Murray -v- Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd Ors
High Court
Neutral Citation [2010] IEHC 248
Judgment was delivered on June 18th, 2010, by Ms Justice Irvine
Judgment
A man with a number of convictions for serious sexual offences failed in an attempt to injunct a number of newspapers from publishing photographs of him or any information that would lead to the identification of his address, where he was at a particular time, or his place of work.
The injunction was being sought in advance of a full hearing.
Background
Michael Murray pleaded guilty in 1996 to charges of sexual assault, false imprisonment and rape and was sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment, with the final year suspended. He was released from Castlerea Prison on July 16th, 2009, having received the statutory remission for good behaviour.
In 1989 he had been convicted of rape, causing actual bodily harm, and indecent exposure in England, where he had also served a sentence.
With the help of the Probation Service he was able to obtain accommodation in Dublin on his release from prison.
When he visited his probation officer he was met at Heuston Station by a photographer, and photographs of him were published in the Starand Evening Heraldnewspapers.
He said that as a result of certain publications he was advised to stay indoors and keep a low profile. In January 2010 further photographs were published of him in the Star, entitled "Beast in the snow". His landlady then served him with notice to quit and he left that accommodation.
He moved to another address, where a reporter called to his door and photographs were taken and published with accompanying articles, following which the estate agents informed him that the landlord wanted the apartment back.
He moved several further times, each time resulting from the landlord objecting to his presence following publicity received in the papers. He also lost his job at St Mary’s hospital.
As a result of the stress generated he attended a doctor and was prescribed anti-depressants.
He said in his affidavit that he attended a psychologist while in Wheatfield and Castlerea prisons and stopped using drugs and alcohol.
He engaged with the probation service both prior to and after his release, and obtained its help in getting accommodation.
He entered a voluntary supervision contract with the Probation Service, which involved regular appointments, swabs for urine and drug analysis and remaining in specified accommodation.
Murray’s solicitor exhibited 15 articles in which the plaintiff was described as a “beast”, a “monster” and “Ireland’s most dangerous serial rapist”.
The newspapers said they considered that the plaintiff was a dangerous criminal, and that he remained a danger to the public and could re-offend.
They said that they considered the public interest was best served by information about the plaintiff, and that their right to freedom of expression outweighed any rights he considered were being breached.
The plaintiff claimed damages for mental pain, distress and anguish due to interference with his rights to privacy, to have a permanent dwelling and to the inviolability of that dwelling, and with to his right to earn a living.
After considering the law on privacy and the right to freedom of expression, Ms Justice Irvine examined in detail the Northern Ireland case, Callaghan -v- Independent News and Media Ltd, where the court granted the plaintiff an interlocutory injunction preventing publication of photographs of a convicted sex murderer.
She said the decision in Callaghan supported the possibility of a court, in appropriate circumstances, interfering with the right to freedom of expression.
However, as was stated in Foley -v- Sunday Newspapers Ltd, such an interlocutory order required "a convincing case to bring about a curtailment of the freedom of expression".
The plaintiff, while demonstrating a prima faciecase that his rights to life and privacy were engaged, had not demonstrated that he was likely to succeed at the trial of the action.
Decision
Unlike in Callaghan, the plaintiff had not adduced any evidence to show the rate of attacks on convicted sex offenders in Ireland, or the effect that media publicity may have on increasing the risk of such an attack.
There had also not been a convincing case put that his privacy had been unjustifiably intruded upon. She stressed that the courts had warned about the dangers in prior restraint orders.
The right to privacy was not unqualified. In this case the information sought to be disclosed by the defendants was not such that there was no legitimate interest in its disclosure.
There was a public interest in members of the public being able to identify persons convicted of violent crimes, and where they were residing.
“Such knowledge may allow members of the public to adjust their behaviour in whatever manner they feel might best protect them from any risk to which they may legitimately feel exposed,” she said.
The level of public interest and the weight to be attached to it depends on the risk that a person convicted of a violent offence actually poses to the community.
The court had to take notice of the fact that convicted sex offenders may continue to pose a risk, and of the seriousness of the crimes which the plaintiff had perpetrated since his first conviction in 1989.
In contrast, she had little from the plaintiff in terms of cogent or proper evidence to suggest he was unlikely to offend again, and this must weigh heavily on the court.
There was no medical, psychiatric or psychological evidence that he was unlikely to be a risk.
Unlike in the Callaghancase, there was no evidence here of how the publication complained of might impede the plaintiff's reintegration into society, though he might be able to adduce this evidence at the trial.
While he had suffered considerable inconvenience as a result of having to move several times, he had not adduced sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the balance of convenience was in his favour, and outweighed the newspapers’ freedom of expression at this stage in the process.
He had therefore not demonstrated he was entitled to the reliefs sought.
The full judgment is on www.courts.ie
Paul O’Higgins SC and Philipp Rahn BL instructed by Garret Sheehan and Partners, for the plaintiff; Eoin McCullough SC and Paul Anthony McDermott BL, instructed by Simon McAleese Co, MOPs and Dillon Eustace, for the defendants