Former Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams has won a defamation case against the BBC.
Mr Adams claimed he was defamed in a 2016 Spotlight programme and a subsequent online article, which he said falsely claimed that he sanctioned the killing of former senior Sinn Féin official Denis Donaldson.
The jury rejected the BBC's defence and awarded €100,000 in damages to Mr Adams.
Courts Reporter Vivienne Traynor takes a look back at the case.
In the witness box, Gerry Adams said the allegation made by a source named as "Martin" in the Spotlight programme was an "attempted hatchet job" and a "grievous smear".
His lawyers described him as having a reputation as a "peacemaker" who was instrumental in the Good Friday Agreement. The jury was shown a montage of TV news clips with Mr Adams interacting with world leaders throughout the peace process.
Former US congressman Bruce Morrison, who gave evidence by video link, said Gerry Adams was regarded as a "serious man on a serious mission" for the peace process and the Good Friday Agreement.
However Independent Senator Michael McDowell told the jury that he had never met a politician or a member of the media who did not believe that Gerry Adams was a leading figure in the IRA and on its army council.
Senator McDowell also told the jury that the IRA had remained active after the Good Friday Agreement.
Spotlight reporter Jennifer O'Leary said the allegation made by a republican source was corroborated by at least five other sources. She said she held more than 60 meetings over several months and took the "utmost care" in making the programme.
She said the BBC could not ignore the story as the issue of the "intelligence war" and how the State and the IRA treated informants was of particular public importance and interest.
The jury was told it was not being asked to assess the truth or otherwise of the allegation made against Gerry Adams in the Spotlight programme. Mr Justice Alexander Owens would not allow counsel to ask Mr Adams a direct question about his alleged involvement in the IRA because the judge said that was not an issue in the case.
Instead Mr Adams was asked about allegations surrounding him which he accepted had "been out there for years". Instead they would have to assess what Mr Adams' reputation was in 2016 when the programme was broadcast and if his reputation had been damaged.
He was asked if he knew anyone in the IRA, to which he replied that he would not "speculate".
Mr Adams' lawyers reminded the jury that he had been elected a number of times by the public and they could look to this to assess his reputation.
In his charge, Mr Justice Owens told the jury not to equate political popularity with someone’s reputation as they are "not the same thing".
The judge said the reputation of a public figure is how the public perceive this person adding "for example all sorts of rascals who are known to be rascals have been elected to public office. Voters may choose to vote someone in because the alternative candidate is worse. But the person’s reputation continues to be that of a rascal the day after his election".
In closing arguments, lawyers for Mr Adams told the court the Spotlight programme amounted to reckless journalism and was not fair and reasonable. Senior Counsel Declan Doyle had urged the jury to award substantial damages saying the BBC had ignored the significant part of Mr Adams' reputation "as a person who had brought peace to this island".
Mr Doyle said the case was about balancing the right to free speech with the right to a good name and the BBC had distorted that balance because they had nailed their colours to the "Gerry Adams doesn’t have a good name, doesn't have a reputation" mast from the outset. While not suggesting the BBC had set out to get Gerry Adams, it had not attempted to verify the allegation, instead relying on "shady anonymous sources" such as disaffected republicans and security sources.
He said the jury must consider the reputation Mr Adams had in 2016 which was one of a person who "brought peace to this island and was elected and repeatedly elected to the British parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Dáil and it is not the narrow, biased, limited and reductive reputation as contended by the BBC".
Mr Doyle told the jury that when assessing damages it must consider the nature and gravity of the defamation and there could not be a more serious allegation than one of cynical cold-blooded murder. There could be no other reading that this was a very serious or exceptional defamation, he said.
Lawyers for the BBC said the case was a cynical attempt by Gerry Adams to launder his reputation and he could not come into court and shed that reputation. Senior Counsel Paul Gallagher said the case was very much about Mr Adams' reputation and whether or not the Spotlight programme was fair and reasonable.
He said while there may be parts of a reputation you could forget, "how would you forget someone who spent over 30 years of their life with a reputation for the atrocities that the IRA were involved in". Mr Adams' reputation could not be "sliced and diced" to remove or ignore issues at the centre of his claim for damages.
He did not think the members of the jury could ever get to awarding damages in the case but if they did, they must consider Mr Adams' words and actions in determining any alleged damage to reputation.
He said they could not shy away from this and it could not be a case of "say nothing, ignore and pretend it’s not there". He told the jury that Mr Adams' refusal to condemn the actions of the IRA, his carrying of coffins of bombers and his statements about the legitimacy of IRA violence should all be taken into account.
He told the jury it was important to remember the actions of the IRA and the "death and the harm and the fear" that it caused on both sides of the border.
Gerry Adams had put himself forward as a peacemaker with no hint of this dimension or element of his reputation or the reality in which it was born, he added.
He said those who produced the programme had the courage to say, "this is something people need to know and were prepared to tell it". The BBC did not make the allegation, rather it was presented as an allegation made by someone else and also carried Mr Adams' denial, he said.
Mr Gallagher said there could not be a situation where people in the media are afraid to speak or present something as an allegation because of a fear of being sued.
It was an essential ingredient of democracy at a time where all over the world there was a chipping away of democracy where people were being told what they can say.
"That is what is at stake here," he added.
Ulitmately, the jury found in Mr Adams favour and awarded him €100,000 in damages after seven hours of deliberations.
