defamation of character

raher1

hi
how can you prove defamation of character in ireland?
i am being subject to some nasty gossip and i like to know my rights before i act.

Mr. Incognito

Defamation Act 2009 google

Samuel T. Cogley

You prove it like anything else, with acceptable evidence.

NUTLEY BOY

raher1 wrote: »

hi
how can you prove defamation of character in ireland?
i am being subject to some nasty gossip and i like to know my rights before i act.

Not legal advice - just a few observations on the general subject.

The concept, as set out in the Defamation Act 2009, is that the statement tends to injure a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society.

You have to prove that the actual words or statements are defamatory in nature. If a statement falls within the concept above it is defamatory and is actionable. Calling someone a rapist would be defamatory. Calling someone a silly eejit probably would not.

If you prove that the statement is defamatory in nature you then have to prove that it is defamatory of you - on the evidence. The standard of proof is the civil burden of the balance of probabilities.

There are a number of other technicalities that have to be met to win a defamation action including proof of publication of the words in question. Defendants also have a range of defences open to them.

If you believe that you have been defamed as distinct from being offended or insulted it is solicitor time.

Link to the 2009 act - http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/31/enacted/en/print

raher1

Basically someone it's taking there personal issue with a family member(who is dead)and there own family and painting me with the same brush.

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Not legal advice - just a few observations on the general subject.

The concept, as set out in the Defamation Act 2009, is that the statement tends to injure a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society.

You have to prove that the actual words or statements are defamatory in nature. If a statement falls within the concept above it is defamatory and is actionable. Calling someone a rapist would be defamatory. Calling someone a silly eejit probably would not.

If you prove that the statement is defamatory in nature you then have to prove that it is defamatory of you - on the evidence. The standard of proof is the civil burden of the balance of probabilities.

There are a number of other technicalities that have to be met to win a defamation action including proof of publication of the words in question. Defendants also have a range of defences open to them.

If you believe that you have been defamed as distinct from being offended or insulted it is solicitor time.

Link to the 2009 act - http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/31/enacted/en/print

billy few mates

raher1 wrote: »

Basically someone it's taking there personal issue with a family member(who is dead)and there own family and painting me with the same brush.

Can you defame a dead person...?

Basically (very) they can say what they like about you so long as it's either...

• True
• Honest opinion, validly held
• In the public interest

Does what they're saying about you fall into any of these categories...?
It's basically up to them to prove it not you to disprove it if you do decide to sue them, you don't have to go all the way to court but you could always fire a shot across their bow with a solicitor's letter.

raher1

I am being defamed.

billy few mates wrote: »

Can you defame a dead person...?

Basically (very) they can say what they like about you so long as it's either...

• True
• Honest opinion, validly held
• In the public interest

Does what they're saying about you fall into any of these categories...?
It's basically up to them to prove it not you to disprove it if you do decide to sue them, you don't have to go all the way to court but you could always fire a shot across their bow with a solicitor's letter.

TomOnBoard

raher1 wrote: »

I am being defamed.

Get thee to a solicitor ASAP. While there:

1. Be fully truthful
2. Bring any/all evidence and present it to the solr.
3. Be willing to listen to the advice that you are given without shooting the messenger. Sometimes the legal opinion as to actionability can be hard to take
4. Establish the gravity of the defamation for your inner peace in conjunction with your solr.
5. Decide how much you can afford to lose (in terms of cost) if you engage legal services, go to court and you do not prevail. Establish that early on in the process

Good luck, as no one has the right to defame anyone else.

raher1

evidence, word of mouth over an audio recording?
It's very sickening place to be.

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Get thee to a solicitor ASAP. While there:

1. Be fully truthful
2. Bring any/all evidence and present it to the solr.
3. Be willing to listen to the advice that you are given without shooting the messenger. Sometimes the legal opinion as to actionability can be hard to take
4. Establish the gravity of the defamation for your inner peace in conjunction with your solr.
5. Decide how much you can afford to lose (in terms of cost) if you engage legal services, go to court and you do not prevail. Establish that early on in the process

Good luck, as no one has the right to defame anyone else.

FreudianSlippers

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

You have to prove that the actual words or statements are defamatory in nature. If a statement falls within the concept above it is defamatory and is actionable. Calling someone a rapist would be defamatory. Calling someone a silly eejit probably would not.

If you prove that the statement is defamatory in nature you then have to prove that it is defamatory of you - on the evidence. The standard of proof is the civil burden of the balance of probabilities.

Just to clarity this, once the statement is prima facie a "defamatory statement" - i.e. a statement which tends to injure a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society - the plaintiff is under no obligation to prove the "defamatory statement" itself is actually defamatory (this is presumed).

Calling someone a silly eejit may well be a "defamatory statement", the rationale for this should be laid out in the writ itself and the plaintiff is obliged to swear an affidavit of declaration, but it's a reverse onus tort.

raher1

I better get some proof, a witness or a recording. It could get messy.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Just to clarity this, once the statement is prima facie a "defamatory statement" - i.e. a statement which tends to injure a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society - the plaintiff is under no obligation to prove the "defamatory statement" itself is actually defamatory (this is presumed).

Calling someone a silly eejit may well be a "defamatory statement", the rationale for this should be laid out in the writ itself and the plaintiff is obliged to swear an affidavit of declaration, but it's a reverse onus tort.

TomOnBoard

raher1 wrote: »

I better get some proof, a witness or a recording. It could get messy.

Get your legal advice first, IMHO. Otherwise you're going to have to get into full Magnum P,I. mode. The legal advice you get may tell you it's not actionable anyway, so why become further invested in an endeavour that will cause you even more pain and could even put you on the wrong side of the law.

raher1

Hi
I know a couple who are spreading maliciously gossip about me. I wondering what to do.
Do I try and talk to them?
Do I go the Garda or talk to a solicitor.
It's getting very annoying now.
There will be no violence.

raher1

It's got worse. I turned the other cheek.
The couple seemed to have a grudge against. I never realized we were fighting.

sexmag

raher1 wrote: »

Hi
I know a couple who are spreading maliciously gossip about me. I wondering what to do.
Do I try and talk to them?
Do I go the Garda or talk to a solicitor.
It's getting very annoying now.
There will be no violence.

Speak to your solicitor and show them all the evidence you have, they'll take it from there.

Hopefully after a year of this you have accumulated enough for a case against them

Peregrinus

raher1 wrote: »

I better get some proof, a witness or a recording. It could get messy.

You already have a witness - the person to whom the defamatory thing was said, and who told you about it.

(This must have happened - otherwise how would you know that the defamatory thing was said?)

Pat Mustard

Mod:

Threads merged.

raher1

sexmag wrote: »

Speak to your solicitor and show them all the evidence you have, they'll take it from there.

Hopefully after a year of this you have accumulated enough for a case against them

I will ask the citzen advise next week.
They have a legal service.
This is ridiculous.

Mod
What is "ridiculous"?

Sassygirl1999

raher1 wrote: »

I will ask the citzen advise next week.
They have a legal service.
This is ridiculous.

Mod
What is "ridiculous"?

are you suspicious natured?

raher1

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

are you suspicious natured?

Not suspicious. I keep to myself. Called quiet and decent as well.
I don't know why people go around making up lies abound people. There is better things to do with your time. presious little assholes that's all they are. It's there own family and friend that caused but they're trying to throw it over on me.

I read the previous comments and yes I have a case.

notharrypotter

raher1 wrote: »

Not suspicious. I keep to myself. Called quiet and decent as well.
I don't know why people go around making up lies abound people. There is better things to do with your time. presious little assholes that's all they are. It's there own family and friend that caused but they're trying to throw it over on me.

I read the previous comments and yes I have a case.

I am curious, you mention going to citizens information but yet you claim to have a case.

If you have a case then get your solicitor to deal with it

No point involving citizens information as they can give advice but cannot take action on your behalf.

Sassygirl1999

notharrypotter wrote: »

I am curious, you mention going to citizens information but yet you claim to have a case.

If you have a case then get your solicitor to deal with it

No point involving citizens information as they can give advice but cannot take action on your behalf.

CA have solicitors/lawyers working with them that can take cases

raher1

notharrypotter wrote: »

I am curious, you mention going to citizens information but yet you claim to have a case.

If you have a case then get your solicitor to deal with it

No point involving citizens information as they can give advice but cannot take action on your behalf.

They have a legal team. Free advice. I am not wasting money on them

FreudianSlippers

More people that want professionals to do work for them for free... how is it "wasting money" to take action to, allegedly, protect your good name?

gozunda

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Just to clarity this, once the statement is prima facie a "defamatory statement" - i.e. a statement which tends to injure a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society - the plaintiff is under no obligation to prove the "defamatory statement" itself is actually defamatory (this is presumed).

Calling someone a silly eejit may well be a "defamatory statement", the rationale for this should be laid out in the writ itself and the plaintiff is obliged to swear an affidavit of declaration, but it's a reverse onus tort.

I understand that the defamatory statement must also be 'published' ie heard seen or read by more than just the person taking the action.

So going up to someone and saying you're a 'silly eejit' could therefore not be held as defamatory unless heard by others.

Correct me if that is otherwise...

FreudianSlippers

gozunda wrote: »

I understand that the defamatory statement must also be 'published' ie heard seen or read by more than just the person taking the action.

So going up to someone and saying you're a 'silly eejit' could therefore not be held as defamatory unless heard by others.

Correct me if that is otherwise...

Nope - you're correct!

Claw Hammer

gozunda wrote: »

I understand that the defamatory statement must also be 'published' ie heard seen or read by more than just the person taking the action.

So going up to someone and saying you're a 'silly eejit' could therefore not be held as defamatory unless heard by others.

Correct me if that is otherwise...

It's only defamatory if it is not true. If you are a silly eejit and it can be proven, you will have no case.

sexmag

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It's only defamatory if it is not true. If you are a silly eejit and it can be proven, you will have no case.

for argument sake what would be required to prove someone is a "silly eejit"?:pac:

Claw Hammer

sexmag wrote: »

for argument sake what would be required to prove someone is a "silly eejit"?:pac:

Evidence.

FreudianSlippers

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It's only defamatory if it is not true. If you are a silly eejit and it can be proven, you will have no case.

In fairness to gozunda, they were addressing a point that I neglected to bring up in my initial explanation.

raher1

gozunda wrote: »

I understand that the defamatory statement must also be 'published' ie heard seen or read by more than just the person taking the action.

So going up to someone and saying you're a 'silly eejit' could therefore not be held as defamatory unless heard by others.

Correct me if that is otherwise...

I have been called more than an eeejit
It's a few things, one i am alcoholic.

raher1

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

In fairness to gozunda, they were addressing a point that I neglected to bring up in my initial explanation.

I didn't want to publish anything online.
It's pretty nasty.
It's a case of other people **** being thrown over on top of me but this is not school days it's the real world.

raher1

I decide to confront one of the people involved. It seems I some people are trying to cause trouble.
Hopefully I started something that will lead to a change in people's views.

SarahSTARRR

You cannot record someone without their permission so if you record someone 'defaming' you without their knowledge, this would be an offence and would therefore be inadmissible. Defamation has to be published and has to be referring to yourself and must be entirely false.

Having someone who 'heard' the statement being made as 'evidence' is not sufficient as this is considered to be hearsay.

Claw Hammer

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

You cannot record someone without their permission so if you record someone 'defaming' you without their knowledge,.

Of course you can.

SarahSTARRR

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Of course you can.

No, you cannot. Under the Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993, recording a phone conversation between other people without their authorisation amounts to interception – a serious criminal offence. Similarly the Data Protection Acts state that a person’s information should only be collected lawfully, fairly, for specific purposes only, and that it should be retained for no longer than necessary for those purposes.

If you record someone without their consent and attempt to use this for any reason, its a breach of your right to privacy and data protection.

GM228

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

You cannot record someone without their permission so if you record someone 'defaming' you without their knowledge, this would be an offence and would therefore be inadmissible.

There is no such offence. Anyone can record a conversation they are a party to without the other parties concent.

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

Defamation has to be published and has to be referring to yourself and must be entirely false.

Something is published even when spoken.

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

Having someone who 'heard' the statement being made as 'evidence' is not sufficient as this is considered to be hearsay.

If that someone who heard the statement gives evidence of the statement they heard it is not hear say.

GM228

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

No, you cannot. Under the Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993, recording a phone conversation between other people without their authorisation amounts to interception – a serious criminal offence. Similarly the Data Protection Acts state that a person’s information should only be collected lawfully, fairly, for specific purposes only, and that it should be retained for no longer than necessary for those purposes.

If you record someone without their consent and attempt to use this for any reason, its a breach of your right to privacy and data protection.

You may want to re-read the Act, the Act amended the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983 to allow for one party consent.

SarahSTARRR

GM228 wrote: »

You may want to re-read the Act, the Act as amended allows for one party consent.

“interception” means—
(b) an act—
(i) that consists of the listening or attempted listening to, or the recording or attempted recording, by any means, in the course of its transmission, of a telecommunications message, other than such listening or recording, or such an attempt, where either the person on whose behalf the message is transmitted or the person intended to receive the message has consented to the listening or recording,

and

(ii) that, if done otherwise than in pursuance of a direction under section 110 of the Act of 1983, constitutes an offence under section 98 of that Act,

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1993/act/10/enacted/en/print.html

I think my understanding of the act is quite clear. It is an offence to record someone through any form of telecommunication without their consent. Thats why companies have the whisper at the beginning of the call saying its being recorded or you are informed at the beginning of the call if it is made outbound to you.

SarahSTARRR

GM228 wrote: »

You may want to re-read the Act, the Act amended the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983 to allow for one party consent.

One party consent were one person has been advised of the recording and only then is the person remaining on the phone line considered to be consenting. If you do not consent you must disconnect the call.

GM228

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

One party consent were one person has been advised of the recording and only then is the person remaining on the phone line considered to be consenting. If you do not consent you must disconnect the call.

Totally incorrect.

SarahSTARRR

GM228 wrote: »

Totally incorrect.

Advise me how instead of just criticising me when I provide evidence of such.

Owryan

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

Advise me how instead of just criticising me when I provide evidence of such.

Have a quick read of this: https://www.mhc.ie/latest/insights/big-brother-is-watching-but-is-he-listening-too

Esp this bit: "The 1993 Act amended the definition of “intercept” and, as a result, the current position in Irish law is that it is not illegal to record a telephone conversation if one of the parties to the call consents to the recording"

Claw Hammer

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

Advise me how instead of just criticising me when I provide evidence of such.

Sgt Maurice McCabe recorded his superior officers at a meeting. They didn't know they were being recorded. There was no question that he had done anything wrong in making the recording.

GM228

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

Advise me how instead of just criticising me when I provide evidence of such.

You missed the important part of the definition of intercept as amended by the 1993 Act:-

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1993/act/10/enacted/en/print#sec13

98 (6) In this section ‘intercept’ means listen to, or record by any means, in the course of its transmission, a telecommunications message but does not include such listening or recording where either the person on whose behalf the message is transmitted or the person intended to receive the message has consented to the listening or recording, and cognate words shall be construed accordingly.

SarahSTARRR

Owryan wrote: »

Have a quick read of this: https://www.mhc.ie/latest/insights/big-brother-is-watching-but-is-he-listening-too

Esp this bit: "The 1993 Act amended the definition of “intercept” and, as a result, the current position in Irish law is that it is not illegal to record a telephone conversation if one of the parties to the call consents to the recording"

If you cared to read the rest of the article you will see it states:

'Depending on the surrounding circumstances, and the subsequent use to which the recording is put, however, the person recording the call may be in breach of data protection and/or privacy laws.'

The person concerned in this post wishes to sue someone for defamation using a possible recording they are going to make of them. The person of which the recording is made can make a counter claim for breach of data protection and their right to privacy.

Claw Hammer

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

If you cared to read the rest of the article you will see it states:

'Depending on the surrounding circumstances, and the subsequent use to which the recording is put, however, the person recording the call may be in breach of data protection and/or privacy laws.'

The person concerned in this post wishes to sue someone for defamation using a possible recording they are going to make of them. The person of which the recording is made can make a counter claim for breach of data protection and their right to privacy.

A person is entitled to store their own data. The Data Protection Acts or about the industrial processing of data. Commercial entities recording phone calls as of course could attend to sell on the recordings to other commercial entities would then try and target the participants in the phone calls. That is what the data protection concerns are.

GM228

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

If you cared to read the rest of the article you will see it states:

'Depending on the surrounding circumstances, and the subsequent use to which the recording is put, however, the person recording the call may be in breach of data protection and/or privacy laws'

The Leas Cross case Cogley vs RTE [2005] IEHC 181 has already dealt with privacy and covert/one party recordings.

The right to privacy is not an unqualified right, but subject to the constitutional rights of others and to the requirements of public order, public morality and the common good as per the Cogley case and the Kennedy vs Ireland [1987] I.R. 587 case.

SarahSTARRR

Claw Hammer wrote: »

A person is entitled to store their own data. The Data Protection Acts or about the industrial processing of data. Commercial entities recording phone calls as of course could attend to sell on the recordings to other commercial entities would then try and target the participants in the phone calls. That is what the data protection concerns are.

https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/A-guide-to-your-rights-Plain-English-Version/r/858.htm
'When you give your personal details to an organisation or individual, they have a duty to keep these details private and safe. This process is known as data protection. We refer to organisations or individuals who control the contents and use of your personal details as 'data controllers'.'

Individuals are also subject to the data protection act. This person who asked the question is not storing the data for their personal use, they are getting it in order to publish it in some way ie. make available to other parties, in order to secure a claim of defamation. This falls outside the realm of 'personal use'.

The subject of this thread is if the person can sue for defamation when the information has not been published, ie. recorded in some way and made available to the wider public and because it has not, they wish to secure proof by recording the person allegedly defaming them and then making this recording available to other people in order to sue therefore opening themselves up to a possible counter suit for invasion of privacy and/or breach of DP.

The person asked for advise and I provided my input with links to the relevant laws in this area.

Owryan

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

If you cared to read the rest of the article you will see it states:

'Depending on the surrounding circumstances, and the subsequent use to which the recording is put, however, the person recording the call may be in breach of data protection and/or privacy laws.'

The person concerned in this post wishes to sue someone for defamation using a possible recording they are going to make of them. The person of which the recording is made can make a counter claim for breach of data protection and their right to privacy.

I was pointing out that it is not illegal to record a conversation which you claimed it was. From reading the article I can record a conversation but depending on what I then do with it I might be in trouble.

Claw Hammer

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/A-guide-to-your-rights-Plain-English-Version/r/858.htm
'When you give your personal details to an organisation or individual, they have a duty to keep these details private and safe. This process is known as data protection. We refer to organisations or individuals who control the contents and use of your personal details as 'data controllers'.'

Individuals are also subject to the data protection act. This person who asked the question is not storing the data for their personal use, they are getting it in order to publish it in some way ie. make available to other parties, in order to secure a claim of defamation. This falls outside the realm of 'personal use'.

A person has a right to their good name. That is personal use. Suing for defamation is personal use. The tort is not made out unless the defamatory statement has been published. A defamatory statement made to the person defamed is not sufficient unless other people are within earshot and hear the defamatory statement.