Right to remain unnamed

mondeoman72

Hypothetically of course, if there was a picket going on outside the dail, by victims of an alleged child abuser, and it is all over the papers, does the perpatrator have the right to be NOT named.

In otherwords, can it be said Johnny is the person at the centre of the allegations.

Thanks folks

TooTired123

If the court has decided that the accused cannot be named, in any case, then the accused cannot be named. What has a picket outside the Dail got to do with anything?!?

mondeoman72

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120283126#Comment_120283126

But if it hasn't gone to court. If it's on the front page of the Irish times today that 2 victims are outside the premises on a picket, and the abuser was not charged, and it was hushed up, can it be simply said that the person at the centre of alegatuona is johnny

28064212

Two possibilities off the top of my head that would stop the Irish Times from publishing the name:

• The person at the centre of the allegations has taken out an injunction preventing their name from being published (the trial of the person does not need to have started for this to be a possibility)
• The Irish Times does not wish to open itself up to defamation proceedings

mondeoman72

Another example is maybe St John ambulance. Tusla have said allegations are founded. The victims are picketing outside, and they are attempting to force publication of a report compiled by independent experts.

No charges were laid so no conviction occured. The perpatrator this and that. But he was never named

What is stopping someone saying the person at the centre of this is Johnny. Not saying Johnny did it. Just that Johnny is the subject of the allegations. Which would be essentially completely factual.

TooTired123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120283166#Comment_120283166

Say I go to the Gardai and accuse you, mondeoman 72 of breaking into my house and stealing €5000 but the Gardai don’t bring charges against you, for whatever reason.

Can I then go on Liveline and say to Joe Duffy live on air “mondeoman 72 broke into my house and stole €5000 and the Gardai hushed it up and didn’t charge him”?

How would you react to that?

mondeoman72

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120283287#Comment_120283287

Good point. But if the investigatorw said it was me, can I demand my name be secret. Feelings don't come into it.

Here is a very similar situatuon

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2023/01/11/st-john-ambulance-commits-to-share-abuse-report-with-survivors/

cml387

Are you talking about randomers talking in the street, or what is mentioned in the media?

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120283246#Comment_120283246

is it not that often by default, they don't name the abuser as that could expose the identities of the victims, and it's their identity which is actually being protected?

Allinall

The way I see it, being the publisher of second hand information does not get you off the hook.

If I said- “Mondeoman72 said Mr X is a rapist”,

I would be as guilty as Mondeoman72 of defaming Mr X, unless of course I could defend the statement robustly in court.

mondeoman72

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120283318#Comment_120283318

The vicims of that St John abuser and currently standing outside Ithe streetwith placards They certainly are not anonymous. Yer man appeared on TV as well to recount what happened.

I'm trying to understand how it has not been said publicly the alleged person is johnny. They are even talking about that case in the Dail.

mondeoman72

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120283321#Comment_120283321

But I'm not suggesting johnny did it. I am saying Johnny is the person at the centre of the investigation

Allinall

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120283352#Comment_120283352

The implication is there. It’s all about Johnnys reputation and good name.

mondeoman72

Surely, if I say mondeoman did X. That is an issue.

But if I said that big issue in the press everyone is looking and talking about,. It's mondeoman at the centre.

It's a fact, not an allegation

cml387

An if it does go to a criminal trial in front of a jury, how's Johnny going to get a fair trial if his name has been splashed across the front page of the Daily Beast?

Allinall

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120283366#Comment_120283366

You’re missing the point.

By stating the fact that he is at the centre of the issue, you are bringing the allegations against him into the public domain, which will damage his good name.

mondeoman72

In that example, which has been on front page of multiple papers, tommy tiernan show, twitter and more, that boat has probably sailed already, but perhaps that is the reasoning behind it.

ThreeGreens

If a court hasn't a gagging order on it, then there is nothing stopping anyone naming them.

But if they do, and the person isn't convicted, then you are likely to have a defamation case taken against you irrespective of whether the person is guilty or not.

TooTired123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120283301#Comment_120283301

if you simply answer my question. If I go on Liveline and say on national radio with a couple of 100,000 listeners tuned in, that mondeoman72 broke into my house and stole €5000, or if I went on RTÉ 6.01 news and said it or if it was published in The Sunday Independent, wouldn’t you get a solicitor and pursue a claim for defamation?

TooTired123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120283366#Comment_120283366

Yes it is an allegation. You are alleging that mondeoman72 is at the center of the allegation.

Mondeoman72 has a right to the presumption of innocence and has a right to defend himself against defamation of his character.

magicbastarder

there are different laws on anonymity for rape cases (and possibly sexual assault cases) as there are to the hypothetical theft case being discussed above.

mondeoman72

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120283610#Comment_120283610

Ok so. Liveline is bad example. I'm not saying mondeoman did anything as I don't have the burden of proof. But if mondeoman IS the centre of the investigation, then that is proof as a matter of fact.

If you are the centre of an investigation Into theft, and that's a fact, is it not permitted to say you are the centre of the investigation? I'm not going on liveline to say you are a thief. Is there not a big difference.?

This is what I am trying to understand.

mondeoman72

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120283631#Comment_120283631

If I alledged mondeoman is the centre of an investigation and he is, is that a statement of fact or an allegation

Allinall

Just because something is fact does not mean you can say it in public without consequences.

"Mondeoman did not rape anyone this week" is a factual statement, but you would be on a very sticky wicket if Mondeoman decided to sue for defamation, as there is an inherent implication in the statement, which would be damaging to his good name.

mondeoman72

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120284211#Comment_120284211

Thanks, that makes more sense to me

Peregrinus

"Mr X said that Mr Y is a rapist" may be factually true, but it's also defamatory - it will make people think less of Mr Y. So the Irish Times, say, will not print "Mr X said that Mr Y is a rapist" unless they are pretty confident that they have a defence that they stand up in court if Mr Y sues.

It won't be enough for the Irish Times to prove that Mr X did say that. The innuendo in this statement is that Mr Y is indeed a rapist and, if the Irish Times is going to rely on truth as a defence, that's the truth they have to prove.

There are a few exceptions. If a witness in court proceedings, or a TD in Dail Eireann, says "Mr Y is a rapist" the Irish Times can print that "the witness/the deputy said that Mr Y was a rapist". Reports of court and parliamentary proceedings are privileged so the Irish Times can rely, not on the defence that the innuendo is true, but on the defence of privilege. But those are exceptional cases.

mondeoman72

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120304258#Comment_120304258

How about Mr X says Mr Y raped him and Tusla has declared allegations are founded

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/st-john-ambulance-child-sex-abuse-i-remember-not-being-believed-1.4331594

Multiple victims standing up declaring I was abused, yet the "unnamed senior figure" stays unnamed.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120304667#Comment_120304667

It would be up to the Irish Times (or whoever) to produce evidence sufficient to satisfy a jury that the Tusla finding is correct.

IT only has protection if Mr Y has been convicted of rape. Even then, that's only prima facie evidence of the truth of the statement; it would still be open, in a defamation action, for Mr Y to try to show the jury that he had been wrongly convicted. But (unlike with the Tusla finding) the onus would be on him to show that the conviction was wrongful, not on the Irish Times to show that it was correct.

(And people have, in the past, used defamation actions to establish that they were wrongly convicted.)