defamation of character

raher1

hi
how can you prove defamation of character in ireland?
i am being subject to some nasty gossip and i like to know my rights before i act.

Mr. Incognito

Defamation Act 2009 google

Samuel T. Cogley

You prove it like anything else, with acceptable evidence.

NUTLEY BOY

raher1 wrote: »

hi
how can you prove defamation of character in ireland?
i am being subject to some nasty gossip and i like to know my rights before i act.

Not legal advice - just a few observations on the general subject.

The concept, as set out in the Defamation Act 2009, is that the statement tends to injure a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society.

You have to prove that the actual words or statements are defamatory in nature. If a statement falls within the concept above it is defamatory and is actionable. Calling someone a rapist would be defamatory. Calling someone a silly eejit probably would not.

If you prove that the statement is defamatory in nature you then have to prove that it is defamatory of you - on the evidence. The standard of proof is the civil burden of the balance of probabilities.

There are a number of other technicalities that have to be met to win a defamation action including proof of publication of the words in question. Defendants also have a range of defences open to them.

If you believe that you have been defamed as distinct from being offended or insulted it is solicitor time.

Link to the 2009 act - http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/31/enacted/en/print

raher1

Basically someone it's taking there personal issue with a family member(who is dead)and there own family and painting me with the same brush.

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Not legal advice - just a few observations on the general subject.

The concept, as set out in the Defamation Act 2009, is that the statement tends to injure a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society.

You have to prove that the actual words or statements are defamatory in nature. If a statement falls within the concept above it is defamatory and is actionable. Calling someone a rapist would be defamatory. Calling someone a silly eejit probably would not.

If you prove that the statement is defamatory in nature you then have to prove that it is defamatory of you - on the evidence. The standard of proof is the civil burden of the balance of probabilities.

There are a number of other technicalities that have to be met to win a defamation action including proof of publication of the words in question. Defendants also have a range of defences open to them.

If you believe that you have been defamed as distinct from being offended or insulted it is solicitor time.

Link to the 2009 act - http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/31/enacted/en/print

billy few mates

raher1 wrote: »

Basically someone it's taking there personal issue with a family member(who is dead)and there own family and painting me with the same brush.

Can you defame a dead person...?

Basically (very) they can say what they like about you so long as it's either...

• True
• Honest opinion, validly held
• In the public interest

Does what they're saying about you fall into any of these categories...?
It's basically up to them to prove it not you to disprove it if you do decide to sue them, you don't have to go all the way to court but you could always fire a shot across their bow with a solicitor's letter.

raher1

I am being defamed.

billy few mates wrote: »

Can you defame a dead person...?

Basically (very) they can say what they like about you so long as it's either...

• True
• Honest opinion, validly held
• In the public interest

Does what they're saying about you fall into any of these categories...?
It's basically up to them to prove it not you to disprove it if you do decide to sue them, you don't have to go all the way to court but you could always fire a shot across their bow with a solicitor's letter.

TomOnBoard

raher1 wrote: »

I am being defamed.

Get thee to a solicitor ASAP. While there:

1. Be fully truthful
2. Bring any/all evidence and present it to the solr.
3. Be willing to listen to the advice that you are given without shooting the messenger. Sometimes the legal opinion as to actionability can be hard to take
4. Establish the gravity of the defamation for your inner peace in conjunction with your solr.
5. Decide how much you can afford to lose (in terms of cost) if you engage legal services, go to court and you do not prevail. Establish that early on in the process

Good luck, as no one has the right to defame anyone else.

raher1

evidence, word of mouth over an audio recording?
It's very sickening place to be.

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Get thee to a solicitor ASAP. While there:

1. Be fully truthful
2. Bring any/all evidence and present it to the solr.
3. Be willing to listen to the advice that you are given without shooting the messenger. Sometimes the legal opinion as to actionability can be hard to take
4. Establish the gravity of the defamation for your inner peace in conjunction with your solr.
5. Decide how much you can afford to lose (in terms of cost) if you engage legal services, go to court and you do not prevail. Establish that early on in the process

Good luck, as no one has the right to defame anyone else.

FreudianSlippers

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

You have to prove that the actual words or statements are defamatory in nature. If a statement falls within the concept above it is defamatory and is actionable. Calling someone a rapist would be defamatory. Calling someone a silly eejit probably would not.

If you prove that the statement is defamatory in nature you then have to prove that it is defamatory of you - on the evidence. The standard of proof is the civil burden of the balance of probabilities.

Just to clarity this, once the statement is prima facie a "defamatory statement" - i.e. a statement which tends to injure a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society - the plaintiff is under no obligation to prove the "defamatory statement" itself is actually defamatory (this is presumed).

Calling someone a silly eejit may well be a "defamatory statement", the rationale for this should be laid out in the writ itself and the plaintiff is obliged to swear an affidavit of declaration, but it's a reverse onus tort.

raher1

I better get some proof, a witness or a recording. It could get messy.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Just to clarity this, once the statement is prima facie a "defamatory statement" - i.e. a statement which tends to injure a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society - the plaintiff is under no obligation to prove the "defamatory statement" itself is actually defamatory (this is presumed).

Calling someone a silly eejit may well be a "defamatory statement", the rationale for this should be laid out in the writ itself and the plaintiff is obliged to swear an affidavit of declaration, but it's a reverse onus tort.

TomOnBoard

raher1 wrote: »

I better get some proof, a witness or a recording. It could get messy.

Get your legal advice first, IMHO. Otherwise you're going to have to get into full Magnum P,I. mode. The legal advice you get may tell you it's not actionable anyway, so why become further invested in an endeavour that will cause you even more pain and could even put you on the wrong side of the law.

raher1

Hi
I know a couple who are spreading maliciously gossip about me. I wondering what to do.
Do I try and talk to them?
Do I go the Garda or talk to a solicitor.
It's getting very annoying now.
There will be no violence.

raher1

It's got worse. I turned the other cheek.
The couple seemed to have a grudge against. I never realized we were fighting.

sexmag

raher1 wrote: »

Hi
I know a couple who are spreading maliciously gossip about me. I wondering what to do.
Do I try and talk to them?
Do I go the Garda or talk to a solicitor.
It's getting very annoying now.
There will be no violence.

Speak to your solicitor and show them all the evidence you have, they'll take it from there.

Hopefully after a year of this you have accumulated enough for a case against them

Peregrinus

raher1 wrote: »

I better get some proof, a witness or a recording. It could get messy.

You already have a witness - the person to whom the defamatory thing was said, and who told you about it.

(This must have happened - otherwise how would you know that the defamatory thing was said?)

Pat Mustard

Mod:

Threads merged.

raher1

sexmag wrote: »

Speak to your solicitor and show them all the evidence you have, they'll take it from there.

Hopefully after a year of this you have accumulated enough for a case against them

I will ask the citzen advise next week.
They have a legal service.
This is ridiculous.

Mod
What is "ridiculous"?

Sassygirl1999

raher1 wrote: »

I will ask the citzen advise next week.
They have a legal service.
This is ridiculous.

Mod
What is "ridiculous"?

are you suspicious natured?

raher1

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

are you suspicious natured?

Not suspicious. I keep to myself. Called quiet and decent as well.
I don't know why people go around making up lies abound people. There is better things to do with your time. presious little assholes that's all they are. It's there own family and friend that caused but they're trying to throw it over on me.

I read the previous comments and yes I have a case.

notharrypotter

raher1 wrote: »

Not suspicious. I keep to myself. Called quiet and decent as well.
I don't know why people go around making up lies abound people. There is better things to do with your time. presious little assholes that's all they are. It's there own family and friend that caused but they're trying to throw it over on me.

I read the previous comments and yes I have a case.

I am curious, you mention going to citizens information but yet you claim to have a case.

If you have a case then get your solicitor to deal with it

No point involving citizens information as they can give advice but cannot take action on your behalf.

Sassygirl1999

notharrypotter wrote: »

I am curious, you mention going to citizens information but yet you claim to have a case.

If you have a case then get your solicitor to deal with it

No point involving citizens information as they can give advice but cannot take action on your behalf.

CA have solicitors/lawyers working with them that can take cases

raher1

notharrypotter wrote: »

I am curious, you mention going to citizens information but yet you claim to have a case.

If you have a case then get your solicitor to deal with it

No point involving citizens information as they can give advice but cannot take action on your behalf.

They have a legal team. Free advice. I am not wasting money on them

FreudianSlippers

More people that want professionals to do work for them for free... how is it "wasting money" to take action to, allegedly, protect your good name?

gozunda

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Just to clarity this, once the statement is prima facie a "defamatory statement" - i.e. a statement which tends to injure a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society - the plaintiff is under no obligation to prove the "defamatory statement" itself is actually defamatory (this is presumed).

Calling someone a silly eejit may well be a "defamatory statement", the rationale for this should be laid out in the writ itself and the plaintiff is obliged to swear an affidavit of declaration, but it's a reverse onus tort.

I understand that the defamatory statement must also be 'published' ie heard seen or read by more than just the person taking the action.

So going up to someone and saying you're a 'silly eejit' could therefore not be held as defamatory unless heard by others.

Correct me if that is otherwise...

FreudianSlippers

gozunda wrote: »

I understand that the defamatory statement must also be 'published' ie heard seen or read by more than just the person taking the action.

So going up to someone and saying you're a 'silly eejit' could therefore not be held as defamatory unless heard by others.

Correct me if that is otherwise...

Nope - you're correct!

Claw Hammer

gozunda wrote: »

I understand that the defamatory statement must also be 'published' ie heard seen or read by more than just the person taking the action.

So going up to someone and saying you're a 'silly eejit' could therefore not be held as defamatory unless heard by others.

Correct me if that is otherwise...

It's only defamatory if it is not true. If you are a silly eejit and it can be proven, you will have no case.

sexmag

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It's only defamatory if it is not true. If you are a silly eejit and it can be proven, you will have no case.

for argument sake what would be required to prove someone is a "silly eejit"?:pac:

Claw Hammer

sexmag wrote: »

for argument sake what would be required to prove someone is a "silly eejit"?:pac:

Evidence.

FreudianSlippers

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It's only defamatory if it is not true. If you are a silly eejit and it can be proven, you will have no case.

In fairness to gozunda, they were addressing a point that I neglected to bring up in my initial explanation.

raher1

gozunda wrote: »

I understand that the defamatory statement must also be 'published' ie heard seen or read by more than just the person taking the action.

So going up to someone and saying you're a 'silly eejit' could therefore not be held as defamatory unless heard by others.

Correct me if that is otherwise...

I have been called more than an eeejit
It's a few things, one i am alcoholic.