Denis O’Brien is “not out to destroy” anyone in bringing a defamation case over articles in the Sunday Business Post (SBP), a High Court jury has been told.

Paul O’Higgins SC said Mr O’Brien has sued the SBP because he was included among 22 people in articles on March 15, 2015, which meant the 22 were most to blame for destroying the Irish banking system in 2008.

Mr O’Brien claims the articles wrongly meant he was among a “gang” of 22 borrowers who “wrecked the country”, they defamed him and injured his reputation.

Post Publications Ltd, publishers of the SBP, denies the words mean what he alleges, denies defamation and malicious publication, and has pleaded “fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest”.

In his closing address for Mr O’Brien, Mr O’Higgins said a lot had been said about this case being “vicious” and there was an attempt on behalf of the SBP to “turn it on its head” by making the SBP the “victims”.

Mr O’Brien was not out to personalise the case or destroy anyone and he had sued the SBP and not the journalists involved in the articles although he would have been entitled to do so, he said.

For the standards of a broadsheet newspaper, the “get up” of the articles was “sensationalistic, heavily coloured and deigned to wow you from the very front page”.

The front page article was headlined “22 men and €26 billion” and meant Mr O’Brien was one of 22 borrowers most to blame for the destruction of the Irish banking system and subsequently bailout, he said. That was the meaning conveyed and “that is defamatory”.

Mr O’Brien was a “fish out of water” among the 22 as he was not a “developer king”, not under huge financial pressure, not “massively overstretched” and had brought €600m back into the country.

It was also “exceptionally unfair” to list him in a front page graphic among seven other people who had “huge problems”. He was “singled out for special treatment” and included among “developer kings” when the SBP knew his main business was not development and he had no exposure to development loans.

Mr O’Brien maintained what was printed was malicious because the articles meant what he alleged and it was “hard to see” the SBP did not know the facts and that they had “very little to do” with Mr O’Brien.

In his speech to the jury earlier, Michael McDowell SC, for the SBP, said the case “deserves to be thrown out on its backside”.

He urged the jury not to “fall for this phony effort” to persuade them Mr O’Brien was defamed in the articles.

There was no defamation and Mr O’Brien had come to court “spoiling for a fight”, he said.

Mr O’Brien wants to “put down” people who are “decent, honourable, truthful journalists who keep our democracy going by telling us the truth”, he said. These were people who were careful and who got the articles “lawyered”.

Mr O’Brien’s case is “disgraceful”, “wholly unfounded, manufactured, false, irresponsible and malicious”.

He said Mr O’Brien has come to court to get damages because he “wants to exercise power” over the SBP and “punish people whom he claims were malicious towards him”.

Mr O’Brien had been “vicious” in some of his evidence towards Mr Lyons and former SBP editor Ian Kehoe, he said.

Mr Lyons and Mr Kehoe had given evidence, because of the “fear factor” concerning Mr O’Brien, they had considered leaving him out of the articles but explained they could not be reduced by threats or fear of litigation by making no reference to Mr O’Brien. That evidence “rings true and is true”, counsel said.

The jury must decide who is telling the truth, the “flamboyant” Mr O’Brien who says he was the “victim” and the “central figure” in the articles when he “was not”.

It was untrue to say Mr O’Brien was given a central role in the coverage, the story was “simply not about him”, he said.

Earlier, Mr McDowell said there was “false” evidence from Mr O’Brien concerning communications between him and the former owner of the SBP, Conor Killeen, counsel said.

Mr O’Brien insisted there was such correspondence but had not produced it, he said.

Mr Justice Bernard Barton will give his charge on Wednesday before the jury retires to consider its verdict.

Source: Read Full Article