Mr. Dave O'Connell:

I thank the Chair, TDs and Senators for the invitation to address them on the very important issue of alternatives to court action when members of the public have a grievance with local and national publishers. My name is Dave O’Connell and I am the editor of The Connacht Tribune. We are an independently owned publisher both in print and online. We were established in Galway in 1909, so it is fair to say we have long-standing experience of all the issues that may arise from publication, including of course defamation actions. All publishers in Local Ireland – and there are 33 such regional papers right across the country - recognise the right of everyone to their good name and when we make a mistake, which I hope is only very occasionally, we absolutely believe we should rectify it.

It is clear, however, as Mr. O'Connell said, that the current legislation on defamation is not fit for purpose. It is vital, as our colleagues in NewsBrands Ireland have indicated, that it be reformed. That said, it is important members of the public understand the alternatives to legal action, even as it stands, when they have an issue with something that has been published. If you are wronged or believe you have been wronged, the first port of call should be the reporter who wrote the story, who will then raise the matter with his or her editor, or, alternatively, the complainant can go straight to the editor. Regional newspapers in particular have no layers between the reader and the editor - as I am sure many members know - or, indeed, the reporter. In our case at The Connacht Tribune, we have a staff of 30 who live around the city and county. They are embedded in their local communities and involved in local sporting organisations. Half the stories we carry come from social meetings within those towns and villages.

If we are wrong, we will apologise and, as the press council would insist anyway, we will print this on a page no further back in the paper than the original error. Resolving an issue locally is, as far as we are concerned, the best course of action for everyone because it avoids the stress and cost, for both sides, that can arise from going down the legal route. If the complainant is still not satisfied, they can go the press council via the Press Ombudsman who can then arbitrate and, if necessary, issue a ruling on the matter. That could involve an apology and correction from the publisher if the ruling is against us and that is binding on us as members of the press council. I know this both as a member of the board of the press council between 2013 and 2016 and as an editor dealing with those, as I said, fortunately occasional complaints. It is speedy, transparent, and if a person feels we have damaged their good name there will be a retraction or apology or both, in a timeframe that contrasts with the courts. I have put on record that we welcome the clause in the proposed defamation legislation that puts an onus on legal advisers to draw a complainant’s attention to this course of action. We note that in a recent defamation case - not in the west - the judge ruled in favour of the publisher and noted as a factor that the plaintiff had not initially raised the matter with the press council. These are very simple and straightforward steps that can avert a very long, drawn-out and costly legal action.

The problems that can arise when these processes do not succeed is best illustrated by our own experience at The Connacht Tribune. When I met many members last autumn I outlined an example of a court case from 2014 which we got wrong and admitted we got wrong. I have to be a little bit vague on this but it followed a public melee and several members of one family were involved, but we got the name of a victim and the name of the defendant mixed up. They had the same surname, but, no excuses, it was wrong. The following week we apologised without any equivocation and attempted to sort the matter out. To compound the problem, someone else who shared the name of the person we wrongly identified, but who was nowhere near the incident, also sued us. It went off the radar for years at a time and then resurfaced every so often just in time to keep it alive, but it was then listed last year for the Circuit Court. We could have fought the second case but the two were joined together and both our side and theirs had the same solicitor and barrister, so we did what all media organisations do and we again entered settlement talks. I cannot disclose the final figure because there is a confidentiality clause, but when our side and their side’s figures are added together, it is close to six figures and that is with the actual plaintiffs getting, by our estimation, a four-figure sum. We were wrong and we must pay the price, but it is the legal fees that are killing us and the time lapse between the original cause of the complaint and a final arbitration did not serve either side.

We have been fairly lucky, or careful, or both over the years and have not had a spate of legal actions, although I know this is tempting fate. However, one half-decent action, without any malicious intent, could close us down. That means job losses or even the future of a local newspaper, where economic pressures are already, to put it mildly, very challenging. I hope we are not one libel payout away from doom, but I really would not like to have to put that to the test.

I thank members for their time and look forward to any questions they may have.