Irish man fined £1,600 for offensive Facebook post in first prosecution of its kind

The 30-year-old man was charged under the Criminal Damage Act 1991

Antonia Molloy
Tuesday 01 July 2014 14:05
Comments
The man posted a status update to his ex-girlfriend's account calling her a "whore"
The man posted a status update to his ex-girlfriend's account calling her a "whore"

A Donegal man has been fined €2,000 (£1,600) for posting an abusive status update from his ex-girlfriend's Facebook account.

The landmark case is the first prosecution for criminal damage to a social media account.

The 30-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, pleaded guilty to posting an offensive status update on the woman’s Facebook page, the Irish Times reported.

The man was charged under the Criminal Damage Act 1991, which incurs a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a £8,000 fine.

He was acquitted by a jury last month of raping and falsely imprisoning his ex-girlfriend in her Donegal home on the same date.

A local policeman told the prosecuting counsel Sean Gillane SC that the man went to the woman’s house in the early hours of 6 April, 2011, to confront her over an alleged infidelity. She had ended their relationship in January 2011, but remained friends with the accused.

But when the man left the woman's house she realised that he had taken her phone. He went on to look through her text messages, which showed that she was in a new relationship, and then proceeded to post a Facebook status from her account. In the post he labelled her a “whore” who would take “any offers”.

The man, who was arrested soon after the incident, told police he had been angry at the time.

Defence counsel Isobel Kennedy SC said that while his actions were wrong, they were those of a “man scorned” and that he had been drinking beforehand. She added that he now has a new partner and job and had expressed remorse for his actions.

Mr Justice Garrett Sheehan asked how he was meant to assess the damage caused by the Facebook post because nothing had been physically broken.

Counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions replied that the offence was more alike to harassment than criminal damage because it was the woman’s reputation that had suffered.

The judge, who noted there was no relevant precedence to guide him in sentencing, called it a reprehensible offence which seriously damaged the woman’s good name but said that “fortunately” the status was spotted and taken down quickly.

He said a fine was the most appropriate penalty.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

By clicking ‘Create my account’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in