Cogley v. RTE and Aherne v. RTE
| Author | Rachael Walsh |
| Position | Junior Sophister LLB Candidate, Trinity College Dublin |
| Pages | 137-146 |
COGLEYV.
RTE
AND
AHERNE
V.
RTE
RACHEL WALSH*
Increasing
judicial
activism
can be
discerned
from
recent
defamation
judgments,
with
reforms being introduced
by
judges
on
a
case
by
case
basis.'
The
High Court
judgment
of
Clarke
J.
in
Cogley
v.
RTE
and
Aherne
v.
RTE
in
June 2005
adds
to
this
trend.
The case,
concerning
the
RTE
'Prime
Time
Investigates'
programme
exposing
problems
at
the
Leas
Cross
Nursing
home,
addressed
three
key
issues
affecting defamation
law:
the
right to
privacy, injunctions
and
the
question
of
what constitutes public
interest
material.
The
judgment
delivered by
Clarke
J. in
Cogley
and
Aherne
determined
two
sets
of
applications
for
an
interlocutory
injunction
restraining
the
broadcast
of
the
programme.
The
Cogley
proceedings
were
brought
by
the
Director
of
Nursing
at
the home while
the
Aherne
proceedings
were
brought
by
the
owners
of
the
home.
The
programme
was
acknowledged
by
Clarke
J.
to
make
"very serious allegations"
3
and
to
contain
a
significant amount
of
secretly obtained
footage filmed
by
an
undercover care
worker.
The
Director
of
Nursing's
claim
was
based
entirely
on
defamation,
while
the
owners alleged
a
violation
of
their
right
to
privacy
caused
by
the
secret
filming,
but
did not
rule out
a
possible
defamation
claim.
Clarke
J.
stated that,
in
the
circumstances,
as
well
as
examining
whether
there
was
a
breach
of
privacy,
it
was appropriate
to
consider
whether
the
applicants
in
the
Aherne
proceedings would
have
been
able
to
maintain
a
claim
to
restrain
the broadcast
of
the
programme
on
the
basis
of
defamation.
4
Both applications
for
an
injunction
were
rejected.
While
the
conclusion reached
by Clarke
J.
in
Cogley
and
Aherne
was
eminently
sensible, certain
aspects
of
his
analysis
seem to
mark
a
significant
departure
from
precedent.
The
Aherne
proceedings raised
the
most
interesting
issues,
and
hence will
be
the
focus
of
this note.
Clarke
J.'s
ruling
on
the
breach
of
privacy
issue
in
the
Aherne
proceedings
recognised
"Junior
Sophister
LLB
Candidate,
Trinity
College
Dublin.
The
author would
like
to
thank
Dr.
Neville
Cox for
his
helpful comments
and
advice.
I
See,
for
example,
O'Caoimh
J.'s
development
of
qualified
privilege
as
a
wider
defence
for
the
press in
defamation
actions
in
Hunter
v.
Gerald
Duckworth
&
Co.
Ltd.
81.
2
Cogley
v.
Radio
Telefis
Eireann
and
Aherne
v.
Radio
Telefis
Eireann
hereinafter
'Cogley'
and
'Aherne'.
3
Ibid.,
at
534.
'Ibid.,
at
534-535.
©
2006 Rachel
Walsh
and
Dublin University
Law
Society
To continue reading
Request your trial