Sir Van and Robin Swann settle defamation battle

Sir Van Morrison called Robin Swann "very dangerous" during the Covid pandemic

Sir Van Morrison's long-running defamation battle with the former Stormont Health Minister Robin Swann has been settled.

Mr Swann sued the singer for slander after Sir Van declared that the politician was “very dangerous” in front of an audience at Belfast’s Europa Hotel in June 2021.

Sir Van's on-stage criticism of Mr Swann came after his gigs at the hotel were cancelled as part of coronavirus restrictions.

In a separate action, Sir Van sued Mr Swann and the Department of Health over an opinion piece published in Rolling Stone magazine which claimed that some of Sir Van's criticism of lockdown rules had been "actually dangerous".

At the High Court in Belfast on Friday, the judge was told resolutions had been reached in their competing and “potentially very costly” legal cases.

Both actions had been due to get underway at the end of September.

However it was announced that all proceedings have now been settled on confidential terms.

Video footage of Sir Van calling Mr Swann dangerous went viral following the incident in 2021.

At the time, a ban on live music performances had been imposed across Northern Ireland in a bid to curb the spread of Covid-19.

Sir Van, a vocal critic of the restrictions, took to the stage in front of a crowd of about 140 people and started chanting about the then health minister.

The then Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) MP Mr Paisley joined Sir Van on stage and also joined in the chant, which he later dismissed as "banter".

But Mr Swann, who is now the MP for South Antrim, took legal action against Sir Van over the chant, as well as a YouTube video and a newspaper interview in which similar assertions were made.

Sir Van on stage in 2021

Rolling Stone

Months before Sir Van led the on-stage chant, his own stance on Covid rules had been criticised by Mr Swann when writing in Rolling Stone magazine.

Mr Swann's article appeared in September 2020 after Sir Van had announced plans to release anti-lockdown songs.

The singer said he would donate proceeds to a hardship fund for musicians facing Covid restrictions on live performances.

Under the headline "Northern Ireland’s Health Minister would like a word with Van Morrision," the opinion piece claimed some of the singer-songwriter’s messages at the time were "actually dangerous".

Mr Swann expressed concern that Sir Van's lyrics actions could encourage people to not to take coronavirus seriously.

He wrote that the anti-lockdown songs were a “smear” on those involved in the public health response to the pandemic

At the time, Mr Swann expressed disappointment in Sir Van whom he described as “one of the greatest music legends of the past 50 years”.

Robin Swann from the Ulster Unionist Party is now the MP for South Antrim

'Sincere' views

Neither Sir Van nor Mr Swann attended court on Friday as the settlement was announced.

But an agreed statement between the parties was read out by a barrister representing the politician.

“Sir Van, while not agreeing with a number of the steps adopted by government during the Covid crisis, acknowledges that in performing his then role as minister for health in Northern Ireland, Mr Swann acted at all times honestly and in good faith and on the advice of responsible officials."

“Mr Swann, while not agreeing with Sir Van’s views on the handling of the pandemic, acknowledges that those views were sincere and expressed in the context of Sir Van being prevented by government regulations from performing in a role for which he is justly famous.”

'Might have been more appropriately expressed'

The statement went on: “The Department of Health acknowledges, with hindsight, that any views they may have wished to express about Sir Van’s song lyrics might have been more appropriately expressed in the usual form of media interviews or statements provided to the Northern Ireland media, rather than providing copy to a US rock music magazine.

“The Department of Health welcomes these statements and is glad to have assisted in the public interest in the resolution of these potentially very costly proceedings.”

The judge praised all sides for reaching what he described as “a very fair outcome”.

“I want to compliment all counsel in this case for resolving this difficult matter between two very well-known public figures," he said.

“I’m glad it has been resolved, it’s in the best interests of all.”