Defamation

Steak4dinner

Hi guys

This is kind of hard to right but last week I pled guilty to two different charges in court. Serious charges that bring me great shame.

The clerk just read out the charges and I pled guilty. No details were given about said charges, just the charges themselves and the Act.

Two local papers reported the story (as expected). One reported with meticulous accuracy. I have no qualms with it. Free press and open court and all that jazz.

However the second paper (its headline and the first two lines) is grossly distorted. To the degree that I am too afraid to leave my house and my parents are struggling.

I will try to explain it this way. Think of one of the charges being something on a spectrum. My crime would be on the very mild side whereas the papers accusations are on the very severe side.

The story was not just on the paper but it was on their social media sight also. Social media shared it like wild fire and I am getting awful abuse and the bit of mental health I have left is in tatters.

Because I committed a crime and my reputation is low on its own merits, do I have any recourse on this?

It was published

It was false

It was viewed/read/shared by a huge amount of people.

But again my reputation would be lowered because I did commit a crime anyway. Does that mean they can make stuff up and get away with it?

This is not about money. I deserve to be in the papers but I just wanted fairness. They have published a severe accusation about me which will be forever viewed online and is going to cause me significant damage.

What can I do? A retraction or apology seems like its too little too late but if that's the best I can do then that's what I will do.

Please do not think this is a money grab in action. I'm not that type of person. I just feel for my parents. I have put them through hell as it is but this has affected them as much as me.

whippet

you won't get anything worth while here as we don't have the context / details and legal advise isn't allowed. If you were in court you may have a solicitor already who knows the details and the context ... it might be a start for you to contact them to see if there is something that you can do with regards the reporting

Uncle Pierre

As stated above - impossible to answer here without the details. And am not asking you to reveal them. But just to answer two of your questions:

• no, the fact that you were in court does not mean that "they can make stuff up and get away with it"
• yes, if their report was grossly inaccurate, you may have cause for action.

As also stated above, your best bet is to speak to a solicitor.

Losty Dublin

Assuming they are aligned and members of the Press Council of Ireland then you may choose to file a complaint with them. The details are on their website along with instructions on what to do, and thankfully the service is free.

You do need to be quick; the time limit is 3 months from the date of publication.

Liberty_Bear

By way of information and specifically that, there is a good summary of the law here

https://www.lawyer.ie/defamation/

If you are needing legal assistance perhaps contact the Free Legal Advice Centre whom might be able to help

maestroamado

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058231802/defamation

I expect the only option is appeal to higher court.. you pleaded guilty it seems to all offenses under the act so they likely can write what they like...

I am pretty sure that any court information cannot be used in another case...

ohnonotgmail

Did the paper say that the actions you committed were an offence at the higher end of the spectrum or did it say what the spectrum of that offence involves? they are very different things.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118602147#Comment_118602147

This makes no sense whatsoever

maestroamado

What part are unable to understand...

road_high

Unfortunately once stories are in the public realm via court papers will twist and write about them in many ways, sensationalism sells.

I don’t think there’s much you can do apart from learn from the experience. This will blow over quickly and it’s onto the next story. Best avoid all social media in the mean time

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118604509#Comment_118604509

All of it......

Because it doesn't make sense

maestroamado

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118604546#Comment_118604546

Explain what you mean if you think it doesn't make sense...

😂😂

maestroamado

Yes mut...

maestroamado

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118604585#Comment_118604585

not so much that it doesn't make sense in itself but it makes no sense in relation to the question asked by the OP.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118601815#Comment_118601815

It might be best not to stoke the hornets nest- when the paper gets wind of it, there’ll be another big headline. While it may be “unfair” op, and maybe you have a “case” I’d think carefully how you translate that into action- while story will remain online, people will go back to living their own lives soon enough - sensationalism sells newspapers and that’s possibility what you experienced- you need less publicity now not more- by all means consult with a solicitor but depending on the nature of your crime, that paper may choose to make an even bigger story of your complaint- you’re trying to manage your footnote of history while the public have already made up their minds- I don’t think you’ll receive much satisfaction regardless of how “right” you are.

28064212

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118602147#Comment_118602147

Yeah, that makes no sense. What it sounds like you're saying: If I plead guilty to an assault charge where I was in a scuffle at 4am after the nightclub closed, the paper can make up some story about an unprovoked attack on a disabled orphan in broad daylight. Or they can say that I assaulted someone so badly that I broke three of their ribs, a leg, and crippled them for life, even though in reality they got a light bruise on their cheek

Gregor Samsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118604585#Comment_118604585

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118602147#Comment_118602147

None of your post makes sense. Here's the breakdown:

I expect the only option is appeal to higher court.

Makes no sense. OP isn't talking about an appeal. They are asking is they anything that can be done about an alleged defamation. There is, but that wouldn't involve an appeal to a higher court - it would involve them bringing a separate legal case.

you pleaded guilty it seems to all offenses under the act so they likely can write what they like...

Makes no sense. If the OP pled guilty to speeding at 60km/h on a country road, the paper couldn't claim that they were doing 150km/h though a housing estate.

I am pretty sure that any court information cannot be used in another case...

Makes no sense. Why would you not be able to bring up something from the case that convicted you in a defamation case about your conviction? They're two separate cases. The first, I can only assume from the details given, is a criminal one taken against the OP. The second would be a civil one taken by the OP against someone else.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118604727#Comment_118604727

But if you were caught with say a "personal amount" of drugs and the newpaper lead with a heading of "Local man Jimmy Murphy pleads guilty to drugs involvement after Garda search uncovers large stash of cocaine" then it might be a misleading but I doubt you would get a lot of traction on it. You might be able to make a complaint and have a clarifying statement printed in the paper. Which could lead to a bit of a Barbara Streisand effect anyway.

There was the case a while back of a man who took a paper to court for naming him in a court case that he wasn't involved in. I think he lost. There was a man with the same name convicted but I think they printed the name with the location of the innocent fella.

Factual accounts and tabloid like accounts of news items usually only differ in their headline coupled with some choice adjectives of the perpetrator- the reported facts tend to be quite similar but the tabloid version quite often will put additional things in like “community up in arms” “ people don’t feel safe because this person is around” etc

Regardless of lower end or higher end of the scale OP you did mention that the crime itself was “serious” , and even though “lower end of scale”, the crime itself appears to come with an instant major social stigma given your account of the reaction in your community. Maybe ask yourself, is it the account in the newspaper or the nature of the crime itself that has people that way?

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118604753#Comment_118604753

if somebody was caught with a personal amount and paper claimed that there was a large stash of cocaine the paper would lead themselves open to a case for defamation. It certainly meets the general standard for defamation

The statement made was false

The statement was either published or spoken and a third party had read or heard the statement. The reason for this is because if nobody reads or hears the defamatory statement then it cannot damage a person’s reputation. If the statement was heard or read by one person, it can be assumed that it would also be heard by further parties.

The language used, the meaning of the statement could have an adverse effect on a person’s reputation.

A specific person can be recognised or identified by reading the statement. If the victim is clearly referenced in the defamatory statement then it could have an impact on their reputation.

Uncle Pierre

IANAL but I have several years' experience in the newspaper industry, including courts coverage as both a reporter and editor.

Much of what's been said above is either irrelevant, inacurrate, or both. For example, it is manifestly not the case that a newspaper "can likely write what they want" if somebody pleads guilty to an offence.

Also, if OP were to take any action, it's extremely unlikely that any newspaper would counter with further stories along the lines of "Joe Bloggs challenges the accuracy of our court report". They won't want it known that their report is being called into question, as there'd be even more egg on their face if things went against them. If Joe Bloggs is successful, they'll just print whatever retraction/clarification/apology they're obliged to carry; if Joe Bloggs is unsuccessful, most likely scenario is that there won't be a word about it.

Again, without knowing the details, and on the continued assumption that OP won't want to divulge them, impossible to give any specifics in opinion here. It remains the case that OP's best course of action is to speak to a solicitor.

Uncle Pierre

Anyway, for what it's worth, and purely for illustrative purposes:

Let's say picking your nose in public is generally regarded by society as the most heinous crime of all. Offences under the Picking Your Nose in Public Act might range from relatively mild (like moving a finger towards your nose as though you're going to pick it, but moving it away again as you change your mind), to more serious (like having a good old root around up there, and then rubbing your finger down the face of somebody else).

Joe Bloggs is twice caught doing the first of those, is brought to court, and pleads guilty, with no specific details of the offences being given there.

A paper reports "Joe Bloggs pleaded guilty to two offences under the Picking Your Nose in Public Act". This is accurate and it's highly unlikely there'd be a finding of defamation. The fact that people might assume that he picked his nose in public when he never actually did so is neither here nor there, as the offences he admits to would still fall under the Act.

However, if a paper were instead to report "Joe Bloggs twice picked his nose in public", a different situation arises, and a defamation action would likely have a different result.

Again, IANAL, but posts here are based on many years of dealing with such things from a newspaper point of view.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118605834#Comment_118605834

The Daily Mail were quite happy to keep prodding away at Meagan and Harry throughout their court battles so I don’t agree with you that papers won’t retaliate, especially if it’s concerning a crime that easily fuels the emotions of its readers. It’s obvious that the OP is now quite low on social acceptability and that may be simply due to the nature of the crime regardless of how it was reported.

As I pointed out earlier, newspapers tend in the main to report accurately- either tabloid or broadsheet-I think this instance may well be more related to sensationalist headlines and reporting style as opposed to defamatory content per se. And if this is the case, and that no defamatory element exists in the news story, then the OP risks further ridicule.

Uncle Pierre

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118605967#Comment_118605967

With all due respect, there's a massive difference between the practices of the Daily Mail and the practices of local newspapers in Ireland. And remember the OP specified it's a local paper's coverage that they have an issue with.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118606267#Comment_118606267

Fair point- and while I’m not going to speculate on the crime of the OP, I notice they point out at the 2nd newspaper “headline and first two lines” “grossly distorted” -to the degree they feel they can’t leave their house.

It doesn’t sound like inaccurate reporting per se- it sounds like they’ve labelled or described the OP in their headline article in some way in which the OP feels is derogatory or inaccurate to them, but may in fact be true, based on their crime or activity, regardless of how low down on the spectrum it may be. You can hit someone unprovoked for example, cause only minor injury to that person, and still be called a violent thug - maybe the OP resents whatever label the newspaper has placed on them- that was all I was pointing out really- trying to dispute this or make a formal complaint about it to the newspaper may well bring further anxst so it’s worth considering the implications.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118605298#Comment_118605298

1) Give me the legal definition of "large". "Jimmy Murphys was arrested with a large amount of cocaine" - what does that mean? 10g, 10kg, 100kg? "Jimmy Murphy died after ingesting a large amount of cocaine" - what does that mean 10g, 10kg, 100kg?

2) To prove defamation you have to show that the alleged transgression caused your reputation harm. The standard for that is in the eyes of the reasonable person. Given that Jimmy was caught and convicted of possessing cocaine, would his reputation be lowered by describing the amount as "large" in a newspaper heading? The starting point for his reputation is that he has already been convicted of possession. Does describing it with the subjective adjective "large" diminish his reputation versus calling it "small"? That is what you would need to convince the court.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118606594#Comment_118606594

I am sure it would be relatively straightforward to convince a court of that. or rather convince a jury as it is a jury that decides in defamation cases.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118606607#Comment_118606607

They don't have to be. A jury can be requested in the High Court for a defamation case.

If I hear my neighbour is convicted of possession of cocaine then his reputation is diminished in my eyes. If the newspaper article describes it as a "large" amount, it doesn't further add to it.

How much is "large" to you?

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118606625#Comment_118606625

and any smart plaintiff will request one. how it appears to you personally doesn't massively matter.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118606644#Comment_118606644

Yes it does. That is the point of defamation - lowering your reputation in the eyes of the reasonable person

"Johnny was arrested after being found with a large amount of cocaine"

"Jimmy was arrested for fighting outside the nightclub after consuming a large amount of cocaine"

What is the minimum amount of cocaine that Jimmy must have consumed for it to be legitimate for it to be described as a "large amount"?

Now if the person is caught with 10g and the article says he was caught with 20kg, then there is a far stronger case. Otherwise you will be debating language of semantics and the ordinary meaning of words

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118606666#Comment_118606666

well no, it doesn't matter how it appears to you personally. you seem to have taken a very contrarian attitude. and arguing semantics is the stock in trade of lawyers.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118606763#Comment_118606763

So give us your number that constitutes the minimum for "large"?

Jimmy got into a fight after consuming a large amount of cocaine?

What does that mean to you? What do you think it means to the reasonable person?

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118606782#Comment_118606782

you're clearly looking to go back and forth on this for a while and all because I told you were wrong. no interest in that.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118606791#Comment_118606791

Nope. You were the only person who said something wrong. I corrected you over the jury/defamation trial issue.

I wouldn't like to have you advising me to take the hypothetical case with all the associated risks when you can't:

A) give a definition of what constitutes "large"

B) give a coherent reason why describing something as "large" would diminish further the reputation of a person convicted of possession compared to not describing it as such.

Peregrinus

Well, you wouldn't look at the headline alone; you'd have to look at the story beneath where, unless the newspaper editor is suicidally stupid, the actual amount of cocaine will be stated.

But you might still have a case. Suppose the actual amount of cocaine was in fact relatively small - a single dose for one person. I could then argue that the headline was misleading in a defamatory way - it implies that I have quantities of cocaine that suggest large-scale or systematic use, or even dealing/supply, implications which are not warranted by the facts. And the fact that this misrepresentation was corrected in the article will not necessarily be a defence, since many people will see the headline who do not read the article, and newspaper editors know this when they are writing their headlines.

Donald Trump keeps banging on about defining "large". The plaintiff in these proceedings doesn't have to define "large"; he just has to persuade a jury that the use of the term, in this context, creates a false impression which is damaging to his reputation.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118608923#Comment_118608923

You see these type of headlines all the time (misleading ones)- After Hours used to call these type of headlines “click bait” - essentially the headline and sub level wording doesn’t really have a bearing to the content of the news article itself -

Peregrinus

Clickbait headline: "You won't believe how much cocaine this man was carrying!"

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118609332#Comment_118609332

Sometimes asked as a question-“Is this the biggest drug dealer in Ireland?” 😜

When you read the article, Usually the answer is, eh no he’s not.

L1011

If there's a question mark on the headline, the answer is no. Betteridges Law

joeguevara

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118606594#Comment_118606594

While the op(as far as I remember) didn’t state that the alleged crime was a drugs offence.

But if it was then there are three main and separate charges.

Possession of a controlled substance

posession of a controlled substance with intent for sale and supply

Possession of a controlled substance subject to 15a.

Taking that into account if the paper said X was in possession of a large amount and was charged for possession. It may be difficult to say that a quarter of weed or Charlie isn’t large. But the fact that it’s simple possession and not selling it is the crux.

Now if the charge was intent for sale and supply it wouldn’t make a difference if it was 1k or 5k. To the eyes of the public it’s the fact was being supplied is the issue and the amount is secondary.

if it’s section 15a if it’s 20k or 100k it’s still the same.

so unless it was a completely different charge then semantics about what constitutes large wouldn’t be a great defamation case.

Just my thoughts. Defamation is not something I have litigated and mainly from academic study. But again it’s not clear if this is the type of charge alluded to in the OP.

joeguevara

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118606666#Comment_118606666

It does say in the op that the charges were simply read out and no details were given to which he plead guilty.

Again we do not know the charge so difficult to discuss.

But taking your examples as a discussion point

(1) Large amount of cocaine. As no details of the case were given it can only fall into three categories. Possession, sale and supply and section 15 a. Unlikely that the word large would have been written unless went completely off piste. But that goes back to my post above. If the correct charge was reported then an amount is unlikely to be a deciding factor.

(2) there is no charge of assault after consuming cocaine. So as no details were provided and only the charge it’s unlikely to be this. Unless they went off piste as above. In any event, to the eyes of the public if you break someone’s jaw sober or if you break it after a gram of coke, the fact you broke their jaw Is the issue.

Unless other facts were offered to the court during sentencing (which as far as the OP states they don’t appear to be) then I think the above stands.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118619956#Comment_118619956

My points were only related to trying to claim defamation on a descriptive term such as "large" when the substantive issue is proven (be that possession of drugs, assault etc). The OP didn't say what their offence was so I made up one to illustrate my point.

In the other scenario, I wasn't talking about there being a specific charge - just asking what a person might understand from the word "large" from a statement that a person assaulted someone after consuming a "large amount of cocaine". It was an example of the ambiguity of the word "large".

(It isn't the point I was making, but while the charge would not be different, it would not be uncommon to read a report that someone committed a crime after ingesting some substance. It might be given in evidence - e.g. as an excuse for a person for acting "out of character". - "my client only did this as he was going through a tough period and had consumed a large amount of cocaine and alcohol on the night in question. He has now taken measures to address that to make sure it won't happen again")

joeguevara

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118620399#Comment_118620399

In that scenario I completely agree. If untruths were fabricated or adversely ambiguous that would make a relatively minor infractions seem way more heinous then there is an arguable case.

I didn’t intend to make it look like I was disagreeing with you. I meant to just point out that based on the information in the OP that if it was just a charge that was reported without saying the level of scale that this charge encompasses, then it more than likely wouldn’t fall under the definition of defamation.