Sunday Independent journalist Ali Bracken has told the High Court she does not accept that information about Enoch Burke annoying other prisoners in Mountjoy because of his religious beliefs was false.
Ms Bracken was giving evidence on the fourth day of a High Court action over an article published in October 2022 which Mr Burke claims defamed him.
Ms Bracken said her information that Mr Burke was annoying other inmates with his religious belief had been given to her by two separate sources and accurately reported in her article.
She accepted there were some minor inaccuracies in the article for which the newspaper had apologised and published a correction.
Ms Bracken said she had written a number of articles about Enoch Burke. "We've never had a case like Enoch Burke before, never had a professional person unwilling to purge their contempt," she said.
She said she rang a confidential source to find out how Mr Burke was getting on in prison because it was something she did regularly.
"If someone high profile is in prison it is of interest to the general public to see how they are getting on behind bars. When someone high profile is jailed, they remain of interest and their behaviour behind bars is of interest. I had a confidential source and I verified it with a second source," she said, adding that she stood over the quotes because that is what she was told in good faith.
"If my prison source had told me Enoch Burke was running bible classes and there was a waiting list to attend, I would have happily reported that. I reported what I was told."
During cross-examination, Ms Bracken accepted she did not contact the Burke family about the claims but said her calls to Martina Burke had previously gone unanswered and she did not think the family could give any information about what was happening in the prison.
Asked if she agreed with her editor, who said in evidence it was eminently possible that Enoch Burke was annoying people in prison, she said: "It's highly probable yes."
Ms Bracken was asked about a letter sent from the Irish Prison Service to Martina Burke which said Enoch Burke had been moved for "operational reasons only".
She said she accepted that was the position of the prison service. Asked if she thought her unnamed sources knew more than the official prison service she said she could not discuss confidential sources for professional reasons.
Asked if she believed conjecture from her sources was more credible, she said the statement from the IPS was their official position. She said her confidential sources could not give evidence. She denied that her position was wholly disdainful of the prison service and that her publication of the article was reckless.
She rejected a suggestion that the article had used sensational language and did not accept that saying someone was annoying was a serious allegation. She also denied she was malicious in publishing the article.
Ms Bracken also rejected a suggestion that an earlier article she had written on the views of people of Castlebar about the Burkes was a "hit piece".
She accepted the comments from two unnamed locals were negative but said she had also carried positive quotes from the Mr Burke’s father whom she had spoken to that day. She said she had gone to the Burke home and tried to speak with his mother or other family members to get their side of the story.
In closing submissions, Mr Burke referred to the seriousness of the damage done by the article which he said was circulated to millions and commented upon by solicitors, teachers, commissioners for oaths and lecturers who were "spitting me out" causing damage to him as a person who was a professional in a position of trust.
He said the judge should award aggravated damages due to the manner in which the case had been defended.
He said the defendants had persisted in claims of only minor inaccuracies in the story a refusal to acknowledge an official statement of the Irish Prison Service.
He said this showed disdain for a State body.
He said Ms Bracken had refused to accept the contents of the letter from the Irish Prison Service, yet the defendants had not pleaded a defence of truth.
Mr Burke said the defamatory material had been percolated out again and broadcast on national media because Sunday Independent Editor Alan English had "preferred his own hunch, his own feelings and his own prejudices over the written word of the prison service".
He added: "They were utterly reckless and they stand over their recklessness."
He said Ms Bracken saying she had verified the allegation meant she could write "whatever she wished and say she verified it".
He said Mr English had said there was no evidence it was true and yet published it to millions displaying a "disregard for people's rights and an arrogance in recklessly peddling untruths".
"My reputation was taken from me, it was a wholly malicious hit job portraying me as an unbearable person who relentlessly and continuously repeats his religious belief to the extent that people may resort to physical violence," Mr Burke added.
In his closing submission, Senior Counsel for Mediahuis Ronan Lupton said the "large elephant in the room" was that Mr Burke, a contemnor who will not comply with orders of the High Court, was asking the same court to vindicate his rights.
He said this must be looked at by the judge in a certain manner.
Judge Mulcahy said if Mr Lupton was making the argument that Mr Burke was not entitled to take the case, it was "way too late" to be making that argument on day four of the case.
Mr Lupton submitted the publication was made in good faith on a subject of public interest.
He said it was not a serious allegation and was not beyond what was fair and reasonable.
He said Mr Burke was a person of public interest and the article concerned how he engaged with the justice system.
Mr Lupton said: "What you are left with is, is it defamatory to say he annoyed others?"
The meanings of the words used as contended by the plaintiff were too high according to Mr Lupton who said if the court was to find against Mediahuis and award any damages, those damages should be nominal.
Judge Mulcahy said what was "striking" about the defence position was that it did not matter if the story was true or not and this did not change after the mistakes had been identified.
Mr Lupton said the evidence had shown it was not ideal but it was an unusual situation.
They had published an apology and a correction and could not plead truth as a defence because confidential sources could not be called to give evidence.
In reply, Enoch Burke said Mediahuis had "side stepped" the question of public interest from the judge.
Judge Mulcahy will give his decision at a later date.
