A defamation lawsuit filed by businessman Dermot Desmond against The Irish Times has prompted a High Court judge to rule Joseph Stiglitz’s expert evidence as inadmissible, deeming it irrelevant in addressing the issues at hand. Stiglitz, a Nobel-prize winning economist, was set to delve into the publication’s 2016 coverage of the Panama Papers, a massive leak of 11.5 million documents exposing financial information about offshore tax entities from a Panamanian law firm, Mossack Fonseca.
It’s been shared that the leaked information made its way to the German press before reaching The Irish Times and other global media outlets through the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists based in the United States.
Dermot Desmond has lodged a defamation claim against the Irish newspaper, arguing that a 2016 article he was featured in that talked about the Panama Papers implied impropriety in his financial dealings. Desmond additionally claims a violation of his privacy. The Irish Times, however, denies these allegations, arguing that publishing the article was a necessitated act of public interest, addressing the presence and evolution of offshore tax and regulatory hideaways.
In his judgment, Justice Owens referenced Section 26 of the Defamation Act 2009, highlighting that a defence to defamation is plausible for any defendant who can substantiate the fair and reasonable publication of information deemed to be of public interest.
The central discussion during the pretrial application was the admissibility of Dr Stiglitz’s evidence to reinforce that the article was in the public interest. The economist suggested that offshore tax havens and the opacity they offer impede economic progression, and that the media plays an instrumental role in interpreting and publicising information from investigations such as the Panama Papers, contributing to a significant public benefit.
However, the judge clarified that expert evidence is limited to that which is essential for the court’s understanding and resolution of the proceedings. While such evidence can be admissible on topics exceeding common knowledge, the concept of offshore tax havens and their usage for tax evasion and wealth concealment falls within common understanding, he stated.
The subject matter’s “public interest” attributes could typically be discerned from the substance of an article, as per his assertion. He insisted that such attributes are fundamental to inquisitive journalism. He emphasised that the protection of fair, rational publication under section 26.1 does not necessitate providing evidence of a noticeable benefit to the general public or the economic machinery ensuing from a discourse of public concern. The judge further stressed that any testament by Dr Stiglitz revealing a helpful economic effect due to press-publicised Panama Paper disclosures is not applicable, as validation of this is not needed. The same argument is valid for the defence regarding the infringement of privacy.
The judge refuted bias or partiality accusations against Dr Stiglitz, stating there has been no evidence indicating Dr Stiglitz to be an excessively zealous supporter. He decreed that Dr Stiglitz’s supposed testimony is not pertinent to any matter that is to be resolved, hence is not permissible. He has scheduled to deal with expenses issues on March 11th.
In terms of keeping informed, you can listen to our Inside Politics Podcast for the most recent analysis and discussion. In addition, by signing up for push alerts directly to your phone, you can conveniently access the best news, analysis and comments. The Irish Times can also be found on WhatsApp to keep you current with developments.