Ana Kriegel - Boys A & B found guilty [Mod: Do NOT post identifying information]

McCrack wrote: »

She did society a service in this case exposing these two.

Not quite. She posted up pictures of a lad who has the same name as boy a. He’s NOT boy a and had nothing to do with this case but this dope took the law into her own hands and posted up this other kids name and picture.

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Not quite. She posted up pictures of a lad who has the same name as boy a. He’s NOT boy a and had nothing to do with this case but this dope took the law into her own hands and posted up this other kids name and picture.

Is that the photo though that she circulated.

There was another photo A and B (A in white Nike top and B in black adidas top).

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Not quite. She posted up pictures of a lad who has the same name as boy a. He’s NOT boy a and had nothing to do with this case but this dope took the law into her own hands and posted up this other kids name and picture.

I don't think her post was the one with the wrong boy identified.
https://waterford-news.ie/2020/10/22/waterford-woman-charged-with-identifying-boys-in-kriegel-case/

The image allegedly posted by Ms Ryan was one that appeared on a number of platforms and was a cropped photo with other youths, whose faces were scribbled over. The two boys were highlighted with red circles and the letters ‘A’ and ‘B’ identifying them.

Still was a daft thing to do.

suicide_circus wrote: »

If she posted a photo of a random lad who was no Boy A, what offence did she commit?

If she had claimed the wrong boy to be a murderer and incited hatred towards him, I would guess she broke a few laws.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Seriously? You're implying that she can post a random picture of a 14 year old kid, say it's one ot he Kriegel killers and NOT face any consequences for it?

Of course not - ever heard of defamation?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Seriously? You're implying that she can post a random picture of a 14 year old kid, say it's one ot he Kriegel killers and NOT face any consequences for it?

So she is being charged with defamation of this random kid rather than breaking a court order not to identify Boys A/B? Or does even incorrectly identifying Boy A/B count as breaking the court order?

suicide_circus wrote: »

So she is being charged with defamation of this random kid rather than breaking a court order not to identify Boys A/B? Or does even incorrectly identifying Boy A/B count as breaking the court order?

Depends on whether she's right ot not.

If the boy is indeed boy a or boy b, then she's guilty of breaking a court order.
If the boy is "a random lad" as you put it and NOT one of them, then she's guilty of defamation - which is most certainly an offense, to answer your initial question.

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Is she posted the wrong boy, what's she charged with?

I do think those evil killers should be named and shamed

Read my reply at 18:13. Two lads in the same year with the same name. She had the right name, wrong photo

SPDUB wrote: »

Defamation is not a criminal offence though so a criminal court wouldn't have jurisdiction over it

Still an offense.

Heres Johnny wrote: »

Just a question on this court order.... If I lived in another country and ran a website or even had a social media account and I named them, what would happen?
Or if I was Irish and I had a Web domain from a.
. Co.UK for example.

Always surprised me they were never publicly named where the Irish Court order didn't reach, which is the rest of the world to be honest.

Technically, you'd still be in breach and an arrest warrant issued. How that would be served I don't know as I suspect it's not a serious enough offense to entrail extradition. Open to correction on that one. You certainly wouldn't be able to visit/return to Ireland for a while if your passport was to be scanned upon arrival.

FishOnABike wrote: »

I think defamation would be a civil matter rather than an offense. The state has no role in prosecuting a civil matter.

You are 100% right in that defamation is a civil matter and is not prosecuted by the state.

That said, constitutionally at least given article 40.3 of the Constitution.
It is a matter between 2 parties, with state involvement limited to the judiciary.
An academic argument could be made that the state is in theory responsible for vindicating the defamed.

1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.

Now no article of the constitution should ever be read in isolation
But there is theoretically at least, grounds for the state to take such action.
That said, of course it must be remembered that any such action taken would of course still be civil.

Fair point, but still on offense against another person, even if not against the State.

My stance being: it's not something that can be done without without consequences.