Uncategorized – Sophie Smith’s blog

Question:

Sinead O’Brien went into Centra to buy bread and milk and pick up a few other bits and pieces in January 2019. Sinead had a cold and while picking up a packet of biscuits, she reached into her handbag for her tissues. On another occasion, while she had a jar of honey in her hand, she reached into her bag again. The security guard approached her and asked her to come into the back office with him. While there, he asked to look into her bag. Sinead refused. The security guard told Sinead he would have to call the manager. Sinead waited there one hour before the manager arrived, as she was in another Centra store some miles away. When she arrived, Sinead was again asked to reveal what was in her bag. This time she complied and there was nothing in her bag except her personal effects. Is Sinead entitled to bring any claim against Centra?

Can an action be taken against Centra?

Sinead O’Brien is wanting to bring a claim against her local Centra shop after the on duty security guard accused her of shoplifting while shopping in the store. Ms O’Brien at the time was suffering from a cold, she reached into her bag to receive a tissue while holding a packet of biscuits, on a separate occasion she reached into her bag again to receive another tissue this time while holding a jar of honey. The on duty security guard claimed he witnessed her shoplifting the two items, when approached by the security guard he demanded to see inside her bag. After refusing the manager was involved. Her bag was checked and nothing but personal items were recovered. The issue of this case is whether Sinead can take a case against her local Centra store or not. Here the security guard had made a defamatory statement against Ms O’Brien when he accused her of shop lifting. The Defamation Act 2009 defines defamation as the tort of libel and the tort of slander, or the spreading of information that may be false.[1] A defamatory statement is a statement made about another person with the intent to injury that person’s reputation.[2] When the security guard of accused Ms O’Brien of shoplifting the items he might not of thought his accusations could injury Ms O’Brien’s reputation in her local area. A defamatory statement was made when the security guard had informed the manager of the store his believes of Ms O’Brien shoplifting, which was made orally between the two.

Every person has the right to a good name. With the slanderous accusations made about Ms O’Brien it might of destroyed her reputation and her good name around her local area, which could bring about occupational misfortune and her capacity to uphold her good name. According to Article 40.3.1° of the Irish Constitution ‘’The State guarantees in its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of any Irish citizen’’.[3] Meaning any Irish citizen has their rights that are protected by the Irish Constitution. Article 40.3.2° states that everyone has the right to a good name that will be protected from any unjust attack that may try to destroy that persons good name.[4]

Ms O’Brien can in fact take an action against the local Centra store for defamation after the on duty security guard wrongly accusing her for shoplifting. The security guard had allegedly witnessed Ms O’Brien put the items he claimed she had stolen into her bag. He had also held her in an office demanding she emptied the items from her handbag which he believed the stolen items were. As a result of this her reputation had been damaged by the actions of the security guard. After the actions of the security guard Ms O’Brien might have suffered both embarrassment and humiliation.

[1] The Defamation Act 2009.

[2] The Defamation Act 2009, S.2.

[3] Article 40.3.1° The Irish Constitution.

[4] Article 40.3.1° The Irish Constitution.

General gossip or defamation?

Question:

Joe King told his wife Maggie King that Sean Smiley was convicted of the murder of his mother Agnes Smiley. Maggie King told her friend Brenda O’Leary that Sean Smiley was convicted of the murder of his mother Agnes Smiley. When Brenda O’Leary saw Sean Smiley, she accused him of murdering his mother. Can Sean take a defamation action against Joe King and Brenda O’Leary?

Is it general gossip or is it defamation?

Sean can only take an action for defamation against Joe King and Brenda O’Leary if what they had been saying about him was a false statement. If Sean had actually been convicted for the murder of his mother Agnes, then it is not defamation. The Defamation Act 2009 defines defamation as the tort of libel and the tort of slander, or the spreading of information that may be false.[1] A defamatory statement is a statement that has been made with the intention of injuring another’s reputation.[2] When Joe told his wife Maggie king that Sean had been committed for the murder of his mother Agnes he had intended to hurt Sean’s reputation by telling others that he had in fact been committed. A defamatory statement can be made orally from one person to another, meaning a defamatory statement about Sean smiley was made orally between Joe kind and his wife Maggie.[3]

As there is more than one person that Sean is wanting to take the action against there is the thought of a third party involved. As Joe had told his wife and she told her friend Brenda O’Leary, there was a third party involved in the spreading of the defamatory statement about Sean. Joe had been the first person to say that Sean had been convicted, so he had in fact began the statement about Sean. Section 6.2° of the Defamation Act 2009 states that the tort of defamation is the publication of a defamatory statement by any means either orally or written, that concerns a person to one or more people with the exclusion of a third mentioned person which in this case would be Brenda O’Leary.[4] As Brenda had also confronted Sean about being convicted of the mother of his mother Agnes she has not committed the tort of defamation, as according to section 6.4° of the 2009 Act if the defamatory statement that is being published had been published to the person who it concerns it cannot be constituted as defamation.[5]

Everyone has the right to a good name. With the defamatory statement made about Sean it could possibly ruin his reputation and his good name, which could result in job loss and his ability to have his reputation and good name restored. Article 40.3.1° of the Irish Constitution the state is to guarantee in its laws to defend the person rights of any Irish citizen.[6] Meaning any Irish citizen has their rights that are protected by the Irish Constitution. Article 40.3.2° states that everyone has the right to a good name that will be protected from any unjust attack that may try to destroy that person’s good name.[7]

Sean in fact can take an action for defamation against Joe and he was the first party to start the defamatory statement about Sean he also intended to injury his reputation and his good name. however he cannot take a defamation action against Brenda as she was the third party and has also confronted Sean about the defamatory statement that was made about him which under the 2009 act doesn’t constitute defamation as it was said to who it concerns to their face.

[1] Defamation Act 2009.

[2] Defamation Act 2009, s2.

[3] Defamation Act 2009, s2.

[4] Defamation Act 2009, s6 (2).

[5] Defamation Act 2009, s6 (4).

[6] Article 40.3.1° The Irish Constitution.

[7] Article 40.3.2° The Irish Constitution.