Minor awarded €7500 for defamation

Our man in Havana

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10785859

Seeing as the child was below the age of criminal responsibility and the fact the child was 5 years old I fail to see how his reputation was damaged.

I think this sets a dangerous precedent.

Hogzy

So just because he was 5 means he doesnt deserve dignity and respect?

The fact that he was below the age of criminal responsibilty is more reason why the shop were wrong to accuse him of stealing.

drkpower

I dont see a reason that a child should be barred from taking a case for defamation. Allowance should be made (in the form of quantum of damages) for the fact for the fact that damage to a child's reputation is usually less significant than damage to an adult's reputation. The mere fact of them being not legally responsible for their actions is neither here nor there when it comes to assessing whether he was defamed. Of course, the whole thing should have been resolved amicably when the mother presented the receipt but, if the article is to be believed, it seems that didnt happen so i would have little sympathy for Lidl.

On Wednesday, the family's lawyer Dermot McNamara told the AFP wire service that Tadhg's mother had shown a receipt for the bag of crisps to the store.
However, he said the shop manager failed to take her concerns seriously, causing her to take legal proceedings against the firm for slander, for false imprisonment, assault and negligence.

johnfás

Haddockman wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10785859

Seeing as the child was below the age of criminal responsibility and the fact the child was 5 years old I fail to see how his reputation was damaged.

I think this sets a dangerous precedent.

The fact that the child could not be held legally responsible for its actions does not mean that it does not have a reputation which could be harmed. Every citizen has the right to their good name, irrespective of their age.

As stated above, the only consideration where such liability has been shown to arise would be in respect of quantum. It appears that the parties agreed a settlement between themselves so the issue of quantum arose only indirectly.

rubensni

That shop assistant was out of order. To grab a 5 y/o and accuse him of stealing is barbaric.

Reloc8

It's not a precedent (well strictly speaking circuit court decisions never are but that said I don't think the word is being used as a term of art here) - pretty consistent with similar cases.

And note, the Defendant offered it in settlement.

randomchild

It should also be noted that there were accusations of both assault and false imprisonment, not just defamation. I think the headline/grey follow up is a little misleading!