Veteran comedian Sil Fox is suing the State for damages after being cleared of a bar sex attack, it was revealed yesterday.
The 87-year-old saw the case against him dismissed after CCTV evidence clearly showed he had not groped a woman when she asked for a selfie.
Now he is taking legal action against the DPP, the Garda Commissioner, the Justice Minister, Ireland and the Attorney General, citing “wrongful actions” in bringing the prosecution.
Mr Fox told Dublin Live last night: “The evidence the DPP saw was the same evidence the judge saw and she dismissed it.
“Why was I dragged through the courts? It’s a disgrace that something like this should happen.
“I hope with this case, justice will be done. It might stop it happening to someone else in future.”
International human rights lawyer Kevin Winters, who is representing him, said: “Sil Fox suffered a terrible injustice. This case ought never to have seen the light of day.
“The decision to prosecute was not the correct one. We have issued a
pre-action letter seeking damages and an apology from the DPP.
“It has been taken to help restore the good reputation of Sil Fox.”
The comedian’s legal team claims breach of constitutional rights, infliction of emotional distress and breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to respect for private and family life.
Legal documents sent to all parties on Monday state the DPP’s decision to prosecute a pensioner in the public eye, in the face of clear evidence of his innocence, amounted to “an intent to embarrass him and thereby cause him to suffer a psychological consequence which was foreseeable”.
They outline the “reckless infliction of emotional distress by the commencement and maintenance of this prosecution”.
The papers add: “In our submission, the prosecution was taken without reasonable or probable cause. A public wrong has been effected and the claimant suffered damage as a result.”
They go on to say any reasonable review of the CCTV evidence would have ruled out a prosecution and the actions of the DPP in bringing about a prosecution were wrongful.
The documents state: “The decision to prosecute failed both the evidential and public interest tests.”
They further detail the alleged “breach of his constitutional rights, including his right to a good name, and infliction of emotional distress for your collective role in bringing about the unsuccessful prosecution, as well as the manner in which the charges against him were reported without restriction”.
At an initial hearing last July, Judge Michael Walsh refused the defence solicitor’s request to impose reporting restrictions on the case, which would have given Mr Fox anonymity throughout the proceedings.
His legal team allege his right to privacy was not protected and he suffered serious reputational damage. The claim for damages is for breaches of the Constitution, including the right to a fair trial and the right to protection of a citizen’s good name from an unjust attack.
The papers go on: “Specifically, the claimant was denied equal protection under the law of the same right to privacy in the form of anonymity and reporting restrictions afforded to the complainant.”
Mr Fox walked free from Dublin District Court after he was cleared of the alleged assault in Harry’s On The Green in Dublin.
He denied sexually assaulting the woman on December 17, 2018, after he agreed to the photo with her.
The case was thrown out by Judge Paula Murphy because of inconsistencies between the woman’s evidence and CCTV footage.
The woman alleged he put his hand on her groin and tickled her private parts for 30 seconds during the selfie.
The footage showed his hand on the table while the photo was being taken.
Judge Murphy noted: “In the footage, there is no indication something untoward occurred.”
