Can newspapers do this?

MC Homicidal Maniac

I was in court 2 or 3 years ago and recently saw that there was an article about it online. Not to go into the details of the case, but the judge said that if I pay the (very large) fine that I will have no criminal record. A certain newspaper published everything about the case (my full name, age and address included) and left out the little detail about my conviction being struck. As far as I can tell this is 10x times worse than an actual criminal record and just googling my name and county turns up this article. This could potentially ruin my life and it really annoys me that I'm being named & shamed over a very trivial charge.

Is there anything I can do? This newspaper has essentially overruled the judge's decision.

davo10

Was what the newspaper reported accurate and was it a summary of a case in open court?. You may have been spared a record but you had to pay a fine, this tells me either the judge believes you were guilty or you admitted guilt but were spared a conviction and given a fine instead.

ButtimersLaw

While the facts are not entirely clear, the truth is a defense agains any action for libel. If the newspaper is reporting the facts accurately, then it seems you have little recourse as they are, essentially, reporting something which is true.

You could try to injunct them but success at a hearing if what they are saying is, esentially, true, seems unlikely.

If they are not reporting the facts or some facts accurately, you have the option of suing them for libel, but must bear in mind any costs might outweigh any benefit you might expect from an eventual victory in court. If the newspaper is successful, it is likely to be costly in financial terms for you, and also the reporting of any court proceedings would be likely to repeat more widely the facts of your initial apperance in court 2 or 3 years ago.

MC Homicidal Maniac

ButtimersLaw wrote: »

While the facts are not entirely clear, the truth is a defense agains any action for libel. If the newspaper is reporting the facts accurately, then it seems you have little recourse as they are, essentially, reporting something which is true.

You could try to injunct them but success at a hearing if what they are saying is, esentially, true, seems unlikely.

If they are not reporting the facts or some facts accurately, you have the option of suing them for libel, but must bear in mind any costs might outweigh any benefit you might expect from an eventual victory in court. If the newspaper is successful, it is likely to be costly in financial terms for you, and also the reporting of any court proceedings would be likely to repeat more widely the facts of your initial apperance in court 2 or 3 years ago.

I don't deny I was guilty but I don't understand how they can claim I don't have a criminal record while putting that online for everyone to see. It seems to me there was no point in paying my huge fine because of this. I looked into freedom of speech and press laws in this country and it said that papers can't print lies or anything that undermines the rule of the government. Doesnt this count as undermining the government? Since the judge said "no criminal record" and the paper said "we're just gonna go ahead and give him one anyway". What they did undermines the courts decision surely?

I also wouldn't say they lied at all (the guards did, but that's an other story) but they did leave out certain details on purpose in order to present things differently than true. I dont want to sue them either, I just want the article removed from their site.

MC Homicidal Maniac

I've also been in contact with them and they're just avoiding me and giving me the run around like they owe me money.

davo10

Op I would have thought you paid the fine because you were guilty, not to prevent it being reported. Freedom of the press is a must in a democratic society. Imagine if criminals were able to buy media protection in court, "yes your honour, I accept I am guilty, but if I give the court 10 thousand Euro, will you order the papers or Tv news not to report my guilt". We might never hear about criminal activity if that were the case.

By the way, by not having a record, you can apply for a work/holiday visa for US and Australia, if you had a record, you are far less likely to be successful. That's worth a lot.

MC Homicidal Maniac

davo10 wrote: »

Op I would have thought you paid the fine because you were guilty, not to prevent it being reported. Freedom of the press is a must in a democratic society. Imagine if criminals were able to buy media protection in court, "yes your honour, I accept I am guilty, but if I give the court 10 thousand Euro, will you order the papers or Tv news not to report my guilt". We might never hear about criminal activity if that were the case.

For what I did the usual fine is about 2 or 3 hundred euro, I paid an extra large fine so I wouldn't get a criminal record (over 1,000).I'm saying that even after that, I still got a criminal record essentially. And yeah, large newspapers ruining people's lives over dumb stuff is TOTALLY what democracy is about *rolls eyes*

MC Homicidal Maniac

Even if I did go to Autralia I still will be unemployable if they google me.

MC Homicidal Maniac

I never hurt anyone or stole from anyone. I've done absolutely no harm to anyone.

But still the paper feels the need to ruin my life. I have no future over this crap.

Milk & Honey

Was it a fine or a donation to the Poor Box?

Procrastastudy

MC Homicidal Maniac wrote: »

I never hurt anyone or stole from anyone. I've done absolutely no harm to anyone.

But still the paper feels the need to ruin my life. I have no future over this crap.

I'm not quite sure what offence would 'ruin you life' if you didn't hurt anyone or nick anything. Perhaps you are making a mountain out of a mole hill? If you have no criminal record then it sounds like a donation rather than a fine - wouldn't this be for a very minor offence?

MC Homicidal Maniac

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Was it a fine or a donation to the Poor Box?

Donation.

MC Homicidal Maniac

Procrastastudy wrote: »

MC Homicidal Maniac wrote: »

I never hurt anyone or stole from anyone. I've done absolutely no harm to anyone.

But still the paper feels the need to ruin my life. I have no future over this crap.

I'm not quite sure what offence would 'ruin you life' if you didn't hurt anyone or nick anything. Perhaps you are making a mountain out of a mole hill? If you have no criminal record then it sounds like a donation rather than a fine - wouldn't this be for a very minor offence?

The fact there's such an embarrassing article about me freely available for anyone that knows my name and county will ruin my life. There's no way I can get any sort of respectable job over this. My future is nothing but bleak over this.

Peregrinus

Did the newspaper actually say that you were convicted? Or did they merely omit to mention in their report that no conviction was recorded?

Barring exceptional cases, justice is administered in public in open courts, and the newspapers are permitted and indeed encouraged to report on this. The libel laws give them near (but not total) immunity for reports of court proceedings.

People are going to draw certain inferences from the fact that you incurred a large fine. One of thse inferences may be that you were convicted and it seems it would be incorrect but, to be honest, that is probably not the most damaging inference they would draw. As you tell it, the correct inference would be that you expected to be convicted if the trial proceeded, and chose to avoid that by copping a big fine. I don't know that that's any less damaging to your reputation than the incorrect inference which you think people are probably drawing.

ResearchWill

OP you did not pay a fine you paid a contribution to the poor box. (if you paid fine then you would have a conviction) Then one of two things happened the judge struck the matter out or the judge struck the matter out under section 1 (1) i of the probation of offenders Act 1907. While you do not have a criminal record the fact that the matter went to court is recorded in both Pulse and the courts system.

In relation to the News paper, the relevant piece of legislation is the Defamation Act 2009, section 17 (f). If you do not believe that section applies then seek legal advice from a good solicitor in the area of defamation.

Procrastastudy

MC Homicidal Maniac wrote: »

The fact there's such an embarrassing article about me freely available for anyone that knows my name and county will ruin my life. There's no way I can get any sort of respectable job over this. My future is nothing but bleak over this.

Firstly I realise you're upset but I would have thought it was patently obvious a newspaper can print what it likes, with very limited exceptions, as long as it's factually correct.

Something doesn't add up here in the equation of very minor offence dealt with by a donation that wasn't any sort of assault or theft that would be so embarrassing as to prevent you making a living for yourself.

ResearchWill

MC Homicidal Maniac wrote: »

The fact there's such an embarrassing article about me freely available for anyone that knows my name and county will ruin my life. There's no way I can get any sort of respectable job over this. My future is nothing but bleak over this.

You said yourself this happened 2-3 years ago but you only recently discovered the Article. That means that most people you know did not tell you about same as they did not find it. The fact remains that you appeared in court for some charge or other, the fact remains you made a contribution (there is an admission of guilt accepted in a contribution) unless the matter is very serious it will not matter to anyone, you would be surprised at the people with such events in their past.

brandon_flowers

MC Homicidal Maniac wrote: »

The fact there's such an embarrassing article about me freely available for anyone that knows my name and county will ruin my life. There's no way I can get any sort of respectable job over this. My future is nothing but bleak over this.

Have you a cousin with the same name? Blame them if you're ever asked, problem solved.

Sorry to be a bit crass and sound like your mother but stupid things you do (if you are caught) will always follow you around. It is the newspapers job to report a court case, I'm sure that they mentioned the fine you paid and the only way to avoid that is not be in court in the first place.

MC Homicidal Maniac

Just gonna kill myself.

See if they report that.

Procrastastudy

Contact a health professional to help you through this OP. Good luck.

GhostInTheRuins

MC Homicidal Maniac wrote: »

Just gonna kill myself.

See if they report that.

Nah they don't report suicides.

martingriff

MC Homicidal Maniac wrote: »

The fact there's such an embarrassing article about me freely available for anyone that knows my name and county will ruin my life. There's no way I can get any sort of respectable job over this. My future is nothing but bleak over this.

Firstly If you did not kill, hurt or rob someone I say you be fine
Secondly Would you be fine if they reported what they did but inserted the line paid a fine/donation so has no conviction. They still would (and can) report why you were in court so that would be got by googling.

intellectual dosser

If you didn't do any harm, and the normal fine is €200-€300 - potential employers shouldn't look too much into it and may actually see that you have a bit of character and lived a little (hard to be certain without knowing what the offense was).

Many companies have set rules not to employ people with criminal records, and their recruiters cannot sidestep this even when they want to. You don't have a criminal record - you just have some sorry article in a newspaper from a few years ago, I don't think companies would have rules not to employ people who have been portrayed negatively in the media far away in the past.

If you're that worried - do something (good) that gets your name in a national newspaper - they'll see that ahead of the other one!

The comment I was actually meaning to make was about the irony between your original post and your username! I hope you have done a lot to prevent recruiters from linking you to it!

MagicSean

You will always have a record. What you don't have is a conviction, which can be the difference between a visa and no visa.

You seem to be more worried about an employer googling you though. I can only assume its drugs or public order related as they are the only offences I can see as fitting your description. Unfortunately when you do something bad in this country everyone has a right to know. If you are considering legal action think about what happened to the guy who got the injunction in relation to the running from the taxi incident.

Tom Young

ResearchWill wrote: »

OP you did not pay a fine you paid a contribution to the poor box. (if you paid fine then you would have a conviction) Then one of two things happened the judge struck the matter out or the judge struck the matter out under section 1 (1) i of the probation of offenders Act 1907. While you do not have a criminal record the fact that the matter went to court is recorded in both Pulse and the courts system.

In relation to the News paper, the relevant piece of legislation is the Defamation Act 2009, section 17 (f). If you do not believe that section applies then seek legal advice from a good solicitor in the area of defamation.

There's no defamation is what RW is saying.

Court proceedings are held in public, see Art 34 of the Constitution. The recent McKeogh case and report by Peart J, goes through this.

Further, Art 40.6.1.i of the Constitution also protects the media to a great extent, see Cornec v Morrice per Hogan J, of September this year.

Most newspapers will expunge Internet records in lieu of a charitable donation. This was covered elsewhere.

Tom

MC Homicidal Maniac

Tom Young wrote: »

There's no defamation is what RW is saying.

Court proceedings are held in public, see Art 34 of the Constitution. The recent McKeogh case and report by Peart J, goes through this.

Further, Art 40.6.1.i of the Constitution also protects the media to a great extent, see Cornec v Morrice per Hogan J, of September this year.

Most newspapers will expunge Internet records in lieu of a charitable donation. This was covered elsewhere.

Tom

Then why is my story still up? After reading the article several times considering everything the person that wrote it knew, it seems obvious to me that the article was written in a way to make it appear as though I'd been convicted. I admitted guilt because I wanted it to be over with (police lied in their report and robbed me). I made a donation to charity and avoided a conviction. While the article doesn't say I was convicted it strongly implies it. It seems odd that they print a story about my case and not mention the final result don't you think?

MC Homicidal Maniac

MagicSean wrote: »

Unfortunately when you do something bad in this country everyone has a right to know.

I didn't do anything bad.

Peregrinus

MC Homicidal Maniac wrote: »

Then why is my story still up?

Have you asked them to take it down?

MC Homicidal Maniac wrote: »

After reading the article several times considering everything the person that wrote it knew, it seems obvious to me that the article was written in a way to make it appear as though I'd been convicted. I admitted guilt . . .

Hold on, you admitted guilt? If the newspaper report says, truthfully, that you admitted guilt, then that is what is damaging your reputation. But I don't see that you can complain about the newspaper saying that, if in fact you did admit guilt. If you admitted guilt, then in most people's minds the question of whether a conviction was recorded or the Probation Act was applied is pretty secondary.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Its as important that justice be seen to be done as it is for justice to be done.

They have no reason to take it down and assuming its an accurate account then you have no reason to make them take it down so they are going to leave it up.

Tom Young

OP sent PM seeking reason for thread closure.

This thread has been closed due to the fact that the OP came here seeking legal and somewhat practical/clarification advices relating to the administration of justice in public pursuant to Article 34 of the Constitution of Ireland.

OP suggests that some form of malice or defamation arises on the context of the report of his case, which was clearly and properly administered in public.

The administration of justice and clarification of such things is one matter, seeking legal advice, opinions or steers is going against the charter.

The OP should seek professional legal advice as has been suggested above.

No issue is taken with the OP here, nor will any sanction arise against same.

The charter is there for a reason.

Conclusion: Answers have been given to the OP to the extent that they could be. This is a technical area of law and is not one which persons should seek to rely on Internet advice/discourse to resolve their issues.

Thanks.

Tom