Ashling Murphy's boyfriend settles defamation action against BBC
The 23-year-old schoolteacher was killed along a canal path in Tullamore, Co Offaly in 2022 by murderer Jozef Puska.
Her partner, 27-year-old Ryan Casey, sued the BBC over a broadcast of an episode of the View following Puska's sentencing.
It contained commentary on Mr Casey's victim impact statement that he delivered ahead of sentencing.
He initiated High Court proceedings against the broadcaster alleging that he had been defamed during the television programme.
The action was settled on Thursday, with the BBC saying it acknowledged Mr Casey's personal tragedy.
It stood by the journalism of the broadcast and added: 'The BBC is however happy to clarify that it does not consider Ryan Casey to be a criminal or a racist, or someone guilty of or attempting to incite hatred, or someone seeking to pose as a hero of the far right through his victim impact statement.'
It is understood Mr Casey received a substantial figure in the settlement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
US values must not trump valid concerns about social media
In December 2020, Helen McEntee, then the justice minister, announced her intention to bring forward new legislation to combat incitement to hatred and hate crime the following year. She made this promise at the launch of the findings of a public consultation that attracted more than 3,600 submissions. She stated that, after in-depth meetings with various civil society and community groups, academics and experts, her aim was to identify how Ireland's law in this area could be improved, based on a clear understanding of the experiences of those affected by hate speech and hate crime. McEntee ultimately proposed that the new law would cover both incitement to hatred and hate crime with the latter offences being aggravated versions of existing crimes. The idea was that offences against the person, criminal damage or public order offences — when they were carried out because of prejudice against a protected characteristic — would be criminalised. Close to four years after first mooting the legislation, and with a general election looming, McEntee dropped her plan, claiming the incitement to hatred element of the criminal justice bill did not have a consensus. It would be dealt with, in that classic Irish tradition, at a later time. The hate speech element had caused unease within her Fine Gael party and coalition partner Fianna Fail, and was criticised by various backbenchers, opposition parties and independents, free speech groups and even the world's richest man, Elon Musk. • Ireland's 'vague' anti-hate law threatens flood of court challenges Six weeks later, Donald Trump won the United States presidential election — and on free speech, like much else, the world turned. As Patrick O'Donoghue reveals in today's paper, the US State Department has recently warned Irish regulators against pressuring American tech companies to limit, or what it more evocatively calls chill, free speech following a meeting with the Irish media commissioner, Coimisiun na Mean, and officials from the Department of Justice. Ireland is an important battleground in the global culture war that is free speech because of the American social media giants headquartered in Dublin. All have proven hostile to any attempts to hold them liable for what is posted on their platforms, no matter how heinous or potentially libellous the context. All have also been brought to heel by the Trump administration. Their chief executives were only too happy to line up like lapdogs to have their picture taken with Trump at his inauguration, having stumped up large amounts of coin to contribute to the costs of the festivities. • Who's who in Trump's tech bro club Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Mark Zuckerberg of Meta, Tim Cook of Apple, Sundar Pichai of Google and Elon Musk of X (and much else besides) were centre stage while TikTok's Shou Zi Chew also put in an appearance. Earlier that month, Zuckerberg announced that Meta was to get rid of fact checkers and dramatically reduce the amount of what he called 'censorship' on its platforms. Facebook kicked Trump off its platform in the aftermath of the Capitol riots on January 6, 2021, which led Trump to call Facebook 'an enemy of the people'. Once the American people re-elected Trump, however, Zuckerberg was only too keen to ingratiate himself back into the president's capricious good books. Musk donated some $300 million to Trump's election campaign and, notwithstanding the pair's rather hilarious X spat last week, must be delighted at how the administration so clearly aligns with his views on hate speech, ie there is literally nothing that cannot be said on his platform. The US secretary of state, the sycophantic Marco Rubio — a man with no principle he won't change — recently announced a view to impose visa bans on foreign nationals it deems to be censoring Americans. He has rather weirdly tied this into a touchstone for the security of the country, something he also did when supporting Trump's tariffs. The delegation that came to Ireland to dissuade regulators from doing anything that might cause American tech giants even the slightest discomfort was led by one of Rubio's chief advisers, Samuel Samson, who complained that Europe had devolved into a 'hotbed of digital censorship'. He accused Europe of democratic backsliding, whatever that is, claiming that it affected American security and the free speech rights of US citizens and companies. Whatever about security concerns — and it seems there is no policy, no matter how esoteric or insignificant, that the Trump administration won't link to the country's security — Americans have always been protective of their first amendment rights to freedom of expression. Flag-burning, money in politics, pornography, school prayer, mobile phone data, protests at funerals, document leaks and anti-war protests have all gone before the US Supreme Court. While that court has been somewhat haphazard in its judgments over the years, the overriding consistency about free speech cases is that the government can limit free speech if it poses a clear and present danger. Beyond that, almost everything else is fair game. In that context, the Trump administration now wants to flex its free speech muscles globally — and Ireland is as good a place as any to start. Trump started a metaphorical war on tariffs that has caused division in the European Union as individual states try to protect their patches, including Ireland, as Simon Harris, the tanaiste, showed last week in seeking exemptions from the EU in terms of tariff retaliation. Another war over any European plans to enforce new laws on social media platforms is also brewing, with ominous threats of sanctions. When McEntee first mooted the idea of combating incitement to hatred through legislation, she framed it in the context of the fundamental right to freedom of expression. There are completely differing interpretations of how far this fundamental right goes in Europe and America. Under Trump, the US has constantly asserted that it will pursue policies that are in America's interests. Those who come to lobby on its behalf should be told that Ireland and the EU follow their own path.
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
‘Slapp addict' Italian oil firm accused of trying to silence green activists
When Antonio Tricarico was summoned to his local police station in October and told he was being investigated for defamation, he was stressed but not shocked. Months earlier, Tricarico, the director of the Italian environment NGO ReCommon, had filed a joint legal challenge against the country's biggest oil company, Eni, which he knew had a history of using lawyers to clamp down on critics. The company had previously limited itself to civil defamation lawsuits, including against ReCommon, but in Tricarico's case it initiated criminal proceedings over statements he had made in a television interview. 'There is intimidation against myself, for sure, which is not nice and is impacting daily work,' said Tricarico, who is now considering the energy and resources that would be needed if the case goes to trial. 'But I think the intimidation is broader.' Environment groups say Eni is engaging in a campaign to stifle critics, with the company having filed at least six defamation lawsuits against journalists and NGOs since January 2019. The publicly traded company, which is under the de facto control of the Italian economy ministry, is among the world's biggest historical polluters in terms of planet-heating gas. It plans to increase its underlying production by 3-4% a year over the course of the decade, even as roadmaps to stop the planet from heating call for rapid declines in fossil fuel use. Court documents show Eni has initiated legal proceedings against critics including the Italian public broadcaster Rai, Greenpeace and multiple newspapers. The company has sought more than €10m (£8.6m) in damages across the known cases, according to analysis shared exclusively with the Guardian by Aria, a non-profit research organisation. Eni's latest lawsuit does not seek compensation. Judges have ruled against Eni in three of the cases and another was resolved in a settlement agreement. Two more cases, including the criminal investigation into Tricarico and a civil case against Greenpeace and ReCommon, are continuing. Simona Abbate, a climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace Italy, said: 'Eni is trying to silence dissent. It's an international strategy that fossil companies use to limit the environmental movement.' Campaigners say the cases are examples of 'strategic lawsuits against public participation', known as Slapps, which can bully journalists and watchdogs into silence with the threat of spurious legal action that stands little chance of success. Eni disputes the characterisation. In April, a coalition of NGOs including Reporters Without Borders and Transparency International awarded Eni the title of 'Slapp addict of the year' for its defamation lawsuits. The groups highlighted Eni's 2024 case against Greenpeace and ReCommon after they sought to hold Eni accountable for climate damages. The company is responsible for 0.46% of global emissions since the Industrial Revolution, according to figures from the Carbon Majors database that include emissions released by customers burning its fuels. Eni's case against the NGOs seeks to stop them from characterising its actions as 'crimes' or using similar language in campaigns. A spokesperson for Eni said it 'has not only the right but the duty to turn to the judicial authorities when faced with false and defamatory statements that damage its reputation'. Sign up to Down to Earth The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essential after newsletter promotion They said: 'It is important to note that Eni has not initiated any Slapp suits against environmental groups, as it has not sought any financial compensation, but only the judicial truth to which it is entitled.' In earlier defamation lawsuits that Eni lost, mostly concerning coverage of the acquisition of a Nigerian oilfield licence, the company had sought damages of €5m and €350,000 from the Italian newspaper Il Fatto Quotidiano and €5m from Rai. Eni was eventually acquitted of criminal charges in the corruption trial, which was brought about by NGOs including ReCommon. Climate activists and oil companies are increasingly turning to the courts as fights over pollution and public opinion have become more fraught. While several oil and gas companies have been criticised by free speech campaigners for using legal threats to fight off critics, Eni has filed more lawsuits against journalists and environment groups than other European oil majors are known to have done. Tricarico said there had been 'a change of pace' since Eni's attempts to claim damages from media organisations had failed, and it was now taking a more subtle approach by not asking for money. 'The company realised that probably this was not enough to stop the few critical voices – and actually was a pretty bad outcome in court,' he said. 'My feeling is that they are moving to a different approach that you might call a 'Slapp 2.0'.'
Times
6 hours ago
- Times
Victims of serial abuser and conman united to face him in court
It was the moment Scott Fraser had dreaded — the women he had abused, lied to and stolen from united in a courtroom, facing him together. In September last year Fraser pleaded guilty at Aberdeen sheriff court to abducting Debbie McFarlane, his former partner, and defrauding her of £50,000. He was given a community sentence. McFarlane sat in the public gallery but she was not alone; beside her were Fraser's three former wives and his adult daughter. 'I had wanted my day in court,' she said. 'I wanted to face him and tell the court what he had done but when he pled guilty at the last minute I wasn't given the chance. 'But I saw a 6ft 5in man crumble and fall in a heap when he saw wife number one, number two, number three and his daughter.' Given her chance to speak, she would have laid bare harrowing details. McFarlane, 54, had been approached by Fraser on social media. He pretended to have met her in person through a business associate and bombarded her with messages. In 2018, they met in person and McFarlane was charmed by the towering and impeccably dressed figure. According to the women who came into his orbit, he was charming, witty, well-read and attentive — a catch. He would also recount a heartbreaking backstory. On their first date, Fraser wept and said his former wife had killed James, their six-month-old boy, in a drunken car accident. His late son was immortalised on his arm with a tattoo, he said. McFarlane's previous relationship of 12 years had broken down after the sudden death of her stepson, prompting her to return from Houston, Texas, to her home city of Aberdeen. A wealthy businesswoman, she was financially stable and Fraser suggested he was too. However, she loaned him £30,000 to tide him over while he concluded a 'multi-million pound deal with energy giants Shell'. When the pandemic lockdown was introduced, he moved into her flat and became increasingly abusive. During one incident, in January 2021, Fraser became furious during a meal. The court was told that he locked the front door, took a knife from the kitchen and threatened her, then seized her phone and held her prisoner in her bedroom for five hours. Later in the relationship Fraser claimed he had aggressive prostate cancer and had just months to live. She paid tens of thousands of pounds for stem cell treatment. Her closest friend, who was dying with cancer, told her she did not believe Fraser was battling the disease at all. McFarlane said: 'I thought it was just the morphine talking.' Fraser was charged with stealing £50,000 from McFarlane, who maintains the true sum is closer to £120,000. Unknown to her, Fraser had spent the final six months of their relationship seeing a woman in Cheshire, claiming he was away on business or receiving medical treatment. McFarlane reported him to the police, prompting others to come forward. Fraser's daughter, Lauren, got in touch, claiming her father was a fantasist and inveterate liar. His social media presence is almost non-existent with a sparse LinkedIn page, which he used to approach women by direct message. His digital life was almost exclusively on dating former partners have few pictures of him and only sketchy details of his past. 'I'm a beige man, I leave no footprints in the sand,' he told McFarlane. However, he has an extensive record at Companies is listed as a former director of a company called OIM Energy Group in Aberdeen, which was set up in June 2014 and dissolved in January 2017. He asked one woman to invest money in one of his enterprises, which she did — and lost it did work offshore on oil rigs for a time and overseas as an engineer but he was unable to hold down work for any significant length of time and is believed to have misrepresented himself and his skillset to employers. He also worked as an instrumental engineer for an international defence company but earnings as a serial conman proved far more lucrative. A police officer familiar with the case said: 'You go to work and do your job. This is his job, this is what he does.' Fraser had a very limited friendship group and his social life was based around dining out and drinking, although one woman said cars were his 'great passion'. He always had a pet dog. His former partner Helen O'Connor — whom he blamed for the death of his infant son — contacted McFarlane. There had been no baby, no car accident and she was, it emerged, Fraser's third wife. When McFarlane uncovered his lies she contacted him on FaceTime and said: 'The game's up.' 'He said: 'I'm a troubled man' and cut off the call. That's the last time we ever spoke,' she told The Times. O'Connor's father was the late comedian and TV presenter Tom O'Connor and she believes Fraser targeted her for her money. They were married for just months, and he had also told her the lie of a dead baby. Fraser had first married a woman in Aberdeen but the relationship broke down around 2000 and he moved to England. He quickly met and married his second wife, who had been prepared to give evidence in support of McFarlane before Fraser's guilty plea. That marriage ended in 2009. During his next relationship he was fined twice at Aberdeen sheriff court: in 2016 for an incident of abusive behaviour towards his partner and then in 2017 for an incident of violence causing fear and alarm. He pleaded guilty on both occasions. Women with whom he was involved say the relationships were never sexual and he used his 'prostate cancer' as an excuse to avoid physical intimacy. For Fraser the control of his romantic partners was psychological. O'Connor became his third wife in December 2017. She was prepared to be called as a witness in support of McFarlane, having had a similar experience with Fraser. This week, another of Fraser's former partners was ready to take the witness stand and tell a court what he had done. The woman in Cheshire, whom Fraser had been seeing behind McFarlane's back, is also a successful businesswoman. She and her business are well known in her community and she has asked to be known only as Karen. Fraser met Karen on a dating app in March 2021 and in person in June. 'He's a very intelligent guy,' she said. 'And he seemed to have led an interesting life, as I have too. 'He was extremely well dressed. He was a subtle, classy dresser — nothing too showy or flashy. 'He could converse on any level, he was well travelled. We never stopped chatting and talking.' Fraser moved to the Lake District from Aberdeen in October that year and then moved in with Karen. He told her the move was prompted by the death from sepsis of his daughter, Lauren. He was traumatised and needed a change of scene. It was only last year that Karen discovered Lauren was alive and well. Unlike in other relationships, Fraser contributed to the household expenses but his 'flashes of temper' caused alarm. The first two years of the relationship were relatively settled but in the final six months Fraser would become angry over 'trivial' incidents. 'He was angry, shouting, banging his fist on the table, and it was always in public, which was humiliating and frightening,' Karen, 60, said. His behaviour was so unpleasant that when Karen began to suspect he was having an affair she felt relieved and hoped he would leave. One night he flew into a rage after being excluded from signing a birthday card. He grabbed Karen by her dressing gown lapel, lifting her off the floor and threatening to hire someone to kill her family. When she refused to accompany him to Aberdeen, where he was due to appear at trial for stealing from McFarlane, he put his hand to her throat. 'He took the keys and stormed out and locked me in the flat. I have no idea how long he was away for because you lose all concept of time,' Karen said. 'I was terrified.' Fraser left for Aberdeen and two days later Karen read coverage of the court case. She immediately changed the locks and went to police. Terrified of his temper, she kept in touch with him while he was away, phoning and texting him and keeping up a pretence that everything was fine. Seven days after his court appearance in Aberdeen, Fraser returned to England and went straight to a meeting with his probation officer where he was arrested. In February this year he was banned from driving for 12 months and fined £700, having driven to his probation meeting in Karen's car without a licence or insurance. On Monday he pleaded guilty to the offence of intentional strangulation and is due to be sentenced later this month at Chester crown court. McFarlane and the other women are now hopeful that Fraser will be given a custodial sentence. They believe his behaviour has gone unchecked for too long. The strangulation offence took place two days before his court date in Aberdeen for the offences against McFarlane and she believes this illustrates his lack of remorse. Karen said: 'I sometimes hate myself. I am an astute businesswoman. I think, 'Why did I not see through it?' 'I ask myself all the time how he lured me in. I just think I felt sorry for him.'
