Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Gerald Kean wins 160K in defamation case against Irish Daily Star

Options
  • 17-05-2019 5:26pm
    #1
    coylemj
    Registered Users Posts: 25,331 ✭✭✭✭


    The fact that the Star deemed it appropriate to mention that he had a past conviction for drink driving in the middle of an article about a CAB raid on his office probably didn't much bolster their defence of 'public interest'. It certainly would have swung my sympathy in his direction had I been on the jury.

    As soon as a newspaper finds an excuse to print an article about somebody vaguely famous (e.g. his son was suspended from a fee paying school), they consider it ok to dredge up their every past misdeameanour for public entertainment. I know Kean can't just claim a right to privacy when it suits him, given the media profile the guy has cultivated for himself but I think the Star had no excuse to lob in that grenade.

    If newspapers want the law of defemation changed, they need to clean up ther own act first.

    Gerald Kean awarded €160k in defamation case


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    I'm not sure if we are aiming for legal discussion or a gripe at the newspapers?


  • Options
    #3
    coylemj
    Registered Users Posts: 25,331 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    GM228 wrote: »
    I'm not sure if we are aiming for legal discussion or a gripe at the newspapers?

    The reference to the plaintiff's previous conviction for drink driving undermined the defendant's plea of 'public interest' as it tended to show that the motive for the article was purely to damage the plaintiff's reputation.

    Discuss.

    Before anyone replies: 'but everything in the article was true, therefore they had the defence of truth'. To which I say: then why did the judge let the issue go to the jury?


  • Options
    #4
    McCrack
    Registered Users Posts: 2,968 ✭✭✭McCrack


    The award will be shredded on appeal


  • Options
    #5
    garhjw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,424 ✭✭✭garhjw


    McCrack wrote: »
    The award will be shredded on appeal

    Why do you say that? I don’t care either way but the jury made a decision.


  • Options
    #6
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    coylemj wrote: »
    The reference to the plaintiff's previous conviction for drink driving undermined the defendant's plea of 'public interest' as it tended to show that the motive for the article was purely to damage the plaintiff's reputation.

    Discuss.

    Before anyone replies: 'but everything in the article was true, therefore they had the defence of truth'. To which I say: then why did the judge let the issue go to the jury?

    I'm not seeing anything to suggest any reference to his previous conviction undermined the plea, nor that that point was put before the jury, it's not even mentioned in any reporting of the case that I can see.

    Are you suggesting that that is what pptentially underminedthe plea or are you suggesting a discussion on hypotheticals?

    I really doubt that would be a deciding issue for a jury.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Credit Checker Moose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,226 ✭✭✭Credit Checker Moose


    Jury awards are always adjusted on appeal usually downwards significantly.

    It is my opinion that lay people have no business deciding financial compensation.


  • Options
    #8
    McCrack
    Registered Users Posts: 2,968 ✭✭✭McCrack


    garhjw wrote: »
    Why do you say that? I don’t care either way but the jury made a decision.

    That's the point and it's way off


  • Options
    #9
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    coylemj wrote: »
    The fact that the Star deemed it appropriate to mention that he had a past conviction for drink driving in the middle of an article about a CAB raid on his office probably didn't much bolster their defence of 'public interest'. It certainly would have swung my sympathy in his direction had I been on the jury.

    As soon as a newspaper finds an excuse to print an article about somebody vaguely famous (e.g. his son was suspended from a fee paying school), they consider it ok to dredge up their every past misdeameanour for public entertainment. I know Kean can't just claim a right to privacy when it suits him, given the media profile the guy has cultivated for himself but I think the Star had no excuse to lob in that grenade.

    If newspapers want the law of defemation changed, they need to clean up ther own act first.

    Gerald Kean awarded €160k in defamation case


    I'm glad to find out that Mr Kean had Kinehan gang member as a client, I dont like him.

    I remember Ger Colleran going through Kean for being a drink driver on ( i think Vincent Browne show) a few years ago.
    I'd say theres just bad blood between the paper and Kean


  • Options
    #10
    nuac
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,769 Mod ✭✭✭✭nuac


    Mod
    Closed for Mods' review


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement