Someone saying things about you that aren't true

Pippy1976

I know if you're a famous person / celebrity and a publication says untruthful things about you that you can sue them for defamation / libel.

I was wondering if there's anything similar for the 'common man'? There is someone saying untruthful, hurtful things about me and I'd like them stopped before they say it to someone 'important' that believes them and before there's lasting damage to my character.

I have countless text messages and emails with these accusations. Can I do anything, legally, to get them to stop the scurrilous rumours gaining momentum?

They're damaging to me psychologically and mentally.

Ken Shamrock

I have no idea sorry, but i would suggest you get to the people who you care about first and tell them not to believe the stuff being said, if someone know's you well enough they will also know that it is lies.

Pro Hoc Vice

Defamation law covers everyone.

Pippy1976

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Defamation law covers everyone.

So what would I need to do to let them know I'm pursuing that course of action?

[I'm not, but I'd like to make it VERY clear that doing this is extremely serious and something can be done about it.]

djimi

A solicitors letter maybe asking them to stop and warning that further action will be taken?

Pippy1976

djimi wrote: »

A solicitors letter maybe asking them to stop and warning that further action will be taken?

o.k. that's great. Thank you. Would I need to show my solicitor the emails and texts in order to do this?

djimi

Pippy1976 wrote: »

o.k. that's great. Thank you. Would I need to show my solicitor the emails and texts in order to do this?

I have no idea how these things work to be honest. If it is serious enough then book some time with a solicitor and let them advise you on the course of action to take and see what they require to proceed.

baldbear

Go to the guards with the communications and let them know. If someone is making false accusations against you they can be brought to court.

hullaballoo

If the emails/texts have only been sent to you and they are about you, then that is not defamation unless you can prove a third party was also sent the emails/texts.

Defamation requires publication.

234

Pippy1976 wrote: »

o.k. that's great. Thank you. Would I need to show my solicitor the emails and texts in order to do this?

One point to note is that defamation needs to involve the publication of the statements beyond just you. So if somebody is sending you abusive emails and texts, but not sharing this with anybody else, then you needs to look to harassment laws rather than defamation.

A solicitor will tell you exactly what the appropriate course of action is.

Pippy1976

234 wrote: »

One point to note is that defamation needs to involve the publication of the statements beyond just you. So if somebody is sending you abusive emails and texts, but not sharing this with anybody else, then you needs to look to harassment laws rather than defamation.

A solicitor will tell you exactly what the appropriate course of action is.

No, they're not being published which, yes, would be harassment law I'd need to investigate.

Thank you all so much for your replies. It's put my mind at ease. The accusations are very upsetting and extremely abusive / bullying. I'd like to put a stop to them by being able to use the information I'm gleaming here.

234

Pippy1976 wrote: »

No, they're not being publicised which, yes, would be harassment law I'd need to investigate.

Thank you all so much for your replies. It's put my mind at ease. The accusations are very upsetting and extremely abusive / bullying. I'd like to put a stop to them by being able to use the information I'm gleaming here.

Drop by a Garda station then and see if they are sufficient for the Gardaí to take any action.

Pippy1976

234 wrote: »

Drop by a Garda station then and see if they are sufficient for the Gardaí to take any action.

Is that how you deal with harassment cases? I'm sure the Gardai might tell me to stop being so silly and get over it. In the grand scheme of things they deal with it's not much!

djimi

It depends on the severity of what is being said I suppose as to how seriously they take it.

Pippy1976

djimi wrote: »

It depends on the severity of what is being said I suppose as to how seriously they take it.

Interesting. Thank you very much for all your help. Honestly, you've no idea how good it is to hear that I can do something (legal) about it.

This morning I was close to calling in the heavies on him!

234

Pippy1976 wrote: »

Is that how you deal with harassment cases? I'm sure the Gardai might tell me to stop being so silly and get over it. In the grand scheme of things they deal with it's not much!

Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997:

Harassment.

10.—
(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) For the purposes of this section a person harasses another where—

(a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and

(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.

(3) Where a person is guilty of an offence under subsection (1), the court may, in addition to or as an alternative to any other penalty, order that the person shall not, for such period as the court may specify, communicate by any means with the other person or that the person shall not approach within such distance as the court shall specify of the place of residence or employment of the other person.

(4) A person who fails to comply with the terms of an order under subsection (3) shall be guilty of an offence.

(5) If on the evidence the court is not satisfied that the person should be convicted of an offence under subsection (1), the court may nevertheless make an order under subsection (3) upon an application to it in that behalf if, having regard to the evidence, the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice so to do.

(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to both.

surenow

This topic is of interest to me with college and I was led to believe the word 'publish' should not be taken literally i.e. it does not have to be in a newspaper, blog etc. Defamation is knowingly communicating false information to one or more people. Neither of who is the alleged defamed of course. I understand 'publishing' as telling a group of people on the street or sending a group text etc.

hullaballoo

surenow wrote: »

This topic is of interest to me with college and I was led to believe the word 'publish' should not be taken literally i.e. it does not have to be in a newspaper, blog etc. Defamation is knowingly communicating false information to one or more people. Neither of who is the alleged defamed of course. I understand 'publishing' as telling a group of people on the street or sending a group text etc.

This is true and it is in line with what others have said about the boundaries of what constitutes publication. Admittedly, the discussion has not gone very far on that point but there is understandable trepidation in terms of exploring that further given other concerns around founding an action for defamation. No one wants to fall afoul of the legal advice rule, either.

FreudianSlippers

Section 6(2) of the Defamation Act 2009:

The tort of defamation consists of the publication, by any means, of a defamatory statement concerning a person to one or more than one person (other than the first-mentioned person), and “ defamation ” shall be construed accordingly.

The Definitions clarify further:

“ defamatory statement” means a statement that tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society, and “defamatory” shall be construed accordingly;

“ statement” includes—

(a) a statement made orally or in writing,

(b) visual images, sounds, gestures and any other method of signifying meaning,

(c) a statement—

(i) broadcast on the radio or television, or

(ii) published on the internet, and

(d) an electronic communication;

Pippy1976

So by electronic that would mean text messages or emails?

Thank you all so much. I think defamation is what this person is doing rather than harassing.

djimi

Pippy1976 wrote: »

So by electronic that would mean text messages or emails?

Thank you all so much. I think defamation is what this person is doing rather than harassing.

Other way around; if they are only saying these things to you then they are harassing you (as is my understanding from reading this thread). It only becomes defamation if they start saying these things to a third party.

234

Pippy1976 wrote: »

So by electronic that would mean text messages or emails?

Thank you all so much. I think defamation is what this person is doing rather than harassing.

Just to remind you, as it wasn't entirely clear from your earlier posts, if they are sending these texts/emails to you and just you, then there is no publication as you can see from the definition above.

FreudianSlippers

Pippy1976 wrote: »

So by electronic that would mean text messages or emails?

Yes.

Pippy1976 wrote: »

Thank you all so much. I think defamation is what this person is doing rather than harassing.

For example: A "defamatory statement" made by FreudianSlippers to hullaballoo, about Pippy1976.

A "defamatory statement" made by FreudianSlippers to Pippy1976, about Pippy1976 is not defamation as it was made to you and not to a 3rd party.

I hope that clears it up.

FreudianSlippers

234 wrote: »

Just to remind you, as it wasn't entirely clear from your earlier posts, if they are sending these texts/emails to you and just you, then there is no publication as you can see from the definition above.

Pedantic: there is "publication" technically, just not "defamatory publication"

Pippy1976

djimi wrote: »

Other way around; if they are only saying these things to you then they are harassing you (as is my understanding from reading this thread). It only becomes defamation if they start saying these things to a third party.

Well that's what I was asking originally an apologies if it's not clear. I have texts and emails saying these things.

As far as I know they could be saying them / texting them to a third party. I just wanted to know what I could quote this law if push came to shove.

Which I can, by all accounts.

schemingbohemia

Pippy1976 wrote: »

Well that's what I was asking originally an apologies if it's not clear. I have texts and emails saying these things.

As far as I know they could be saying them / texting them to a third party. I just wanted to know what I could quote this law if push came to shove.

Which I can, by all accounts.

Unless you have proof that they are sending them to other people it's not defamatory.

djimi

Pippy1976 wrote: »

Well that's what I was asking originally an apologies if it's not clear. I have texts and emails saying these things.

As far as I know they could be saying them / texting them to a third party. I just wanted to know what I could quote this law if push came to shove.

Which I can, by all accounts.

If this really bothers you and/or you are genuinely afraid of what might happen if these comments are heard by a third party then your best bet might be to seek proper legal advise. Obviously we dont know the severity of what is being said or the intentions of the person behind the comments, but best case scenario a warning might be enough to make them realise that they are going too far and stop, and worst comes to worst at least you are getting proper advise on how to handle the matter.

FreudianSlippers

Pippy1976 wrote: »

Well that's what I was asking originally an apologies if it's not clear. I have texts and emails saying these things.

Texts and emails to you about you are not defamatory.

Pippy1976 wrote: »

As far as I know they could be saying them / texting them to a third party. I just wanted to know what I could quote this law if push came to shove.

Which I can, by all accounts.

Not by the sounds of it. Defamation is actionable without showing proof of damage, but you must show proof of publication to a third party. There are also exceptions to the third party aspect in subsection 4 of section 6:

(4) There shall be no publication for the purposes of the tort of defamation if the defamatory statement concerned is published to the person to whom it relates and to a person other than the person to whom it relates in circumstances where—

(a) it was not intended that the statement would be published to the second-mentioned person, and

(b) it was not reasonably foreseeable that publication of the statement to the first-mentioned person would result in its being published to the second-mentioned person.

Pat Mustard

Pippy1976 wrote: »

I know if you're a famous person / celebrity and a publication says untruthful things about you that you can sue them for defamation / libel.

I was wondering if there's anything similar for the 'common man'? There is someone saying untruthful, hurtful things about me and I'd like them stopped before they say it to someone 'important' that believes them and before there's lasting damage to my character.

I have countless text messages and emails with these accusations. Can I do anything, legally, to get them to stop the scurrilous rumours gaining momentum?

They're damaging to me psychologically and mentally.

There was an old case called Janvier v Sweeney where a woman sued successfully for the intentional causation of emotional distress.

Facts
A private detective told a woman that he was a police detective and that she was wanted for communicating with a German spy. He did this in order to obtain certain information about her employer. The woman suffered shock and nervous illness as a result of this statement.

Judgment
Applying the rule in Wilkinson v. Downton, the court ruled that the detective was liable for the nervous shock to the plaintiff, who had an even stronger case than in Wilkinson v Downton, since there was a clear intention to frighten the victim in order to unlawfully obtain information.

FreudianSlippers

The Mustard wrote: »

There was an old case called Janvier v Sweeney where a woman sued successfully for the intentional causation of emotional distress.

IIRC, there is now necessity to show actual psychiatric illness as as result?

Pat Mustard

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

IIRC, there is now necessity to show actual psychiatric illness as as result?

Got me there, I can't answer that for certain! Anyone have an up to date McMahon & Binchy at their elbow?

However, there are two things that I can say:

1. My understanding was that the plaintiff in Janvier v Sweeney suffered illness as a result.

2. The OP says that the behaviour is causing emotional and psychological damage. I know that's not exactly medical evidence, but a medical report could resolve that.

I suppose it would be a personal injury matter.

234

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

IIRC, there is now necessity to show actual psychiatric illness as as result?

From my memory of Binchy's lectures, you need to show a recognised psychiatric injury in order to succeed; mere emotional distress is not enough to ground a cause of action.

234

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Pedantic: there is "publication" technically, just not "defamatory publication"

I welcome the pedantry; lawyers have elevated it to a fetish.

But on the other hand, would it not be more accurate to say that there is a defamatory statement, but no publication.

FreudianSlippers

234 wrote: »

But on the other hand, would it not be more accurate to say that there is a defamatory statement, but no publication.

I don't think so and here is my rationale: the Act qualifies that the publication needs to be of a defamatory statement and to a 3rd party. If publication automatically implied that it was to a 3rd party, then it would be redundant.

My view would be that a text message (facebook mail, IM, whatsapp, etc.) to someone is "publication" of that message, regardless of whether it is viewable or published to 3rd parties.

ABajaninCork

Pippy - Is this the idiot ex running off talk?

I'd change your number and send that loser a solicitor's letter telling him to cease and desist. Don't let him have any more house room in your head. You've done really well - Keep going!

234

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't think so and here is my rationale: the Act qualifies that the publication needs to be of a defamatory statement and to a 3rd party. If publication automatically implied that it was to a 3rd party, then it would be redundant.

My view would be that a text message (facebook mail, IM, whatsapp, etc.) to someone is "publication" of that message, regardless of whether it is viewable or published to 3rd parties.

The thing is, on my reading of s.6 it is kind of redundant. There is no other legal sense of "publication" which is used in the act. The only kind of publication relevant to defamation is to third parties.

Of course there are the multiple everyday uses of the term "publication" as well.

Anyway, even as legal debates go, this is a pointless debate:D

Paz-CCFC

234 wrote: »

From my memory of Binchy's lectures, you need to show a recognised psychiatric injury in order to succeed; mere emotional distress is not enough to ground a cause of action.

You're correct. It's one of the Hamilton principles from Kelly v. Hennessy (SC, 1995): "a plaintiff must prove that he or she suffered a recognisable psychiatric illness" (Hamilton CJ).

And in Devlin v National Maternity Hopsital (SC, 2007): "Grief and sorrow are not a basis upon which to recover damages. There has to be a proven psychiatric illness." (Denham J).

Don't think there's been any other Supreme Court decision in the seven years since.