Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Can someone explain this to me RE: Taxi fare dodge case

  • 23-01-2012 07:50PM
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,482 ✭✭✭


    From this article:

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0122/mckeoghe.html
    A student has lost his case against six newspapers in a bid to block them naming him in connection with a defamatory video.

    Eoin McKeogh, a student at Dublin City University, says he was not in the country at the time of an allegedly criminal incident which surfaced in a video on the internet.

    Today, High Court Judge Michael Peart said the right to have justice administered in public far exceeded the right to privacy other than in exceptional cases and this was not an exceptional case.

    He said it was counterintuitive that someone would try to vindicate his good name anonymously.

    Mr Justice Michael Peart said the court did not have a magic wand and the damage was done. He said the genie was out of the bottle.

    The video showed a group of people refusing to pay a taxi fare late at night. Mr McKeogh was wrongly identified online as being in the taxi car.

    Today, Mr Justice Michael Peart also said he was completely satisfied by a perusal of Mr McKeogh's passport that he was in Japan at the time the video was made and could not have been depicted in it.

    Mr McKeogh's lawyer Pauline Walley also told the court that the taxi driver had come before the court in an earlier hearing and said Mr McKeogh was not in the car.

    Eoin McKeogh has already secured temporary injunctions preventing named internet sites, including Facebook and Google, from broadcasting the allegedly defamatory video.

    That case will return to the High Court on Friday.

    All the newspapers have applied for costs in the case as has Mr McKeogh's own lawyer.

    Mr Justice Michael Peart adjourned the question of costs until 10 February.

    So the papers, judge, taxi driver all acknowledge that Eoin McKeogh is not the fare dodger yet the papers are allowed to name him? WTF?? This kid has every right to have his name kept out of this yet may have to pay legal fee's for the newspapers? Whats going on here?


«134

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,171 ✭✭✭triple-M


    This article wouldnt happen to be related to the video which was posted here recently of a fare runner in monkstown?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwcK6gCnonA


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,892 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    From this article:

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0122/mckeoghe.html



    So the papers, judge, taxi driver all acknowledge that Eoin McKeogh is not the fare dodger yet the papers are allowed to name him? WTF?? This kid has every right to have his name kept out of this yet may have to pay legal fee's for the newspapers? Whats going on here?


    They named him as the plaintif in a courtcase, many people get named in court cases, even criminal ones where they get found innocent people are often named


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,389 ✭✭✭FTGFOP


    What I don't get is why he hasn't sued for defamation.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,572 ✭✭✭msg11


    FTGFOP wrote: »
    What I don't get is why he hasn't sued for defamation.

    Maybe he will, but did the papers not say that he was innocent and a reporting on the court case as opposed to the taxi fare runner?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,233 ✭✭✭robman60


    FTGFOP wrote: »
    What I don't get is why he hasn't sued for defamation.
    He hasn't been defamed in the legal sense of the word. He has just been named as a plaintiff in a case. Many people are named when a case is in progress, this does not mean he is guilty.

    I do, however, think it's unfortunate that he's being named in this case, as it's obviously defaming him within his local community.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭44leto


    FTGFOP wrote: »
    What I don't get is why he hasn't sued for defamation.

    Its early days, but if he does he invites scrutiny.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 586 ✭✭✭Mickey Dazzler


    if he hasn't done anything why are they trying to name him?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,572 ✭✭✭msg11


    if he hasn't done anything why are they trying to name him?

    It's clear now it wasn't him, the papers are reporting on him trying to get an injunction against some of the papers etc.. To be honest, I dunno what is better saying nothing or trying to get an injunction and then the papers reporting his innocence, six figure sums are a pretty heavy price.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,137 ✭✭✭44leto


    msg11 wrote: »
    It's clear now it wasn't him, the papers are reporting on him trying to get an injunction against some of the papers etc.. To be honest, I dunno what is better saying nothing or trying to get an injunction and then the papers reporting his innocence, six figure sums are a pretty heavy price.

    Most of the population of Ireland would have absolutely no choice, the courts are closed to the average Joe, most us could not afford to get or attempt to get an injunction.

    If it did happen to me, my only recourse would be to go to the papers and prove it wasn't me and then hope they print the story.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    if he hasn't done anything why are they trying to name him?

    Because he tried to gag them.

    What he should have done was sue youtube for defamation for linking him as the fare dodger via the comments. Unfortunately he decided to have the video removed from google, youtube and facebook amongst others. I have no idea why how he managed this. If it wasn't him in the video then he should not have been able to have it removed as he had no link to it. If someone can get this done here there's no need for any kind of SOPA Act to be passed.

    When the newspapers reported on his injunction against the internet he then tried to have them gagged too. Unfortunately, the constitution states that courts should be held in public and the judge found that his case did not require privacy as his name was already released.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 483 ✭✭baltimore sun


    I don't see why he wanted an injunction in the first place. He had proof that he wasn't in the country at the time the video was taken. Also the real kid who dodged it has admitted his guilt. The bad thing is that the first guy has to pay a load of legal fees now, if I were him I'd try and sue the bejaysus outta the dude that was actually guilty of it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 241 ✭✭muppet01


    If he was in Japan why was he bothered in the first place?
    Who named him in the you tube video?
    Why the injunction, hes not john Terry...The country wouldnt have a clue who he was until he instigated the proceedings!
    Methinks theres more to this...................CONSPIRACY THEORY:D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,623 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    I still don't think that he should have gone down the route of seeking injunctions. That was bound to end badly. The papers should definitely be forced to withdraw and apologise for what they said though. And they should be the ones paying the legal fees.. if not paying out big money to the guy at the same time.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,066 ✭✭✭✭Big Nasty


    MagicSean wrote: »
    Because he tried to gag them.

    What he should have done was sue youtube for defamation for linking him as the fare dodger via the comments. Unfortunately he decided to have the video removed from google, youtube and facebook amongst others. I have no idea why how he managed this. If it wasn't him in the video then he should not have been able to have it removed as he had no link to it. If someone can get this done here there's no need for any kind of SOPA Act to be passed.

    When the newspapers reported on his injunction against the internet he then tried to have them gagged too. Unfortunately, the constitution states that courts should be held in public and the judge found that his case did not require privacy as his name was already released.

    I'm only guessing here but I reckon youtube have themselves protectd up to the hilt in relation to what users post.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 182 ✭✭eiresandra


    I still don't think that he should have gone down the route of seeking injunctions. That was bound to end badly. The papers should definitely be forced to withdraw and apologise for what they said though. And they should be the ones paying the legal fees.. if not paying out big money to the guy at the same time.

    The papers didn't say anything. They just reported on the case that he brought to the High Court. No order was given by the judge that he shouldnt be named.

    I feel sorry for this guy getting falsely implicated in the first place, but all of these court cases are a joke. It was a two day wonder on the Internet, and forgotten about. Most people who watched the video wouldn't have heard the name, but now everyone knows about it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,698 ✭✭✭tricky D


    From this article:

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0122/mckeoghe.html



    So the papers, judge, taxi driver all acknowledge that Eoin McKeogh is not the fare dodger yet the papers are allowed to name him? WTF?? This kid has every right to have his name kept out of this yet may have to pay legal fee's for the newspapers? Whats going on here?
    From another RTE article: http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0122/mckeoghe.html
    He said it was counterintuitive that someone would try to vindicate his good name anonymously.
    That's why his name stays in the public arena and so that the taxi driver's statement that Mr McKoegh is not the party in the video can be applied.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,623 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    eiresandra wrote: »
    The papers didn't say anything. They just reported on the case that he brought to the High Court. No order was given by the judge that he shouldnt be named.

    I feel sorry for this guy getting falsely implicated in the first place, but all of these court cases are a joke. It was a two day wonder on the Internet, and forgotten about. Most people who watched the video wouldn't have heard the name, but now everyone knows about it.

    Could it be argued that their reporting of the case may have led people to infer that he was to be presumed guilty? You say yourself that it was a nothing story, and would have been forgotten about in days. How can an injunction against something so unimportant lead to such a shitstorm?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 182 ✭✭eiresandra


    Could it be argued that their reporting of the case may have led people to infer that he was to be presumed guilty?

    I certainly didn't infer that from any of the coverage in the papers - particularly as he had produced his passport showing he was in Japan, and the taxi man appeared in court saying it wasn't him. The difficulty in this case was social and online media - those who published the video, and those who discussed it.
    How can an injunction against something so unimportant lead to such a shitstorm?

    That's my point! I think this guy got bad advice. It's certainly not a great outcome, but I don't think you can blame the papers.


  • Posts: 2,352 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    robman60 wrote: »
    I do, however, think it's unfortunate that he's being named in this case, as it's obviously defaming him within his local community.

    It obviously isn't.

    He took a case. The papers reported that he took a case. Therefore the papers reported the truth. You can't defame someone by publishing something true about them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,389 ✭✭✭FTGFOP


    msg11 wrote: »
    Maybe he will, but did the papers not say that he was innocent and a reporting on the court case as opposed to the taxi fare runner?

    Haven't a clue! Thoroughly confused.

    Do I have this right?
    1. Video of alleged fare-dodging surfaces online.
    2. This guy gets falsely identified and taunted by the masses on Facebook and Twitter.
    3. Newspapers reports on the online phenomenon, and on him getting videos pulled.
    4. He seeks and fails to get an injuction on the reporting of the above.

    Is there more to this story? Are there other cases going on in relation to the original incident?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,766 ✭✭✭pawrick


    had seen the video and when it came out and forgotten it 5 minutes later until he made all the fuss about the injunction. If he hadn't done that I doubt anyone would know who he is now...should have just got the comment removed on the quiet or ignored it as he could prove it wasn't him. All that said - in a week I won't remember his name as it means nothing to me.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 245 ✭✭Think_then_talk


    The taxi driver (fergal34) posted the video looking for help in identifying a person who failed to pay the fare, the taxi driver found items in his taxi belonging to one of those passenger's in the back (ID card's ect,) & handed same to Garda. Now when asked by Garda
    (Q.)Who was the person in the front seat ?...
    (A.) aah Who!!!.
    So it was posted on the video site..
    Those that discussed this on other websites were naming people, one named this lad who was in Japan at the time of the crime & posting on that person's web page began,
    Within a matter of minutes this lad put a photo up on (the site) showing his boarding pass to prove he was not the person in the video.But it was to late the lad had been wrongfully accused, & it snowballed.
    I now understand why it was removed from this site before it got out of hand.:).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,053 ✭✭✭wilkie2006


    44leto wrote: »
    Its early days, but if he does he invites scrutiny.

    What do mean? The judge has said he's satisfied the young guy was in Japan when the fare dodge happened. What type of scrutiny would he be inviting if he sued for defamation? Scrutiny of his holiday pics?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 33 The Lorax


    He's come out of this looking like a right tool. Huge fuss & press over nothing; and it's him that ended up looking the worst.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Motorist


    wilkie2006 wrote: »
    What do mean? The judge has said he's satisfied the young guy was in Japan when the fare dodge happened. What type of scrutiny would he be inviting if he sued for defamation? Scrutiny of his holiday pics?

    Taking a defammation case is not very straightforward. It's like playing Russian roulette. Even what seems to be an open and shut case can result in a loss. If you can't afford to pay the legal costs you end up in a situation facing bankruptcy.

    Cases can be lost on a bizarre jury decision or some legal technicality. Even if you win, often the person who has defamed you can not pay the costs. You simply end up being one of their creditors.

    Most people who have been defamed never sue - the risk is too great. If you notice, it is generally only extremely wealthy people who sue - they can bear the huge cost if the jury or some technicality goes against them.

    Going back to this case with Eoin McKeogh owing the cost of a small mortgage because of an attempt at an injuction, I wonder does he have the finance behind him to now attempt a risky defamation also?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,449 ✭✭✭deandean


    The original fare dodger must be DELOIRA!

    There hasn't been word about who he is.

    Or has there....


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Motorist


    deandean wrote: »
    The original fare dodger must be DELOIRA!

    There hasn't been word about who he is.

    Or has there....

    His name has been published in the mail on Sunday. He said he has paid his €50 fare and apologised to the taxi driver.

    I hear (not very reliably) that he is going to Australia.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 33 The Lorax


    deandean wrote: »
    There hasn't been word about who he is.

    Or has there....

    Can't say I've heard of him; probably because he wasn't dumb enough to try an injunction on the press, lol.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 810 ✭✭✭Laisurg


    Irish media, what do you expect? Even our broadsheets are starting to look like tabloids now.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,770 ✭✭✭Jen Pigs Fly


    omg I went to school with him!! :eek:

    Literally from 1st year - 6th year, he was always quite opinionated, but was never a troublemaker. Don't believe it! Had to see the picture of believe!


Advertisement
Advertisement