Sinn Fein MP John Finucane sues DUP adviser over Twitter allegations over IRA support and promotion

[ad_1]

Sinn Fein MP John Finucane is suing a DUP adviser over allegations on Twitter of supporting and promoting the IRA.

the defamation proceedings against Marc Collins relate to messages published during the Westminster election campaign in 2019.

The senior judges today granted Mr. Finucanes leave to appeal a previous preliminary ruling on the pleaded defense of his action.

The proceedings relate to a tweet posted in November 2019 amid media coverage from banners that attacked and made allegations about the Sinn Fein representative and members of his family.

At the time, Mr Finucane was standing as the party’s candidate in the general election for North Belfast – a seat he later won.

The Court of Appeal heard that a post on Mr Collins’ Twitter account claimed: He supports and promotes the IRA, he is by no means innocent.

To close

DUP Advisor Marc Collins

DUP Advisor Marc Collins

In June last year, the DUP politician was suspended from Central and East Antrim Borough Council for eight months after an investigation into oversight standards found he had breached the code of conduct.

He is now facing a lawsuit in the High Court seeking damages over the content of the tweet.

A statement from lawyers for Mr Finucanes claimed it made a defamatory sense that he not only supports and promotes the IRA but also condoned acts of terrorism perpetrated by the organisation.

Defenses of justification and honest comment were raised, as well as a dispute over the connotation of the words.

At a previous hearing, a judge allowed further service which introduced Mr Finucanes’ membership of Sinn Fein as part of an amended defense to the action.

The MP’s lawyer disputed the development, saying it was unconscionable and amounted to an absurd claim that every party representative or supporter also promotes the IRA.

Ruling on the preliminary appeal, Chief Justice Dame Siobhan Keegan confirmed that Mr Finucanes’ Sinn Fein membership can be raised as part of any justification or honest comment defence.

But she found that the defendant was wrongly allowed to refer specifically to the party as the pleaded meaning of the tweet.

Setting aside the earlier court order, Dame Siobhan said: The appellant’s political identity is relevant to the defenses of justification and honest comment but should not have been included as service.

After establishing the proper meaning, we refer the remaining legal issues for determination to a different judge who can handle the case through to trial.

The Chief Justice added: We express no opinion on the general merits of this case.

[ad_2]