Judgment: 2018-05-03 · Court archive

Man gets suspended month for criminal contempt over social media video

The High Court accepted Ben Gilroy’s guilty plea after he retracted remarks about a judge and said he had arranged for the video to be removed. The sentence was suspended subject to conditions lasting 30 months.

High Court · [2018] IEHC 831

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • KBC Bank Ireland plc (Plaintiff)
  • Ben Gilroy
  • Tony O’Connor (Judge)
What

The High Court accepted Ben Gilroy’s guilty plea after he retracted remarks about a judge and said he had arranged for the video to be removed. The sentence was suspended subject to conditions lasting 30 months.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Mountjoy prison
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The court directed Mr Gilroy to appear on 3 May to answer a potential criminal contempt charge. He said he had watched the video, had removed it, was embarrassed, and did not remember making all the statements. He retracted and withdrew each statement read in court, and apologised unconditionally. The court found the video could still be accessed during its inquiries. Mr Gilroy said he had asked the website administrators to remove it and guaranteed it would be taken down by 3pm. The judgment records that it was taken down.

The High Court imposed a suspended one-month prison sentence on Ben Gilroy after he pleaded guilty to criminal contempt over remarks about a judge that appeared in a social media video.

Mr Justice Tony O’Connor delivered the ex tempore judgment on 3 May 2018. The court said the video had been posted on 1 May and quoted Mr Gilroy as calling the judge a “so called satanic cult member” and suggesting people should wait for someone entering a home and “blow their head off with a gun”.

The remarks arose during separate proceedings concerning KBC Bank Ireland plc’s effort to commit two defendants for refusing to leave a house. Those two defendants were committed to Mountjoy prison on 1 May, then purged their contempt after the luncheon break and agreed to vacate the property. The contempt charge against Mr Gilroy concerned his video statements, not the defendants’ refusal to leave.

The court directed Mr Gilroy to appear on 3 May to answer a potential criminal contempt charge. He said he had watched the video, had removed it, was embarrassed, and did not remember making all the statements. He retracted and withdrew each statement read in court, and apologised unconditionally. The court found the video could still be accessed during its inquiries. Mr Gilroy said he had asked the website administrators to remove it and guaranteed it would be taken down by 3pm. The judgment records that it was taken down.

Mr Gilroy was told of his rights in defending the charge and elected to have it determined that day. He pleaded guilty. KBC’s counsel told the court the bank was not a prosecutor but was there to assist; an affidavit exhibiting stills from the video was filed.

In accepting the plea and imposing sentence, the judge considered Mr Gilroy’s retraction, cooperation in identifying one page administrator, the removal of the video, his acceptance that the words amounted to criminal contempt, and other material submitted privately to the court. The judge also referred to an earlier 2017 High Court contempt case in which Mr Gilroy had pleaded guilty.

The one-month sentence was suspended on conditions for 30 calendar months from 3 May 2018. Mr Gilroy was required to desist from uttering or contributing to social media posts repeating or tending to repeat the statements listed in the court’s 1 May order. If he were found guilty of criminal contempt by any court in Ireland during that period, the sentence could become operative on application to the High Court. The judgment also said the High Court could act on its own motion if he repeated the import of the words or was found guilty of contempt. Mr Gilroy was free to leave court subject to those conditions.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review