Topic 6 - Freedom of Expression

Question 1

Irish Times v Ireland [1998]; Content of the guarantee: Information as well as opinion

Answer 1

FOE includes a right to communicate facts as well as opinions/convictions.
Also found that FOE protects information so long as it does not affect public interest.

Question 2

Holland v Governor of Portlaoise Prison [2004]; Content of the Guarantee: Information as well as opinion

Answer 2

Right of prisoner to communicate with the media re his guilt upheld

Question 3

Murphy v Independent Radio and Television Commission [1990]; Content of the Guarantee: Applicable primarily to public activities?

Answer 3

Priest Advertisement Case.
Where statement is addressed to the general citizenry FOE can be invoked.
Also implies that FOE applies much more strongly to public expressions than private ones.

Question 4

Dillon v Director of Public Prosecutions [2008]; Content of the Guarantee: Applicable primarily to public activities?

Answer 4

Begging Case.
Found general ban on begging uncon as it was an act of communication.
*Begging could be private (between two people) or Public (Political statement on poverty)

Question 5

Sullivan v Boylan [2012]; Content of the Guarantee: Applicable primarily to public activities?

Answer 5

Picketing Case.
Infringement of inviolability of the dwelling.
Tried to argued freedom of expression, court quashed this as it concerned a private interest rather than a public one

Question 6

Nolan v Sunday Newspaper [2019]; Content of the Guarantee: Applicable primarily to public activities?

Answer 6

Publication of seditious photographs case.
Only attracted protections in weak fashion - some way away from the aim of the guarantee, which is to do with the way we organise our society.

Question 7

Campus Oil Principles; Content of the Guarantee

Answer 7

Rules governing interlocutory injunctions

• Does it raise a fair question?
• Where does the balance of convenience lay? (finances etc)

Question 8

Kivlehan v RTE [2016]; Content of the Guarantee: Media

Answer 8

Case re the exclusion of the Green Party Leader from TV debates leading up the elections.
Dismissed: recognised that the media have certain rights, such as choice of media and participants, and that the criteria employed here had been proportionate.

Question 9

Foley v Sunday Newspapers [2005]; Content of the Guarantee: Media

Answer 9

Argued that publication of a report would endanger D’s safety
Plaintiff has to bring a convincing case to restrain media from publishing a particular story.

Question 10

Cogley v RTE [2005]; Content of the Guarantee: Media

Answer 10

Court can only give restraint order after careful scrutiny and must consult publisher.
-Noted that Campus Oil principles would be more easily applied info of an entirely private nature than info obtained through breach of privacy.

Question 11

Mahon v Post Publications [2007]; Content of the Guarantee: Media

Answer 11

Looked to prevent Sunday Business Post from publishing information obtained from Mahon Tribunal.
-SC dismissed the application in that would constitute a disproportionate interference with freedom of the media.

Question 12

X v Sunday Newspaper; Content of the Guarantee: Media

Answer 12

Interlocutory order granted against paper attempting father of child who was in jail - interference with the child’s right to privacy.

Question 13

O’Brien v RTE [2015]; Content of the Guarantee: Media

Answer 13

Court granted an interlocutory injunction re the plaintiff’s banking arrangement on the grounds that damage to the plaintiff’s rights of privacy and reputation.

Question 14

State (Lynch) v. Cooney [1982]; Content of the Guarantee

Answer 14

Includes televison within FOE

Question 15

Cornec v Morrice; Content of the Guarantee

Answer 15

Includes Blogs with FOE

Question 16

Heaney v Ireland [1996]; Content of the Guarantee: Right to silence

Answer 16

Inferred a right to silence from FOE

Question 17

McKenna v An Taoiseach (No 2) [1995]; Content of the Guarantee: Referenda

Answer 17

Invoked FOE to say that the state cannot use funds in a partisan manner in elections or referenda.

Question 18

Foley v. Sunday Newspapers Ltd [2005]; Limitations: Right to Life

Answer 18

Plaintiff argued that publication endangered his life.

Court said they would only grant an injunction where there was a real threat to life.

Question 19

Muwema v Facebook Ireland Ltd [2018] IECA; Limitations: Right to Life

Answer 19

Case where plaintiff argued that their life would be in danger due to fb comments overseas criticising government.
COA cited Foley but chose to grant an injunction

Question 20

Attorney General for England and Wales v Brandon Book Publishers Ltd [1986]; Limitations: State Security

Answer 20

Published the biography of a former member of former secret service agent. British authorities looked to restrict publication due to what it might disclose about British Security.
Guarantee does not cover the security of other states.

Question 21

Marine Terminals Ltd v Loughman and ors. [2009] HC; Limitations: Public peace and order

Answer 21

Case concerned FoE in the context of striking workers.
Court found that FoE protects the use of strong and emotive language delivered in a robust and articulate way at protest marches.

Question 22

O’Brien v Financial Services Ombudsman [2014] HC; Limitations: Authority of the Courts

Answer 22

Had published a criticism made by the ombudsman, the applicant here had instituted judicial review proceedings while this was happening.
Hogan J upheld FLAC’s freedom to publish comments as it was a sober and well thought out article, and was an attempt to educate public opinion.

Question 23

Goodwin v United Kingdom [1996] ECHR; Limitations: Authority of the Courts

Answer 23

Held that the protection of journalistic sources was one of the basic conditions for press freedom.

Question 24

Mahon v. Keena [2009] SC; Limitations: Authority of the Courts

Answer 24

SC struck down a HC order requiring a journalist to answer questions posed by a Tribunal intended to unveil the source of documents published in the Irish Times.
By reference to Goodwin, stated that is is for the courts to decide whether they can order a disclosure in the appropriate circumstances.

Question 25

Cogley v. RTÉ [2005] HC; Limitations: Individual Privacy

Answer 25

An interlocutory injunction was sought to prevent the broadcast of an investigative programme by the defendant.
Distinction between information which is private and information obtained through a breach of the right to privacy: this case fell into the latter category.
Clarke J set out considerations to be taken into account:
Context and circumstances, any special public interest considerations, adequacy of damages available as a remedy.

Question 26

Foley v Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd [1994]; Limitations: Private Reputations

Answer 26

Counsel for the defendant in libel proceedings attempted to rely on the defendant’s right to FOA.
Court considered that a balancing act between the relevant rights had been achieved here; between right to a good name and freedom of expression

Question 27

Hunter v Duckworth and Co Ltd [2003] HC; Limitations: Private Reputations

Answer 27

Ó Caoimh J considered that the existing law of defamation provided the most appropriate way of balancing a plaintiff’s right to his or her good name.