The High Court dismissed a minor’s claim for damages against three media companies over reports of a neighbour’s convictions for rape and sexual assault. Mr Justice Hedigan held that the publications and broadcasts did not breach the complainant’s anonymity under the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981 or her constitutional right to privacy.
The case concerned radio reports on 27 November 2006 and newspaper reports the following two days. They named the convicted man, gave his age and address, and reported that he had pleaded guilty to raping a female on a specified date and sexually assaulting a male. They did not name the victims or state their ages, addresses or relationship to the offender.
The plaintiff, who was eight when the rape occurred, claimed that people in her village connected the reports with events they had witnessed when Gardaí attended her home and the offender’s home. Her family said the publicity caused distress and led them to leave the village. Those effects formed part of the case advanced; the judge’s decision turned on the information available to the media and what they knew or could have suspected when publishing.
The judge found that section 7 of the 1981 Act does not itself create a civil right to damages. He interpreted “likely to lead” to mean a real risk that publication would identify the complainant in the minds of the public. On the evidence, the reporter’s account gave the defendants no indication that the victims were children, lived in the same village as the offender or were related to each other. The defendants did not know or have reason to suspect that the details were likely to identify the plaintiff, the judge found. He therefore held that the reports were not unlawful under section 7.
The court considered the privacy claim separately. The judge accepted that complainants have a constitutional right to privacy and that damages may be available where that right is violated. But he concluded that the claim failed on these facts: the published information was not private, and the defendants had no knowledge or suspicion that it would identify the plaintiff or violate her privacy. He dismissed the action.
The judgment also said the accused’s identity may be reported after conviction, but that does not displace a complainant’s continuing right to anonymity. The judge considered that an application under section 8(8) could have sought to prevent publication of the offender’s name or address where disclosure might identify the complainant. No such application was made in this case.