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

Kidchameleon

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?

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

Spook_ie

Kidchameleon wrote: »

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

FTGFOP

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

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?

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.

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.

Mickey Dazzler

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

msg11

Mickey Dazzler wrote: »

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.

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.

MagicSean

Mickey Dazzler wrote: »

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

eiresandra

My name is URL wrote: »

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.

tricky D

Kidchameleon wrote: »

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.

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?

eiresandra

My name is URL wrote: »

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.

My name is URL wrote: »

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.

robman60

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.

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?

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.

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.:).

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?

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.

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?

deandean

The original fare dodger must be DELOIRA!

There hasn't been word about who he is.

Or has there....

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.

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.

Laisurg

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

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!

Motorist

xxxJennyxxx wrote: »

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!

From the comments I saw he put up on youtube a few weeks ago when this was heating up, he seemed like a pretty decent guy who was just panicking that so many people were sending him abuse.

LighterGuy

I'm a bit slow

So let me get this straight, this Eoin McKeogh was not the guy in that famous taxi fare dodging video that was posted on here?

but he was accused of being?

randylonghorn

Think_then_talk wrote: »

I now understand why it was removed from this site before it got out of hand.:).

All the mods have humongous balls, but in reality, it's more to do with having seen this kind of thing before.

Though this was an extreme example.

xxxJennyxxx wrote: »

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!

Which of them?

randylonghorn

LighterGuy wrote: »

I'm a bit slow

So let me get this straight, this Eoin McKeogh was not the guy in that famous taxi fare dodging video that was posted on here?

but he was accused of being?

No, he wasn't, and yes, he was.

And you see that's part of the problem ... even though the guy is innocent, it's his name that will end up associated with it. And will pop up on Google searches when he goes for a job in the future (and yes, that's becoming very common). And while if someone says "who was that guy again?", no-one will remember in 3 months, if someone mentions his name even disassociated from the event, lots of people will still go "who? ... name is familiar! ... oh, yeah, he was the guy who dodged ..." because they won't remember clearly how it turned out.

LighterGuy

randylonghorn wrote: »

No, he wasn't, and yes, he was.

And you see that's part of the problem ... even though the guy is innocent, it's his name that will end up associated with it. And will pop up on Google searches when he goes for a job in the future (and yes, that's becoming very common). And while if someone says "who was that guy again?", no-one will remember in 3 months, if someone mentions his name even disassociated from the event, lots of people will still go "who? ... name is familiar! ... oh, yeah, he was the guy who dodged ..." because they won't remember clearly how it turned out.

Thats messed up alright.
From reading the RTE news bit. He was better of just letting it go.

Chucky the tree

randylonghorn wrote: »

No, he wasn't, and yes, he was.

And you see that's part of the problem ... even though the guy is innocent, it's his name that will end up associated with it. And will pop up on Google searches when he goes for a job in the future (and yes, that's becoming very common). And while if someone says "who was that guy again?", no-one will remember in 3 months, if someone mentions his name even disassociated from the event, lots of people will still go "who? ... name is familiar! ... oh, yeah, he was the guy who dodged ..." because they won't remember clearly how it turned out.

But now if you google his name you'll be given links that tell us it wasn't him. If he simply did nothing and you googled his name you'd be left thinking he was guilty.

randylonghorn

LighterGuy wrote: »

Thats messed up alright.
From reading the RTE news bit. He was better of just letting it go.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

But now if you google his name you'll be given links that tell us it wasn't him. If he simply did nothing and you googled his name you'd be left thinking he was guilty.

As I said on one of the many other threads on this last night, he'd have been better (and a lot less light in the pocket) getting himself invited on the Late Late and making a laugh of the whole thing. 'Twould still have gotten reported in the press and on websites and thrown up the same links ... in fact, links to clearer, more sympathetic reporting.

Chucky the tree

randylonghorn wrote: »

As I said on one of the many other threads on this last night, he'd have been better (and a lot less light in the pocket) getting himself invited on the Late Late and making a laugh of the whole thing. 'Twould still have gotten reported in the press and on websites and thrown up the same links ... in fact, links to clearer, more sympathetic reporting.

How does he go about getting himself invited on the late late?

randylonghorn

Chucky the tree wrote: »

How does he go about getting himself invited on the late late?

In this case, I reckon it would have taken one phone call to one of the researchers!

Suits them perfectly: "young lad wrongly accused, my personal story: with poignant reflections on the dangers of the internet and the evils of Irish society".

Wouldn't have to be the LLS for that matter, I just think this one would have suited them very well.

LighterGuy

Something I am not sure on... the timeline of things.

So:
- Video makes the rounds on the net.
- someone accuses this Eoin McKeogh of being the fare dodger.
- people give him abuse on his facebook.
- papers name him as the guy.
... now he lost the case against the 6 newspapers.

Order right?

JJayoo

Well the lawyer got paid and thats the important thing.

randylonghorn

Near enough ...

LighterGuy wrote: »

- Video makes the rounds on the net.
- someone accuses this Eoin McKeogh of being the fare dodger. It takes wings and snowballs across the net
- people give him abuse on his facebook.
- he gets temp injunction against Fb / youtube etc. to get it taken down
- papers report the case, mentioning his name
- he attempts to get an injunction against the 6 newspapers, and fails.

(I think)

Motorist

LighterGuy wrote: »

Something I am not sure on... the timeline of things.

So:
- Video makes the rounds on the net.
- someone accuses this Eoin McKeogh of being the fare dodger.
- people give him abuse on his facebook.
- papers name him as the guy.
... now he lost the case against the 6 newspapers.

Order right?

- Video makes the rounds on the net.
- boards and other forums keep closing it down.
- it gets off to a few false starts.
- over the Christmas period when people have too much time on there hands, it really takes off
- someone accuses this Eoin McKeogh of being the fare dodger on youtube
- he comes on youtube pleading his case but people are sceptical
- people give him abuseon facebook
- it dies down as people go back to work. Everyone forgets about it
- he goes to high court for injunction against facebook and youtube
- this puts him back into the spot light as all newspapers report this
... now he lost the case against the 6 newspapers and is facing a probable six figure legal bill

LighterGuy

Motorist wrote: »

- Video makes the rounds on the net.
- boards and other forums keep closing it down.
- it gets off to a few false starts.
- over the Christmas period when people have too much time on there hands, it really takes off
- someone accuses this Eoin McKeogh of being the fare dodger on youtube
- he comes on youtube pleading his case but people are sceptical
- people give him abuseon facebook
- it dies down as people go back to work. Everyone forgets about it
- he goes to high court for injunction against facebook and youtube
- this puts him back into the spot light as all newspapers report this
... now he lost the case against the 6 newspapers and is facing a probable six figure legal bill

This sounds spot on from other stuff I read.
If so ... the feckin' fool.

Sounds like he wanted money out of it. It was stupid to go to the high court trying to stop facebook and youtube. But it was clearly all "gimme money, money, money" with the case against the papers.

I know people have sued for less and won. But I cant help but feel the whole ryan giggs thing was playing through his mind :pac:

AnonoBoy

Motorist wrote: »

- boards and other forums keep closing it down.

It ran on boards for ages. Don't think they shut it down until the court case came up and then I presume there was some manner or request for threads naming him to be removed.

LighterGuy wrote: »

But it was clearly all "gimme money, money, money" with the case against the papers.

I dunno. Stopping them publishing his name seems to be what he's tried to do.

Is he suing them? I hadn't heard anything about him looking for damages from the papers. I actually don't think it's about money at all.

Salt001

Didnt the judge say that the cost of the case would be enough to buy a house.Now even though thats not as eye watering as it used to be its still a heafty chunk of change.
To me i think he just made things worse for himself.

Motorist

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Is he suing them? I hadn't heard anything about him looking for damages from the papers. I actually don't think it's about money at all.

I presume the original intention was to take a defamation action against whoever he felt misidentified him as the fare dodger. I wonder if there is any money left in the kitty though to take an action after the last extremely ill-advised trip to the High Court.

Getting an injunction for material posted on the internet is absolutely hopeless. If you want to see a really grim/horrific side of what can happen search the Nikki Catsouras case.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5276841&page=1#.Tx9Em289V40

Think_then_talk

I don't think it was about money, It was about clearing his name as for the cost I personally think that the person who said it was him in the first place should be made pay in someway the one that saw it on yt & then put it on his fb page.
But that will never happen.
As for the lad in the video.. It's now claimed he paid the money back...
So what he committed a crime in the first place ..
Think of all the garda time he wasted for one.

AnonoBoy

Motorist wrote: »

I presume the original intention was to take a defamation action against whoever he felt misidentified him as the fare dodger.

No I think you're wrong with that one. The original intention was to get the video taken down which worked. Then when the papers reported on that court proceeding he tried to get an injunction out against his name being used in the reports. I never heard any mention of suing for defamation (although that may come down the line if he wants to track down the original person who named him but that could prove extremely costly)

EL_Loco

c'mon, has the internet not coughed up a Shaggy "it wasn't me" mashup with this fella?