Cooper-Flynn v. R.T.E. & Ors [2004] IESC 27 (28 April 2004)

Cooper-Flynn v. R.T.E. & Ors [2004] IESC 27 (28 April 2004)

The Supreme Court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury on the requirements for a majority verdict were legally erroneous and contrary to s.95 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, as they permitted different combinations of jurors to answer different questions, rather than requiring the same nine to concur on all answers forming the verdict. This error constituted a substantial wrong in the trial, requiring a new trial. Other grounds of appeal were rejected: the documentary evidence was admissible, the form of jury questions did not cause a miscarriage of justice, and the additional jury directions were within the trial judge's discretion.

Citation
[2004] IESC 27
Parties
Plaintiff / Appellant: Beverly Cooper-Flynn; Defendant / Respondent: Radio Telefís Éireann (RTÉ); Defendant / Respondent: Charlie Bird; Defendant / Respondent: James Howard
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal (libel/defamation) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Jury Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; new trial ordered; order for costs in favour of Mr. Howard set aside.
Legal Topics
Libel, Jury Directions, Justification Defence, Mitigation of Damages, Majority Verdicts, Admissibility of Evidence
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Libel Jury Directions Justification Defence Mitigation of Damages Majority Verdicts +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beverly Cooper-Flynn

Plaintiff / Appellant

Radio Telefís Éireann (RTÉ)

Defendant / Respondent

Charlie Bird

Defendant / Respondent

James Howard

Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (libel/defamation) / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in admitting certain documentary evidence as to bank practices
  2. 2 Whether the form of questions to the jury improperly conflated the positions of the defendants
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge's additional jury directions were unfair or unbalanced

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury on the requirements for a majority verdict were legally erroneous and contrary to s.95 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, as they permitted different combinations of jurors to answer different questions, rather than requiring the same nine to concur on all answers forming the verdict. This error constituted a substantial wrong in the trial, requiring a new trial. Other grounds of appeal were rejected: the documentary evidence was admissible, the form of jury questions did not cause a miscarriage of justice, and the additional jury directions were within the trial judge's discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; new trial ordered; order for costs in favour of Mr. Howard set aside.

Orders

  • New trial of the proceedings directed
  • Order of costs in favour of Mr. Howard set aside