A 65-year-old priest who is
suing RTÉ over allegations in a recent Prime Time Investigates
documentary has failed to secure a High Court order to shorten the time
allowed for the broadcaster to file a defence to his defamation claim.
The High Court was told that RTÉ is making arrangements for a
paternity test to support claims in the programme that the priest
fathered a child with an underage girl in Africa in 1982.
Lawyers for Fr Kevin Reynolds has said there was a unique urgency
about the case in that the now 65-year-old priest has had to step down
from his ministry in a Galway parish and leave his home because of
'false allegations' made in the programme.
However, Mr Justice Sean Ryan ruled there was no reason that the
usual time allowed to file a defence in a defamation case should be
shortened.
Counsel for Fr Reynolds, Frank Callanan, said RTÉ had been on notice
since 11 May that Fr Reynolds would be disputing the allegations made in
the documentary.
Despite this the broadcaster went ahead with the programme later that month and proceedings were served on 17 June last.
Under the normal rules, RTÉ has until the end of July to lodge a
defence but Mr Callanan said it was imperative that the case receive an
early hearing date due to the gravity of the allegations made.
Fr Reynolds had agreed to a paternity test, he said.
Mill Hill Missionaries is carrying out an investigation into the
claims, the court was told.
The priest offered to step down from
ministry until that investigation is complete.
Counsel for RTÉ, David Keane said there was no reason to deprive RTÉ
of its entitlement to plead justification and to file its defence in the
ordinary way.
He said counsel for Fr Reynolds was confusing the seriousness of the allegations with an urgency for the case to be heard.
He said there was no reason this defamation case should be treated any differently to others in procedural terms.
Mr Keane has said that the case would require serious deliberation
and consideration on both sides and there was no reason why procedural
rights should be truncated.
It would be necessary to bring witnesses from another continent, he added.
The request for the paternity test was the plaintiffs, he said, and
RTÉ had put in place the arrangement for that paternity test.
However,' the station was not using the paternity test to obstruct the litigation', he said.
Mr Callanan said the submissions by counsel for RTÉ were 'a nonsense' and reflected the attitude of the broadcaster.
He said it was 'an extremely serious libel' and it was shocking that
that RTÉ had difficulty accepting that a situation whereby a 65-
year-old priest had to leave his home and ministry was not unusual.
However, Mr Justice Ryan said if RTÉ failed to file a defence within
the 28 days allowed it was open to Fr Reynolds to make an application
during the courts summer vacation sittings.
This would still allow enough time for the case to be listed when the courts resume in October, he said.
The issue to be considered was should the case be given a special category over and above other defamation cases, he said.
The judge said there was a risk that by isolating this case from
others and 'shepherding' it through specified procedures there would be a
risk of giving the impression he had a particular view about the merits
of the case.
RTÉ did not have to produce a good reason as to why the usual rules should be followed, he said.
The rights of both parties would be best preserved by adherence to the rules, he added.