Ouch!

Victor

Aren't court proceedings priviledged?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0225/breaking71.html

Car dealer wins damages over jail claim

A car salesman is to receive an undisclosed sum of money after Dublin City Council wrongly accused him in the High Court of having spent almost 10 years in prison.

Gary O’Brien of Ryders Row, Dublin, had faced proceedings by the council aimed at having him vacate three council-owned properties which he claimed he had to take over in 1988 to ensure the security of his Parnell Car Sales business.

In opposing the council’s application for orders for possession of the properties at 11 and 12 Ryders Row and 67 Capel Street, Mr O’Brien said he had not trespassed but was forced to put locks on the doors of those properties to stop people breaking into his car business at 13 Ryders Row.

In its action, the council claimed he could not have been in possession because, it alleged, he served almost ten years in Mountjoy Prison between 1992 and 2001. It withdrew that claim later today.

In opening the council’s case this morning, Dominick Hussey said they would be calling evidence in the afternoon from a prison officer to show Mr O’Brien served two terms of imprisonment between 1992 and 1997 and 1997 and 2001.

When the case resumed after lunch, Mr Hussey said he wished to withdraw the claims about the alleged imprisonment as it was inaccurate and he would not be calling the prison officer.

Mistaken information had been provided by a private investigator in 2003 and this was compounded by information obtained from the prison service, counsel said.

The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, said he was “staggered” Mr O’Brien had been wrongly accused of serving a prison sentence for what could only have been one of the “most serious crimes in the lexicon of crime.”

He suggested the council should be very glad of “a life line” to enter into talks with Mr O’Brien’s side.

Following an adjournment, Mr Hussey said a settlement had been agreed involving an order for possession of the three properties to be made in the council’s favour and for a sum of money to be paid to Mr O’Brien who was also awarded his costs.

Earlier, the Council claimed a man calling himself John O’Neill had, around 1996, surrendered the keys to the three properties to the council. It claimed Mr O’Brien subsequently unlawfully entered the properties and had been trespassing since.

Mr O’Brien told the court the only John O’Neill he knew was his brother-in-law who had no authority from him to deal with the properties.

He said he had been forced in 1988 to secure the properties adjoining his by putting locks on the doors because his business was being broken into by people who had gained access through the neighbouring buildings. These were tenements and were

used as drug dens at the time, he said. The buildings involved have since been demolished.

He had been in Mountjoy Prison just once, for a day, when he failed to pay a fine for illegally parking cars on the street outside his premises, he added.

Tom Young

Eh? Privileged in what sense? They are held in public unless otherwise stated.

seamus

I think Victor means that surely things said in a courtroom are protected from defamation actions.

I think the headline might be inaccurate - I can't see any indication that damages were awarded, rather it looks like an agreement was made in relation to "buying" possession back from Mr. O'Brien and paying his legal costs.

Tom Young

Oh apologies. They are, or should be yes. Thanks for clarification.

dermot_sheehan

They are privileged so he could not have brought defamation proceedings on foot of the statements made in court.

I imagine the city council, it's agents and servants however made many defamatory statements outside of court in investigating and/or asserting whether the defendant was in prison for ten years.

Victor

gabhain7 wrote: »

I imagine the city council, it's agents and servants however made many defamatory statements outside of court in investigating and/or asserting whether the defendant was in prison for ten years.

So whatever papers are exchanged before the hearing aren't privileged?