What do you think of the Ruth Hickey judgment?

cry freedom

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
2,338
Partner of Twink's estranged husband loses privacy case - Courts, National News - Independent.ie
-------------------------------------------------------
What do people think of the judges decision in the above case and it's implications for press freedom in this country.And more importantly perhaps, for the freedom of Irish individuals to go about their daily life without being door stepped by the gutter press.
Quite frankly I find the judgment appalling and sincerely hope it will be appealed.
Apart from the fact that the parents of this child ,so cruelly termed a bastard, could be photographed and held up to ridicule coming out after registering the birth of the alleged bastard, is quite simply appalling.
The judge said that the child was too young to suffer any adverse effect. Living in his ivory tower, as do most of his profession, he has probably never heard of face book or cyber bullying.
The statement that the work of the gutter press was disgusting but understandable because these stories sold papers beggars belief.
The judge said that because the alleged libel was so untrue that no right thinking person would believe it made it so much less actionable.
The logic of this argument is that th more outrageous the lie the less culpable the liar. Unbelievable stuff.
I know full well the the usual defenders of "Freedom of the Press" will be on here soon screaming blue murder.
Well, these same "champions of justice" who have served us so poorly over the last 13 years can shove it.
At it's heart what this is about is some grubby hack playing the peeping tom on private people to further their no- talent ambitions.
 


Aindriu

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2007
Messages
8,621
I really don't see what the issue is here. According to the RCC, any child born out of wedlock or within wedlock that did not occur under the rites of the RCC is a bastard so that makes billions of children bastards :confused:
Build a bridge!
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,913
First of all she sought publicity herself. Its not reasonable imo for her to then complain when she gets it. They took a picture of her on the street. There's no expectation of privacy there.

Second, the only one who referred to her child as a bastard was her. The paper didn't do it. AFAIK Twink didn't do it. Ms Hicky did it in open court.

Third, the "hoor" bit was a reported statement by Twink. The paper didn't come up with it themselves.

The voicemail had been released to the public. Should the media ignore all voicemails?
 

Decadance

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
528
Partner of Twink's estranged husband loses privacy case - Courts, National News - Independent.ie
-------------------------------------------------------
What do people think of the judges decision in the above case and it's implications for press freedom in this country.And more importantly perhaps, for the freedom of Irish individuals to go about their daily life without being door stepped by the gutter press.
Quite frankly I find the judgment appalling and sincerely hope it will be appealed.
Apart from the fact that the parents of this child ,so cruelly termed a bastard, could be photographed and held up to ridicule coming out after registering the birth of the alleged bastard, is quite simply appalling.
The judge said that the child was too young to suffer any adverse effect. Living in his ivory tower, as do most of his profession, he has probably never heard of face book or cyber bullying.
The statement that the work of the gutter press was disgusting but understandable because these stories sold papers beggars belief.
The judge said that because the alleged libel was so untrue that no right thinking person would believe it made it so much less actionable.
The logic of this argument is that th more outrageous the lie the less culpable the liar. Unbelievable stuff.
I know full well the the usual defenders of "Freedom of the Press" will be on here soon screaming blue murder.
Well, these same "champions of justice" who have served us so poorly over the last 13 years can shove it.
At it's heart what this is about is some grubby hack playing the peeping tom on private people to further their no- talent ambitions.
I would be interested in reading the judgment (not the press reporting/opinion of it).

Can anyone provide a link to the judgment?
 

cry freedom

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
2,338
I would be interested in reading the judgment (not the press reporting/opinion of it).

Can anyone provide a link to the judgment?
You raise an interesting point.
I was involved in a high court case some years ago and there didn't
seem to be any way of recording the actual trial or even the reserved judgment, which came weeks later.
No stenographer or no electronic recording system, as far as I am aware.
When we wanted to review the judgment later we had to rely on the skimpy notes of our solicitor which proved less than satisfactory.
Is it possible that out in their nice new buildings they have put in a recording system together with the plush en suite arrangements for the judges ablutions. This to allow the paying public to keep a citizens eye on the way the dice are rolling.
Or would that be to much to ask these gentlemen for.?
Will it be an Oliver Twist response. MORE? You want MORE?
 

clunk

Active member
Joined
Apr 20, 2010
Messages
117
Ruth is a really nice person. Feel sorry for her. Must have big legal bills.
 

Mushroom

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
15,474
Twink is a really nice person. Feel sorry for her. Must have big mobile phone bills.
 

Jack White

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
1,705
Second, the only one who referred to her child as a bastard was her. The paper didn't do it. AFAIK Twink didn't do it. Ms Hicky did it in open court.

Third, the "hoor" bit was a reported statement by Twink. The paper didn't come up with it themselves.

The voicemail had been released to the public. Should the media ignore all voicemails?
Incorrect, if the following is genuine.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DINu35v3eMU]YouTube - Twink goes mad on the phone[/ame]
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,472
The actual really interesting thing is that the Court found, it seems, that, there IS a Constitutional Right to privacy in relation to media intrusion, even though this lady did not satisfy the requirements to successfully litigate such a case. It's an unenumerated right and previously, to my memory, has only been invoked in term of postal communications and phone tapping etc. It was a little unclear prior to this whether the right extended to the media photographing you in private etc.

PS, the case is not reported yet/not on the courts service website. Ill keep an eye and post it when it is.
 

Decadance

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
528
The actual really interesting thing is that the Court found, it seems, that, there IS a Constitutional Right to privacy in relation to media intrusion, even though this lady did not satisfy the requirements to successfully litigate such a case. It's an unenumerated right and previously, to my memory, has only been invoked in term of postal communications and phone tapping etc. It was a little unclear prior to this whether the right extended to the media photographing you in private etc.

PS, the case is not reported yet/not on the courts service website. Ill keep an eye and post it when it is.
Corelli - there are already a line of cases (Irish High Court included) confirming the right to privacy in Irish law. However we seem to be dealing with a type of unworthy plaintiff decision (like Sullivan v New York Times) I await the actual written judgment to confirm.

It appears however that as Ms. Hickey sought publicity in her work/commercial life this now negates her privacy and even possibly her good name in her private life. What an interesting rubicon we have crossed if this is true. Similar arguments were made and dismissed in Naomi Campbell (UK house of lords) case and Princess Caroline (European Court).

We must wait and see.

Anyother very important judgment is to issue on Monday in UPC case on the three strikes for internet users. This also has considerable privacy issues raised. Will wait to see what is daid in this one also.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,913
Oh that's fantastic. I'd never heard that before. She's furious because the woman couldn't hold the child in past Valentines? That's so funny.

Anyway, the kid is, by the english definition, a bastard. And the paper didn't call him it. And they were only reporting the story. It's a non-runner.
 

Baron von Biffo

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,421
It appears however that as Ms. Hickey sought publicity in her work/commercial life this now negates her privacy and even possibly her good name in her private life. What an interesting rubicon we have crossed if this is true.
Pity that that doesn't doesn't work in reverse. It would be nice to see a journalist who campaigns against the libel laws in his professional life being told to take a running jump if he sought to use them to vindicate his own good name.
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,472
Corelli - there are already a line of cases (Irish High Court included) confirming the right to privacy in Irish law. However we seem to be dealing with a type of unworthy plaintiff decision (like Sullivan v New York Times) I await the actual written judgment to confirm.

It appears however that as Ms. Hickey sought publicity in her work/commercial life this now negates her privacy and even possibly her good name in her private life. What an interesting rubicon we have crossed if this is true. Similar arguments were made and dismissed in Naomi Campbell (UK house of lords) case and Princess Caroline (European Court).

We must wait and see.

Anyother very important judgment is to issue on Monday in UPC case on the three strikes for internet users. This also has considerable privacy issues raised. Will wait to see what is daid in this one also.
I know there is a right to privacy in the Constitution. I alluded to it in my post. My point being that it has, heretofore, never, from memory, been extended/applied to "princess Caroline" type cases here. I presume the President was reading the Constitution in light of the ECtHR case-law. However, as you say, probably best to await the written judgment.
 

b.a. baracus

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
2,203
Oh that's fantastic. I'd never heard that before. She's furious because the woman couldn't hold the child in past Valentines? That's so funny.

Anyway, the kid is, by the english definition, a bastard. And the paper didn't call him it. And they were only reporting the story. It's a non-runner.
Never heard it before either. It's hardly Ruth Hickey's fault that the baby decided to arrive on Valentine's day!
 

bored and fussy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
351
I can understand twink, she was so hurt for herself and her girls, who were very young at the time,
I think twink is better off without him, he was not even in court with ruth hickey as far as i know, no support there,
it could be ruth making the next video,
cant wait for that!
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
13,292
I love this story, it just won't end. The voicemail still cracks me up.
As for the judgement, what is she like? I wonder what the people down in Limerick think, are they laughing too?
 

evercloserunion

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
804
Does anyone know when the written judgement is going to be put up on the net. The most recent HC judgement on the courts website is from August. I am always very slow to trust what journalists say about what judges say.

Corelli, I don't see the case as being particularly groundbreaking. As you say the right to privacy had never been applied in a case like this but IMO it's a logical extension of a pre-existing principle. This case was reported because it involved a (quasi)famous person and a bit of shcandal not because it is a major legal breakthrough.
 

cry freedom

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
2,338
Does anyone know when the written judgement is going to be put up on the net. The most recent HC judgement on the courts website is from August. I am always very slow to trust what journalists say about what judges say.

Corelli, I don't see the case as being particularly groundbreaking. As you say the right to privacy had never been applied in a case like this but IMO it's a logical extension of a pre-existing principle. This case was reported because it involved a (quasi)famous person and a bit of shcandal not because it is a major legal breakthrough.
Trying not to let this one die, I would ask if any of our legal eagles have heard anything further on this.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top