Seanad debates

Thursday, 9 July 2009

Defamation Bill 2006 [Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil] : Report and Final Stages

 

Photo of Dermot AhernDermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

I will answer that. In the Bill, we are repealing the Defamation Act 1961. The continuation of the current provision at section 13 of that Act is not a desirable option. Section 13 provides for both monetary and prison sanctions in regard to blasphemous or obscene libel, offences which were presumed to exist at common law. However, the decision of the Supreme Court in the 1999 case of Corway v . Independent Newspapers - the only blasphemy case brought since the Constitution came into effect - held that the common law offence of blasphemous libel did not survive the adoption of the Constitution. That decision created an anomaly in regard to the obligation in respect of the Constitutional provision. Therefore, to continue with and complete the reform of our defamation legislation, I must respect the advice of successive Attorneys General that there is a constitutional obligation and imperative on me not to leave a legal void following a repeal of section 13 of the 1961 Act. It is not just me as Minister; the Oireachtas is not entitled under the Constitution to leave that legal void.

While some may regard the constitutional provision as redundant, as the joint committee did, the legal advice available to me from the Attorney General indicates that the committee's report did not change the legal position. Until the Constitution is amended, it is necessary that a sanction be provided in regard to blasphemous libel. There is no current, credible alternative to this position. Amendment No. 30 has the effect of retaining in section 36 of the Bill the power to seize copies of blasphemous statements. The title has been changed and some textual amendments have been made, so that we are now dealing with the seizure of blasphemous material that may be ordered by the court on foot of a successful prosecution.

We have three options on this. We can have a referendum and change this. We can pass a section dealing with blasphemous libel in order to comply with the Constitution, or we could just drop this Bill altogether.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.