Discussion of currently sitting court cases on Boards.ie

Dav · 06-05-2011 1:59pm #1

Hello all,

I'm here to explain what happened to the thread (and poll) about the current case involving 2 hotel staff who are accused of manslaughter through negligence.

Comments on the guilt or innocence of the defendants of a currently running court case puts us in contempt of court. This is definitive Irish law. The directors of Boards.ie Ltd can be jailed for this and the company ordered to pay costs if a trial collapses because of something posted here on the site. This has happened very recently in Clare where the defence has flagged something printed in The Times and The Examiner as potentially influencing to a jury and therefore the whole trial collapsed. The Times and Examiner are potentially looking at footing the cost of the entire trial to that point and are only avoiding further action because the judge ruled that it was technical contempt and that it was done with no malice or intention to mislead. More details here.

So this may be one of those areas of legality where we have assumed that people were aware of it and clearly people are not, so in order to clarify for everyone, we are specifically stating that discussions of a currently active and/or sitting court case are not allowed on Boards.ie.

This is not specific to AH, it will be site wide and I'm now about to go and tell everyone about this, but I wanted to post this clarification here first so you folks will know why I've had to remove the thread.

Thank you for your time.

My name is URL · 06-05-2011 2:11pm

Thanks for the explanation. I never really intended for it to be a discussion on that particular case since obviously not all of the details are known, it was more about the laws surrounding it.

Sorry if it caused any problems.

Logical Fallacy · 06-05-2011 2:15pm

That's cool, and probably a good thing too...if i see the term "nanny state" once more i might just **** myself.

gosuckonalemon · 06-05-2011 2:16pm

How in the name of God were threads allowed to exist on the subject for the past 2-3 days??

Maybe you need to give the mods a crash course in what can and can't be discussed before the site is shut down!

Logical Fallacy · 06-05-2011 2:18pm

gosuckonalemon wrote: »

How in the name of God were threads allowed to exist on the subject for the past 2-3 days??

Because for quite some time no one in the threads was discussing the guilt or innocence of anyone and were just discussing the merits of the case and the law under which it had occurred.

kopfan77 · 06-05-2011 2:22pm

Dav wrote: »

Hello all,

I'm here to explain what happened to the thread (and poll) about the current case involving 2 hotel staff who are accused of manslaughter through negligence.

Comments on the guilt or innocence of the defendants of a currently running court case puts us in contempt of court. This is definitive Irish law. The directors of Boards.ie Ltd can be jailed for this and the company ordered to pay costs if a trial collapses because of something posted here on the site. This has happened very recently in Clare where the defence has flagged something printed in The Times and The Examiner as potentially influencing to a jury and therefore the whole trial collapsed. The Times and Examiner are potentially looking at footing the cost of the entire trial to that point and are only avoiding further action because the judge ruled that it was technical contempt and that it was done with no malice or intention to mislead. More details here.

So this may be one of those areas of legality where we have assumed that people were aware of it and clearly people are not, so in order to clarify for everyone, we are specifically stating that discussions of a currently active and/or sitting court case are not allowed on Boards.ie.

This is not specific to AH, it will be site wide and I'm now about to go and tell everyone about this, but I wanted to post this clarification here first so you folks will know why I've had to remove the thread.

Thank you for your time.

Was this not because they reported on a matter that they were specifically told not to report on....i.e, that the jury were not present in the court at the time and as a result it was not to be made public?

dvpower · 06-05-2011 2:27pm

Dav wrote: »

Comments on the guilt or innocence of the defendants of a currently running court case puts us in contempt of court.

Dav wrote: »

... we are specifically stating that discussions of a currently active and/or sitting court case are not allowed on Boards.ie

There's a world of difference between discussing a trial and commenting on the guilt or innocence of defendants.

Does this ban apply to trials taking place outside of Ireland?

06-05-2011 2:40pm

I had a post with 27 thanks on that thread.

27!

Damn you!

DAMN YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!

Rabies · 06-05-2011 3:03pm

AH often has discussion topics from cases all over the world. Does this only apply to Irish cases?

I'm all good with the stance take by Boards, just wondering.

It's something that could ruin the whole discussion forum part of it though

Degag · 06-05-2011 3:03pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I had a post with 27 thanks on that thread.

27!

Damn you!

DAMN YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!

4 down, 23 to go!

Wolfe Tone · 06-05-2011 3:09pm

Sell out!

Rabies · 06-05-2011 3:10pm

g_moriarty wrote: »

<snip - I said something really stupid>

Banned for being a dick

Daegerty · 06-05-2011 3:12pm

I should set up a TOR-based web forum specifically for discussing irish court cases.

Dav · 06-05-2011 3:26pm

kopfan77 wrote: »

Was this not because they reported on a matter that they were specifically told not to report on....i.e, that the jury were not present in the court at the time and as a result it was not to be made public?

In that case, yes, the papers accidentally reported some details that were discussed in the jury's absence. However, that is just one of many, many different ways in which you can be in contempt of court. Anything which may potentially have an impact on a jury's opinions is subject to this law.

dvpower wrote: »

There's a world of difference between discussing a trial and commenting on the guilt or innocence of defendants.

Does this ban apply to trials taking place outside of Ireland?

Rabies wrote: »

AH often has discussion topics from cases all over the world. Does this only apply to Irish cases?

I'm all good with the stance take by Boards, just wondering.

It's something that could ruin the whole discussion forum part of it though

Different countries are subject to different laws, but in theory, we can be held accountable for something published about a court case in another country (I'm almost 100% certain that this is true for cases from the UK).

dvpower is correct in that there is a big difference between discussing the trial and the guilt or innocence, but in the interest of making things simple for both members and mods alike and because we're honestly concerned that it may become an issue for the site, a blanket approach is easier until a trial has ended.

Now, there are a few things I'm seeking clarification on as I'm not sure of the legalities involved:

1) What constitutes a "court case" and at what stage in proceedings must we halt discussion (e.g. a suspect gets arrested for a high profile case and after all the over and back between the Gardaí investigating and the DPP putting the case forward to the courts - where in that process is it a "court case").

2) When does a court case "finish" (deliberation/sentencing/dismissed/etc) and so when can discussion on the topic start again.

3) Where does jurisdiction begin and end on these issues and can we have discussion of cases outside of Ireland.

I'm not going to have an answer to those questions today so I'm sure you can appreciate that our approach is to err on the side of caution until we have answers so I would ask that you give us an opportunity to sort these details and not make things any harder for us or the mods.

P_1 · 06-05-2011 3:38pm

That's fair enough, the last thing we want is another MCD-like situation.

Wolfe Tone · 06-05-2011 3:44pm

Why would we not be allowed to discuss foreign cases? Last time I checked it didn't matter what American courts said about us. Or British courts, we aren't bound by what they say etc. Next thing you will have British injunctions effecting what we can say here.

LighterGuy · 06-05-2011 3:47pm

Cant blame boards for doing this.
Got to be smart when it comes to the law.

I was going to create a new thread to ask this, out of respect for the mods post. But might as well ask it here.

I've read countless times that boards is its own company, no free speech on here or irish law does not apply. Even 2 threads in AH this week said this. So whats the deal? ... boards is bound by irish law? or just because its an irish site it can be sued/libel for things etc?

knird evol · 06-05-2011 3:48pm

My name is URL wrote: »

Thanks for the explanation. I never really intended for it to be a discussion on that particular case since obviously not all of the details are known, it was more about the laws surrounding it.

Sorry if it caused any problems.

Oh, so it was you.

Mr. Presentable · 06-05-2011 3:50pm

pithater1 wrote: »

That's fair enough, the last thing we want is another ***-like situation.

Who now? :pac:

seamus · 06-05-2011 3:51pm

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Why would we not be allowed to discuss foreign cases? Last time I checked it didn't matter what American courts said about us. Or British courts, we aren't bound by what they say etc. Next thing you will have British injunctions effecting what we can say here.

Depends on the foreign law.

If they decided to press ahead and charge with a case in absentia, they could find boards.ie guilty. Publication on the internet is an odd one because you're not really targetting any country. A newspaper has a much more focussed target so would be harder to charge in such an instance.

Where an EU country has charges against boards.ie, they could get judgements lodged here in Ireland.

Where it's a non-EU country, most notably the US, the directors of boards.ie could find themselves subject to an arrest warrant and unable to travel to that country in future.

Wolfe Tone · 06-05-2011 3:51pm

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

Who now? :pac:

What actually happened there? It was before my time

Rabies · 06-05-2011 4:01pm

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

What actually happened there? It was before my time

Any discussion of MCD or any related events were banned site wide

P_1 · 06-05-2011 4:03pm

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

What actually happened there? It was before my time

I believe there was some negative posting over a certain festival a few years ago. Said promoter threatened to/took boards to court over it and as a consequence all debate about said promoter was banned site wide.

MazG · 06-05-2011 4:07pm

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Why would we not be allowed to discuss foreign cases? Last time I checked it didn't matter what American courts said about us. Or British courts, we aren't bound by what they say etc. Next thing you will have British injunctions effecting what we can say here.

Whether Boards.ie can get into 'trouble' for discussing an ongoing court case is one thing, but I think there is another consideration at play. I don't think we would wish to be in a position where our discussion has led to a trial being dismissed. I know I would be keen for justice to be fully served.

I was one of the posters taking part in the thread that was deleted, blissfully ignorant of my possible interference in the trial. Apologies to boards.ie

seamus · 06-05-2011 4:12pm

pithater1 wrote: »

I believe there was some negative posting over a certain festival a few years ago. Said promoter threatened to/took boards to court over it and as a consequence all debate about said promoter was banned site wide.

What actually happened is that after this particular festival, all of the Irish discussion sites exploded with allegations about nefarious and dangerous things occuring in the campsites, perpetrated both by concert goers and the staff of this particular event.

Boards.ie, being the biggest, held the biggest discussion, which came to the attention of the printed media.

The organiser then panicked and decided that boards.ie, as the biggest target, was the one to go for and started legal proceedings.

Boards.ie on the advice of their solicitor were advised to ban all discussion of this promoter, including past and future events organised by them. A few other discussion sites enforced similar bans in sympathy with boards.ie. The ban remained in place for a number of years, while the slow legal system considered giving a date for any kind of legal proceedings.

Before that happened, the promoter was bought out by a new owner who saw how big boards.ie had become and that it contained primarily their target demographic. Rather than piss all of those people off, they decided to drop the case and change their attitutde, indeed they've recently signed up an official account to interact on boards.ie.

dvpower · 06-05-2011 4:17pm

Dav wrote: »

dvpower is correct in that there is a big difference between discussing the trial and the guilt or innocence, but in the interest of making things simple for both members and mods alike and because we're honestly concerned that it may become an issue for the site, a blanket approach is easier until a trial has ended.

I appreciate that you need to be cautious, but this is suppossed to be a discussion forum. Isn't facilitating discussion your bread and butter?

In any case, arn't posters just going to (try) get around this. Aren't we likely to see a thread discussing a fictional case that raises exactly the same set of issues without mentioning the particular case.

dvpower · 06-05-2011 4:21pm

Does this ban extend to civil cases, the Coroner's Court and tribunals of enquiry?

P_1 · 06-05-2011 4:22pm

seamus wrote: »

What actually happened is that after this particular festival, all of the Irish discussion sites exploded with allegations about nefarious and dangerous things occuring in the campsites, perpetrated both by concert goers and the staff of this particular event.

Boards.ie, being the biggest, held the biggest discussion, which came to the attention of the printed media.

The organiser then panicked and decided that boards.ie, as the biggest target, was the one to go for and started legal proceedings.

Boards.ie on the advice of their solicitor were advised to ban all discussion of this promoter, including past and future events organised by them. A few other discussion sites enforced similar bans in sympathy with boards.ie. The ban remained in place for a number of years, while the slow legal system considered giving a date for any kind of legal proceedings.

Before that happened, the promoter was bought out by a new owner who saw how big boards.ie had become and that it contained primarily their target demographic. Rather than piss all of those people off, they decided to drop the case and change their attitutde, indeed they've recently signed up an official account to interact on boards.ie.

Interesting, I've always wondered about the origin of the lifting of the Voldemort (MCD) ban.

Thanks

Dav · 06-05-2011 4:48pm

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Why would we not be allowed to discuss foreign cases? Last time I checked it didn't matter what American courts said about us. Or British courts, we aren't bound by what they say etc. Next thing you will have British injunctions effecting what we can say here.

I think seamus' post mostly covers this, but just to expand one something. The way the law is phrased here in Ireland, the the jurisdiction for a case of defamation on the internet (for example) happens where the comment is read - so if Joe Bloggs posts something defaming me on an American website, the fact that I've seen the comments here in Ireland means that Irish law has been broken. Now, the legal process behind getting specifics of who posted what (and running through the equivalent of a Section 8 Data Protection Act request) will be different or indeed may not even happen, but it doesn't matter that the site in question is hosted and run outside of Ireland, as far as our legal system is concerned, the law was broken here when the defaming comments were read here. This, I believe, would also apply to contempt of court cases, but I'm not certain so as I said, I am looking to get it clarified.

dvpower wrote: »

I appreciate that you need to be cautious, but this is suppossed to be a discussion forum. Isn't facilitating discussion your bread and butter?

In any case, arn't posters just going to (try) get around this. Aren't we likely to see a thread discussing a fictional case that raises exactly the same set of issues without mentioning the particular case.

Well, to be fair, we have a Legal Discussion forum if people want to talk about these things and it's not like our entire site runs on discussing what's currently running in court

I appreciate your concern though and it's not an unfair observation. If people are going to start talking about active cases under the guise of it being fictional then we'll give them an appropriate slap on the wrist and tell them to not be a dick.

dvpower wrote: »

Does this ban extend to civil cases, the Coroner's Court and tribunals of enquiry?

I honestly don't know, will pass that question on to the legal team too, thanks for that.

Another note by the way:
MCD are still technically suing us - they haven't dropped the case at all. I'm honestly not sure I can say anything more on this as it is technically an active case.

We lifted the ban on discussion when there was the BetFair case a couple of years ago where the High Court ruled that if an e-commerce service provider (i.e. a website like us) is notified of something problematic that once they act on the report in good time to take it down, they're clear of trouble. This clarification was enough to satisfy both the directors of the company and our legal team that allowing MCD gigs to be discussed once again with the understanding that anything defamatory (or libelous as the law stated at the time) would be removed if reported. It was the threat of libel action that shut down discussion.