nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

defamation of character

Abu101

hi
how can you prove defamation of character in ireland?
i am being subject to some nasty gossip and i like to know my rights before i act.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Abu101

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

In fairness to gozunda, they were addressing a point that I neglected to bring up in my initial explanation.

I didn't want to publish anything online.
It's pretty nasty.
It's a case of other people **** being thrown over on top of me but this is not school days it's the real world.

Abu101

I decide to confront one of the people involved. It seems I some people are trying to cause trouble.
Hopefully I started something that will lead to a change in people's views.

SarahSTARRR

You cannot record someone without their permission so if you record someone 'defaming' you without their knowledge, this would be an offence and would therefore be inadmissible. Defamation has to be published and has to be referring to yourself and must be entirely false.

Having someone who 'heard' the statement being made as 'evidence' is not sufficient as this is considered to be hearsay.

Claw Hammer

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

You cannot record someone without their permission so if you record someone 'defaming' you without their knowledge,.

Of course you can.

SarahSTARRR

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Of course you can.

No, you cannot. Under the Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993, recording a phone conversation between other people without their authorisation amounts to interception – a serious criminal offence. Similarly the Data Protection Acts state that a person’s information should only be collected lawfully, fairly, for specific purposes only, and that it should be retained for no longer than necessary for those purposes.

If you record someone without their consent and attempt to use this for any reason, its a breach of your right to privacy and data protection.

GM228

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

You cannot record someone without their permission so if you record someone 'defaming' you without their knowledge, this would be an offence and would therefore be inadmissible.

There is no such offence. Anyone can record a conversation they are a party to without the other parties concent.

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

Defamation has to be published and has to be referring to yourself and must be entirely false.

Something is published even when spoken.

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

Having someone who 'heard' the statement being made as 'evidence' is not sufficient as this is considered to be hearsay.

If that someone who heard the statement gives evidence of the statement they heard it is not hear say.

GM228

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

No, you cannot. Under the Postal Packets and Telecommunications Messages (Regulation) Act 1993, recording a phone conversation between other people without their authorisation amounts to interception – a serious criminal offence. Similarly the Data Protection Acts state that a person’s information should only be collected lawfully, fairly, for specific purposes only, and that it should be retained for no longer than necessary for those purposes.

If you record someone without their consent and attempt to use this for any reason, its a breach of your right to privacy and data protection.

You may want to re-read the Act, the Act amended the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983 to allow for one party consent.

SarahSTARRR

GM228 wrote: »

You may want to re-read the Act, the Act as amended allows for one party consent.

“interception” means—
(b) an act—
(i) that consists of the listening or attempted listening to, or the recording or attempted recording, by any means, in the course of its transmission, of a telecommunications message, other than such listening or recording, or such an attempt, where either the person on whose behalf the message is transmitted or the person intended to receive the message has consented to the listening or recording,

and

(ii) that, if done otherwise than in pursuance of a direction under section 110 of the Act of 1983, constitutes an offence under section 98 of that Act,

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1993/act/10/enacted/en/print.html

I think my understanding of the act is quite clear. It is an offence to record someone through any form of telecommunication without their consent. Thats why companies have the whisper at the beginning of the call saying its being recorded or you are informed at the beginning of the call if it is made outbound to you.

SarahSTARRR

GM228 wrote: »

You may want to re-read the Act, the Act amended the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983 to allow for one party consent.

One party consent were one person has been advised of the recording and only then is the person remaining on the phone line considered to be consenting. If you do not consent you must disconnect the call.

GM228

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

One party consent were one person has been advised of the recording and only then is the person remaining on the phone line considered to be consenting. If you do not consent you must disconnect the call.

Totally incorrect.

SarahSTARRR

GM228 wrote: »

Totally incorrect.

Advise me how instead of just criticising me when I provide evidence of such.

Owryan

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

Advise me how instead of just criticising me when I provide evidence of such.

Have a quick read of this: https://www.mhc.ie/latest/insights/big-brother-is-watching-but-is-he-listening-too

Esp this bit: "The 1993 Act amended the definition of “intercept” and, as a result, the current position in Irish law is that it is not illegal to record a telephone conversation if one of the parties to the call consents to the recording"

Claw Hammer

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

Advise me how instead of just criticising me when I provide evidence of such.

Sgt Maurice McCabe recorded his superior officers at a meeting. They didn't know they were being recorded. There was no question that he had done anything wrong in making the recording.

GM228

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

Advise me how instead of just criticising me when I provide evidence of such.

You missed the important part of the definition of intercept as amended by the 1993 Act:-

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1993/act/10/enacted/en/print#sec13

98 (6) In this section ‘intercept’ means listen to, or record by any means, in the course of its transmission, a telecommunications message but does not include such listening or recording where either the person on whose behalf the message is transmitted or the person intended to receive the message has consented to the listening or recording, and cognate words shall be construed accordingly.

SarahSTARRR

Owryan wrote: »

Have a quick read of this: https://www.mhc.ie/latest/insights/big-brother-is-watching-but-is-he-listening-too

Esp this bit: "The 1993 Act amended the definition of “intercept” and, as a result, the current position in Irish law is that it is not illegal to record a telephone conversation if one of the parties to the call consents to the recording"

If you cared to read the rest of the article you will see it states:

'Depending on the surrounding circumstances, and the subsequent use to which the recording is put, however, the person recording the call may be in breach of data protection and/or privacy laws.'

The person concerned in this post wishes to sue someone for defamation using a possible recording they are going to make of them. The person of which the recording is made can make a counter claim for breach of data protection and their right to privacy.

Claw Hammer

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

If you cared to read the rest of the article you will see it states:

'Depending on the surrounding circumstances, and the subsequent use to which the recording is put, however, the person recording the call may be in breach of data protection and/or privacy laws.'

The person concerned in this post wishes to sue someone for defamation using a possible recording they are going to make of them. The person of which the recording is made can make a counter claim for breach of data protection and their right to privacy.

A person is entitled to store their own data. The Data Protection Acts or about the industrial processing of data. Commercial entities recording phone calls as of course could attend to sell on the recordings to other commercial entities would then try and target the participants in the phone calls. That is what the data protection concerns are.

GM228

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

If you cared to read the rest of the article you will see it states:

'Depending on the surrounding circumstances, and the subsequent use to which the recording is put, however, the person recording the call may be in breach of data protection and/or privacy laws'

The Leas Cross case Cogley vs RTE [2005] IEHC 181 has already dealt with privacy and covert/one party recordings.

The right to privacy is not an unqualified right, but subject to the constitutional rights of others and to the requirements of public order, public morality and the common good as per the Cogley case and the Kennedy vs Ireland [1987] I.R. 587 case.

SarahSTARRR

Claw Hammer wrote: »

A person is entitled to store their own data. The Data Protection Acts or about the industrial processing of data. Commercial entities recording phone calls as of course could attend to sell on the recordings to other commercial entities would then try and target the participants in the phone calls. That is what the data protection concerns are.

https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/A-guide-to-your-rights-Plain-English-Version/r/858.htm
'When you give your personal details to an organisation or individual, they have a duty to keep these details private and safe. This process is known as data protection. We refer to organisations or individuals who control the contents and use of your personal details as 'data controllers'.'

Individuals are also subject to the data protection act. This person who asked the question is not storing the data for their personal use, they are getting it in order to publish it in some way ie. make available to other parties, in order to secure a claim of defamation. This falls outside the realm of 'personal use'.

The subject of this thread is if the person can sue for defamation when the information has not been published, ie. recorded in some way and made available to the wider public and because it has not, they wish to secure proof by recording the person allegedly defaming them and then making this recording available to other people in order to sue therefore opening themselves up to a possible counter suit for invasion of privacy and/or breach of DP.

The person asked for advise and I provided my input with links to the relevant laws in this area.

Owryan

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

If you cared to read the rest of the article you will see it states:

'Depending on the surrounding circumstances, and the subsequent use to which the recording is put, however, the person recording the call may be in breach of data protection and/or privacy laws.'

The person concerned in this post wishes to sue someone for defamation using a possible recording they are going to make of them. The person of which the recording is made can make a counter claim for breach of data protection and their right to privacy.

I was pointing out that it is not illegal to record a conversation which you claimed it was. From reading the article I can record a conversation but depending on what I then do with it I might be in trouble.

Claw Hammer

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/A-guide-to-your-rights-Plain-English-Version/r/858.htm
'When you give your personal details to an organisation or individual, they have a duty to keep these details private and safe. This process is known as data protection. We refer to organisations or individuals who control the contents and use of your personal details as 'data controllers'.'

Individuals are also subject to the data protection act. This person who asked the question is not storing the data for their personal use, they are getting it in order to publish it in some way ie. make available to other parties, in order to secure a claim of defamation. This falls outside the realm of 'personal use'.

A person has a right to their good name. That is personal use. Suing for defamation is personal use. The tort is not made out unless the defamatory statement has been published. A defamatory statement made to the person defamed is not sufficient unless other people are within earshot and hear the defamatory statement.

SarahSTARRR

Owryan wrote: »

I was pointing out that it is not illegal to record a conversation which you claimed it was. From reading the article I can record a conversation but depending on what I then do with it I might be in trouble.

I am providing my input based on the facts of this persons post. They intend to use the recording for a purpose other than personal use hence why I said it would be illegal. This conversation has greatly deviated from the issue at the root of this post which was the issue that I was directly addressing, not the wider scope of phone recordings and breaches of personal rights.

Claw Hammer

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

I am providing my input based on the facts of this persons post. They intend to use the recording for a purpose other than personal use hence why I said it would be illegal. This conversation has greatly deviated from the issue at the root of this post which was the issue that I was directly addressing, not the wider scope of phone recordings and breaches of personal rights.

Suing for defamation is personal use. What else do they intend to do with this recording?

SarahSTARRR

Claw Hammer wrote: »

A person has a right to their good name. That is personal use. Suing for defamation is personal use. The tort is not made out unless the defamatory statement has been published. A defamatory statement made to the person defamed is not sufficient unless other people are within earshot and hear the defamatory statement.

You are forgetting the part where it must injure a persons reputation in the eyes of the reasonable person so simply having someone overhear the statement would not qualify one for a claim of defamation. They have to PROVE it has affected their life and reputation in some tangible way.

sexmag

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

You are forgetting the part where it must injure a persons reputation in the eyes of the reasonable person so simply having someone overhear the statement would not qualify one for a claim of defamation. They have to PROVE it has affected their life and reputation in some tangible way.

They have to PROVE it has could affect their life and reputation in some tangible way

fixed it

Owryan

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

I am providing my input based on the facts of this persons post. They intend to use the recording for a purpose other than personal use hence why I said it would be illegal. This conversation has greatly deviated from the issue at the root of this post which was the issue that I was directly addressing, not the wider scope of phone recordings and breaches of personal rights.

No, you came in, posted to an act that has been superceded and said recording a conversation was illegal. When others pointed out it wasn't you continued to state the same, even after it was shown that the act was amended.

The op wants to use the recording to prove defamation, which is, probably, fine under the legislation. But I'm not a legal head.

SarahSTARRR

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Suing for defamation is personal use. What else do they intend to do with this recording?

That wouldn't be classed as personal use though because it involves the sharing of the call with persons other than yourself.

GM228

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

The subject of this thread is if the person can sue for defamation when the information has not been published, ie. recorded in some way and made available to the wider public and because it has not, they wish to secure proof by recording the person allegedly defaming them and then making this recording available to other people in order to sue therefore opening themselves up to a possible counter suit for invasion of privacy and/or breach of DP.

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

That wouldn't be classed as personal use though because it involves the sharing of the call with persons other than yourself.

The rights and obligations afforded under DP do not apply in contemplation of or for the establishment, exercise or defence of, a legal claim, prospective legal claim, legal proceedings or prospective legal proceedings whether before a court, statutory tribunal, statutory body or an administrative or out-of-court procedure. Using a recording for a potential civil claim negates any breach of DP.

SarahSTARRR

GM228 wrote: »

The rights and obligations afforded under DP do not apply in contemplation of or for the establishment, exercise or defence of, a legal claim, prospective legal claim, legal proceedings or prospective legal proceedings whether before a court, statutory tribunal, statutory body or an administrative or out-of-court procedure. Using a recording for a potential civil claim negates any breach of DP.

Are we going to disregard the possible invasion of privacy claim too?

sexmag

GM228 wrote: »

The rights and obligations afforded under DP do not apply in contemplation of or for the establishment, exercise or defence of, a legal claim, prospective legal claim, legal proceedings or prospective legal proceedings whether before a court, statutory tribunal, statutory body or an administrative or out-of-court procedure. Using a recording for a potential civil claim negates any breach of DP.

As an example this is why the book of evidence is given to people accused of something by the prosecuters

Claw Hammer

SarahSTARRR wrote: »

That wouldn't be classed as personal use though because it involves the sharing of the call with persons other than yourself.

Of course it is personal use. Vindicating ones good name is the ultimate personal use of the recording. If someone says something actionable, they can't complain when that statement is repeated in proceedings.