UK: Facebook damages payout to Limavady child sex abuser may be reduced

Admin

Facebook remains liable in damages for details about a convicted child abuser featuring on pages set up to name and shame paedophiles in Northern Ireland, the Court of Appeal has ruled. But senior judges restricted the period when the social network knew private information was being published – meaning a £20,000 compensation award to the sex offender could now be cut. Lord Chief Justice Sir Declan Morgan indicated that a further hearing will explore the appropriate level of payout due to the changed circumstances. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

So let’s get this straight:

1. Registrant is trying to live his life, and Facebook posts urge harm against him.
2. Registrant successfully sues Facebook and gets £20,000 judgment.
3. Registrant’s former victims sues HIM to get the payment, and the payment is halted.
4. Subsequent appeal by Facebook to reduce or eliminate judgment is successful, at least for now.
5. Registrant is STILL be liable for payment to his former victims, as there are, as far as I know, no contingency clauses that stipulates that he would collect the award before being liable.

In all this time, is name is thrown all over the place, ruining his life for good.

0
Reply

I found out one more piece of excrement:

“Contending there had been a failure to properly identify the unlawful material, counsel insisted the sex offender had to live with name-calling as part of his conviction.”

This counsel is OUT OF ORDER and I’m surprised that the counsel for the registrant didn’t register a major complaint. In fact, because there is NO order by a judge that the registrant “had to live with name calling” as part of his conviction, this statement would have been rendered incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, at least in a US court. Not knowing UK law, this may not be the case, but in general UK courtroom procedures are far more restrictive than in the US, and such a statement should have been dealt with by the Lord or Ladyship (judge).

0
Reply