A solicitor suing Denis O’Brien over an allegedly defamatory press release has told a High Court jury that the businessman “played the man, not the ball” in making the complained-of statement, and that it led to “grave consequences”.
Darragh Mackin was giving evidence on the second day of the defamation action, in which he and fellow solicitor Gavin Booth claim Mr O’Brien’s statement implied they acted for and received payment from the IRA (Irish Republican Army).
Mr O’Brien and his co-defendant, public relations consultant James Morrissey, deny the material defamed the solicitors or means what the solicitors allege.
Mr Mackin told the jury of nine men and three women on Thursday that Mr O’Brien wasn’t a “faceless troll on Twitter”, but rather one of Ireland’s most successful businessmen. This, he said, means that people listen to Mr O’Brien, and made the statement more damaging for him.
RM Block
Mr O’Brien’s statement was released on October 26th, 2016, by Mr Morrissey.
He made the statement in response to a report on media ownership in Ireland. Mr Mackin and Mr Booth were credited as co-authors of the report.
The solicitors claim they were defamed by a sentence in Mr O’Brien’s statement that said: “Sinn Féin/IRA certainly got the report they paid for”.
Continuing his evidence on Thursday, Mr Mackin told the jury of the professional and personal impact of Mr O’Brien’s statement on him. “[Mr O’Brien] played the man, not the ball, and the consequences of that were grave,” Mr Mackin said.
Mr Mackin’s senior counsel Tom Hogan, appearing with barrister Conan Fegan and instructed by Johnsons Solicitors, read into the record a pre-litigation sent to Mr O’Brien’s side seeking a retraction and apology arising from the statement.
Asked if he has ever received an apology or retraction, Mr Mackin said: “No, to this day.”
Noting that he has acted for people bereaved by IRA murders, Mr Mackin said was left wondering how the allegation would impact his relationship with clients.
Within legal circles, he said that people were generally supportive of him following the publication of the statement, but said that others kept their distance.
Mr Mackin said that his wife, who is also a lawyer, worried about her professional reputation following the statement.
Mr Mackin also said that the allegation impacted his relationship with his grandmother, who he said he was close to, and was a “great influence” on him. Mr Mackin said that in the period prior to her death, she was left worrying about his wellbeing arising from the allegation.
Mr Mackin said that didn’t want to be in court as a plaintiff, that it was “embarrassing” to see the case in court lists – but added that he refused to let Mr O’Brien say what he did without repercussions.
Darren Lehane SC, appearing for Mr O’Brien and Mr Morrisey with barrister Joe Holt, and instructed by Meagher Solicitors, put to Mr Mackin his clients do not agree with what the plaintiffs said the complained-of words mean.
Counsel said his clients assert that the words mean the report was unfair.
Mr Mackin disagreed when it was put to him that he didn’t make any complaint in the proceedings with the defence’s suggestion that the report was unfair or biased.
