Kenneth Callaghan and Independent News and Media Limited
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Stephens J |
| Judgment Date | 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] NIQB 1 |
| Date | 07 January 2009 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
Neutral Citation No.: [2009] NIQB 1 Ref:
STE7313
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
07/01/09
(subject to editorial corrections)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
________
BETWEEN:
KENNETH CALLAGHAN
First Plaintiff;
and
INDEPENDENT NEWS AND MEDIA LIMITED
Defendant.
________
BETWEEN:
NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE
Second Plaintiff;
and
INDEPENDENT NEWS AND MEDIA LIMITED
Defendant.
STEPHENS J
Introduction
[1] This judgment is in respect of two actions which were tried before me
at the same time. The parties agreed that all the evidence whether oral,
documentary or by affidavit, would be admissible in both actions irrespective
as to the action in which the evidence was given.
[2] In the first action, Kenneth Henry Callaghan, 39 (date of birth 8 April
1969) (“the first plaintiff”) seeks an injunction to restrain Independent News
2
and Media Limited, (“the defendant”), whether by itself, its servants or
agents or otherwise from:-
(a) publishing any unpixelated photographic images of the first
plaintiff from which he could be identified (“an unpixelated
photograph”); and
(b) publishing any information
(i) identifying the first plaintiff’s address or the
village, town, townland or city in which he lives,
(ii) identifying the addresses of his parents or siblings or the
village, town, townland or city in which they live,
(iii) identifying any location at which he stays or which he
frequents,
(iv) identifying his place of work, specifying his travel
arrangements or specifying any other details that would enable
members of the public to ascertain or anticipate his presence at a
particular location at a particular time.
[3] The defendant acknowledged that it would be irresponsible to “reveal
the detailed location of the whereabouts” of the first plaintiff and therefore
there was no substantial issue as to the first plaintiff’s entitlement to an order
in respect of (b); however there was an issue as to the extent of the relief.
During the trial greater precision was brought, not only to the order which
the plaintiff sought to obtain ((b) above being the result of amendments), but
also to the information which the defendant accepted that it would not
publish. In essence the trial of the first plaintiff’s action revolved around the
single issue as to whether the defendant could or could not publish an
unpixelated photograph.
[4] In the second action the Northern Ireland Office (“the second
plaintiff”) as the body responsible for operating the prisons in Northern
Ireland, seeks a declaration that the defendant may not lawfully publish
photographs of the first plaintiff without obscuring all of his distinguishing
features (“an unpixelated photograph”). The second plaintiff further seeks a
declaration that the defendant may not lawfully publish a photograph of any
serving prisoner who is or who has been assessed at the plaintiff’s Prisoner
Assessment Unit, Crumlin Road, Belfast, unless all distinguishing features of
that person are obscured, without giving the second plaintiff 48 hours notice
of the intention to publish the same.
3
[5] Mr McDonald QC and Ms Askin appeared on behalf of the first
plaintiff. Mr Shaw QC and Mr McMillen appeared on behalf of the second
plaintiff. Mr Gerald Simpson QC and Mr MacMahon appeared on behalf of
the defendant. I am indebted to all sets of counsel for the preparation of their
skeleton arguments and the clear and concise manner in which they
presented their submissions.
The offence committed by the first plaintiff, his conviction and the
sentence imposed
[6] On 2 October 1987 the first plaintiff committed a brutal and callous
sexual murder. His victim was Carol Jane Gouldie then aged 21. She had
been employed as a secretary and she worked in the Priory Inn in Holywood
in the evenings. The first plaintiff lived some doors away from her home and
he was vaguely acquainted with her from that connection and also from the
Priory Inn. The first plaintiff had enjoyed a lengthy relationship with another
woman but she had finished it as she did not see a future there. When
considering the present risks posed by the first plaintiff it is important to bear
in mind the fact that the lethal attack that he perpetrated in 1987 was not on
the woman with whom he had a relationship but rather the attack was
transferred to and perpetrated upon a woman with whom he had only a
vague acquaintance. To return to the sequence the first plaintiff broke into
Carol Gouldie’s otherwise empty house and hid having armed himself with
in effect a hammer and when Carol Gouldie returned he inflicted numerous
blows to her head with that weapon. He then tied her hands behind her back
and placed a cushion cover as a hood over her head. He then raped her either
as she was dying or when she was dead. The purpose of the cushion cover
was to hide her identity so that he did not know that it was another girl rather
than his ex-girlfriend upon whom he was carrying out these atrocities. The
plaintiff then left her house and went out that evening to the pictures with a
girlfriend. Later that same night he drove around Holywood with a friend
and gave two female friends lifts to their houses, arranging a date with one of
them for the next Tuesday evening. In the course of the police investigation
the first plaintiff gave a totally dishonest account of his movements and what
he had seen. He only made admissions when confronted with the fact that
blood had been found on his shoes. His actions in the aftermath of the killing
suggest that he felt no regret at the terrible deed that he had committed. The
effect on Carol Gouldie’s family is illustrated by the deceased’s mother’s
statement that her life has been so brutalised that it can never be the same
again. That she finds it impossible to come to terms with the loss of her
daughter. She described her daughter as gentle, caring and gifted – a person
who loved life and was loved by all who knew her. Mrs Gouldie fears for the
welfare of her other children and feels locked in the past. The impact of this
heinous crime has been more than she could ever express in words. This
To continue reading
Request your trial
9 cases
-
Murray v Newsgroup Newspapers and Others
...MEDIA LTD UNREP STEPHENS 8.2.2008 2008 NIQB 15 CALLAGHAN & NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE v INDEPENDENT NEWS & MEDIA LTD UNREP STEPHENS 7.1.2009 2009 NIQB 1 CAMPUS OIL LTD & ORS v MIN FOR INDUSTRY & ORS (NO 2) 1983 IR 88 1984 ILRM 85 KERR & PATERSON A TREATISE ON THE LAW & PRACTICE OF INJUNCTIONS ......
-
MURRAY v NEWSGROUP NEWSPAPERS Ltd
...Callaghan v. Independent News & Media Ltd.[2008] NIQB 15, (Unreported, Northern Ireland High Court, Stephens J., 8th February, 2008); [2009] NIQB 1, (Unreported, Northern Ireland High Court, Stephens J., 7th January, 2009) approved. 3. That, where much of the information which a plaintiff s......
-
CG v Facebook Ireland Limited and McCloskey (Joseph)
...[36]). Although he adopted this approach by reference to his previous decision in Kenneth Callaghan v Independent News and Media [2009] NIQB 1 the learned trial judge went on in this case to accept the submission by counsel for the respondent that the Data Protection Act 1998 provided a use......
-
Hayes v Willoughby (No 2)
...harass his neighbours under the guise of preventing or detecting crime" [31] (approved in Callaghan v Independent News and Media Limited [2009] NIQB 1). A vigilante may profess a purpose within section 1(3)(a) which is belied by the nature, extent and duration of the course of conduct he 23......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
-
Invasion of Privacy/Misuse of Private Information
...nature of photography at paras. 16–23. A further lucid summary of the law is found in Callaghan v. Independent News and Media Ltd., [2009] NIQB 1 at para. 24: he propositions of law can be summarized as follows: (a) he Human Rights Act . he Human Rights Act 1998 requires the values enshrine......
-
Table of Cases
...(S.C.J.) ........................................................................ 382, 383 Callaghan v. Independent News and Media Ltd., [2009] NIQB 1 ................................... 377, 381 Campbell v. MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 A.C. 457 (H.L.) ........................................