That Court Case

UglyBolloxFace

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

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

UglyBolloxFace

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

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

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

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

doomsday

Somebody lock the thread, quickly.

UglyBolloxFace

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

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

Spook_ie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

apparently he was in japan at the time

UglyBolloxFace

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

What a waste of time and money...

Spook_ie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

markpb

jetsonx wrote: »

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

I suspect your definition of 'something very small' would be very different if you ended up in his shoes, if your name was in the papers and if your friends thought you were a thief.

Spook_ie

El Siglo wrote: »

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.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on if the video or the linking of him to the video is the defamation

later12

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.

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.

lemme

John Doe1 wrote: »

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

apparently he was in japan at the time

The plot thickens, that's Fago from after hours :pac:

fryup

IBL whats that then???

dirtyden

fryup wrote: »

IBL whats that then???

Yes what is that?

Thanks in advance

Doc Ruby

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.

TheZohanS

fryup wrote: »

IBL whats that then???

dirtyden wrote: »

Yes what is that?

Thanks in advance

I Beat Leprosy.

There was a big outbreak a few weeks ago.

freeze4real

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 ?

Biggins

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.

DeVore

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.

DeVore

PS: Eoin Keogh was found completely innocent. He had nothing to do with it and wasnt even in the country at the time.

I'm very glad we take the stance we do on unsupported and uncorroborated defamation. Its not big and its not clever. And its *also* against the law.

DeV.

DeVore

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.

oppenheimer1

DeVore wrote: »

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.

Those relate to jury courts and a breach of the in camera rules.

Of course you can discuss court proceedings: Thats the whole point of justice in public.

A case heard by a judge is meant to be above influence of the media as was the case in this instance anyway.


The only reason why b.ie didn't allow discussion of the case was because it didn't want to become party to the case as a media outlet. That is fair enough, but at least be honest about your reasons.

drkpower

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.

Doc Ruby

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Thats the whole point of justice in public.

And what a success that's been in After Hours.

JustAddWater

Doc Ruby wrote: »

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.

?? Newspapers are seeking costs!!! That's one whopper of a student loan

later12

DeVore wrote: »

Know something before you all open your gobs.

DeV.

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.

Potential-Monke

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

oppenheimer1

Doc Ruby wrote: »

And what a success that's been in After Hours.

No that was justice administered by AH, not reporting on it.

People have no right to condemn a man, only courts do. People do, for the most part, have the right to discuss court cases as long as it doesn't interfere with the administration of justice.