Is this illegal

goz83

Hypothetical scenario. Jack and Richard go out for a few drinks after work, have a laugh and go their separate ways in the early hours. Richard posts on Jacks facebook page to say they had a great night and to arrange another one the following weekend.

Jack gets promoted the following day and is now Richards boss. Richard takes a disliking to Jack because of the promotion and falsely reports to management that Jack has bullied him and assaulted him, which puts Jacks job at risk and lands him a visit from the police as a result of the allegations. Richard deletes the facebook comment to cover his tracks.

Is it illegal for Richard to delete potential evidence (the facebook comment), which might have exonerated Jack? Can Richard get into trouble for this?

Disclaimer: I don't drink. I rarely use facebook. This has not happened to me, or anyone I know. The scenario above is complete fiction.

chocksaway

I would say it's also up to Richard to prove he was assaulted by Jack

goz83

chocksaway wrote: »

I would say it's also up to Richard to prove he was assaulted by Jack

I would agree. Though Jack might lose his job because of a false allegation. What about the deletion of the comment Richard made, which would at least weaken the allegation?

Happdog

A lot of the question deals with civil law as opposed to criminal law. The only potential criminal offence is wasting Garda time as per section 12 of the 1976 Criminal Law Act. The Facebook comment or its deletion would not be necessary in such a prosecution as there would be much better evidence in the form of oral testimony to rely on.

porsche boy

Richard would be deserving of a damn good clatter, that's for sure.

Mod
Boards.ie does not encourage nor condone violence

eigrod

goz83 wrote: »

I would agree. Though Jack might lose his job because of a false allegation. What about the deletion of the comment Richard made, which would at least weaken the allegation?

If Jack loses his job because of a false allegation, then he appears to have a pretty solid case against his employer, who would be the only ones to act illegally if the account you gave is true.

seamus

Interfering with an investigation I guess is where that falls into. Its the equivalent of destroying documentation before the Gardai can arrive to seize it.

GerardKeating

goz83 wrote: »

I would agree. Though Jack might lose his job because of a false allegation. What about the deletion of the comment Richard made, which would at least weaken the allegation?

Jack's Solicitor would just subpoena Facebook, and get copy of the comment, and a record of when Richard deleted it and use this in a defamation suit again Richard perhaps ?

ganmo

nothing is ever deleted from Facebook, just removed from being visible.
do the request your data thing and see what you deleted

goz83

Happdog wrote: »

A lot of the question deals with civil law as opposed to criminal law. The only potential criminal offence is wasting Garda time as per section 12 of the 1976 Criminal Law Act. The Facebook comment or its deletion would not be necessary in such a prosecution as there would be much better evidence in the form of oral testimony to rely on.

Wouldn't the alleged assault be considered a criminal matter? The facebook deletion is included in the scenario as part of the deceptive nature of Richard.

ganmo wrote: »

nothing is ever deleted from Facebook, just removed from being visible.
do the request your data thing and see what you deleted

It would have been Richards comment on Jacks page, so Jack would not be in a position to request the deleted data, as it was not his own.


To add a twist....lets say Jack had a screenshot of the comment and could show this to the employer and the police. How then would this impact the allegation and the position of Richard? It wouldn't prove there was no bullying, or assault, but I suspect it would weaken the potency of the allegation.

Kings Inns or bust

I think far too much weight is being given to this piece of evidence. I imagine an effective cross examination would render it a moot point.

I can see no civil or criminal remedy to deleting a Facebook post. In fact I've a niggling suspicion that there is something to the concept of not incriminating ones self.

As above, if it was that pivotal Facebook could be required to make the post available in its original form.

goz83

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

I think far too much weight is being given to this piece of evidence. I imagine an effective cross examination would render it a moot point.

I can see no civil or criminal remedy to deleting a Facebook post. In fact I've a niggling suspicion that there is something to the concept of not incriminating ones self.

As above, if it was that pivotal Facebook could be required to make the post available in its original form.

The weight being put on the facebook post is simply because in the OP scenario, it is the only evidence of the night, which might weaken the allegation made against Jack.

The only thing Jack and Richard are in agreement with, is that they were out having a drink. Jack says they were good friends and does not understand why Richard has told lies about him. Richard is claiming that Jack has bullied him and assaulted him. There is no evidence of an assault. No CCTV, no cuts or bruises. The only proof that the lads were actually out having a drink and a good time is the evidence that Richard deleted. In my non legally minded view, I would side with Jack if it was proven that Richard deleted such a comment after alleging the bullying and assault. Someone mentioned destruction of evidence...I would be agreeable there.



I hear about similar (albeit less serious) stuff happening a fair bit. Something gets posted and then deleted because it would discredit the person making a claim.

Kings Inns or bust

goz83 wrote: »

The weight being put on the facebook post is simply because in the OP scenario, it is the only evidence of the night, which might weaken the allegation made against Jack.

This is a frequent mistake made. There is plenty of other evidence - not least the sworn statements, tested under cross examination, of the parties involved.

goz83 wrote: »

The only thing Jack and Richard are in agreement with, is that they were out having a drink. Jack says they were good friends and does not understand why Richard has told lies about him. Richard is claiming that Jack has bullied him and assaulted him. There is no evidence of an assault. No CCTV, no cuts or bruises. The only proof that the lads were actually out having a drink and a good time is the evidence that Richard deleted. In my non legally minded view, I would side with Jack if it was proven that Richard deleted such a comment after alleging the bullying and assault. Someone mentioned destruction of evidence...I would be agreeable there.

Apologies for repeating myself but again you have the sworn testimony, witnesses could be produced to prove the surrounding circumstances and finally facebook could involved.

Destruction of evidence would mean breaking into facebook and removing it there, that party here has simply made the evidence a bit more difficult to come by. Alternatively I suppose if he tore up the only print out the victim had, perhaps there destruction of evidence?

To assert a mere deletion of a facebook post is destruction of evidence is too close to imposing criminal liability for refusing entry to a guard without a search warrant, when later the brothel and half a kilo of coke turns up.

goz83 wrote: »

I hear about similar (albeit less serious) stuff happening a fair bit. Something gets posted and then deleted because it would discredit the person making a claim.

I simply can't see there being any legal remedy - it's a bit immoral but then plenty of things are and they aren't illegal - Thank God! Isn't it somewhat of a national pastime, making ridiculous statements and retracting them the next morning?