Gemma O'Doherty ordered to remove 'defamatory' videos about hospital

Gemma O Doherty claimed staff at Beaumont Hospital are being 'forced' to take what she claims are experimental Covid-19 injections which, she alleges, have killed thousands of people.

Activist Gemma O'Doherty has been ordered to remove what a High Court judge described as defamatory videos posted on the internet about Dublin's Beaumont Hospital and its director of nursing.

The three videos contain statements by Ms Doherty about the hospital and its director of nursing, Maria Murray, including that staff are being allegedly "forced" to take what she claims are “experimental Covid-19 injections” which, she alleges, have killed thousands of people.

Ms O'Doherty also said on the videos that staff who did not take vaccines were allegedly harassed and demoted and she describes the hospital as "a death camp," and claims it employed "psychopaths and had committed crimes against humanity".

She further claimed that the hospital had allegedly denied life-saving treatment to patients.

In a judgement, Mr Justice Senan Allen said he was making various orders, including injunctions requiring Ms O'Doherty to remove the videos, after finding that they were defamatory and that she has no defence which is reasonably likely to succeed.

What Ms O'Doherty had said in her reporting about the plaintiffs, he said, was "devoid of substance" and there was no prospect of her ever standing it up.

He said courts must be careful not to interfere with free speech or the free expression of opinions. However, a court will intervene if it can be shown that statements have been made, and are liable to be repeated, for which there is no reasonable basis.

The judge said he absolutely agreed with Ms O'Doherty that journalists have a duty to report and comment on matters in the public interest, even if what is reported has a negative impact on the reputations of those involved.

He further agreed with her, that journalists have a role in holding powerful institutions like the hospital to account, and that by shining a light on poor behaviour forces public bodies to do better and improve standards.

However, he rejected Ms Doherty's claim that the pursuit of the injunctions against her was tantamount to denying journalists a human right to freely report on matters of public importance.

With the right of free speech, "comes the responsibility not to wantonly or recklessly impugn the good name of others," he said.

He said he was satisfied to make orders requiring the defendant to remove the videos and cease publishing the defamatory statements at the centre of the action about Ms Murray and the hospital.

The court declined to make an order restraining Ms O'Doherty from publishing anything about the hospital or Ms Murray, as that he said "goes much too far."

The orders are to remain in place pending the outcome of the full hearing of the plaintiffs' defamation action against Ms O'Doherty.