The High Court has decided to refer legal questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union before ruling on a school board’s request to identify the operators of an Instagram account.
The Board of Management of Salesian Secondary College (Limerick) sought an order requiring Facebook Ireland Ltd, which the judgment says seemingly provided Instagram, to disclose information identifying the people behind the account “Pallaskenrymemes”. The board said it wanted to deal with them through a “disciplinary or pastoral response”, rather than to bring legal proceedings.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons’s judgment, delivered on 19 May 2021, describes about 52 posts published during the account’s brief period of activity, from 14 to 24 October 2019. The posts used stock images with text referring to school staff, students and school matters. Some ridiculed staff by reference to appearance, weight and sexuality; others referred to issues such as food prices and a timetable change. The judgment records that the school said a student had also been mocked but had provided no affidavit detail about that claim.
After the school’s solicitor asked for the account to be deleted, its operators removed the posts. The school later obtained the password and accessed messages showing that 21 students had communicated with the operators. The school raised concerns about two messages with a sexual element, while accepting they might have been sarcastic. It reported the matter to An Garda Síochána and the Child and Family Agency. The judgment says there was no evidence about any steps those authorities considered necessary.
The judge noted that the account was inactive, its content had been removed, the school had the password, and the application was first brought more than a year after the account went inactive. Facebook did not formally consent to the requested order but offered no substantive opposition.
The court said Irish disclosure-order cases had so far involved intended legal proceedings and at least a prima facie case of tortious wrongdoing. It also found that the papers did not establish a prima facie defamation case for the school, board or its members. It did not decide whether the board could obtain account information for disciplinary purposes. Instead, it said EU law raised unresolved questions about anonymity, privacy, data protection and freedom of expression, including whether a school’s interest in disciplining students or staff could justify disclosure.
The judge directed that the parties be heard on the precise form of the EU reference and set a further directions hearing for 14 June 2021. The judgment does not grant the disclosure order; that application remained unresolved. Limited reporting restrictions remained in force pending the reference, prohibiting publication of material that might identify people referred to in the account. The judgment itself could be reported without redactions.