A GAA player and his father have been awarded damages of €25,000 each over an internet post which accused the footballer of telling “blatant lies” in court resulting in a member of an opposing team being imprisoned for assault.
The case involving Jonathan Clarke and James Clarke, of Woodstock, Ballindine, Claremorris, was before Judge Francis Comerford at the Circuit Civil Court in Castlebar, Co Mayo.
The Clarkes brought a defamation case against Andrew Malee, a member of Moy Davitts GAA Club in Foxford, as a result of a comment published on the thejournal.ie on October 17th, 2015.
The post related to Jonathan Clarke, who had been the victim of an assault by a member of the Moy Davitts, a team mate and friend of Mr Malee’s.
Jonathan Clarke lost an eye as a result of the assault in 2013, when he was aged 23. His attacker was subsequently sentenced to two years in prison with one year suspended.
Offending post
The offending post, which was taken down by Mr Malee within a day, stated: “Jonathan, it is unfortunate you cannot now see with one eye.
“However, you have blatantly lied about the events of the day and as a result a decent man and husband is now in jail because you are bitter.
“What happened to you was not thuggery it was a scuffle within a match and you and your father went out from day one to make him pay because you are both bitter losers . . . You will never get an apology from the club or anyone else. You are an absolute disgrace to the GAA.”
In court on Tuesday, Mr Malee apologised for his comments and admitted to being ill-informed when he posted it.
He said he did not know the person he claimed had been wrongfully sent to jail, had actually committed a serious criminal assault.
Judge Comerford said clear and substantial damage had been caused to the reputations of both plaintiffs. He added that posting on the internet was more serious than pub talk.
Assessing damages at €25,000 to both plaintiffs, Judge Comerford noted that the defendant had made “a somewhat ill-defined offer” to pay €15,000 compensation in total but he held the offer was wholly inadequate in terms of damages.