What Workman wrote was so mild and restrained, however, that it beggars belief that a jury found her guilty of libel. The Irish News is appealing the verdict and it's certain that they will carry with them to court the good wishes of restaurant reviewers everywhere. If this jury's decision is allowed to stand, it could potentially set a precedent that would render sharp, vigorous and informed restaurant criticism impossible.

In my two years as Sunday Tribune restaurant critic, between 2003 and 2005, I wrote many reviews that contained language far less restrained than that used by Caroline Workman. I'm sure that in the past Workman herself would have criticised restaurants in language more pointed than that she used against Goodfellas. Reviewers justify such criticism on the basis that it is fair comment, that there are certain standards which should apply in restaurants and that we have an obligation to tell readers when these standards are not met.

I remember one restaurant in Dublin, with a decent enough reputation, that served me up one of the worst meals of my life on a Wednesday night. I said so. (I won't name it, lest I give the owners ideas about a little trip to the Four Courts). I recall a place in Kilkenny where the service was so comically bad that I felt sure I was being set up in one of those Candid Camera-type shows. I pointed that out clearly too. If the Goodfellas experience catches on, restaurant reviewing as a skill would expire, or be reduced simply to a list of what was eaten.

Newspapers and reviewers have criticised the jury's decision on the basis of its threat to simple free speech, and they are right to do so. There is another important element in play, however. Eating out in Ireland is an often expensive proposition, and diners are entitled to information which would allow them to decide whether and where they should spend their money.

The Goodfellas decision potentially deprives them of that information. It is therefore as anti-consumer as it is anti-free speech.