Peter Griffiths: A former Church of Scientology (CoS) member has been awarded his legal costs of an appeal which resulted in a judge lifting a perpetual injunction prevented him from harassing or besetting two current members.

This an important decision and one which could cost Zabrina Collins up to €20K. Remember this is not a SO case but one between two individuals one a Scientologist the other an ex Scientologist. This case should have been over 3 years ago. Why did it not take place then? 1. John McGhee exercised undue over Pete Griffith which led him to totally lose focus on his Defamation case and literally go down a blind ally of assault and battery. He also paid for people to come to the court and wilfully tried to sabotage the case.

However, it take strength to acknowledge you made a mistake and also it is powerful that Pete apologised to to his enemies and freed himself from the influence of McGhee.

However, the Anti Scientology cult around him will not forgive Pete in the same way the Scientologists could not accept that Pete was genuine about respecting the right of Scientologists to hold their views but disagreeing with them profoundly.

High Court

Costs application

16th November 2017

A former Church of Scientology (CoS) member has been awarded his legal costs of an appeal which resulted in a judge lifting a perpetual injunction prevented him from harassing or besetting two current members.

Earlier this month Mr Justice Seamus Noonan said Peter Griffiths (63) had apologised and accepted it was wrong and unlawful to follow Zabrina Collins and Michael O’Donnell around when they delivered CoS-funded “Truth about Drugs” leaflets on December 20, 2014.

In a ruling on Wednesday Mr Justice Noonan said he could not see any reason why the normal rule where costs follow the event should apply in this case.

Given the circumstances and his ruling on November 1st last the judge said Mr Griffiths was entitled to the legal costs of his appeal which was heard before the High Court.

Lawyers for Ms Collins and Mr O ‘Donnell had opposed any order for costs being made in Mr Griffiths favour.  However Mr Justice Noonan rejected those arguments.

In his judgement earlier this month the Judge said he was satisfied Mr Griffiths was a truthful witness and, by and large, a law abiding citizen.

He also had regard to the fact that his fellow defendant, John McGhee, an embalmer from Clara, Co Offaly, was the main protagonist in the harassment on the day the CoS members were followed around the streets of north city Dublin.

Mr Griffiths, of Teeling Street, Ballina, Co Mayo, had brought an appeal against an injunction first granted a few days after the December 20 incident, preventing him, and Mr McGhee from doorstepping, intimidating, approaching, harassing or videoing Ms Collins, who is a CoS director  originally from Donegal and now living in Tyrellstown, Dublin, or Mr O’Donnell, of Cherrywood Lawn, Clondalkin, Dublin.

The injunction applied to interference at the plaintiffs’ homes, place of work or CoS premises. It was later made perpetual when the case was remitted from the High to the Circuit Court.

Ms Collins and Mr O’Donnell opposed Mr Griffiths appeal over the permanent nature of the injunction.  They said it should stay in place because Mr Griffiths‘ behaviour towards them had got progressively worse over a number of years until the injunction was granted.

Mr Griffiths believed the injunction was too wide because it prevented him from engaging in peaceful protest.  Mr McGhee did not appeal.

Lifting the injunction, Mr Justice Noonan said the test for a perpetual injunction was whether a substantial risk of danger existed.

In this case, there was only one incident complained of, the following around of Ms Collins and Mr O’Donnell as they delivered leaflets in 2014 for half an hour.

Ms Collins and Mr O’Donnell had been awarded damages for harassment and assault, €3,500 against Mr McGhee and €2,000 against Mr Griffiths over that incident.

Since the injunction was granted nearly three years ago, there has been no suggestion Mr Griffiths was in breach of it, the judge said.

Taking these factors, and the fact that Mr Griffiths had apologised and was not the main protagonist on the day of the incident, the judge was satisfied the behaviour complained of “is small and certainly does not amount to a substantial risk it will recur”.

He hoped Mr Griffiths had learned his lesson from this saga and will stay well away from plaintiffs in the future.  If not, he may expect the court to take an extremely serious view of any potentially unlawful acts that may occur.

However, the judge said even if he is wrong in that conclusion there was still another significant factor relating to the question that a plaintiff must have “clean hands” when they seek injunctive relief.

This was well explained in a 1972 case co-incidentally involving CoS founder L Ron Hubbard, who sought an injunction preventing Cyril Vosper, a former CoS member, from publishing a book critical of its practices and philosophies (entitled “The Mind Benders”).

In that case, Mr Justice Noonan said, an English judge refused to grant Hubbard an injunction on the basis that CoS had been protecting their secrets by “deplorable means” as evidenced by CoS’ own code of ethics.   Hubbard therefore did not come to court with clean hands, the English judge said,  when asking the court to protect those secrets by means of an injunction preventing publication.

Ms Collins, who had been ordered by the Circuit Court to pay Mr Griffiths €5,000 over untrue allegations she made about him following a talk on Scientology he gave in a Dublin school, had herself engaged in an attempt to demonise and discredit Mr Griffiths, Mr Justice Noonan said.

This attempt to undermine any criticism he (Griffiths) had, legitimate or otherwise, of the CoS, cannot be viewed “as other than a failure to come to court with clean hands”.