That Court Case

IBL whats that then???

later10 wrote: »

Leaving aside the fact that I'm not sure why you're bringing the constitutional provision for unjust attack into the matter in this particular case, you don't seem to recognize that there is a significant difference between seeking a judgement against a media outlet for breach of an injunction order and suing for defamation.

Eoin McKeogh is not the man in the video; this has already been established and reported on in the media. This hearing was not a defamation trial. It was an application for a judgement against the media for having disobeyed an injunction on the grounds of having named Eoin McKeogh in connection with the trial, or as the man who sought the media injunction.

The court held that the injunction was not in itself an order against naming the individual who had it sought.

McKeogh is quite correct to feel annoyed and horrified at what has befallen him in the past two months, and I feel nothing but pity for his situation. But some of the conclusions you are drawing in this thread just don't stand up or are irrelevant to the case.

Christ almighty are we forgetting what happened the last time the court of AH convened? The biggest fail since the Hindenburg.

Off to Biggins' tit thread laddies, more fit for ye.

apparently daily mail has printed a story out.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090070/Eoin-McKeogh-falsely-branded-thief-worlds-biggest-websites.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

An innocent student who had his name blackened on the internet has comprehensively cleared his name – thanks to the Irish Mail on Sunday.
Dublin student Eoin McKeogh, accused of dodging a €50 taxi fare, has laid bare how the internet can destroy a blameless person's reputation in seconds and put people in the horrifying position of either leaving vile allegations in the public domain or pursuing a difficult and costly legal battle through the courts that will attract more attention from the media.
The entire episode has proven how social media such as Facebook and Twitter constitute something of a Wild West when it comes to laws of defamation, where anonymous users can accuse innocent people of crimes without any proof, in a spiralling nightmare of libel and slander.
Mr McKeogh's ordeal began in December when a taxi driver posted a video taken inside his cab on YouTube of a young man running from his taxi without paying the fare.
The video – dated November 13 – clearly shows the man's face and a friend can be heard calling him 'Eoin'.
Within hours, the video had spread to Facebook, Twitter and other internet forums. One anonymous viewer commented on YouTube – wrongly – that the culprit was Eoin McKeogh.
Soon, his name spread across the internet and social media sites and people began sending vitriolic messages to Mr McKeogh's Facebook page calling him a 'scumbag', a 'thief' and worse.
In January, he went to the gardaí twice to see what could be done, before taking legal advice.
The matter came before the courts for the first time on January 10. During that hearing, Mr McKeogh provided the judge with his passport, which showed he had entered Japan on November 11 and left the Far East on November 22.
The video was filmed on November 13, while Mr McKeogh was studying in Japan.
'I was not and could not have been the person in the video,' he said in his affidavit to the court, where he is seeking an injunction to have the video permanently removed from the web.
Since the case was reported and he was named in certain newspapers, he is now also seeking an injunction to stop them naming him again.
His senior counsel, Pauline Whalley, told the court that on January 13, the taxi driver appeared in court and gave evidence that the taxi fare evader was not Eoin McKeogh and that he didn't even look like the culprit.
The driver apologised to Mr McKeogh for the trouble the video had caused, saying it was a 'terrible thing' to happen to him. 'He shook my hand and apologised,' said Mr McKeogh in his affidavit.
The High Court granted him a temporary injunction on Tuesday against Facebook, YouTube, Yahoo and Google from hosting the video online for a week.
A subsequent full hearing into his effort to gain injunctions against six newspapers began yesterday but was adjourned last night until today.
Mr McKeogh said he thought his nightmare was over but that he was still being accused online following court reports of the case.
'I was shocked to see all the postings [on the internet]. They all presumed I was guilty… and attempting to gag the media. I also had a fake Facebook page created.'
In a desperate attempt to clear his name, he even replied to tormentors online, sending them a photograph of himself and his boarding pass from his flight from Tokyo with his travel dates clearly visible.
One website, Broadsheet.ie, reproduced the photograph and a link to the video and told readers: 'You decide.'
According to his legal team, internet commentators continued to accuse Mr McKeogh and posted: 'Why the f*** do injunctions exist? I hope the f*** it blights his career.'
Yesterday afternoon in Court 45, Mr McKeogh asked for an injunction against several newspapers to stop them from printing his name in relation to the case and the video.
Barrister Miss Whalley was critical of the media for not reporting his innocence in the stories and argued against newspapers naming him again due to the public perception that there is no smoke without fire.
She said: 'People believe on a massive scale that he's guilty.'
In response, Mr Justice Michael Peart said: 'The smoke will remain thick – perhaps diluted, as it could not be and was not him.'
Mr Justice Peart said he would consider his decision overnight and make a ruling today at 2.30pm.
Despite offering incontrovertible proof in court that it wasn't him and successfully getting an injunction against YouTube showing the video, the footage was back on the website last night with users identifying him as the culprit, calling him a 'scumbag' and other highly derogatory comments.
The 22-year-old told the packed court yesterday how malicious allegations has ruined his life and could irreversibly damage his promising academic prospects.
Following the successful injunction, 95 per cent of the material posted online about Mr McKeogh was removed.
However, the following day, media organisations reported the court case and according to Miss Whalley 'it went viral again' with people 'saying he was guilty, he can pay high wages of lawyers but not a taxi fare.'
She said her client was not a Seán Quinn or a Seán FitzPatrick but 'an ordinary kid going through college and getting on with his life.
'With a few key strokes, you can destroy a person's reputation,' the barrister said.
Judge Peart described it as 'strange' that newspaper did not include the proof of his innocence in their reports.


should he sue for defamation ?

You realise its not our freakin' choice to ban the discussion of progressing court cases, its THE F*CKING LAW

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0430/1224295760685.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0226/1224290927003.html

etc etc et f*cking c:



Know something before you all open your gobs.

DeV.

Oh and one more thing.... Megalols at the Daily Mail lecturing anyone about blackening someone's name in error....

They rushed out a prewritten piece that Amanda Knox was guilty of murder when in fact she was found not-guilty and was released... (complete with tear jerking quotes from her parents... who obviously never said anything of the kind)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/amanda-knox-initially-declared-guilty-by-daily-mail-the-sun/2011/10/04/gIQAXtrlKL_blog.html


The ironing is delish...

DeV.

DeVore wrote: »

You realise its not our freakin' choice to ban the discussion of progressing court cases, its THE F*CKING LAW

Oppenheimer is right.

The key (for sub judice) is whether publication causes a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question may be seriously impeded or prejudiced. Judges have tended to find that thiy cannot be influenced in such a way as to cause such prejudice.

Therefore judge-heard cases, like this one, are not affected by sub judice in the way jury criminal cases are.

He's going to make a savage amount of money in libel claims. Will set him up nicely in Japan.

Biggins wrote: »

The REAL chap owned up anyway and admitted who it was.
I won't print his name here. I see its available elsewhere here thru a link.

I would suggest NOT printing it here just to be on the safe legal side.

Was the guilty guy the owner of the phone number from the video? Was it the same guy selling the Honda Integra who lived in Monkstown and whose ad on donedeal contained a picture of his car, his reg and some of the houses in his estate? The same guy whose name used the Irish version of "Eoin" with a "gh"? If so, the media have done a terrible jobe here because after watching the video, I was able to dig up lots of personably identifiable info from a single google search of that phone number. ONE google search.

later10 wrote: »

No Dev, those deal with in camera reporting, or reporting on facts which a judge has otherwise made orders to be with-held.

It does not apply to all court cases. These would be quite exceptional.

We (Boards) are thoroughly in favour of discussion... its kind of "our thing" no?

But we cant expect a moderator to be able to cut finely through the legalese of when a court case is "in camera" or not. They have to make quick fast decisions and quite frankly I wouldnt be comfortable asking anyone to do that. Nor would they be comfortable being part of that process.

But it doesnt matter if they made every decision correctly, we can still be dragged into court and sued. We might win but we'll be broke. So we lose anyway.

I dont think putting ourselves in a Lose-Lose situation is a good plan and while you all might QQ that we dont let you talk about one or two things, you should be happy that we take a huge risk letting you talk about stuff AT ALL.

Ask yerselves this... why isnt there a Ryanair-Boards or an Eircom-Boards? Is it because Mr O'Leary figures he has enough money? That he doesnt want to be rude and compete with us??

Or is it because his lawyers have told him "keep the f*ck away from that mate, its a minefield".


But no.... *we're* the bad guys. :rolleyes:

DeV.

mcmoustache wrote: »

I was able to dig up lots of personably identifiable info from a single google search of that phone number.

And don't you feel like a boob.

Will you pay my legal bill??


You are very brave on my behalf. Go complain to your TD... I've been fighting to have that law changed for a decade.

DeV.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

And don't you feel like a boob.

Not sure what you mean there.

For the record, I assumed that Injunction Guy was the fare dodger. Thanks to the injunction, there wasn't much to go on. That's the nature of injunctions.

When I did some digging, I pointed out that the phone number was the key to the identity of the real culprit and that's where I left things.