High Court rules Ben Gilroy not entitled to injunction over video
Anti-eviction activist Ben Gilroy is not entitled to an injunction requiring a woman to remove a video posted on social media pending the outcome of his defamation action.
Mr Gilroy, of Riverview, Athlumney Abbey, Navan, Co Meath, says he has nothing to do with MMS.
He and another man claim they were defamed in a video posted by Fiona O'Leary, a campaigner for the rights of children with autism.
Ms O'Leary also campaigns against the use of a particular substance, MMS, as a cure for autism.
In a judgment today, Mr Justice Senan Allen said Mr Gilroy, who remains jailed in Mountjoy Prison for contempt, had failed to meet the legal threshold for the injunction sought by him.
Mr Gilroy and a businessman, Vincent Byrne, Ardgillan Close, Ardgillan Heights, Balrothery, Co Dublin have sued Ms O'Leary over allegedly defaming them in a 13-minute Youtube video which she posted under the title "The Sovereign Movement and its links to MMS bleach" on June 23rd last.
Ms O'Leary, represented by barrister Patricia Sheehy Skeffington BL, instructed by solicitor Rossa McMahon, denies the post contains any defamatory remarks about the two men.
In a pre-trial motion, Mr Gilroy sought an injunction under section 33 of the Defamation Act requiring Ms O'Leary to take down the alleged defamatory video until the case is determined.
He claims the video wrongly links him to the use and promotion of MMS.
The application was opposed by Ms O'Leary who denies the video is defamatory.
Her lawyers told the court she accepted that Mr Gilroy is not involved with MMS.
Mr Justice Allen said it seemed to him the issue of what the video might convey was a matter for a jury to decide.
In his view, a jury might "very well take the view" the case is "greatly over pleaded."
While accepting there was at the very least an issue to be tried as to whether the video conveys the alleged meanings, he said, if the case goes to trial, there might well be an issue as to whether all or any of the alleged meanings should go to the jury.
For present purposes, it was sufficient to say he "could not conceive" the Court of Appeal would interfere with a verdict of a jury that the video was not defamatory of Mr Gilroy, he said.
He said the complaint by Mr Gilroy, who denies he is a member of the Sovereign Movement, is not that the video links him to that entity but rather to MMS.
The judge said Mr Gilroy says he has nothing to do with MMS and he claimed the words used by Ms O'Leary have meanings including he is engaged in child torture, child abuse and is engaged in the practice of procuring and distributing MMS.
Ms O'Leary says the words used do not mean what Mr Gilroy contends, the judge said.
She also claimed she is honestly of the opinion the Sovereign Movement is a "cult" and that Mr Gilroy has rejected the laws of the State and the authority of the courts in representing adherents of the Sovereign Movement in repossession cases, the judge said.
Mr Gilroy is currently serving a three-month term over his failure to comply with a High Court order to complete 80 hours community service after he admitted criminal contempt.
He was not in court for the decision but Mr Justice Allen said arrangements had been made to supply him with a copy of the judgement.
Following the ruling, Ms Sheehy Skeffington said her client had a concern because Mr Gilroy had said in an interview on an internet radio channel, if he did not get the injunction, he was then free to say whatever he wanted about Ms O'Leary.
The judge said, if anything arose, Ms O'Leary could bring a motion before the court in the normal way.
The case has been adjourned to April.
