Vincent P Martin (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

This will be my final contribution. We agree to disagree on some issues, but I can safely say we all agree that the right to one's good name and reputation is a legitimate, constitutional issue. It is a sacrosanct right. We all agree on that. It has been very well put forward that the transparency argument is a reason to get rid of juries. You do not get a reasoned award. There is a mystery about how that outcome is what it is. Are there any comparative studies that could open this matter up in the context of wider world of law? I refer here to the criminal courts. Let us take the example of a matter before the Circuit Criminal Court in respect of which a charge is brought on foot of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act? It is a jury trial. There is no transparency there. I say this slightly facetiously, but would there be concerns in that regard? Should jury trials in the Circuit Criminal Court, where there is no transparency, go as well? I say that in a slightly polemical sense, but I just want to make the point. Assault is a law-and-order matter and it goes to the heart of our Constitution. It is unacceptable. There is also the need to be able to vindicate one's good name and reputation. The witnesses seem to be happy to have no transparency in the Circuit Criminal Court but they want transparency in the context of someone vindicating their reputation in circumstances where damage to the latter could destroy their livelihood.

The other interesting parallel on which I would like to hear from witnesses is the comment to the effect - I agree that it makes sense and I was not surprised to hear it - that a defendant in a defamation action would prefer a judge sitting alone. What about a defendant in a criminal matter? Would he or she like a judge sitting alone? What is the difference? I mean a defendant who is not legally aided in a criminal law matter. I would imagine, despite what happened recently in the context of the Special Criminal Court - I do not think that has changed everything - that people would opt for jury trials. I accept that criminal law and civil law involve different standards of proof and that we are not comparing like with like.

With the indulgence of the Chair, I take this opportunity to commend each and every advocate who is highlighting SLAPPs. Such lawsuits are an affront to democracy. They involve the suppression of freedom of speech. We have to protect individual journalists and the democratic process. Can the witnesses tell us what can we do in the short term to make sure that heroic journalists are not silenced by having their names, in their individual capacity, added to writs?