Convictions and facebook

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

If someone is convicted in court the papers can write this and print his photo example "Joe Bloggs, 23 Any Street, convicted of drugs sale/supply"


Can anyone do that, on facebook, say. If they know it for sure can anyone write "Joe Bloggs, 23 Any Street, convicted of drugs sale/supply" and post his photo on facebook

punisher5112

Jayce Black Level wrote: »

If someone is convicted in court the papers can write this and print his photo example "Joe Bloggs, 23 Any Street, convicted of drugs sale/supply"


Can anyone do that, on facebook, say. If they know it for sure can anyone write "Joe Bloggs, 23 Any Street, convicted of drugs sale/supply" and post his photo on facebook

If proven guilty yes if not no.... You would be open to a civil case where they could come after you for defamation.

jrmb

Jayce Black Level wrote: »

If someone is convicted in court the papers can write this and print his photo example "Joe Bloggs, 23 Any Street, convicted of drugs sale/supply"


Can anyone do that, on facebook, say. If they know it for sure can anyone write "Joe Bloggs, 23 Any Street, convicted of drugs sale/supply" and post his photo on facebook

Yes, if it's certainly true

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

punisher5112 wrote: »

If proven guilty yes if not no.... You would be open to a civil case where they could come after you for defamation.

it would be only posted if certainly true

Darc19

Remember, people like this are nasty and will have connections that would have no trouble in disrupting your life, or causing you harm.

Not something I'd do.

Peregrinus

Hold on a moment. We mustn't forget Alfred Hinds.

Hinds was a career petty criminal who was charged, tried and convicted in England in 1953 for a jewel robbery - an operation on a much larger scale than anything he had previously been involved with. He persistently maintained his innocence, and several times broke out of prison, only to be rearrested. While his initial trial and conviction was run-of-the-mill, he attracted quite a lot of media attention through his persistent escapes, and during one stint on the run met a journalist for an interview, hoping to attract attention to his claims of innocence.

During one of his periods on the run he hid out in Dublin and, to while away the hours, attended the lectures of the Regius Professor of Laws in TCD (which in those days were public, and free). There he learned something to his advantage, as they say. He was rearrested in due course and completed his sentence, but his repeated prison escapes and continuing campaign to establish his innocence made him fairly well-known.

In 1964, while Hinds was back in prison, the officer who had arrested him, one Herbert Sparks, retired and published his memoirs in the newspapers, in the course of which he mentioned that he had arrested the notorious Alfred Hinds, who was "rightly convicted" of the jewel theft. What Hinds had learned at the TCD lectures was that the findings in the criminal courts are not conclusive in the civil courts, and vice versa (which is why, e.g., O J Simpson can be acquitted of the murder of his wife, and yet successfully sued for her wrongful death). Hinds promptly sued Sparks for libel, pointing out that while it was true to say that he was convicted of the jewel robbery, if Sparks wanted to say (expressly or by implication) that he was rightly convicted, the onus was on Sparks to establish the rightness of the conviction.

The court agreed that the onus was on Sparks, which effectively meant that the libel action turned into a re-trial of Hinds for the jewel robbery, and Hinds was able to introduce new evidence which had not been available, or had been excluded (I forget which) at the original criminal trial. The jury found for Hinds and awarded him damages. If I remember rightly, Hinds was released from prison and granted a pardon for the criminal conviction.

The establishment found all this most embarrassing, and a couple of years later the law in England was changed to provide that, in defamation proceedings, a criminal conviction is conclusive evidence that a person has committed the offence concerned. Hinds would not now be able to use this method to clear his name in England. (This law later hampered the Birmingham Six in their attempts to impeach their own convictions in the English courts.)

The law in Ireland, however, is that evidence of the criminal conviction is admissible in defamation proceedings, but it's not conclusive evidence of guilt in the way that it is in England. So even if someone has been convicted of an offence, you could still find yourself liable in defamation for saying or implying that he committed the offence, if he can persuade the jury in the defamation proceedings that in fact he didn't commit it.

So, if you post this information on Facebook in a context which suggests that you are asserting that he did in fact commit the crime of which he was convicted, it's at least theoretically possible that you could find yourself having to prove that, yes, he did commit it.

Of course, it might be straightforward for you to prove that he did indeed commit the offence - e.g. if he sold or supplied the drugs to you, then you can give evidence to that effect, and case closed. But if you weren't involved in or a victim of his original crime, re-proving that he committed the crime may not be easy for you.

The newspapers reporting the trial at the time have a defence that you don't - media reports of court proceedings have what is called "qualified privilege". And if you reported the conviction at the time it was handed down on a facebook page where court proceedings are generally noted, you'd benefit from that defence too. But if you're doing this well after the event, not so. Especially if your motive appeats to be to disadvantage the person concerned - e.g. if your publication of historic information about him appears to be malicious, or inspired by a distaste for him or for what he has done.

tdf7187

Jayce Black Level wrote: »

it would be only posted if certainly true

Everything on Facebook is true?

con747

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hold on a moment. We mustn't forget Alfred Hinds.

Hinds was a career petty criminal who was charged, tried and convicted in England in 1953 for a jewel robbery - an operation on a much larger scale than anything he had previously been involved with. He persistently maintained his innocence, and several times broke out of prison, only to be rearrested. While his initial trial and conviction was run-of-the-mill, he attracted quite a lot of media attention through his persistent escapes, and during one stint on the run met a journalist for an interview, hoping to attract attention to his claims of innocence.

During one of his periods on the run he hid out in Dublin and, to while away the hours, attended the lectures of the Regius Professor of Laws in TCD (which in those days were public, and free). There he learned something to his advantage, as they say. He was rearrested in due course and completed his sentence, but his repeated prison escapes and continuing campaign to establish his innocence made him fairly well-known.

In 1964, while Hinds was back in prison, the officer who had arrested him, one Herbert Sparks, retired and published his memoirs in the newspapers, in the course of which he mentioned that he had arrested the notorious Alfred Hinds, who was "rightly convicted" of the jewel theft. What Hinds had learned at the TCD lectures was that the findings in the criminal courts are not conclusive in the civil courts, and vice versa (which is why, e.g., O J Simpson can be acquitted of the murder of his wife, and yet successfully sued for her wrongful death). Hinds promptly sued Sparks for libel, pointing out that while it was true to say that he was convicted of the jewel robbery, if Sparks wanted to say (expressly or by implication) that he was rightly convicted, the onus was on Sparks to establish the rightness of the conviction.

The court agreed that the onus was on Sparks, which effectively meant that the libel action turned into a re-trial of Hinds for the jewel robbery, and Hinds was able to introduce new evidence which had not been available, or had been excluded (I forget which) at the original criminal trial. The jury found for Hinds and awarded him damages. If I remember rightly, Hinds was released from prison and granted a pardon for the criminal conviction.

The establishment found all this most embarrassing, and a couple of years later the law in England was changed to provide that, in defamation proceedings, a criminal conviction is conclusive evidence that a person has committed the offence concerned. Hinds would not now be able to use this method to clear his name in England. (This law later hampered the Birmingham Six in their attempts to impeach their own convictions in the English courts.)

The law in Ireland, however, is that evidence of the criminal conviction is admissible in defamation proceedings, but it's not conclusive evidence of guilt in the way that it is in England. So even if someone has been convicted of an offence, you could still find yourself liable in defamation for saying or implying that he committed the offence, if he can persuade the jury in the defamation proceedings that in fact he didn't commit it.

So, if you post this information on Facebook in a context which suggests that you are asserting that he did in fact commit the crime of which he was convicted, it's at least theoretically possible that you could find yourself having to prove that, yes, he did commit it.

Of course, it might be straightforward for you to prove that he did indeed commit the offence - e.g. if he sold or supplied the drugs to you, then you can give evidence to that effect, and case closed. But if you weren't involved in or a victim of his original crime, re-proving that he committed the crime may not be easy for you.

The newspapers reporting the trial at the time have a defence that you don't - media reports of court proceedings have what is called "qualified privilege". And if you reported the conviction at the time it was handed down on a facebook page where court proceedings are generally noted, you'd benefit from that defence too. But if you're doing this well after the event, not so. Especially if your motive appeats to be to disadvantage the person concerned - e.g. if your publication of historic information about him appears to be malicious, or inspired by a distaste for him or for what he has done.

So put "according" to at the start or similar?

Peregrinus

There's no magic spell you can use to enable you to circulate damaging information about someone but not be held accountable for it. If somebody reading a Faceboook page would come away with the impression that details of a conviction had been posted in a way that suggested that the offence had in fact been committed, then whoever posted it needs to be prepared to defend the position that the offence has indeed been committed. (Whereas if you post details of a conviction in a context or in a way that leaves the impression that this was or may have been a wrongful conviction, say, that's quite different.)

It's the overall impression that counts, not some magic words that you put at the beginning. We don't know why kellykelly is thinking of posting details of someone's conviction, but if the context is anything like name-and-shame! or Won't Somebody Please Think of the Children! or The Neighbourhood is Going to the Dogs! or anything of that kind, then putting someone's name and addess up there definitely carries the innuendo that he's a Bad Lot, and liberally sprinkling the word "allegedly" through your text isn't goingt to change that.

Having said all that, in reality the risk of being sued for libel may not be very high. Others have pointed out that a person named in this way might take, um, other steps to bring his dissatisfaction to your notice, and perhaps that possiblity might worry you a bit more.

SuperS54

It would seem in your example that the problem originated from the use of "rightly" in the term "rightly convicted". If someone was to state that Joe Bloggs was "convicted of x offence in court today" I don't see how there is any onus on the author to prove Joe Bloggs committed the offence, the most they would be required to do would be to prove Joe was in fact convicted.

Peregrinus

SuperS54 wrote: »

It would seem in your example that the problem originated from the use of "rightly" in the term "rightly convicted". If someone was to state that Joe Bloggs was "convicted of x offence in court today" I don't see how there is any onus on the author to prove Joe Bloggs committed the offence, the most they would be required to do would be to prove Joe was in fact convicted.

It's an established principle of defamation law that you have to be prepared to justify not merely the exact words you use but also any innuendo that they raise. If the overall tone of what you post on your Facebook page leaves the reader thinking not merely that Joe Bloggs was convicted of supplying drugs but also that Joe Bloggs did in fact supply drugs, then when Joe Bloggs sues you for defamation what you need to show is not merely that he was convicted but that he was rightly convicted.

So, for example, if you say that "There are dangerous people living in our community! Joe Bloggs was convicted of supplying drugs in 2008 and served 5 years!" the inference is that Bloggs is dangerous, should be treated with caution, is the kind of guy who pushes drugs, etc, etc. That's the innuendo you have to defend. On the other hand, if the page says "Miscarriage of Justice! Joe Bloggs was convicted of supplying drugs in 2008 and did 5 years, but he's a total sweetie who would never do such a thing! Join the campaign to reverse his conviction and secure compensation for him!" then there's no innuendo of guilt that you have to defend.

Which is why I say that a lot depends on the context in which this information is posted. The OP gives no clue as to what kind of Facebook page this information might be posted on, or why it might be posted.

80j2lc5y7u6qs9

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's an established principle of defamation law that you have to be prepared to justify not merely the exact words you use but also any innuendo that they raise. If the overall tone of what you post on your Facebook page leaves the reader thinking not merely that Joe Bloggs was convicted of supplying drugs but also that Joe Bloggs did in fact supply drugs, then when Joe Bloggs sues you for defamation what you need to show is not merely that he was convicted but that he was rightly convicted.

So, for example, if you say that "There are dangerous people living in our community! Joe Bloggs was convicted of supplying drugs in 2008 and served 5 years!" the inference is that Bloggs is dangerous, should be treated with caution, is the kind of guy who pushes drugs, etc, etc. That's the innuendo you have to defend. On the other hand, if the page says "Miscarriage of Justice! Joe Bloggs was convicted of supplying drugs in 2008 and did 5 years, but he's a total sweetie who would never do such a thing! Join the campaign to reverse his conviction and secure compensation for him!" then there's no innuendo of guilt that you have to defend.

Which is why I say that a lot depends on the context in which this information is posted. The OP gives no clue as to what kind of Facebook page this information might be posted on, or why it might be posted.

Did youread the question
It was

"If someone is convicted in court the papers can write this and print his photo example "Joe Bloggs, 23 Any Street, convicted of drugs sale/supply"


Can anyone do that, on facebook, say. If they know it for sure can anyone write "Joe Bloggs, 23 Any Street, convicted of drugs sale/supply" and post his photo on facebook "

Simple question nothing about inference just simple facts. All this about

There are dangerous people living in our community! Joe Bloggs was convicted of supplying drugs in 2008 and served 5 years!" the inference is that Bloggs is dangerous, should be treated with caution, is the kind of guy who pushes drugs, etc, etc. That's the innuendo you have to defend.

is just your imagination

The question was simply If joe bloggs was convicted could you write on fb he was. just fact no inneundo about dangerous people. just facts. noe of your speculation

Queasy Tadpole

If I was Job Bloggs I'd be suing you for every penny you have if you were to do this.

Do you have actual proof of this? I doubt you do since court records are only released to those personally involved in the case.

Do you think facebook is an appropriate platform to release sensitive information such as this?

TheRepentent

Jayce Black Level wrote: »

Did youread the question

Did you read his answer?

con747

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/new-measures-to-aid-justice-being-administered-in-public-1.3579589

Claw Hammer

Queasy Tadpole wrote: »

If I was Job Bloggs I'd be suing you for every penny you have if you were to do this.

Do you have actual proof of this? I doubt you do since court records are only released to those personally involved in the case.

Do you think facebook is an appropriate platform to release sensitive information such as this?

Justice has to be administered in public. Any member of the public is entitled to attend in a court (with some exceptions). If it is reported that someone is convicted and the report is a true and accurate reflection of what happened in court it will be privileged. Truth is an absolute defence against any action for defamation. Qualified privilege is a defence unless the statement was made maliciously. If someone was genuinely convicted they face the hurdle that the defamation must of Lord their estimation in the eyes of right-thinking people. The problem may convicted person has, in many cases, is that their esteem in the eyes of right-thinking people is already low and an untrue statement they were convicted may not in fact lower their esteem any more.

Peregrinus

Jayce Black Level wrote: »

Did youread the question
It was

"If someone is convicted in court the papers can write this and print his photo example "Joe Bloggs, 23 Any Street, convicted of drugs sale/supply"


Can anyone do that, on facebook, say. If they know it for sure can anyone write "Joe Bloggs, 23 Any Street, convicted of drugs sale/supply" and post his photo on facebook "

Simple question nothing about inference just simple facts. All this about is just your imagination

The question was simply If joe bloggs was convicted could you write on fb he was. just fact no inneundo about dangerous people. just facts. noe of your speculation

I have to speculate, if only to illustrate what you can and cannot safely do. Your OP does not say in what context you would be posting this information, and the answer to the question "is it safe to do this?" depends on the context. So I offer examples of a context in which it would be safe, and of a context in which it would not. You can judge for yourself if this enables you to post safely in the context that you intend. If you remain in doubt, don't be coy, tell us why you want to post this stuff and what kind of context it will appear in, and maybe we can say something useful.

But don't post a question that omits important and relevant details and then complain about people hypothesising information in order to answer the question in a meaningful say. If you don't want people guessing about the details that you have omitted, maybe don't omit them?

BattleCorp

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Truth is an absolute defence against any action for defamation.

Telling the truth might be an absolute defence against any action for defamation but truth won't pay for that defence.

You could end up needing deep pockets to defend a defamation case so the clever person would just steer clear of any posts that could cause you trouble.

Claw Hammer

BattleCorp wrote: »

Telling the truth might be an absolute defence against any action for defamation but truth won't pay for that defence.

You could end up needing deep pockets to defend a defamation case so the clever person would just steer clear of any posts that could cause you trouble.

It would be a very foolish Plaintiff who would sue on foot of a true statement alleging it is defamatory.

GerardKeating

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It would be a very foolish Plaintiff who would sue on foot of a true statement alleging it is defamatory.

Not always, if the plaintiff has deeper pockets than the person they sue

Claw Hammer

GerardKeating wrote: »

Not always, if the plaintiff has deeper pockets than the person they sue

If the statement is true and the Plaintiff has deep pockets, the Defendant, if he can proves the statement is true will have no problem getting a no-foal no fee legal team on side, who will rook the Plaintiff.

Peregrinus

Nobody takes on a defamation defence on a no-foal no-fee basis. Also the libel plaintiff in this scenario is unlikely to be someone with deep pockets.

Claw Hammer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nobody takes on a defamation defence on a no-foal no-fee basis. Also the libel plaintiff in this scenario is unlikely to be someone with deep pockets.

Some would if it was sure fire. I said it was only in the case of a deep pocketed Plaintiff and a cast iron defence of truth.

Peregrinus

Defamation, strictly cash up front. Relatively few firms will run a defamation case, and none on a no-foal no-fee basis. And certainly for the defendant who, remember, even if he does win, will not get an award of damages.

Claw Hammer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Defamation, strictly cash up front. Relatively few firms will run a defamation case, and none on a no-foal no-fee basis. And certainly for the defendant who, remember, even if he does win, will not get an award of damages.

The successful defendant will get an award of costs which will be substantial. It is most unlikely that a deep pocketed Plaintiff will sue in circumstances where the Defendant has cast iron proof that the statement is true. i would have no doubt a no foal no fee legal team could be found i those highly unlikely circumstances.

Peregrinus

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The successful defendant will get an award of costs which will be substantial. It is most unlikely that a deep pocketed Plaintiff will sue in circumstances where the Defendant has cast iron proof that the statement is true. i would have no doubt a no foal no fee legal team could be found i those highly unlikely circumstances.

The award of costs you get in a civil action will rarely, if ever, actually cover the legal and associated costs you incur; there'll be a shortfall that you make up out of the award of damages. In this case, there will be no award of damages.

No-foal, no-fee applies in matters that are of a routine nature, that have a predictable outcome, and that can be handled in numbers and processed systematically. Defamation actions definitely do not tick any of these boxes. I would be astonished if you could point to a solicitors' firm which handles defamation defence work on a no-foal, no-fee basis.

If your strategy for handling an anticipated defamation action relies on finding a no-foal, no-fee defence, at the very least it would be prudent to find a firm willing to act on that basis before you publish your libel.

nuac

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Some would if it was sure fire. I said it was only in the case of a deep pocketed Plaintiff and a cast iron defence of truth.

With great respect, over many years I have found that there is nothing "sure fire" in litigation. Like many here I have won cases which should have been lost and lost those which seemed certainties.
Even if you win in one court an appeal lurks...............

qwerty13

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hold on a moment. We mustn't forget Alfred Hinds.

Hinds was a career petty criminal who was charged, tried and convicted in England in 1953 for a jewel robbery - an operation on a much larger scale than anything he had previously been involved with. He persistently maintained his innocence, and several times broke out of prison, only to be rearrested. While his initial trial and conviction was run-of-the-mill, he attracted quite a lot of media attention through his persistent escapes, and during one stint on the run met a journalist for an interview, hoping to attract attention to his claims of innocence.

During one of his periods on the run he hid out in Dublin and, to while away the hours, attended the lectures of the Regius Professor of Laws in TCD (which in those days were public, and free). There he learned something to his advantage, as they say. He was rearrested in due course and completed his sentence, but his repeated prison escapes and continuing campaign to establish his innocence made him fairly well-known.

In 1964, while Hinds was back in prison, the officer who had arrested him, one Herbert Sparks, retired and published his memoirs in the newspapers, in the course of which he mentioned that he had arrested the notorious Alfred Hinds, who was "rightly convicted" of the jewel theft. What Hinds had learned at the TCD lectures was that the findings in the criminal courts are not conclusive in the civil courts, and vice versa (which is why, e.g., O J Simpson can be acquitted of the murder of his wife, and yet successfully sued for her wrongful death). Hinds promptly sued Sparks for libel, pointing out that while it was true to say that he was convicted of the jewel robbery, if Sparks wanted to say (expressly or by implication) that he was rightly convicted, the onus was on Sparks to establish the rightness of the conviction.

The court agreed that the onus was on Sparks, which effectively meant that the libel action turned into a re-trial of Hinds for the jewel robbery, and Hinds was able to introduce new evidence which had not been available, or had been excluded (I forget which) at the original criminal trial. The jury found for Hinds and awarded him damages. If I remember rightly, Hinds was released from prison and granted a pardon for the criminal conviction.

The establishment found all this most embarrassing, and a couple of years later the law in England was changed to provide that, in defamation proceedings, a criminal conviction is conclusive evidence that a person has committed the offence concerned. Hinds would not now be able to use this method to clear his name in England. (This law later hampered the Birmingham Six in their attempts to impeach their own convictions in the English courts.)

The law in Ireland, however, is that evidence of the criminal conviction is admissible in defamation proceedings, but it's not conclusive evidence of guilt in the way that it is in England. So even if someone has been convicted of an offence, you could still find yourself liable in defamation for saying or implying that he committed the offence, if he can persuade the jury in the defamation proceedings that in fact he didn't commit it.

So, if you post this information on Facebook in a context which suggests that you are asserting that he did in fact commit the crime of which he was convicted, it's at least theoretically possible that you could find yourself having to prove that, yes, he did commit it.

Of course, it might be straightforward for you to prove that he did indeed commit the offence - e.g. if he sold or supplied the drugs to you, then you can give evidence to that effect, and case closed. But if you weren't involved in or a victim of his original crime, re-proving that he committed the crime may not be easy for you.

The newspapers reporting the trial at the time have a defence that you don't - media reports of court proceedings have what is called "qualified privilege". And if you reported the conviction at the time it was handed down on a facebook page where court proceedings are generally noted, you'd benefit from that defence too. But if you're doing this well after the event, not so. Especially if your motive appeats to be to disadvantage the person concerned - e.g. if your publication of historic information about him appears to be malicious, or inspired by a distaste for him or for what he has done.

I have no legal knowledge. I lurk around here occasionally as I find it quite interesting. So I’ve nothing to contribute to the forum, and don’t comment. But I had to say that I found this post so informative and enjoyable. Bravo to Peregrinus. That was an absolutely excellent post.