A lawyer who claims he was defamed by Denis O’Brien in a press release issued on behalf of the businessman has said the complained-of statement contained “dangerous” and “sinister” connotations.
Darragh Mackin is a solicitor with Belfast human rights firm Phoenix Law. He claims in a High Court action that Mr O’Brien’s statement – issued in response to a 2016 report on the concentration of media ownership in Ireland – implies he acted for and received payment from the IRA (Irish Republican Army) and was unprofessional and lacked integrity.
Mr Mackin is taking the case alongside Gavin Booth, also a solicitor with Phoenix Law.
It is the solicitors’ case that they authored the report commissioned by then-Sinn Féin MEP Lynn Boylan on the concentration of media ownership in Ireland. A press statement in response to the report was released on October 26th, 2016, on behalf of Mr O’Brien by his spokesman James Morrissey, also a defendant in the case.
RM Block
At the time, Mr O’Brien held substantial stakes in radio and print media companies in Ireland.
The solicitors claim they were defamed by a sentence in the press release that said: “Sinn Féin/IRA certainly got the report they paid for”.
The defendants deny the material defamed the solicitors or means what the solicitors allege.
A trial hearing into the case opened on Wednesday before Mr Justice Tony O’Connor and a jury of nine men and three women. Mr Mackin, Mr Booth, Mr O’Brien and Mr Morrissey were present in court.
Opening the solicitors’ case, Tom Hogan SC, appearing with barrister Conan Fegan and instructed by Johnsons Solicitors, said the essence of the case is about the vindication of the solicitors’ reputations, following what they believe to be an “unjustified attack” by Mr O’Brien and Mr Morrissey on those reputations.
Led in his evidence by Mr Hogan, Mr Mackin described his reaction of “sheer disbelief” to the statement, adding that he could not believe someone of Mr O’Brien’s intelligence would release such a statement.
Mr Mackin said the statement had “exceptionally dangerous and exceptionally sinister” connotations.
He noted that Mr O’Brien’s statement said the IRA “got the report they paid for”, and continued to state how much money the IRA purportedly had, and that the IRA had not “gone away”.
Mr Mackin said this all directly implied that he had given a legal opinion premised upon his being paid by the IRA, an unlawful organisation.
This was “probably the worst allegation” someone could make, he said. Mr Mackin stated that he didn’t want to be in his current position, but added that when somebody makes such an allegation, “you have no option”.
He said he first learned of the statement when he was phoned by then-Sunday Times journalist Mark Tighe. Mr Mackin said the reporter told him Mr O’Brien had published a defamatory statement about him and he needed to take urgent action, or words to that effect.
Mr Mackin said when he and others were preparing the report, they were conscious of the need to be extremely accurate, out of fear that Mr O’Brien would take legal action against them.
In his opening speech to the jury, Mr Hogan said his side believe the words complained of mean that Mr Mackin and Mr Booth received payment and acted for the IRA, an unlawful organisation.
Noting the IRA’s role in “shocking atrocities” during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, Mr Hogan said it “almost goes without saying” that suggesting someone was paid by or acted for the IRA is defamatory.
The case continues.
