The Dublin Circuit Civil Court has heard claims that it is “utterly irrational” for ex-journalist John Waters to mount a defence on the grounds that his purported defaming remarks about reporter Kitty Holland were sincere beliefs. These comments were made by Shane English, the representing legal counsel for Miss Holland, on the concluding fifth day of the trial. His client is taking legal action against Mr. Waters over remarks made at a gathering in Tullamore, Co Offaly in 2017, which were consequently shared through a Facebook video.
The judge presiding over the case, Judge John O’Connor, affirmed that he would announce his verdict on 3rd July after he had received reassurance from the legal representatives on each side that his impartiality was respected. Through the course of the trial, there has been mention of third-party comments on online platforms about the ongoing case.
Mr Waters acknowledged that his comments had been directed towards Miss Holland, but disputed that he had directly labelled her a fabricator. He claimed instead that she was the originator of the alleged falsehood. In response to these claims, Mr English argued that the court needed to determine how the average reasonable reader would interpret Mr Waters’s statements.
He added that nobody was disputing John Waters’s right to freedom of speech, but highlighted that Mr Waters should not be allowed to “indiscriminately slander individuals”.
The claim made by Mr Waters couldn’t be categorised under the protective shield of sincere viewpoint since a genuine belief should be underpinned by evidentiary facts, according to him. The argument that merely saying a notable politician is dishonest and claiming it to be a fair viewpoint can’t suffice, as this is clear nonsense for everyone.
He cast doubt on the assertion that Mr Waters’s statements lacked any resentful intention, particularly as the latter reiterated his perspective during a January 24th discussion with social activist Gemma O’Doherty. He noted that if the court deemed the remarks as slanderous, it was a given that they were harmful. Judge O’Connor concurred that the extent of any detrimental impact on Ms Holland would indeed influence the magnitude of any potential reward granted.
Feargal Kavanagh SC, acting for Mr Waters, highlighted everyone’s fundamental right to freedom of speech, which includes airing views that may be disliked. He stated that Mr Waters’ agenda was to represent the unheard plea of the yet to be born child. He mentioned that his client never discredited Ms Holland as untruthful, but was rather discussing the narratives. He added that citizens must dare to stand against unjust laws, or else they risk commencing a ominous journey towards oppression.