MORE THAN 25 people intend to sue over the circulation on social media of images containing their names and photographs on a garda notice board.

The actions arise out of claims that in March 2019 a person, believed to be a contractor employed by the gardaí was permitted access to a room in Kilmainham Garda Station, which contained briefing bulletins.

It is claimed that one bulletin displayed various details, including photographs of their faces, names and addresses.

They claim that they were described on the bulletin boards as being active criminals from Ballyfermot/Labre Park or criminals from Kilmainham and Inchicore.

They claim that they have either no convictions or very minor ones, meaning that they could not be described as criminals or active criminals. Some of the applicants were in their late teens when the images were circulated.

They also claim they were photographed alongside multiple notorious criminals involved in murderous feuding, an Islamic extremist, and convicted sex offender.

It is claimed that the contractor took pictures of the bulletin boards and circulated the photographs on a Whatsapp group and online.

As a result, the 25 people intend to bring proceedings, including defamation actions, and damages actions for alleged breach of privacy and a breach of the Data Protection Act, against both the Garda Commissioner and the contractor.

Applications in respect of their intended claims came before Justice Leonie Reynolds at the High Court on Friday.

Left with no option

The Judge, following an application made by Mark Lynam BL for more than 20 of the applicants, made on order requiring the commissioner to provide them with the name and address of the person who photographed the bulletin boards at Kilmainham Garda Station in March 2019.

The order was made on consent by the Commissioner, represented by Conor Power SC, and also includes an undertaking by the applicants not to use the contractor’s details other than to pursue their claims.

The order was sought to allow the applicants to bring their actions against the contractor. That person’s name and address, it was claimed had been in the possession of the Commissioner.

However, despite several requests to furnish those details, it was claimed that the Commissioner failed to do so.

The applicant’s lawyers said an order directing the Commissioner to provide another person who is suing over the circulation of the photographs with the contractor’s details was made by the court late last year.

It was hoped that the commissioner would cooperate in respect of the other persons who wish to bring proceedings. Despite sending warning letters the opposite proved to be the case.

The other 20 or more individuals were left with no option other than seek what is known as a ‘Norwich Pharmacal’ order aimed at compelling the Commissioner to provide them with the contractor’s details.

There was a high degree of urgency in the matter as those applicants who are suing for defamation need to bring their claims within 12 months of the pictures being published,  Lynam submitted.

Earlier this week the High Court granted the applicants permission to serve short notice of their application for such an order against the Commissioner.

When the matter returned before Justice Reynolds on Friday the court was told the matter had been resolved.