser extent, I acknowledge it was unfair to Ms Campbell-Sharpe. She should have shrugged it off as I did the much more serious allegations in Success magazine."

All readers, he added, would underrstand Wigmore to be a lighthearted bantering column and the statements were made in the context that everyybody in the book, "Who's Who" should be in jail.

"The words on their own would consist of serious defamation but the jocose, frivolous and unserious context robbed them of their heavy siggnificance, but not entirely of their unnfairness, which was corrected by the apology," Mr Browne concluded.

General Manager of Newspread Ltd, the distributors of Magill, Mr Laurence Roe, said that on occasions the magaazine arrived late at its offices and Newwspread was unable to vet it. If the copies of the magazine had been reecalled, very few would have come back and it would have been relying on the goodwill of the shopkeepers.

Mr Aidan Browne, SC for Magill, in his submission to JUdge Martin pointed out that the intervening issue between Christmas 1984 and February was a special one and the apology was published as soon as possible. He added that there was no evidence the apology did the plaintiff any harm.

Mr Colm Condon, SC pointed out that damages should be the same against all defendants.

Judge Frank Martin commented that this was a serious matter to be considered and he reserved his judgeement until Friday, June 28th. •