A High Court judge in Belfast has decreed that the mutual defamation accusations between musician Van Morrison and ex-Health Minister of Northern Ireland, Robin Swann, will be adjudicated by a unified jury. The trial, primarily focussed on the way Covid-19 restrictions were managed in Northern Ireland, is set to commence in September. Justice Colton believes it would be more effective for all issues to be reviewed by one jury.
The central issue to these lawsuits is the difference in opinion over Mr Swann’s pandemic response while in his ministerial role. Swann filed a slander lawsuit after Morrison publicly excoriated him at a gig in Belfast’s Europa Hotel in June 2021. The singer’s shows at the hotel had been cancelled due to a live music prohibition resulting from pandemic regulations. After the musician openly chastised Mr Swann on stage, a video recording of the event rapidly spread online. Similar statements made during a newspaper interview and in a YouTube video also play a role in the proceedings.
A second lawsuit sees Morrison suing Swann and the Northern Ireland Department of Health due to an editorial published in Rolling Stone magazine. The article came to light in September 2020, following Morrison’s announcement to launch songs critical of the lockdown and promise to donate the proceeds to a relief fund for musicians struggling with live performance restrictions. The article, titled ‘Northern Ireland’s Health Minister would like a word with Van Morrison’, features comments made by Swann criticising the singer’s message.
It was pre-decided that juries are to decide the outcome of both actions. Mr Swann submitted an application for the two cases to be tried concurrently due to the related issues involved, adding, it would also conserve time and expenses and prevent the risk of inconsistent findings and witnesses required to attend two different trials.
Adversely, Morrison’s legal representative disputed the notion that the two grievances shared common legal and factual factors, arguing that the cases pertain to different publications at different times.
Morrison is deploying a defence in his case, based on “replying to an attack” and honest commentary on a matter of public interest. Swann’s legal agents countered that these defences are unfeasible due to the slanderous words were claimed to have been spoken with malice.
However, Justice Colton’s verdict was that the disputes from both lawsuits will be predominantly evaluated based on the same evidence.
“To minimise misunderstandings and guarantee a comprehensive grasp of the subject being unravelled, it is optimal if one jury, or indeed a fact-finding panel, handles all facets,” he asserted. “Both the Swann and the Morrison legal proceedings will be held concurrently before a jury and will convene in unison this coming September,” he clarified.