Ms Jessica N? Mhain?n:

I thank the Cathaoirleach for the opportunity to participate in this meeting to discuss the general scheme of the defamation Bill. I am head of policy and campaigns at Index on Censorship and a member of the Coalition Against SLAPPS in Europe, CASE. I am also the co-chair of the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition. Today, however, I am participating in my capacity as chair of the Ireland Anti-SLAPPs Network, an informal coalition of organisations that includes Article 19, the Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, the Irish Environmental Network, the Public Interest Law Alliance, Transparency International Ireland and several academics, including Professor Eoin O'Dell of Trinity College Dublin. I am joined by my network colleague, Mr. Ronan Kennedy, from the ICCL.

The proposal to reform the Defamation Act 2009 is welcome. I will speak specifically to the issue of SLAPPs, which are addressed in the draft scheme. SLAPPs are brought by powerful or wealthy entities against public watchdogs in an effort to compel them to withdraw or withhold critical speech even if it is accurate and in the public interest. By driving information out of the public domain, SLAPPs make it difficult to hold power to account. Put simply, SLAPPs weaponise the law in order to harass and punish those speaking out in the public interest. They threaten not only freedom of expression, but also human rights, the rule of law and our democracies.

The Ireland Anti-SLAPPs Network is satisfied that the amendments proposed in our submission would serve to improve the Bill substantially beyond its current draft, particularly with regard to putting an end to SLAPPs. Many of the recommendations of the network are drawn from our anti-SLAPP work in the UK and EU. We believe that these recommendations would substantially improve the legislation.

Fundamentally, the legislation must make it possible for all public watchdogs to get rid of abusive legal actions quickly and cheaply. To that end, it is important that the legislation take account of any case that can reasonably be determined to have been filed with an improper purpose. The threshold of "manifestly unfounded", as currently proposed under head 26, is high and may preclude some SLAPP cases from being struck out. The definition of a SLAPP should be made more inclusive and include, rather than be limited to, the "features of concern" listed under head 24. We would like to see a serious harm test established for all defamation actions, not only those mentioned in the draft scheme. The scope of the Bill should also be widened to include anyone who is already facing a SLAPP. This recommendation is new and was not included in our previous written submission. We would like to see the legislation being applied retrospectively to cases that are already in train. Professor O'Dell of Trinity's law school, who is a member of the network, has drafted a proposed addition to head 1, which we have included in our opening statement and are happy to discuss.

We strongly welcome the long-awaited publication of this draft Bill, but we are mindful of the trend towards the slow progress of legislation. Given the long-standing demands for reform of Irish defamation laws from both domestic and international actors, including the European Commission, we call on the Government to prioritise the passage of this legislation in as short a timeframe as practicable while still allowing for proper scrutiny by the Legislature and the public. We look forward to the discussion.