Court rules Sir Van Morrison wrongly denied right to jury in Robin Swann defamation trial
Sir Van Morrison was wrongly denied the right to a jury trial in a forthcoming defamation battle with former Health Minister Robin Swann, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
Lady Chief Justice Dame Siobhan Keegan backed the musician’s challenge to having his action on the handling of Covid-19 restrictions in Northern Ireland determined by a judge alone.
But with Sir Van also defending a separate lawsuit brought by Mr Swann, there remains uncertainty over how the two cases will ultimately be dealt with.
Both claims centre on conflicting views about how the former Minister responded to the pandemic.
Mr Swann issued defamation proceedings after Sir Van chanted that he was “very dangerous” during a dinner at Belfast’s Europa Hotel in June 2021.
It came after gigs by the singer-songwriter at the venue were cancelled due to a ban on live music imposed as part of coronavirus restrictions.
He took to the stage and directed criticism at the Health Minister, with DUP MP Ian Paisley invited up from the audience to join the chants.
Video footage of the incident subsequently went viral.
Mr Paisley later defended his involvement as an act of parody, comedy, banter and sarcasm.
The defamation claim also cites further incidents involving a media interview and online video.
In a separate action, Sir Van is suing Mr Swann and the Department of Health over an earlier opinion piece he wrote for Rolling Stone magazine.
The article appeared in September 2020 after the performer announced plans to release anti-lockdown songs and donate proceeds to a hardship fund for musicians facing restrictions on live performance.
Mr Swann expressed disappointment at someone he acknowledged as “one of the greatest music legends of the past 50 years”.
The songs were described as a “smear” on those involved in the public health response to the pandemic.
During a preliminary High Court hearing in June last year, Mr Swann’s legal team sought trial by a judge sitting alone, while Sir Van’s representatives pressed for the claims to be decided by a jury.
At that stage the court ordered both actions should be judge-only trials, based on a special reason that the two cases were interlinked.
Lawyers for Sir Van argued that the judge who made that determination misdirected himself.
Ruling on the appeal, the Lady Chief Justice held that the linkage between the two actions should not have been considered as a special reason.
She confirmed: “The judge therefore erred in aggregating the facts and issues in the two cases to deny the right to jury trial applied for in each case.
“The appeal succeeds on (that) ground.”
With both trials not expected to begin until the autumn at the earliest, attempts could now be made to agree on some form of consolidated hearing.
Want a quick and expert briefing on the biggest news stories? Listen to our latest podcasts to find out What You Need To Know.