The High Court dismissed claims by Ruth Hickey and her infant son against Sunday Newspapers Limited over two Sunday World articles published in 2006. The claims alleged breaches of privacy and defamation. Mr Justice Kearns held that neither claim succeeded; he also rejected the argument that a letter from the newspaper’s solicitors created a separate contractual basis for damages.
The first article, published on 14 May 2006, included a photograph of Hickey and David Agnew leaving Dublin’s Births, Deaths and Marriages Registry with their baby. A second article, published on 27 August, described an abusive voicemail left by Adele King for Agnew and Hickey, and included another photograph taken outside the registry. The baby’s face was not visible in either image.
Hickey said she was upset by the coverage and had believed the newspaper’s 19 May letter undertaking not to publish photographs of her or her child engaged in private activities. She also complained that the first article repeated King’s use of the word “whore”. The court heard that Hickey had previously spoken to a journalist about her pregnancy and had participated in a magazine article and photographs with Agnew. The judge found that she had actively sought media publicity about their relationship and the birth.
On privacy, the judge said the photographs were taken in a public place while the couple were carrying out a routine public function. They showed no more than passers-by could have seen, did not identify the child’s features or expose the family to a demonstrated risk of physical harm. The judge also found no evidence that the newspaper had conducted an ongoing surveillance campaign. He concluded that the privacy claim did not outweigh the newspaper’s constitutional freedom of expression. The court’s ruling concerned these publications and the evidence presented; it did not establish that photographs taken in public can never breach privacy.
On defamation, the judge accepted that “whore” could be defamatory in other circumstances. In this article, however, it was presented as King’s reported outburst in the context of her anger about the affair. The judge found an ordinary reader would understand it as vulgar abuse, not as a serious allegation that Hickey was a prostitute or had sex for payment or outside a loving relationship.
The judge described the newspaper’s conduct in publishing the two articles as “the lowest standards of journalism imaginable”. He nevertheless dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims. The judgment was delivered on 8 October 2010; the judge said he would hear any subsequent application concerning costs.