http://www.mcgarrsolicitors.ie/2007/01/24/sub-judice/ 12 City Gate, Lower Bridge St, Dublin 8, Ireland. Ph:01 6351580 Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:07:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 http://www.mcgarrsolicitors.ie/2007/01/24/sub-judice/comment-page-1/#comment-2074 McGarr Solicitors » An IQ of 170 Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:02:34 +0000 http://www.mcgarrsolicitors.ie/2007/01/24/sub-judice/#comment-2074 [...] Remind me- exactly what was rotten in the State of Denmark? Channel Four, 8th February 2007 [back]Unlike here [back]Cicero (106 BC - 43 BC [back]   [...] [...] Remind me- exactly what was rotten in the State of Denmark? Channel Four, 8th February 2007 [back]Unlike here [back]Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC [back]   [...]

]]> http://www.mcgarrsolicitors.ie/2007/01/24/sub-judice/comment-page-1/#comment-1473 cearta.ie » Blog Archive » Sinnott v Carlow Nationalist for the Supreme Court? Fri, 02 Feb 2007 15:45:35 +0000 http://www.mcgarrsolicitors.ie/2007/01/24/sub-judice/#comment-1473 [...] The interest in Richard Sinnott’s privates and privacy shows no signs of abating, either online (egs from both ends of the spectrum: Edward McGarr | Twenty Major) or offline (eg, I was on the Breakfast Show on Newstalk106 (podcast feed here) on Wednesday morning discussing this very case). The story so far: the Circuit Court (discussed here) and High Court (discussed here) have already held that the publication by the Carlow Nationalist of a photograph of Mr Sinnott involved in a football match in which his private parts were exposed constituted an invasion of his privacy. However, the High Court proceedings are still ongoing before Mr Justice Budd, and, on Monday, the Nationalist asked Budd J to refer the matter to the Supreme Court. According to newspaper reports on Tuesday (Irish Independent | Irish Times), he adjourned to February 12th next the issue of whether he will refer such issues to the Supreme Court for determination. He should. Although the amount of damages under appeal is relatively small (at only €6,500), the issues of principle involved are of the highest importance. [...] [...] The interest in Richard Sinnott’s privates and privacy shows no signs of abating, either online (egs from both ends of the spectrum: Edward McGarr | Twenty Major) or offline (eg, I was on the Breakfast Show on Newstalk106 (podcast feed here) on Wednesday morning discussing this very case). The story so far: the Circuit Court (discussed here) and High Court (discussed here) have already held that the publication by the Carlow Nationalist of a photograph of Mr Sinnott involved in a football match in which his private parts were exposed constituted an invasion of his privacy. However, the High Court proceedings are still ongoing before Mr Justice Budd, and, on Monday, the Nationalist asked Budd J to refer the matter to the Supreme Court. According to newspaper reports on Tuesday (Irish Independent | Irish Times), he adjourned to February 12th next the issue of whether he will refer such issues to the Supreme Court for determination. He should. Although the amount of damages under appeal is relatively small (at only €6,500), the issues of principle involved are of the highest importance. [...]

]]>