Former editor of SBP Ian Kehoe and former business editor Tom Lyons have repeatedly said they published the material as a matter of public interest
He said reason for this is the case depends on the SBP articles and the meanings of the articles
He tells the jury they might see this as an "exit mechanism" for the judge but he says "no such exit mechanism is available to me"
He said jury can ask questions or ask for clarity on a matter after he is finished charging them.
A Circuit Court has limited power, if it decides someone is defamed, there is a limit on what can be awarded.
Also a person who goes to the Circuit Court doesn't get a jury
That's what Denis O'Brien has done.
He’s an extremely well-known man, there’s probably not an adult in Ireland who hasn't heard about him…He has extensive business interests..in 45 countries across the world…
That’s how serious he considers this matter.
He says: The Sunday Business Post takes an equally serious view of the case that has been brought against it
Ultimately he explains this means a "poor man" in the "most diminished situation in society, economically and socially" and Denis O'Brien who has "undoubted economic power & social standing" must be treated the same before the law
He says SBP is also entitled to 'equality before the law'
Judge says: "So the two parties in this case have got to be treated equally."
The same questions must be asked of Ian Kehoe and Tom Lyons
That doesn’t involve leading common sense…at the door of the courtroom
You are in every respect a representation of society and that is critically important in defamation case
That's the complete opposite to Denis O'Brien's view. He says 'these are defamatory of me'...It’s your job to resolve that…
He says it recites some of the fundamental rights of Ireland's citizens
The defendants’ case there is just no defamation. They simply say: There’s no defamation..
Has what’s been published in these articles injured his reputation?
The law presumes that if the statement is defamatory then damages is presumed to flow from that.
The law presumes that IF the articles were defamatory and bore the meanings that DOB says they bear…then the law presumes that loss flows/damage flows...
And that’s the right the defendants are saying they've exercised.
Judge reads from the constitution.
Says they're saying the articles do NOT mean what DOB says they mean.
Judge explains that this is why the issue paper "follows a chronology" or "intentional pattern".
He says: If the scales are equal in a case like this then the benefit has to be given to defendant [SBP].
He reads: A “defamatory statement” means a statement that tends to injure....
Judge stops and says word 'tends' is "extremely important in understanding what we're talking about"
he doesn't win by coming her and saying me and my fiends thought I was defamed by these articles..
A “defamatory statement” means a statement that tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society’
That’s what he has to establish…
He says Banking Inquiry was only beginning.
He says "what needs to be considered is the circumstances of the case as existed at the time"..
What impression would be conveyed to the reasonable reader by those articles?
Did those articles convey to the reasonable reader any of the meanings contended for by DOB?
He says RR is somebody who bought the SBP on a Sunday and sat down after lunch or breakfast and read the paper
Judge tells jury there's a reference to DOB in the article but tells them it has "nothing whatsoever to do with this case"