A DUBLIN woman has lost an action for defamation and breach of privacy against a newspaper for publishing photos and articles about her.
The case was taken by Ruth Hickey (36), Archer’s Wood, Castaheany, Dublin 15, the partner of entertainer Twink’s former husband.
Ms Hickey had sued the Sunday Worldover material published after she, her newborn son and Mr Agnew, were photographed leaving the Births, Marriages and Deaths office in Dublin on May 10th, 2006.
Ms Hickey claimed the repetition by the newspaper in two subsequent articles of words used in a voicemail message and in a scrapped interview by Twink meant she was a prostitute and her son a bastard.
Yesterday, the president of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, rejected Ms Hickey’s breach of privacy and defamation claims but added he felt compelled to state the articles “represented the lowest standards of journalism imaginable”.
“It is a regrettable fact of life that such material sells newspapers,” he said. He made the remarks in the context of an application for costs of the case which he will deal with later.
The judge also commented that the issue of privacy versus freedom of expression should be a matter for new legislation.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Kearns concluded the publication of photos of the couple and child leaving the registry office were not a breach of privacy because they were taken in a public place when they were performing a routine public function. The photos did not disclose anything that could not have been seen by anyone else who turned up at the registry office at the relevant time, he said.
The newspaper could have gone to the registry office and found and published the information and nothing in the publication exposed Ms Hickey and her family to any risk of physical harm from any person with ill-intent, the judge said.
No evidence was given to establish Ms Hickey’s contention a campaign of surveillance had been carried out by the paper against herself, her partner or child, he added. The features of the baby were not recognisable from the photo and the child could not have suffered any hurt or humiliation from any aspect of the articles given his age at the time.
The judge noted Ms Hickey had spoken to journalist PJ Gibbons, of Social and Personalmagazine, with the specific intention of getting publicity for matters "in respect of which she now seeks to claim privacy". The voicemail message in which Twink used offensive words about Ms Hickey and her child was already posted on the internet and in the public domain, the judge added.
He was satisfied Ms Hickey had actively sought publicity from the press and media concerning her partnership with Mr Agnew and the birth of their child, the judge said.
She made public statements concerning her family life, had taken part in a photo shoot for Social and Personal and also gave interviews “for public consumption”.
He ruled Ms Hickey had not pointed to any factor outweighing the right to freedom of expression which the paper was entitled to. To hold otherwise would represent a “radical ratcheting up of the right to privacy at the expense of the right to freedom of expression to a degree which, in my view, should more properly be the subject of legislation”.
A finding in favour of Ms Hickey might have given rise to a situation where a newspaper might feel itself inhibited from publishing a photograph of any public person attending, for example, a funeral or entering a court building or polling station.