District Judge Peter King was told by the offender that he had felt threatened and frightened as a result of the Facebook posts about him.
He said comments added to McCloskey’s Facebook page included suggestions that he should be shot, hanged and have parts of his anatomy cut off.
The offender said he was in fear of a potential attack further alleged that the two posts by McCloskey had been edited in such a way as to suggest that his convictions were recent.
Yes, the chutzpah of a convicted criminal claiming that he’s the offended party isn’t lost on anyone. Thankfully, for once, not on the judge either:
Dismissing the case, Judge King said he was “struggling to accept the concept that it is unacceptable to report something that was already in the public domain“.
He added: “The suggestion that editing took place I cannot be satisfied about, and I am not satisfied it did take place.
“I have some concerns about the unattractive nature of what was published by Mr McCloskey, but it does not fall on the side of criminal liability and there will be a dismissal.”
Hurrah! Common sense has triumphed!
However, after dismissing the case, the judge told McCloskey that – due to the offensive nature of posts written by others on his Facebook page about the offender – he was imposing the six-month order banning him from making further comments online about the individual.