03/02/2020 J20 v Facebook Ireland Ltd [2016] NIQB 98 (20 December 2016) to a dissident Republican who deceased circa 2005. Prior to that date he had received what he considered credible threats that he would be shot. In his evidence to the court the plaintiff indicated that these postings brought all of this back. [89] The predominant complaint from the plaintiff to Dr Loughrey was focused on his fear of this particular family. [90] Overall Dr Loughrey said "It was difficult to get him to describe any more psychiatric symptoms". I too found this a feature of the plaintiff's evidence. In general terms he resorted to the fact that he was "disgusted" with the posts, something which he repeated. The main issue emerging from the plaintiff's evidence was of concern for his safety. [91] In my view the entries immediately prior to the postings in September 2013 are significant. Thus, throughout 2010 there is reference to chronic anxiety and being seen by the community psychiatric nurse. On 31 January 2011 he attends his general practitioner with chronic anxiety and again there is repeated reference throughout 2011 with regard to mental health issues. 2012 was no different with again repeated attendances for chronic anxiety. On 8 May 2013 he attends with his general practitioner complaining again of chronic anxiety. The first attendance immediately after the postings which are the subject matter of his action also refer to chronic anxiety – 24 September 2013. [92] It was Dr Loughrey's view that the referral to Malone Place indicates that treatment for addiction was being sought. If one looks at the medical evidence as a whole it is difficult to identify any increase in the plaintiff's level of disability or complaints. In Dr Loughrey's words they are "essentially the same". [93] Having considered the entirety of the medical evidence and importantly having listened to the plaintiff's evidence I prefer Dr Loughrey's opinion. However, of much more significance in relation to this particular issue is the fact that it is clear from the plaintiff's evidence that the psychiatric injury about which he complains is related to death threats. Throughout the course of the evidence he was keen to tell me about other threats posted on Facebook which are not the subject matter of this action. Indeed, Dr Mangan's second report which suggested a deterioration in the symptoms is expressly related to subsequent death threats. Equally, his first report refers to death threats and to an alleged posting which said of the plaintiff he was "going to be shot, cut up". It may well be that there are other postings which had given the plaintiff a genuine concern for his safety but none of these are part of his action. [94] In short I have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not established that he has suffered a psychiatric injury as a result of the postings which are the subject matter of this action. Conclusion [95] The defendant is liable to the plaintiff for the tort of misuse of private information. [96] The plaintiff is entitled to damages for the breaches I have determined. In assessing the level of damages I have regard to the limited nature, extent and duration of the breaches. The damages should vindicate his rights and reflect the undoubted injury to his feelings. As I have indicated in the judgment I do not attribute any actual personal or psychiatric injury to any of the breaches I have found. It seems to me that this is the type of case considered by the Court of Appeal in McGaughey v Sunday Newspaper Ltd [2011] NICA 51 where the court stated at paragraph [19]: "We consider, however, that the thrust of the decisions on misuse of private information demonstrates that modest damages are appropriate unless there are particular circumstances not associated with reputation which are properly to be taken into account." I do not consider this is such a case and that therefore an award for modest damages is appropriate. [97] In all the circumstances I consider an appropriate award is one of £3,000 damages. www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/QB/2016/98.html 16/17