03/02/2020 J20 v Facebook Ireland Ltd [2016] NIQB 98 (20 December 2016) relationship with others. Where that relationship is that of an intimate partnership or is a parent/child relationship the impact of what happens in respect of one of the parties has clear repercussions and consequences in respect of the relationship generally. In Patton v UK [1991] 3 EHRR 48 the Commission accepted that the applicant as a potential father was so closely effected by the termination of his wife's pregnancy that he might claim to be a victim (within the meaning of Article 25 of the Convention) or the legislation he sought to impugn. In earlier commission decisions in X v Belgium [1970] and Mekrane v UK [1973] it concluded that the widow and children of persons against whom allegedly impermissible actions have been taken fell to be considered victims themselves. In the case of YF's Application [2004] 39 EHRR 34 the European Court of Human Rights in an admissibility decision considered that it was open to a husband to raise a complaint concerning allegations by his wife of violations of the Convention, in that case an enforced gynaecological examination. (20) Accordingly, the fact that divulging of private information and material in relation to the partner and the child of the appellant may have entitled them to pursue their own claim for remedy does not mean that the appellant himself does not have a claim. The fact that the impact of a breach of privacy may be greater in respect of the other parties in the relationship would be reflected in the assessment of any compensatory damages but that does not mean that in the present proceedings the appellant has no cause of action arising out of unjustifiable publication of private information in respect of his private relationships. Furthermore the fact that the appellant has been accused of criminal actions or a crime does not curtail the scope of the protection available under Article 8(c) Sciacca v Italy (Application No 50774-99 [2005] 43 EHRR 400). We conclude that the Judge was correct in concluding that at paragraph [30] of his judgment that the publication of details of family members of a particular person may engage the Article 8 rights of that person." [34] In this case the plaintiff said that he was "disgusted" by the reference to his children. He said that this has had an impact on his relationship with them and he was unable to attend two of their weddings. It may well be that the background to the history of his relationship with these children is complicated and I note that the postings concerning the children seem to come from the family of the mother of the children. Nonetheless, I have come to the clear view that in respect of the religion of his children he did have a reasonable expectation of privacy. As to whether or not the interference with that expectation constitutes a misuse of private information or whether the publication was proportionate I fail to see how this can be justified. Any fair or objective reading of the references to the children could not possibly be justified even in the context of his participation in Loyalist protests. The reference to these children – who can be identified by reason of the identification of the mother of the plaintiff's expartner - in my view does constitute a misuse of private information. The Reference to the Plaintiff as "a tout" [35] I am troubled by the assertion in one of the postings that the plaintiff was "a tout". The suggestion that a person is an informer is one that has particular resonance in this jurisdiction. A person so identified may be placed in danger from paramilitaries and may be ostracised from his community. As a matter of principle it should not be regarded as defamatory given that a member of the public should not be criticised for providing information of value to the authorities. In his opening Mr Lavery QC on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that calling a person "a tout" can never be justified, true or not. [36] This issue was considered by the Court of Appeal in the case of AB v Sunday Newspapers [2014] NICA 58. [37] That case concerned an application for an interim injunction preventing the defendant from publishing certain material concerning the plaintiff including the alleged provision by him of information to state authorities. The plaintiff was described as a "dissident tout" who "supplied the police with bugging devices and audio tapes planted in cars provided to dissident leaders". [38] In the appeal the appellant placed considerable emphasis upon the assertion in one of the articles complained about that the appellant was a confidential human intelligence source for the PSNI in respect of dissident republicans. The appellant argued that the relationship between the police and an www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/QB/2016/98.html 8/17