Mr. Michael Kealey:

I have mentioned I am a solicitor so I will try to deal with those. I will deal with them in reverse order. The last question related to Reporters Without Borders and the point made was that the Irish system has done quite well. In the current league table, we are second in Europe for press freedom. That was put forward as a reason why there is no real need for reform. The issue is that in the Reporters Without Borders report we were previously sixth and went up to second. The reason we went up to second was the Government acceptance of the recommendations of the Future of Media Commission as well as by virtue of the fact the review of the Defamation Act had taken place and the Government had prioritised that reform. If this reform does not happen, we are likely to slip down the league table.

May I say, as a supporter of Derry City Football Club, I do not like slipping down the tables but we have been doing it all season? I believe this is the answer to that question.

Reference was made to the length of trials and how long it is taking cases to get on. It is a very good point and a very valid one. This impacts not just on the media but on the people who are bringing the claims. If a person's reputation has been damaged he or she will want the case on and will want it on quickly. This is a problem. Part of the problem is that so few cases that are determined by juries. We find ourselves in the position that there are only nine weeks each year given over to jury trials in defamation cases, as opposed to the 34 weeks when there are trials the rest of the time. I do not believe that the answer to that is by bringing juries down more and more. To get a jury of 12 people one would need to bring down a minimum of 36 people. To bring down 36 people every day for 34 weeks would be an imposition on the electorate and on the citizens of Ireland that would be unwarranted. What could be done, if one was to abolish juries, is that any case could be heard before a judge at any time. The cases would then come on much more quickly and we could get rid of the delays. If we look at the jury list at the moment, cases sitting before the High Court now mostly relate to matters that have been published in 2016 and 2017. That is an unconscionable delay. It is deeply unfair on the claimants, never mind on the news brands and the news industry. It is deeply unfair on the claimants and it should be brought on much more quickly. We have said that we would like juries to be abolished because we believe that this would introduce transparency in a decision and one would have a decision that is reasoned. A judge would set out the reasons he or she believed one person rather than the other. We may not like the decision but we would at least know. The position with jury decisions at the moment, unfortunately, is they are the archetypal opaque decisions. Lawyers are not even allowed to ask juries how they arrived at their decision. Even if the time for an appeal has gone, it is illegal for me to go to a juror and ask, "What swung it one way or another?" We are not allowed to do that. There is a lot of talk about transparency but jury decisions are not transparent. If juries were not on cases, we would get on more quickly.

The Oireachtas has decided, quite rightly, that in defamation cases the Circuit Court can make awards up to €75,000. That is a lot of money and it is a tax-free sum. It is an awful lot of money for anyone. On the jury point that was made, and I am aware it was said previously, in a Circuit Court case where a judge has made a reasoned decision saying, "I think you were defamed, I think it was terrible, and I am awarding you €50,000", there are very few people coming out of those cases at the end saying, "Well that is all okay but I wish it was a jury who had given it to me rather than a judge." Judges can make decisions. It is just as strong a vindication. The advantage of it is that we would have transparency, we would have reasoned decisions, and we would know where to go.

I will be very brief in conclusion as I do not want to take up any more time and I am aware there are more questions here. The European court has a view on Ireland's system of juries making decisions on awards at the moment. Let us say a jury goes mad and gives a very excessive award, we know it can always be appealed. The European court has said that this provision is not adequate to meet our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Leaving aside the cost and the expense of everybody having to go to an appellant court, the European court is effectively saying that this is not adequate. Ireland is an outlier when it comes to defamation awards.

Consider the range of awards in Ireland. For example, a Supreme Court decision upheld an award of approximately €1.25 million - again an award that is tax free. That is ten times more than the plaintiff would have received in our neighbouring jurisdiction, the UK. That figure is wildly out of sync with the rest of the European Union. We are an outlier on awards and the reason is juries. If we abolished juries that is where we would end up.