Corway v. Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd. [1996] IEHC 27; [1999] 4 IR 484; [1997] 1 ILRM 432 (23rd October, 1996)

Corway v. Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd. [1996] IEHC 27; [1999] 4 IR 484; [1997] 1 ILRM 432 (23rd October, 1996)

The applicant failed to establish a clear prima facie case of blasphemous libel because the cartoon did not constitute an attack on any tenet or doctrine of the Christian religion, thus lacking the essential actus reus of the offence; even if it did, public interest did not require prosecution.

Citation
[1997] 1 ILRM 432
Parties
Applicant: John Corway; Respondents: Sunday Independent & Others
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Prosecute for Blasphemous Libel / High Court Judgment on Motion for Leave Under Section 8 of the Defamation Act, 1961
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Blasphemous Libel, Freedom of Expression, Defamation, Public Interest, Mens Rea, Actus Reus
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Media Law Blasphemous Libel Freedom of Expression Defamation Public Interest Mens Rea +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Corway

Applicant

Sunday Independent & Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Prosecute for Blasphemous Libel / High Court Judgment on Motion for Leave Under Section 8 of the Defamation Act, 1961

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established a clear prima facie case of blasphemous libel under Irish law
  2. 2 Whether the cartoon constituted an attack on a tenet of the Christian religion (actus reus)
  3. 3 Whether the necessary mens rea was present

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish a clear prima facie case of blasphemous libel because the cartoon did not constitute an attack on any tenet or doctrine of the Christian religion, thus lacking the essential actus reus of the offence; even if it did, public interest did not require prosecution.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Leave to institute criminal prosecution for blasphemous libel is refused