Award-winning journalist Kitty Holland has initiated a case at the Dublin Circuit Civil Court, alleging defamation via comments made by John Waters concerning the demise of Savita Halappanavar in a Galway hospital, which hinted that Ms Holland was dishonest. Andrew Walker SC, serving as Ms Holland’s representative, expressed to Judge John O’Connor the grave seriousness of labeling a journalist as misleading in their profession.
Ms Holland, residing in Ranelagh, Dublin, is pursuing damages, inclusive of aggravated damages, resulting from phrases uttered by Mr Waters, who is presently unemployed and based in Sandycove, Dublin during a 2017 speech at a Renua Ireland conference in Tullamore. Allegedly, a video containing these comments was posted online.
An excerpt from Mr Waters’s address delivered on November 25, 2017, amidst the campaign arguing for the repeal of the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment, was displayed in court through a video footage. Mr Waters communicated his stern disapproval of abortion, stating that no honest medical professional can demonstrate a history of maternal death due to the unavailability of good treatment related to abortion in any context. Halappanavar’s case, according to him, is the closest observed, but that’s a misrepresentation he claimed. Waters suggested that the originator of this lie—a journalist—was rewarded by her peers for disseminating falsehoods.
Mr Walker, assisted by Shane English and under the instructions of Lavelle Coleman solicitors, expressed that the crux of the defamation lies in Mr Waters’s baseless assertion that the referenced journalist is a purveyor of fabrications, and received accolades for spreading such untruths. The case put forward alleges that Mr Waters’s remarks implied Ms Holland, in her role as a journalist, was predisposed to or indeed circulated false narratives, and this has tarnished her personal, professional, and business reputation. Mr Waters is speculated to have made these remarks with malicious intent and with the awareness that there was no grounds to label her as dishonest.
Feargal Kavanagh SC, representing Mr Waters, stated that his client did not label Ms Holland as dishonest. Instead, his reference was to an article primarily written by Ms Holland in November 2012. This article, in Mr Waters’ opinion, created a misleading atmosphere due to inadequate fact-checking at the time it was written. Kavanagh added that his client had previously clarified his stance to Ms Holland through a 100-paged correspondence prior to the court hearing.
Ms Holland, a social affairs correspondent who has never been charged with dishonesty or inaccuracy in her journalistic career, testified. She confirmed she was the main author of the exclusive article titled “Woman denied a termination dies in hospital”, published on November 14th, 2012. The story pertained to the death of Ms Halappanavar and included the subhead “Two investigations are under way into the death of a woman who was 17 weeks pregnant, at University Hospital Galway last month”.
Ms Holland insisted that the content derived from factual data, a postmortem report and multiple dialogues with people such as Ms Halappanavar’s spouse who accompanied her in the hospital, her acquaintance doctors and those who had serious concerns about her treatment. She verified rigorous checks before publishing the article, which she declared was “100 per cent accurate”. She also mentioned winning multiple awards for her reporting related to Ms Halappanavar’s demise.
However, under cross-examination, she refuted the suggestion that her article claimed all details were authenticated. She highlighted that the piece clearly mentioned ongoing investigations into the cause of death.
Mr Waters, in his defence, rejects any purported publication. He denies referring to Ms Holland in his disputed statements and refutes her allegations of what he intended by them. Amidst his denials, he presents other arguments which include defending the truth; the principle of qualified privilege; and the idea of fair and reasonable publication on matters of public interest.
He asserts that his conviction on abortion is deep-seated, and his address was made in good faith, discussing an issue in the public’s interest. He denounces any malicious publication and contends that his address was primarily about the referendum to repeal the Eighth Amendment, not a particular reference to Ms Holland. The case resumes on Thursday.
For a comprehensive political overview and analysis, tune into our Inside Politics podcast.