Topic 6 - Freedom of Expression Flashcards
Irish Times v Ireland [1998]; Content of the guarantee: Information as well as opinion
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.
Holland v Governor of Portlaoise Prison [2004]; Content of the Guarantee: Information as well as opinion
Right of prisoner to communicate with the media re his guilt upheld
Murphy v Independent Radio and Television Commission [1990]; Content of the Guarantee: Applicable primarily to public activities?
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.
Dillon v Director of Public Prosecutions [2008]; Content of the Guarantee: Applicable primarily to public activities?
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)
Sullivan v Boylan [2012]; Content of the Guarantee: Applicable primarily to public activities?
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
Nolan v Sunday Newspaper [2019]; Content of the Guarantee: Applicable primarily to public activities?
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.
Campus Oil Principles; Content of the Guarantee
Rules governing interlocutory injunctions
- Does it raise a fair question?
- Where does the balance of convenience lay? (finances etc)
Kivlehan v RTE [2016]; Content of the Guarantee: Media
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.
Foley v Sunday Newspapers [2005]; Content of the Guarantee: Media
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.
Cogley v RTE [2005]; Content of the Guarantee: Media
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.
Mahon v Post Publications [2007]; Content of the Guarantee: Media
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.
X v Sunday Newspaper; Content of the Guarantee: Media
Interlocutory order granted against paper attempting father of child who was in jail - interference with the child’s right to privacy.
O’Brien v RTE [2015]; Content of the Guarantee: Media
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.
State (Lynch) v. Cooney [1982]; Content of the Guarantee
Includes televison within FOE
Cornec v Morrice; Content of the Guarantee
Includes Blogs with FOE
Heaney v Ireland [1996]; Content of the Guarantee: Right to silence
Inferred a right to silence from FOE
McKenna v An Taoiseach (No 2) [1995]; Content of the Guarantee: Referenda
Invoked FOE to say that the state cannot use funds in a partisan manner in elections or referenda.
Foley v. Sunday Newspapers Ltd [2005]; Limitations: Right to Life
Plaintiff argued that publication endangered his life.
Court said they would only grant an injunction where there was a real threat to life.
Muwema v Facebook Ireland Ltd [2018] IECA; Limitations: Right to Life
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
Attorney General for England and Wales v Brandon Book Publishers Ltd [1986]; Limitations: State Security
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.
Marine Terminals Ltd v Loughman and ors. [2009] HC; Limitations: Public peace and order
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.
O’Brien v Financial Services Ombudsman [2014] HC; Limitations: Authority of the Courts
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.
Goodwin v United Kingdom [1996] ECHR; Limitations: Authority of the Courts
Held that the protection of journalistic sources was one of the basic conditions for press freedom.
Mahon v. Keena [2009] SC; Limitations: Authority of the Courts
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.
Cogley v. RTÉ [2005] HC; Limitations: Individual Privacy
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.
Foley v Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd [1994]; Limitations: Private Reputations
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
Hunter v Duckworth and Co Ltd [2003] HC; Limitations: Private Reputations
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.
