A MAN whose name and address were falsely given in court by an accused man is claiming that he was defamed by the Star, which reported the case, the High Court was told yesterday.
It was claimed that in a subsequent District Court case the real name of the accused man was given, but that this was not reported by the Star.
Mr Anthony Peel, of Shangan Gardens, Ballymun, claims that he was defamed as his name was falsely given in the district court. The man who used his name was accused of burglary and was applying for bail.
Mr Paul O'Higgins SC, for Mr Peel, said that in February 1992 a man appeared in Dublin District Court on a burglary charge, but the name and address given were those of Mr Peel. Bail was suggested as, it was stated, he and his children had AIDS.
The Star reported the proceedings.
The action before the High Court yesterday was originally to have been a challenge to the constitutionality of the Defamation Act 1961. The relevant section states that court proceedings are to be reported fairly and accurately and there is absolute privilege.
Mr O'Higgins said that just that morning, however, as he talked to the Garda sergeant in the case, it had emerged that the accused man, the perjurer, had later appeared in the district court on Good Friday 1992, when it was stated in evidence that Mr Peel's name had been given falsely.
The Star had not reported these proceedings, he said.
Mr O'Higgins said that a grave wrong and damage had been suffered by Mr Peel and his family. He was looking for an adjournment as the circumstances had changed.
Mr John Rogers SC, for the State, said he was opposing the adjournment. Counsel for the plaintiff perceived that there was originally no case to sue the Star, so they turned on the State. Now, four years on, they discovered the events that occurred in the district court.
The action being taken against the State on the constitutional matter might never come to court as a new action was about to be lodged by the plaintiff.
Miss Justice Laffoy said that this was a somewhat unusual situation. The plaintiff had brought the action challenging Section 18 of the Defamation Act. In effect, in order to establish locus standi, the plaintiff had to establish that he had been defamed and that but for Section 18 he would have an action against the Star.
Mr O'Higgins indicated that because of a fact he had become aware of that morning, he was seeking an opportunity to bring an action against the Star and wanted an adjournment.
Mr Rogers had submitted that what Mr O'Higgins was looking for was a contingent adjournment to test the outcome of the separate proceedings.
The judge said that it was not a satisfactory state of affairs that a challenge to an Act of the Oireachtas should be left outstanding in this way.
However, Mr Peel and his children were wronged and it would be unfair to force him on in an action after what had emerged. She would therefore grant the adjournment.
The case was put in for mention in July.