That Court Case

UglyBolloxFace · 22-01-2012 09:52PM #1

Now that that Court Case involving Eoin McKeogh and his injunctions is over, can we discuss it now? I don't see why not, seeing as it's no longer an ongoing case.

Anyway, normally I wouldn't give a flying fuck about this type of thing (and I'm sure many of you would agree), but there is something really peculiar about this - if it wasn't him in the video, why did he go to such lengths to get it taken off the internet? Why not just go straight to the papers with his boarding pass (proof he was out of the country at the time) and show them that?

Edit
Just to clear some things up:
- The lad in the video (the fare dodger) and the lad who went to Court (McKeogh) are two different people. (a lot of people commenting here don't seem to realise that).
- The fare dodger is also called Eoin, and what caused the confusion in the first place was that someone who saw the video on Youtube commented that this fare dodger looked like McKeogh (which, admittedly, he does a little bit). However, this observation/accusation snowballed and it quickly spread across the Internet/Facebook that McKeogh was the dodger. - This is not the case; McKeogh is innocent, and is not the man in the video (the Judge cleared this one up, as did the taxi-man who said that McKeogh was not the one in his taxi that night).
- Apparently McKeogh began getting a ****load of abuse via Facebook etc and it is for this reason that he went to court. He has proof that he was out of the country at the time (Japan as part of his DCU studies), and this shows his innocence.

However, I'm still very, very confused as to why he wanted the video removed? Surely it's useful to have the video still there in order to help catch the fare dodger? (By the way, apparently the dodger has paid the taxi-man the fare). I don't understand why McKeogh went to the bother of all this court stuff with the intention of getting the video removed - it has taken on a Streisand Effect because of his actions. Would it not have made more sense to get Youtube to delete all comments mentioning his name but leave the video? I fully appreciate that everyone has the right to clear their name, of course. But he went about in the completely wrong way.

John Doe1 · 22-01-2012 09:56PM

He is gonna get the piss ripped out of him at DCU now. What was he thinking

UglyBolloxFace · 22-01-2012 09:57PM

John Doe1 wrote: »

He is gonna get the piss ripped out of him at DCU now. What was he thinking

I reckon he'll be fuppin' off to Japan.

later12 · 22-01-2012 09:59PM

There was no legal reason it couldn't have been discussed; there was no bloody jury, and no injunction had been ordered. A judge cannot be influenced like an non-sequestered jury can, and even then a ban on media discourse is dubious at best.

I know why some trials cannot be discussed but this hearing? seriously?

WindSock · 22-01-2012 10:00PM

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

Now that that Court Case involving Eoin McKeogh and his injunctions is over, can we discuss it now? I don't see why not, seeing as it's no longer an ongoing case.

Anyway, normally I wouldn't give a flying fuck about this type of thing (and I'm sure many of you would agree), but there is something really peculiar about this - if it wasn't him in the video, why did he go to such lengths to get it taken off the internet? Why not just go straight to the papers with his boarding pass (proof he was out of the country at the time) and show them that?

Papers prob wouldnt give a fk out of a non story. The way he has gone about it is far more effective in raising his profile to claim his innocence. Job done, tbh.

cocoshovel · 22-01-2012 10:00PM

Wasnt it proven it wasnt actually him? I just read that in another thread on here so I dunno.

doomsday · 22-01-2012 10:00PM

Somebody lock the thread, quickly.

UglyBolloxFace · 22-01-2012 10:01PM

later10 wrote: »

There was no legal reason it couldn't have been discussed; there was no bloody jury, and no injunction had been ordered. A judge cannot be influenced like an non-sequestered jury can, and even then a ban on media discourse is dubious at best.

So why is Boards being over-zealous with regard to suppressing talk of this case then? This is a genuine question.

Sindri · 22-01-2012 10:01PM

I heard he actually was the taxi driver!!!:eek:

Spook_ie · 22-01-2012 10:01PM

is there such a thing as an anti injunction we can take out against boards.ie for NOT allowing us to discuss the news?

IBL anyway

cocoshovel · 22-01-2012 10:02PM

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

So why is Boards being over-zealous with regard to suppressing talk of this case then? This is a genuine question.

I think its just a general boards rule not to allow discussion about ongoing court cases :rolleyes:

JONJO THE MISER · 22-01-2012 10:02PM

He was a idiot to take the case, it will cost him hundreds of thousands and i hope the taxpayer wont have to bail him out.

partyatmygaff · 22-01-2012 10:03PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

is there such a thing as an anti injunction we can take out against boards.ie for NOT allowing us to discuss the news?

IBL anyway

Careful now... Threatening or hinting at threatening boards.ie with legal action will get you permanently banned IIRC the rules correctly.

Sindri · 22-01-2012 10:07PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

is there such a thing as an anti injunction we can take out against boards.ie for NOT allowing us to discuss the news?

IBL anyway

Yeah that's the way to go.

You won't less us discuss an ongoing court case on your site on which one of the conditions for using your site is not to discuss ongoing court cases.

What's the precedent there?

Bastards.

Doc Ruby · 22-01-2012 10:08PM

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

He was a idiot to take the case, it will cost him hundreds of thousands and i hope the taxpayer wont have to bail him out.

The newspapers will bail him out when they pay costs.

later12 · 22-01-2012 10:08PM

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

So why is Boards being over-zealous with regard to suppressing talk of this case then? This is a genuine question.

I can only imagine it's a blanket policy to protect against any possible cases whereby a judge has ordered a media ban on certain trial coverage. But in cases where no such ban exists, there's really very little to support it. Or in this case, nothing, because there is no jury.

John Doe1 · 22-01-2012 10:08PM

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/01/20/it-wasnt-me/

apparently he was in japan at the time

UglyBolloxFace · 22-01-2012 10:08PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

is there such a thing as an anti injunction we can take out against boards.ie for NOT allowing us to discuss the news?

IBL anyway

Boards is a private company - they can ban the discussion of any topic they want. We agreed to this during registration - see the T&Cs.

murrayp4 · 22-01-2012 10:08PM

What a waste of time and money...

Spook_ie · 22-01-2012 10:09PM

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Careful now... Threatening or hinting at threatening boards.ie with legal action will get you permanently banned IIRC the rules correctly.

Not realy a threat or hint, just more in the usual keeping of AH banter, nothing is too serious to be ridiculed

Spook_ie · 22-01-2012 10:11PM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

The newspapers will bail him out when they pay costs.

Why would they pay costs if they didn't lose?

Doc Ruby · 22-01-2012 10:15PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why would they pay costs if they didn't lose?

I guess thats up to the judge to determine. Why are you so fixated on this case? The wrong guy got accused, a load of people on AH learned why mob justice doesn't work, the actual person that did the runner squared it with the driver and apologised?

ejmaztec · 22-01-2012 10:20PM

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

He was a idiot to take the case, it will cost him hundreds of thousands and i hope the taxpayer wont have to bail him out.

Who is this person? The poor bastard gets screwed for everything.

Spook_ie · 22-01-2012 10:24PM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I guess thats up to the judge to determine. Why are you so fixated on this case? The wrong guy got accused, a load of people on AH learned why mob justice doesn't work, the actual person that did the runner squared it with the driver and apologised?

Because I view the whole subject of injunctions to prevent your name being given out or to prevent you speaking to someone (such as a TD or legal representative ) to be of public interest.

See threads/news relating to other injuctions and tell me that injunctions against telling you that the paint used in water tanks is possibly toxic are in the publics interest

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8394566/Hyper-injunction-stops-you-talking-to-MP.html

Doc Ruby · 22-01-2012 10:27PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

Because I view the whole subject of injunctions to prevent your name being given out

Even if its being given out in connection to a crime you weren't even in the country to commit?

wtf

El Siglo · 22-01-2012 10:27PM

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

He was a idiot to take the case, it will cost him hundreds of thousands and i hope the taxpayer wont have to bail him out.

No he wasn't. This is Article 40.3.1 and Article 40.3.2 from Bunreacht na hÉireann:

3.1° 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.
3.2° 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.

This means that the State will and has to uphold every persons right to a 'good name' and character (we're all entitled to that). His rights were being infringed upon by the video and the subsequent media storm. So he was completely right to seek an injunction against the video. With a defamation statement, the statement is considered defamatory until proven otherwise, so it's up to the defendant to prove truth (i.e. that it was McKeogh in the video). It wasn't proven otherwise, so it's still defamatory. The costs for the case I expect will be paid by the defendants involved, I suppose in this case, any of the newspapers etc... that said it was McKeogh in the video.

Spook_ie · 22-01-2012 10:31PM

El Siglo wrote: »

No he wasn't. This is Article 40.3.1 and Article 40.3.2 from Bunreacht na hÉireann:

This means that the State will and has to uphold every persons right to a 'good name' and character (we're all entitled to that). His rights were being infringed upon by the video and the subsequent media storm. So he was completely right to seek an injunction against the video. With a defamation statement, the statement is considered defamatory until proven otherwise, so it's up to the defendant to prove truth (i.e. that it was McKeogh in the video). It wasn't proven otherwise, so it's still defamatory. The costs for the case I expect will be paid by the defendants involved, I suppose in this case, any of the newspapers etc... that said it was McKeogh in the video.

No his rights weren't being infringed by the video because he wasn't in the video, however in this case his rights were infringed by whomever put his name to the video, succintly different, and AFAIA none of the newspapers reported inaccurately on the court proceedings

jetsonx · 22-01-2012 10:33PM

There is no way I would employ him.

He could end up being a very troublesome employee if he seeks
legal advice at the drop of a hat over something very small.

El Siglo · 22-01-2012 10:39PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

No his rights weren't being infringed by the video because he wasn't in the video, however in this case his rights were infringed by whomever put his name to the video, succintly different, and AFAIA none of the newspapers reported inaccurately on the court proceedings

A defamatory statement need not necessarily name anyone. It may suggest a person or persons by - for example - their profession, location or connections. The fact that there was an 'Eoin' in the video and he was connected to it, makes it a defamatory statement against McKeogh.

Spook_ie · 22-01-2012 10:46PM

El Siglo wrote: »

A defamatory statement need not necessarily name anyone. It may suggest a person or persons by - for example - their profession, location or connections. The fact that there was an 'Eoin' in the video and he was connected to it, makes it a defamatory statement against McKeogh.

So everytime someone says "bloody TD's don't know their arse from their elbows" your defaming them.... don't think so and as stated the video wasn't defammatory until someone linked him ( wrongly ) to it, so surely the linking is the defamation not the video?

El Siglo · 22-01-2012 10:50PM

Spook_ie wrote: »

So everytime someone says "bloody TD's don't know their arse from their elbows" your defaming them.... don't think so and as stated the video wasn't defammatory until someone linked him ( wrongly ) to it, so surely the linking is the defamation not the video?

Well if it's as you say; "bloody TD's don't know their arse from their elbows" then you can apply for fair comment. In that the statement was on a matter of public interest, the statement was a comment, rather than a fact and the comment was fair, in that the belief was honestly held. And I've stated why the video was defamatory to the chap in question. This isn't unprecedented in Irish law and he's well within his rights to seek damages.

That Court Case

Comments