Irish law: publicly naming somebody after a mere allegation?

Famous Blue Raincoat

I see in yesterday's news - https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2024/0208/1431114-jesuit-report/ - the Jesuits named people against whom allegations/complaints have been made. Yes, the people are dead but it seems a deep injustice to name somebody against whom only allegations have been made, rather than name people against whom allegations have been proven in a court of law. How can this be fair to the families of these people in a society where somebody is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? In reality, anybody can make any allegation against anybody else - including you - and when an allegation is made public the damage is done no matter how innocent a person might be.

If the dead have no reputation to defend, then why is so much energy expended by historians defending the reputations of various figures in history and their legacy?

From, Benjamin Bestgen: The rights of the dead (3 Feb 2021) Irish Legal News: https://www.irishlegal.com/articles/benjamin-bestgen-the-rights-of-the-dead

"In contrast, the “Interest Theory” says that an entity has interests, even if it is unable to express them personally and may need an advocate to act for it. Rights exist to protect and enable interests. The comatose, brain-damaged, animals, unborn generations, rivers or the dead can have interest. For instance, the dead may well have an interest in their reputation and legacy or in ensuring that their property is dealt with in a way they would have wanted. They also have interests regarding the disposal of their mortal remains (including organ donation) or wishes for their descendants’ education, careers or family. Hence there should be legal rights which protect and enable these post-death interests.

For Smolensky, the importance of a post-mortem right is that it is a right which the law honours even after the right-holder died and where the beneficiary of that right is the deceased and/or his estate, not some living third party."

Oscar_Madison

This is hardly a legal question considering one “can” discuss someone who has passed away but had allegations of whatever wrongdoing against them before they died.

Interestingly you’ve chosen a case where dozens of allegations were made by dozens of people, against one man - good luck with your argument on protecting him after his death- and especially because when the report is released on this person which it will, according to the RTÉ news the other evening, it won’t be very nice reading.

suvigirl

' How can this be fair to the families of these people '

What difference does it make to the families?

They are not the accused, doesn't affect them. Imo

newmember2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121809893#Comment_121809893

You don't really have to think very hard to imagine it might bring undue shame on the family, when nothing has been proven, -so basically just blacking the name without any lawfully binding proof.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121809931#Comment_121809931

There is nothing legally speaking about an offenders family feeling shame.

they haven't done anything wrong. It's not their issue. Not their wrongdoing. If they feel bad, it's just their feelings.

newmember2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121809965#Comment_121809965

Yes, who cares if it's alleged one of your dead parents was a paedophile, shur it's nothing to feel bad about 🙄

cnocbui

There should not even be a concept of libelling the dead.

Probably around 17 years ago, a mother took a libel action against a newspaper for stating that her recently deceased son was well known to the guards and that his criminal activities were generally well known and feared by his local community.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121810030#Comment_121810030

You can feel bad all you wish, it's legally nothing to do with you.

Donald Trump

Some fella on the TV the other day said that your man Hitler was a bit of a dickhead back in the day.

You might think that is a smartarse response, but think about it. If you have a rule where you cannot criticise anyone dead, it would have to be a strict rule with no defence. Because who can prosecute for it? It would have to be open to anyone to prosecute for it. The "injured" party couldn't do it. You'd end up in a state where nobody could say anything bad about anyone who did anything unless that person had been found guilty of that thing in a court of law

Get Real

"Yes, the people are dead"

There's your answer. It's not illegal to name dead people in an allegation. It's also not possible to slander a dead person so it's easier/there's less care about any civil action consequences over naming them.

No, people can't publicly make any allegation they want against your example of "including you" (me) as I'm alive to take action against them for slandering me.

They can of course make an allegation they believe to be true against me for example if they believe I stole their phone and only a judge can decide on the likelihood of that in a criminal court. If I was charged, my name can legally be published as having been charged. (This doesn't mean I'm guilty of it)

Or, they could make a social media post about me calling me a phone thief. I could sue for libel, but then they could produce CCTV footage of me stealing their phone, in which case it wouldn't be libel.

Anyway, in the Jesuits case, the named are all dead. Perfectly legal to do.

Victor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121810030#Comment_121810030

It is the offender who has damaged reputations, not the allegations.

MrMusician18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121810049#Comment_121810049

Why not? If we afford that protection to the living, why shouldn't it apply to the persons estate and reputation?

I remember the Sunday Independent newspaper published a salacious and ultimately false rumour about Liam Lawlor on his death. They were only "brave" enough to publish it because they knew that the dead couldn't sue - despite the hurt it caused his family.

cnocbui

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121817955#Comment_121817955

Because the person comes to no harm from any aspersions cast on them after death. Their estate is a completely separate entity. No matter how much a persons survivors might think they suffer harm, it's only a perception and nothing actual.

If someone is found guilty of a crime, we don't usually lock up their relatives just because they are that persons enablers. There would be innumerable instances when they might be considered abettors, but we generally draw a line and let that slide, so relatives get protection from their association, Josef Fritzl's wife would be a good example, so as a class, they shouldn't then be turning the tables and claiming a relationship that in other circumstances shields them. Without proof of direct involvement we assume their innocence, and so it should be for libel.

Imagine someone is wrongfully convicted of a crime and is imprisoned for some time before proof of their innocence comes to light. Should their relatives and friends and colleagues be in line to also claim compensation for their suffering and claimed injury to 'their' reputations?

The only defence against libel is to prove the claims are false. How does a relative 'prove' or give testimony in the innumerable instances when they were not present or in any position of direct knowledge? 'My father would never do such a thing' is not going to cut it, when it's suggested their father shagged a secretary over their office desk, by someone who says they interrupted them in flagrante delicto, and then later saw them accepting a brown paper bag full of cash, in a park, and saw a wad of the notes spill from it and then be hastily retrieved. How does Aunt sally in Australia prove she suffers harm by association and that those events didn't take place?

Nope, got to draw a line and that coin of assumed innocence and separation has got to have flip side.

For Forks Sake

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121817955#Comment_121817955

They also libelled an innocent third party in that reporting and got rinsed for it

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/interpreter-in-lawlor-case-settles-libel-actions/26330164.html