
BBC granted time to consider appeal in Gerry Adams case before paying all costs
On Friday, a jury at the High Court in Dublin found in his favour and awarded him 100,000 euros (£84,000) after determining that was the meaning of words included in the programme and article.
The BBC will also have to pay Mr Adams's legal costs.
However, the broadcaster was granted a stay on paying out the full costs and damages to allow it time to consider whether to lodge an appeal.
The stay was subject to paying half the damages (50,000 euros or £42,000) and 250,000 euros (£210,000) towards solicitors' fees.
Eoin McCullough SC, for the broadcaster, told trial judge Mr Justice Alexander Owens on Tuesday that he was applying for a stay pending a decision on whether to take an appeal.
He said his client had not determined if it would appeal, but added that he was seeking a stay until the end of the appeal period.
In making its decision, the jury also found the BBC's actions were not in good faith and the corporation had not acted in a fair and reasonable way.
When asked by the judge for what grounds an appeal could be taken, Mr McCullough said the court had rejected applications by the defence on matters put to the jury relating to Section 26 of the Defamation Act.
In particular, he questioned the decision to reject an application to withdraw the question of 'good faith' to the jury – and the order in which that question was asked of the members.
The jury was asked the good faith question before making a decision on whether the publication was fair and reasonable.
Mr McCullough said it was inevitable that the jury would find against him on the matter of fair and reasonable action once it had already found against him on good faith.
Mr Justice Alexander Owens agreed with counsel that there may be grounds for an appeal on the fact that the jury was first asked to consider whether the actions were in good faith before considering whether the actions were fair and reasonable.
Tom Hogan SC, for Mr Adams, said that if the court was going to grant a stay, it should be on the basis of something being paid towards the award.
Mr Justice Alexander Owens granted the stay subject to the conditions that 50,000 euros be paid towards damages and 250,000 euros towards the solicitors' fees.
However, this can also be appealed against.
Mr McCullough had raised other potential grounds for appeal, including the court's decision not to allow Mr Donaldson's daughter to give another 'version' of matters given in evidence by the family's former solicitor Ciaran Shiels.
He also said an appeal may be grounded on the exclusion of the evidence of Austin Stack and historian Eunan O'Halpin.
He said an appeal could further be grounded on the defendants being excluded from taking on the issue of whether Mr Adams was in the IRA, arguing that this could be put forward as significant acts of misconduct which would speak towards reputation.
Mr Adams denies being a member of the IRA.
Mr McCullough also raised comments by the judge which referred to newspaper reports about Mr Adams that were called upon during cross-examination as 'rot' and 'blather'.
He said that based on all of these issues, the jury determination of a 100,000 euro quantum for damages was itself unsustainable, further stating that the circulation of the programme and article was 'very small' and combined with a 'very damaged reputation'.
Mr Hogan said he could not say that there were not some points that were arguable, but added he did not want to 'fight the appeal now'.
He said there was a 'very significant inequality of arms in this case' and questioned whether the application was strategic.
He said an appeal had to be brought on a bona fide basis.
Mr McCullough said it was 'surprising' if not a 'little frustrating' to hear a suggestion that he was acting short of good faith.
He said all he had said was that his client had not made up its mind and that any appeal should be allowed to proceed in the usual way.
He had argued that it may be difficult and complicated to get the amounts paid out back should he prevail on appeal.
Mr Justice Alexander Owens said he was 'not really persuaded' on the grounds of the appeal, other than the order of the questions on 'good faith' and 'fair and reasonable'.
He made the order of the payment of partial damages and costs.
It is open to the BBC to seek a further stay against that payment at the Court of Appeal.
Last week, the director of BBC Northern Ireland Adam Smyth said the broadcaster has insurance and 'makes financial provision for ongoing and anticipated legal claims'.
Separately, the counsel discussed whether the article – which remains online – could be geoblocked in the Republic of Ireland.
On the issue of seeking an injunction, Mr Hogan said he had been discussing the matter with Mr McCullough and that it may be technologically possible.
He added that there had been a lot of talk over the weekend over BBC services being blocked in the Republic of Ireland.
Mr Justice Alexander Owens replied: 'I heard that, I don't imagine that will happen.'
The judge questioned what jurisdiction he had to make an order on the BBC, which is abroad.
He added that it had been put to the jurors that he would not be able to make such an order and that their award of damages was the remedy on the matter.
Mr Hogan agreed that it was not a matter to be decided on Tuesday.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Spectator
18 minutes ago
- Spectator
The BBC has finally done something right
This isn't a sentiment you'll have read much in recent weeks, given the BBC's series of appalling misjudgements and editorial disasters. But here goes: Three cheers for the BBC. Its critics are completely wrong and its decision making is spot on. To be clear, I'm not referring to its coverage of Bob Vylan at Glastonbury, the Gaza documentary narrated by the son of a Hamas minister or the BBC's sacking of the two Masterchef presenters. I'm talking about something it has actually got right – but for which it is nonetheless being lambasted: the decision not to decamp its entire political team, and all its political programmes, to this year's party conferences. Previously the lunchtime Politics Live programme has been broadcast from what we used to call the two main party conferences – Labour and the Conservatives – along with Newsnight and much of the news channel's output. To do that, the BBC has taken around 80 journalists and technicians. That compares with three for ITV and eight for Channel 4. Bloated, you say? In years gone by, it was possible to see the validity of such largesse in staffing and coverage. The party conferences used to matter. For hacks, they provided an invaluable opportunity to take 'the feel' of party members and to speak to politicians in a less guarded environment – especially in the bars late at night. For Labour, the proceedings in the hall also mattered, with its jargon of composites, motions and references back all feeding into an atmosphere where votes counted for something. I spent too many years having to attend them, first as a policy wonk and later as a hack. You really did have to be there. There was the Bennite wars of the 1980s, the Militant years and John Smith's 1993 OMOV (one member, one vote) fight. There was Tony Blair's first conference speech in 1994, when he argued for the abolition of Clause IV (Labour's constitutional commitment to 'the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange') and almost no one in the hall realised what he was saying. Labour conference was the arena in which the party's future was played out, with fringe meeting battles and – literally – smoke-filled rooms. Although the conferences mattered, I hated them. All the people I wanted to spend time with I could do so in London. I never got to grips with being forced to spend time with people I had no wish to spend time with, but in a secure area. Add to that the permanent stench of stale air and the annual conference cold, and I was thrilled when I no longer had to go. Party conferences now are just stage shows, like the US conventions, which exist solely to provide fodder for social media clips of Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch's speeches and to give the mainstream news broadcasters something to talk about. For the party faithful they're a fun – each to their own – few days of political self-indulgence and a chance to get drunk with people you've seen on telly. For everyone else, they are meaningless for anything other than the set piece speeches – which could equally be broadcast, like Keir Starmer's first as Labour leader during covid in 2020, online from an empty room. The BBC is quite right to call out the emperor's new clothes. The conferences don't need – and don't deserve – the broadcast army of hacks they've always had. Not least because now they're not even necessarily the most relevant gatherings, with Reform increasingly solid ahead in the polls. Caroline Dinenage, chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, told PoliticsHome, which broke the story: 'It's a surprising move by the BBC, who took over 500 of their staff to Glastonbury.' She has a point – but the point isn't that the BBC should take its usual army to the conferences, it's that it took an absurd number to Glastonbury. PoliticsHome also quotes a BBC source: 'We're really upset about it.' Chacun à son goût.


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Ticket fraud warning issued by bank as ‘Gen-Z adults most likely to be targeted'
People falling for ticket scams are losing £150 on average – with Gen-Z adults particularly likely to be targeted, a bank is warning. Barclays said that August can be one of the strongest months of the year for reports of purchase scams. One in six (17%) Gen-Z adults aged 18 to 27 said they had been caught out or coerced into paying for tickets that did not exist, slightly higher than Millennials (aged 28-43), at 16%, according to the Barclays Scams Bulletin. Gen-Z adults are also the most likely to know someone who has either fallen victim to or been targeted by a scam, at 23% compared with 19% for Millennials and 14% across all age groups across the UK. The bank's own scam claims data indicates that the peak months for purchase scams last year were April, closely followed by August. As fans seek out tickets for upcoming events, often through resellers, more than two-fifths (42%) of people surveyed said they feel more worried about falling victim to a scam than they did 12 months ago. Tickets scams often originate on social media, the bank said. Kirsty Adams, fraud and scams expert at Barclays, said scammers are 'ready to cash in on the hype' around concerts such as the Oasis tour. She said: 'Whether it's a once-in-a-lifetime concert or a sold-out summer sporting event, the rush to grab tickets can cloud judgment, which is why we're urging fans to pause for thought before they part with their money to avoid falling victim to opportunistic summer scammers. 'Social media platforms and online marketplaces provide a hotbed for these scams to take place.' Opinium surveyed 2,000 people in June and Barclays also used some of its own data on scams for the research. Here are Ms Adams's 'safe' tips for buying tickets: S – Stop and research Do your due diligence. Take a moment to check the website, read reviews, and confirm if tickets can be transferred or resold. Just a couple of minutes of research can prevent days of regret. A – Ask someone you trust Get a second opinion before buying. Speak to a friend or family member who might know the seller or website and see if it sounds legitimate to them. F – Flag unrealistic deals Be wary of unlikely offers. If the price seems too good to be true, it probably is. Question why the seller is offering such a discount and whether they are asking for unusual payment methods. E – Ensure secure payment Always use a credit card or another secure payment method. This gives you added protection if something goes wrong with your purchase.


BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
The Ballad of Big Mags - a new podcast series to tell the inside story of controversial community leader and crime chief, Mags Haney
A new BBC Scotland podcast series - The Ballad of Big Mags - will explore the life and times of a controversial figure who rose to prominence in the late 90s. Margaret Haney from the Raploch estate in Stirling grabbed the headlines in 1997 as a self-styled anti-paedophile campaigner. The media couldn't get enough of her, and she revelled in the attention - but the high-profile coverage of 'Big Mags' as a protector of the community would eventually lead to her downfall. Dark secrets lay behind the banner headlines because Margaret Haney was in fact the head of a notorious criminal gang while claiming she "just wanted to help folk" in the community. Over 20 years later she still divides opinion, and, in this series, award-winning journalist Myles Bonnar reveals new insights as he speaks to people closely connected to her and intimately involved in the astonishing series of events that took place in the late 90s and early 2000s. He also delves deep into the BBC archives to tell the definitive story of the woman known as 'Big Mags'. Myles said: "Mags Haney's rise to prominence and her dramatic fall after revelations of her criminal activities, was a story which played out in the media over years. "The series not only examines her contradictory life but also wider issues of mob justice, community dynamics, poverty, and the creation of the so-called media personality. "Many people only partially know the story of this controversial figure and this series will give a full account of how she rose to fame and became a source of fascination to the media and public before her criminal life was exposed." The six-part series will be available on BBC Sounds from Friday 8 August JG2