Author: Eoin

Dr Eoin O'Dell is a Fellow and Associate Professor of Law at Trinity College Dublin.

The settlement in Carey v Independent News & Media and the status of Bloomberg v ZXC in Ireland

| 3 Comments
| Privacy, Privacy

Pat Carey (2011) via FlickrAfter a long and distinguished career as a popular public servant, first as a councillor, then then as a TD, and finally as a Minister, Pat Carey (pictured left) is now a public affairs consultant. On 11 and 12 November 2015, the Irish Independent reported that a Garda investigation was under way into allegations of child sexual abuse against an un-named former Minister. He claimed that he was identifiable as the person concerned, and he felt he had no choice but to issue a statement denying the allegations. He was never arrested; and, after the Garda investigation had concluded, the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2019 informed him that no charges would be brought against him. Meanwhile, he commenced proceedings against various defendants, including the Garda Commissioner and the Irish Independent, for damages for invasion of privacy. When the case settled in Mr Carey’s favour earlier this month, there was much sympathetic coverage:

  • Former minister Pat Carey receives apology from Garda Commissioner and damages over newspaper articles (Irish Times, 16 June 2023)
  • Former minister Pat Carey to receive ‘substantial damages’ over Garda leak (Irish Independent, 16 June 2023)
  • Gardaí apologise to Pat Carey over leaks from 2015 investigation into unfounded allegations (TheJournal.ie,
…

Read More »

Recent developments with traffic data retention – variously updated

| No Comments
| Data Protection, data retention, ECJ

EyePhoneIn my post on the Communications (Retention of Data) (Amendment) Act 2022: ignore the warnings, legislate in haste, repent at leisure, I sketched how the Government came to enact Communications (Retention of Data) (Amendment) Act 2022 (also here) last Summer.

Since then, there have been several developments.

First, the 2022 Act was intended to buy the government some time to complete a thorough overhaul of the Communications (Retention of Data) Act 2011 (also here). A Bill to that effect has been listed in every Legislation Programme since 2018. So, it is unsurprising that, on 19 April 2023, a Communications (Data, Retention and Disclosure) Bill, to consolidate and replace the 2011 Act, was listed in the Government’s Legislation Programme for the Summer Session 2023 (pdf). However, not only is that Bill not listed as a priority, but we are told simply that the Heads are still “in preparation” (p21).

Still? Still?? Since 2018??? (Indeed, even 2018 was slow, because the underlying Directive was struck down by the CJEU in 2014). Give me a break. Better still, give us all a break by publishing the Bill already!

Second, earlier this month, on 6 June 2023, Minister McEntee signed the Communications (Retention of Data) (Amendment) Act 2022 (Commencement) Order 2023 (SI No 287 of 2023) (also here) to bring most of the Act into effect on 26 June 2023.…

Read More »

The Communications (Retention of Data) (Amendment) Act 2022: ignore the warnings, legislate in haste, repent at leisure – variously updated

| 1 Comment
| Data Protection, data retention, ECJ

Data Retention; via Dall-E 2; modifiedThe headline in the Irish Examiner is stark: “European Commission says Ireland’s new data law may be ‘inapplicable’.” Cianan Brennan reports that the European Commission “has dismissed Ireland’s new controversial data retention law as possibly ‘inapplicable and unenforceable’, as it was not submitted to the Commission before its enactment”. The legislation in question is the Communications (Retention of Data) (Amendment) Act 2022 (also here); and it was, as Brennan says, rushed through the Oireachtas last summer with minimal scrutiny.

It is worth pausing for a moment to see where the Act came from, and to consider why it was so rushed. The Department of Justice repeatedly failed to take the right path, even as it has had plenty of opportunity to do so. When it finally did something, it acted hastily; and it now seems that the hasty solution hasn’t worked.

The legal story starts on 27 March 2015, when Graham Dwyer was convicted of murdering Elaine O’Hara in 2012. Much of the evidence had been gathered pursuant to Section 6(1) of the Communications (Retention of Data) Act 2011 (also here), which provides:

A member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of chief superintendent may request a service provider to disclose to that member data retained by the service provider in accordance with section 3 where that member is satisfied that the data are required for—

(a) the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of a serious offence, …

That Act had been introduced to implement the Data Retention Directive (Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ 2006 L 105, 13.4.2006, p.…

Read More »

Another heckler’s veto in Trinity

| 2 Comments
| Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Expression, Universities, Universities

MSA TCD; via FacebookThe following story caught my eye in this morning’s Irish Times [with added links]:

Talk by controversial UK preacher at Trinity College cancelled over security fears

By Colin Gleeson
A talk by a UK preacher at an event at Trinity College Dublin on Friday has been cancelled due to security fears.

Mohammed Hijab had been due to speak at an event organised by the college’s Muslim Students Association on the topic of “hedonism”. … Mr Hijab’s invitation to speak on the college’s campus was criticised by students who said they planned to stage a protest should the event go ahead. … It is understood the group made a request to college authorities for security support but was turned down due to a lack of adequate notice. …

In a statement to Trinity News, one of the student newspapers in College, MSA President Hasan Ali said:

While we acknowledge that this decision may disappoint some members of our community, we believe it is the best course of action to ensure the safety and well-being of all.

This is a real pity. As I said when a Galway student society cancelled a controversial appearance for similar reasons (and here‘s another example), this is a failure on the part of TCD’s Muslim Students Association (TCD MSA) to protect the process of freedom of speech.…

Read More »

The next steps in defamation reform, including the development of an anti-SLAPP mechanism, limp slowly closer – updated

| No Comments
| Defamation, Defamation, Defamation Act 2009

Murphy, Costello, Harris, via Oireachtas website

The written answer to two Parliamentary Questions earlier this week (on Tuesday 21 February 2023) provides hope for imminent publication of the long awaited the General Scheme of a Defamation (Amendment) Bill, including the introduction of an anti-SLAPP mechanism.

Deputy Catherine Murphy TD (pictured above left) asked the Minister for Justice if his Department has been engaging with the European Parliament in relation to the proposed directive on Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation; and to detail what anti-SLAPP mechanisms his Department is considering for domestic legislation.

Deputy Patrick Costello TD (pictured above centre) asked the Minister for Justice the status of the proposed introduction of an anti-SLAPP mechanism in Irish law (details supplied), as committed to in May 2022; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Minister for Justice Simon Harris TD (pictured above right) took both questions together and replied (links, and emphasis, added):

On 1st March 2022, the Government approved publication of the Report of the Review of the Defamation Act 2009 and the development of a General Scheme of a Defamation (Amendment) Bill on foot of the Report.

As the Deputy has noted, a key recommendation in the Report is to introduce a new ‘anti-SLAPP’ mechanism – referring to Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation – to allow a person to apply to court for summary dismissal of proceedings that he/she believes are a SLAPP.

…

Read More »

Winter is coming: the future of First Amendment analysis, and the prospects for New York Times v Sullivan, after NYSR&PA v Bruen

| 2 Comments
| 1A, Defamation, Defamation, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Expression, US Supreme Court

Winter is Coming (element)Cold winds now blow in the US Supreme Court around the stability of a century’s worth of First Amendment doctrine; even New York Times Co v Sullivan 376 US 254 (1964), the most stable of that Court’s speech precedents, now seems in danger of being blown away in the storm, thanks to the recent decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen 597 US __ (2022) (Opinion pdf | Cornell | Justia | SCOTUSblog). In an earlier post on this blog, I considered the potential impact on the First Amendment of Thomas J’s originalist reasoning in the Second Amendment case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, and found some distinctly chilly zephyrs. Thomas J for the majority (Roberts CJ, and Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett JJ concurring) held that a restriction on carrying arms in public for self-defense reasons was inconsistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation and was thus unconstitutional. Thomas J explicitly eschewed any standard of review such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it was with this that the minority (Breyer J; Sotomayor and Kagan JJ concurring) took most issue. This is nuts. Worse, in Bruen, Thomas J asserted some similarities in analysis between the Second Amendment and the First.…

Read More »

Couple mistakenly paid Aus$10.5m by Crypto.com claim they thought they had won a contest

| 3 Comments
| Mistaken payments, Restitution

Manivel & Singh via 9news.com.auA little while ago on this blog, I noted the mistaken payment case of Foris GFS Australia Pty Ltd v Manivel [2022] VSC 482 (26 August 2022). It has been a recurring theme of my notes on these kinds of cases that the recipients of mistaken payments not only must make restitution of those payments, but also that they run the risk of criminal prosecution. Now comes the unsurprising news that the key recipients of the money at issue in Foris v Manivel have indeed been charged with theft:

Couple mistakenly given $10.5m from Crypto.com thought they had won contest, court hears

Money from crypto exchange was allegedly used to buy four houses worth $4m, vehicles, art and furniture, police officer tells court

A Victorian woman accused of theft over a $10.5m mistaken cryptocurrency refund has been released on bail as she awaits trial, despite claims she allegedly tried to flee the country. Thevamanogari Manivel and her partner, Jatinder Singh, appeared by video link from prison in Melbourne magistrates court on Tuesday when they were committed to stand trial on theft and other charges. …

The Crypto.com account was in Singh’s name but the transfer may have been sent to Manivel’s account as he used her bank card to buy cryptocurrency, the court heard.

…

Read More »

© cearta.ie 2025. Powered by WordPress