Mr. S?amus Dooley:

I thank the Cathaoirleach very much for the opportunity to address the committee and to address the committee on something other than RTÉ.

The joint committee on justice has recommended that the general scheme be amended to introduce a serious harm test in all defamation cases. We do not always preach from the same hymn sheet as the employers, but on this one we definitely do, because we seek the support of the committee for that recommendation as it is the kernel of the matter. While supportive of the concept of non court-based systems, we believe the absence of a serious harm test inhibits a culture of non-adversarial resolution of disputes regarding alleged reputation damage. Last week in the High Court of Northern Ireland, Master Evan Bell dismissed as "scandalous, frivolous and vexatious" a defamation action taken by Mr. Gerry Kelly MLA against NUJ member Dr. Malachi O’Doherty. The case was identified as being characteristic of a SLAPP. Malachi O’Doherty’s description of feeling harassed by the action and how both his house and professional credibility had been placed at risk by a defamation action deemed to have no prospect of success resonated with many journalists and editors.

Like NewsBrands Ireland and Local Ireland, the NUJ is a founder member of Press Council of Ireland and Office of the Press Ombudsman. That model has been extremely successful, not least because of the successful mediation system which, as Mr. O'Connell has alluded to, is a feature of the office. The NUJ welcomes the fact that under the general scheme of the Bill, solicitors would be obliged to advise clients of the non court-based mechanisms available via the Press Council of Ireland, PCI, and Office of the Ombudsman in the case of PCI members. The press council and Press Ombudsman mechanism does not offer financial compensation. Thus, complaints intent on financial compensation or cashing in on a genuine error will find the PCI avenue unsuitable and there is a risk solicitors will make only a perfunctory reference to alternative means of redress in the absence of a serious harm test. The alternative mechanism for those wishing to make complaints against broadcasters is Coimisiún na Meán, formerly the BAI, which also does not offer financial redress.

There is an obligation on funding bodies to ensure the public is aware of the existence of the Press Council of Ireland and Office of the Press Ombudsman and to adequately fund the office. That is a challenge. There can be no doubt that it is a significant commitment at a time when the newspaper industry faces significant challenges. However, the existence of a council independent of Government but with statutory underpinning is an important part of our democratic structures and is an essential investment.

A serious harm test and a robust, well-resourced complaints structure can and must go hand in hand if we are to serve the public interest, and that is the ultimate test in any democracy.