Lottery Winners - Entitlement to Privacy?

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118041538#Comment_118041538

If rolf Harris sued he would have to plead that his reputation was damaged and that he was wrongly called a child abuser. It would be no good suing on the basis that he was called a child abuser and no one knew about it hence his reputation was damaged.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118042567#Comment_118042567

and that he was wrongly called a child abuser

No, he wouldn't. There is no obligation on him to provide any evidence as to the veracity of the statement. He only has to show that the statement was made and that it has damaged his reputation. By way of a defence the other side can say that the statement is true and they are then obliged to prove it is true.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118043053#Comment_118043053

How does he show that his reputation was damaged without saying the defamatory statement was untrue?

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118043115#Comment_118043115

If somebody publishes a story that said I was a paedophile that would be enough to damage my recommendation in the eyes of the public. that is all I am obliged to prove. I don't have to prove I am not a paedophile. it is up to the other side to prove I am if that is how they wish to make their defence.

beachhead

Nobody has mentioned the fact that 200% of people want to pay by card.Thats another way to track a winner.The shopkeeper has a copy of the total purchase and time.Not too difficult to save card number and wait for the customer to return to buy something next day or whenever.Bingo,someone in the shop rings the local paper and the beggars arrive.Its all true about CCTV etc Small village shops,no excitement,lets track someone and gossip.Beats moving the choclate and crisps around for the tenth time in a week

landofthetree

The odd time I play I always buy my ticket in Dublin city centre or some town im not known it.

Now if I win this Wednesday my only problem will be explaining how I can afford a helicopter and a 4mil euro masion on my wages.

JDD

Buy online

Sit on your winnings for six months

Engage a wealth manager from a UK firm.

Job done.

If you buy in your local shop where the shop owner knows your middle name, lodge the money to your local AIB, and immediately splurge on a new car, well you've no one to blame if your name is in the newspapers a week later. Have a bit of cop on.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118043135#Comment_118043135

You are going to have to say that your were called a paedophile and plead that it has damaged your reputation in that you are not a paedophile

and the statement that you are a paedophile is wrong. You can't simply plead that you were called a paedophile without more.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118043476#Comment_118043476

no. you're not listening.

You are going to have to say that your were called a paedophile and plead that it has damaged your reputation

that is it. that is the extent of your obligations as regards proof. you don't have to prove you are not a paedophile. you have placed the burden of proof in that regard on the wrong side.

mrslancaster

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118020017#Comment_118020017

Lotto ticket bought Online for 9th October draw won €1.262606 and still not claimed. Also winner on 2nd October, €826395 ticket bought in Dublin, still not claimed.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118043476#Comment_118043476

Yes. You can. Absolutely. You're simply wrong about this. You have to say that you were called a paedophile. You have to show that this has caused damaged your reputation - that people think less of you as a result. And that's all you have to do.

The truth of the alleged defamatory statement is not in issue unless the defendant raises it. And if the defendant raises it, the defendant has to prove it.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118045976#Comment_118045976

By pleading that you have been called a paedophile and that it has damaged your reputation, you have to plead that you do not have a reputation as a paedophile ergo the statement that you are a paedophile is false.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118046941#Comment_118046941

no you don't. you're just not getting this at all.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118046941#Comment_118046941

What? That doesn't even make sense.

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118046941#Comment_118046941

Being a paedophile and having a reputation as a paedophile are not the same thing. Scenario

• Person A is a paedophile, but nobody knows about it
• Person B finds out, and announces to Persons C through ZZZ that A is a paedophile
• Persons C through ZZZ now think lower of Person A due to what Person B has claimed
• Person A sues B for defamation

At no stage in the proceedings will A ever be asked if they are a paedophile. B, if they want to use the defence of truth, will be tasked with proving that A is a paedophile.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118047164#Comment_118047164

A will have to say he is being called a paedophile and his reputation has been lowered because he is not a paedophile. It is up to A to prove his case.

He can't simply say I have been called a paedophile without more.

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118047217#Comment_118047217

No, A will just have to say his reputation has been lowered because he does not have the reputation of being a paedophile.

If I called Larry Murphy a rapist, and he sued me for defamation, I would not necessarily have to prove he was a rapist. I could just prove that because he has the reputation of a rapist, my statement did not injure his reputation. As previously covered, a defamatory statement is one which "tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society". If I can show my statement did not injure his reputation (because a reasonable person would have that opinion of him anyway), I have no case to answer, without needing to resort to the defence of truth.

On the other hand, if I called Michael Martin a rapist, it would most definitely injure his reputation. No reasonable person has that opinion of him before I made my statement. If he sues me for defamation, and I want to establish a defence of truth, I will have to prove that he is a rapist. He will, quite rightly, not have to establish that he is not a rapist.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118047217#Comment_118047217

Yes. He. Can.

It is obvious that calling someone a paedophile will adversely affect his reputation. All A has to prove is that B called him a paedophile. He can, if he wants, also lead evidence about how he has been affected by this - shunned in social situations, pickets outside his house, whatever - but that really goes to the amount of damages, not to the question of whether he has been defamed.

He does not have to say, much less prove, that he is not a paedophile.

B, in his defence, can choose to plead that he was justified in saying that A is a paedophile because A is, in fact, a paedophile. Or he could say nothing about that, and run a completely different defence (e.g. "I never said that A was a paedophile!") If he chooses to run the defence of justification, he has to plead that the statement is true, and he has to prove that it is true.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118047277#Comment_118047277

If Larry Murphy sues you for calling him a rapist he will have to say what you called him and that it was not true. He can't simply say that he has been called a rapist without more. He will have to go on and show how it lowered him in the estimation of right thinking people. The statement Larry Murphy is a rapist is not defamatory if Larry Murphy is a rapist. If he says he is not a rapist the burden of proof is on you to show that he is a rapist.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118047312#Comment_118047312

It may be obvious that calling someone a paedophile will affect his reputation unless he is one. To protect his reputation he will have to deny he is one. A person can sue on a true statement but cannot admit it in pleadings, quite the opposite.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118047637#Comment_118047637

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118047654#Comment_118047654

you seem to have almost got it in the first post but then reverted to the same wrong answer as before in the next post.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118047654#Comment_118047654

This is false. I do not know why you find this so hard to understand. He does not have to deny that he is a paedophile. He just has to prove that he was called a paedophile and that this has injured his reputation. The onus then passes to the defendant to assert and prove that he is a paedophile, but - and I cannot stress this enough - he only has to do this if he chooses to run with that particular defence. Most defamation actions proceed without that defence being raised, so the truth or falsity of the allegation is usually not tested.

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118047654#Comment_118047654

No he will not, and your repeated assertion does not change that fact

(2) 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.

“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

...

16.— (1) It shall be a defence (to be known and in this Act referred to as the “ defence of truth ”) to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that the statement in respect of which the action was brought is true in all material respects.

Please point to anything in the above quotes, or anywhere in the Defamation Act, any requirement for the plantiff to prove a statement is false, or any requirement for the statement to be false.

Aside from anything else, how exactly could the plantiff prove a negative? I call Micheàl Martin a rapist, he sues me for defamation, you claim that he first has to show the statement is false. How can he possibly do that?

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118048018#Comment_118048018

“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

The person has to plead that a statement is defamatory and in order for that to be the case it must not be true. It is obvious. A plaintiff has to plead and prove his case.

You can't take the definition in isolation from the requirement to plead and prove a case. There is no way a Plaintiff can make a case and simultaneously say that the statement is true. A person can claim a statement is not true and the onus shifts to the Defendant to prove it but that means the statement is found as a fact to be false whatever the truth of the situation. That is no different to a Plaintiff claiming someone caused them an injury. Eve if false, in the absence of rebuttal, it will be presumed true.

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118048528#Comment_118048528

The person has to plead that a statement is defamatory and in order for that to be the case it must not be true. It is obvious.

Not only is not "obvious", it's blatantly untrue and a direct contradiction of the law. You've had this explained to you in detail many ways and many times. I'm out

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118048552#Comment_118048552

It ios perfectly true. A true statement cant lower you in the estimation of right thinking people. To start a case you need to allege the statement is made and it is untrue. Try it any other way and be prepared for a big costs bill.

GM228

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118048630#Comment_118048630

You absolutely do not need to establish or prove the statement is untrue, it's simply not a requirement for defamation.

You don't even need to prove the statement did do damage to your reputation, rather you just need to establish the statement is defamatory, that is to say the statement tends (not that it did) to injure your reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society, tends is a farvlower threshold than did, you just need to establish your reputation is likely to be lowered, not that it has been lowered, and it simply is not qualified by any true/untrue nature of that statement.

Perhaps you are getting confused with those who may already have a somewhat diminished reputation and those who have no reputation at all, the courts have on several occasions held that those convicted of crimes (including serious crimes) do indeed still have a reputation to hold. In fact, specific acts of your previous misconduct are not admissible in court to establish any general bad reputation the plaintiff may have already, the so-called Plato rule, and even if someone does admit for example having a previous conviction related to the defamatory statement, it may be mentioned, but the facts etc of such conviction will not be entertained to determine any reputation you may or may not have.

Any evidence or fact of an already bad reputation is really only relevant in mitigation of damages.

blackwhite

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118043227#Comment_118043227

Retention of a customer's card details in that manner would be a severe breach of PCI regulations.

The reason that nobody else has mentioned it is that, I'd imagine, most on here know that it would be 1) illegal, and 2) extremely difficult given how modern card payment machines work

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118050628#Comment_118050628

Proof that something tends to lower the reputation can't be defamation if it is true. To plead the case you have to show the statement was made and it tends to lower the reputation because it is not true. Pleading that an allegation was made without saying it is not true would be tantamount to saying it is true.

GM228

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118053617#Comment_118053617

"To plead the case you have to show the statement was made and it tends to lower the reputation because it is not true"

You are adding in a cavaet which does not exist in law and you keep going around in circles with it.

The issue of truth or not of a statement is irrelevant for a plaintiff making a case of defamation, this is the long held position by the courts, and under both common law and statute a defamatory statement is not qualified by truth or untruth, in fact the courts have long recognised that both truthful and untruthful statements can be defamatory, however, only untruthful defamatory statements will result in damages, however, in that regard the law provides a presumption of falsity, the burden of rebutting that presumption lies with the defendant, if the defendant can't rebut the presumption of the falsity the issue of truth then is irrelevant because the plaintiff is not required to establish anything in relation to the truth or falsity of the staement.

Again to reiterate, the issue of truth or not is not a deciding factor in deciding a statement is defamatory or not, the defence of truth however is a defence against an action for defamation.

in other words, true statements can be defamatory, but, when the defendant successfully establishes truth as a defence it becomes an absolute defence against their liability for damages, but, in that case the statement could still be considered defamatory, there's just no damages.