13 May 1999 Edition
`Committee' libel hearing
By Nick Martin-Clark
The Court of Appeal in London turned again last week to the libel case brought by Sean McPhilemy, author of ``The Committee'', against the Sunday Times. At the heart of the case is an article published in 1993 alleging that McPhilemy's earlier, similarly titled, television documentary hoaxed the public into believing in a murder conspiracy involving collusion in the Six Counties.
The three-judge panel was told that McPhilemy ``still stood 100%'' behind his programme's ``central thesis'' that a committee of prominent Protestant businessmen, policemen and loyalist hit-men had organised a series of killings of Catholics between 1989 and at least 1991. The hearing, however, centred on an appeal by McPhilemy's lawyers against an earlier ruling that the truth or falsity of this central thesis needed to be first established by the court, before it could then move on to deal with the swingeing allegations of professional misconduct made against the programme-makers in the article. There they stand accused of tricking their key witness into appearing on camera, of giving him ``a detailed script of what to say'', of knowingly putting forward as fact what he had told them was only rumour and of promising him £5,000 for his co-operation.
The Court reserved judgement for a later date, noting that the case was ``not easy''. For his part, McPhilemy remains confident that in the end ``the RUC will be the real defendant on trial''.
The Court of Appeal in London turned again last week to the libel case brought by Sean McPhilemy, author of ``The Committee'', against the Sunday Times. At the heart of the case is an article published in 1993 alleging that McPhilemy's earlier, similarly titled, television documentary hoaxed the public into believing in a murder conspiracy involving collusion in the Six Counties.
The three-judge panel was told that McPhilemy ``still stood 100%'' behind his programme's ``central thesis'' that a committee of prominent Protestant businessmen, policemen and loyalist hit-men had organised a series of killings of Catholics between 1989 and at least 1991. The hearing, however, centred on an appeal by McPhilemy's lawyers against an earlier ruling that the truth or falsity of this central thesis needed to be first established by the court, before it could then move on to deal with the swingeing allegations of professional misconduct made against the programme-makers in the article. There they stand accused of tricking their key witness into appearing on camera, of giving him ``a detailed script of what to say'', of knowingly putting forward as fact what he had told them was only rumour and of promising him £5,000 for his co-operation.
The Court reserved judgement for a later date, noting that the case was ``not easy''. For his part, McPhilemy remains confident that in the end ``the RUC will be the real defendant on trial''.