Limerick man fined after judge rules WhatsApp status updates breached protection order
A LIMERICK man was convicted at Newcastle West Court of breaching a protection order by changing his status on WhatsApp.
The defendant, who cannot be named to protect the identity of the female complainant, denied communicating electronically with the woman.
A protection order is granted when there are “reasonable grounds for believing that the safety and welfare of a person is at risk”.
Giving evidence, a garda told the court she received a statement of complaint last year.
“She said he updated his WhatsApp status with messages directed at her,” said the garda.
WhatsApp status allows users of the messaging app to share text, photo, video and GIF updates that disappear after 24 hours
The court heard the status updates posted by the defendant included a photo of a child’s soccer kit and a number of sentences including: “the miracle baby”, “the lies and betrayal were more than enough” and one of a deeply personal and sexual nature.
Insp Gearoid Thompson, prosecuting, asked the investigating garda if they were satisfied that the defendant had communicated through electronic means?
“Yes,” replied the garda.
Con Barry, solicitor for the accused who is aged in his 30s, asked the garda if his client sent any messages to the complainant?
“No,” said the garda.
Insp Thompson submitted that changing your WhatsApp status is a “way of communicating”.
Mr Barry asked the garda if the complainant would have to go into the profile of her former partner to see the change in his status?
“Yes,” said the garda. Mr Barry also asked the garda if the complainant had blocked his client?
The complainant then took to the stand and said she messaged the defendant saying: “Please stop your WhatsApp statuses”.
“I felt so disgusted by them. They were so personal,” she said.
Mr Barry asked her if his client had sent her any messages (directly) via WhatsApp.
“No. I was the sole recipient of the statuses. I asked several other contacts and they couldn’t see them,” she said.
Mr Barry asked if she had blocked the accused? “No, he had blocked me. I didn’t need to,” she replied.
The solicitor then put it to her that she must have “sought out” his client and opened his status.
“No, I just get a notification on my phone to say somebody has changed their Whatsapp status and I clicked on it. It could have been anybody,” she said.
In summing up the State’s case, Insp Thompson said it was a “very technical” case.
“We allege communication was made by electronic means with the complainant. She viewed this communication and was discommoded by them,” said Insp Thompson.
Mr Barry submitted the State had not reached the threshold of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and “any doubt” had to go to the accused.
“She did not block him. She did not get any messages. She sought him out to view the statuses. There is no evidence of whether the statuses could be viewed by one or 100 people,” said Mr Barry, who asked Judge Carol Anne Coolican to dismiss the charge that his client had breached the protection order obtained against his client.
Judge Coolican agreed is was a “technical issue” and she commented that the question (before the court) was “whether this was communication or not?”
The judge referred to the investigating garda’s evidence and the complainant when she said she received a notification on her phone of a WhatsApp status change but she didn’t know whose it was until she clicked on it.
“I don’t believe she sought him out,” said Judge Coolican, who convicted the defendant of breaching the protection order. The court heard he is self-employed and has no previous convictions.
Judge Coolican fined him €500.
Recognisance was fixed in the event of an appeal.