Political activist Ben Gilroy has lost his appeal aimed at overturning injunctions restraining him publishing unsubstantiated allegations that Start Mortgages DAC or its legal advisers were “perpetrating a fraud” arising from the lender seeking possession of his family home over a debt of some €500,000.

The injunctions also restrained him “arresting”; publishing the home addresses of officers, agents or employees of Start; giving legal advice or assistance concerning Start; and required him to remove certain online content referring to Start.

They were granted by the High Court on October 31st, 2019, arising from matters including threats by Mr Gilroy in August 2019 to release a video series entitled The Fraud of Start Mortgages and Others, notwithstanding court orders not to do so, and his publication between October 24th and 29th, 2019, of Facebook posts and a long video which included screenshots of lawyers representing Start in which he said he intended to be making “arrests” within four weeks.

This week, the three-judge Court of Appeal ruled Mr Gilroy had made out no basis to grant his appeal against the orders. It rejected all his arguments, including that the High Court had removed his common law power of arrest for alleged fraud and breached his right to freedom of expression.

Lawful arrest

He had adduced no evidence at all of fraud and there was no basis upon which the court could conclude it would be lawful for any garda, never mind a member of the public, to arrest any of the individuals threatened with arrest, Ms Justice Caroline Costello said when giving the judgment.

The High Court was presented with “overwhelming evidence” that Mr Gilroy insisted that Start, its solicitors and counsel had perpetrated, and were perpetrating a fraud, she said.

On the basis of his conclusion this was so, Mr Gilroy had posted, and intended to further post online various posts, videos and images alleging fraud and calling for the arrest of the persons he had identified as being responsible, including organising a “posse” to effect a citizen’s arrest of the persons accused by him of fraud.

He had also posted “instructional” videos advising viewers how to respond to claims for possession of their homes based, inter alia, on documents he had wrongfully seized from the offices of Start during a meeting he had requested to inspect documents concerning his family home.

Right to advise

Mr Gilroy was entitled to do none of those things, she said. He refused to substantiate his claims of fraud and insisted on his entitlement to post material online which was clearly “gravely damaging” to Start, its officers, employees, solicitors and counsel and potentially could give rise to dangerous developments and attempted arrests.

He had also denied he was acting in breach of a permanent injunction granted in September 2018 which prohibited him assisting or advising people engaged in litigation in the State, while simultaneously insisting on his right to advise people how to resist claims to repossess their homes.

In the circumstances, the High Court was entitled to grant the orders sought by Start, she ruled.

Earlier, the judge noted a €310,000 loan was made by Start in 2006 to Mr Gilroy and his wife, secured over their home in Navan, Co Meath. As a result of arrears on repayments, the last payment having been made in February 2011, Start initiated possession proceedings in the Circuit Court. As of June 2019, the balance outstanding on the loan was some €512,244.

Before the Court of Appeal appeal was heard, a possession order was granted by the Circuit Court against Mr Gilroy and his wife.