Eoin – Page 78 – Cearta.ie

Retention of DNA, and the effect of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Posted on 31 January, 20111 February, 2011 by Eoin

An article in today’s Daily Telegraph raises important issues relating to the retention of the DNA of innocent persons by the police in both the UK and Ireland. It also raises profound questions as to the effect of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in domestic law.

According to the Telegraph:

The [UK’s] Coalition Government has pledged to dramatically reduce the time period that police can retain samples of people who were not charged or convicted of offences. It follows a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in 2008 that a blanket policy of retaining such profiles indefinitely was illegal.

However, no new laws have yet been introduced and the Supreme Court will today hear a test case that such samples should be deleted now. If the country’s top court agrees it could result in police forces having to remove the samples immediately regardless of when new legislation is introduced.

The case is R (on the application of C) (FC) (Appellant) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Respondent) (UKSC 2010/0186) …

Lowry fails in ruling on Smyth claim – The Irish Times

Posted on 31 January, 2011 by Eoin

Lowry fails in ruling on Smyth claim

Independent TD Michael Lowry arriving at the Moriarty Tribunal in Dublin Castle in April 2009. Photograph: Matt Kavanagh/The Irish Times

Related

Smyth to fight Lowry application | 21/10/2010

Judgment reserved in Lowry case | 17/12/2010

COLM KEENA Public Affairs Correspondent

Independent deputy for North Tipperary Michael Lowry has failed to get a summary ruling in a defamation case where he claimed journalist Sam Smyth had accused him of being a thief.

Judge Margaret Heneghan delivered judgment today in a case under the 2009 Defamation Act where Mr Lowry was seeking a summary ruling that comments by Smyth were defamatory, that Smyth had no reasonable defence to the comments, and that an order for a correction should be made.

In a hearing in December Smyth had argued that he had not called Mr Lowry a thief, but that he did believe the politician was a liar and a tax cheat.

Judge Heneghan said she had read through the exhibits attached to Smyth’s affidavit, which included matters to do with the McCracken and Moriarty tribunals, Mr Lowry’s dealings with Dunnes Stores, his personal statement to the Dáil in 1996, and the two publications that Mr Lowry is alleging were defamatory.

…

Lowry defamation case proceeds to full hearing – RTÉ News

Posted on 31 January, 2011 by Eoin

Lowry defamation case proceeds to full hearing

Updated: 13:31, Monday, 31 January 2011

A Circuit Court judge has rejected an application by Independent TD Michael Lowry for a summary judgment for defamation against journalist Sam Smyth.

1 of 1
Michael Lowry – Says article inferred that he was a corrupt politician

Related Stories

Lowry begins defamation case against Smyth

Michael Lowry’s defamation action is adjourned

A Circuit Court judge has rejected an application by Independent TD Michael Lowry for a summary judgment for defamation against journalist Sam Smyth.

Circuit Court Judge Margaret Heneghan today accepted Mr Smyth’s contention that he has an arguable defence to the allegation by Mr Lowry and that the case could proceed to a full hearing.

Mr Lowry had sought a summary ruling in the Circuit Court under the 2009 Defamation Act.

However, Judge Heneghan said Mr Lowry had not established that Mr Smyth had no defence.

The case centres on comments made by Mr Smyth concerning the McCracken and Moriarty tribunals and their inquiries into matters relating to Mr Lowry’s finances.

Mr Lowry alleges that Mr Smyth made false and defamatory remarks about him in an article in the Irish Independent last May and a month later on the Tonight with Vincent Browne programme on TV3.

…

Case Law: JIH v News Group Newspapers, anonymity regained – Edward Craven « Inforrm’s Blog

Posted on 31 January, 2011 by Eoin

31
01
2011

The Court of Appeal today handed down judgment in the case of JIH v News Group Newspapers Ltd ([2011] EWCA 42). In allowing the appeal against the order of Tugendhat J ([2010] EWHC 2818 (QB)) the Court ordered that the claimant’s anonymity should be restored. Although the Court stressed that each decision is fact sensitive, this approach seems likely to be followed in most types of privacy injunction cases. This eagerly awaited decision adds to the growing body of case law concerning reporting restrictions where an injunction has been granted to restrain publication of information about a claimant’s private life.

The JIH judgment makes interesting reading for two reasons. First, it contains an important discussion about the ways in which reporting restrictions should be tailored in order to best serve the public interest in open justice whilst still providing adequate protection for the parties’ Article 8 rights. Recognising that there is a usually tension between disclosing the identity of the parties to a claim and disclosing the nature of the information that is the subject of the claim, the court plumps for the latter on the facts of JIH. In so doing, the court offers strong support for those who believe that the public interest is usually better served by disclosure of details about the injuncted information itself (together with anonymity for the claimant if necessary) rather than publication of the bare fact that a named individual has obtained an injunction in respect of unspecified information.

…

Blanket reporting restriction set aside by Court of Appeal | RPC Privacy Blog

Posted on 31 January, 2011 by Eoin

The Court of Appeal has discharged an order the effect of which would have been to postpone the reporting of an important criminal case for several months. The case relates to the shocking murder of a 15-year-old boy last year in front of hundreds of commuters during the rush hour at London’s Victoria Station. Following the lifting of reporting restrictions, the case has been widely reported, including here and here.

… The Court of Appeal’s judgment has not, so far as we know, been transcribed or reported elsewhere.

via blog.rpc.co.uk

Contrast today’s reports that many UK MPs want to ban the naming of suspects to avoid media feeding frenzies. As Obiter J explains:

In June 2010 the Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill received its first reading in the House of Commons and a second reading is scheduled for 4th February 2011. This is a private member’s bill introduced (well before the Yeates case) by Anna Soubry MP but it looks as if Kenneth Clarke (Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor) and Dominic Grieve (Attorney-General) are now lending the bill their support. If it becomes law then we, the public, would not know who has been arrested for questioning by the Police.

…

The Free Speech Blog » Robertson: new principles for whistleblowers

Posted on 31 January, 2011 by Eoin

1. Citizens everywhere have a democratic right to know what a government does in their name;
2. Governments and their public servants bear sole responsibility for protecting properly classified information;
3. Outsiders who receive or communicate confidential government information should not be prosecuted unless they have obtained it by fraud or bribery or duress;
4. National security exceptions should be precisely defined, should protect the identity of sources who are at risk of reprisals but should not stop whistleblowers from revealing human rights violations – the public has, at the very least, a right to know when a war fought in its name is killing innocent civilians through illegal targeting decisions.

via blog.indexoncensorship.org

…

Tenure and academic freedom in the news

Posted on 31 January, 20111 February, 2011 by Eoin

The rather arcane principles of academic tenure and academic freedom, which have long featured on this blog, have recently moved close to the centre of industrial relations debate and political discussion. The National Strategy for Higher Education in Ireland (the Hunt Report) and the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 (the Croke Park Agreement) seem to imperil both concepts. The current conception of academic tenure is threatened by proposals to make significant changes to academic employment conditions, and the current conception of academic freedom is undermined by recommendations that fundamental academic choices should be determined not by academics or institutions but at national level. It is unsurprising, therefore, that a recent meeting of Irish academics protested against the implementation of the Croke Park agreement in third-level institutions, and called for the defence of tenure and academic freedom.

Some colleges and universities have been strong in their defence of these concepts. For example, I have already discussed the provisions of Trinity’s 2010 Statutes protecting tenure and academic freedom. Moreover, the Trinity’s Council and Board have recently approved a detailed and progressive Policy on Academic Freedom. I have also discussed similar statutory provisions in other Irish universities. To that, I can now add the provisions of NUI Maynooth‘s statutes relating to tenure.…

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear?

Posted on 30 January, 20113 February, 2011 by Eoin

A cartoon for the week which saw both international data privacy day and the enactment of the Communications (Retention of Data) Act, 2011 (No 3 of 2011, not yet available on pdf, but see the Oireachtas site for the Bill; update: noted here by Rossa McMahon), via philosophyblog:

Woman behind shower curtain: Hey! What about my privacy?
Peeping eye: They say that people who worry about their privacy have something to hide …

Earlier posts of mine on this topic: The innocent have nothing to hide? | Traffic Data Retention, Irish-style, returns to the legislative agenda | Nothing to hide?…