Ms Karyn Harty:

It was, but it was always broader in the case law. Although it was centred around responsible journalism as a concept, it was always slightly broader than that. The case law here, Hunterv.Duckworth, for example, and Leech v.Independent Newspapers (Ireland) seemed to be broader. I feel the narrowing of it to purely relating to media cases is a mistake. It is a feature elsewhere in the heads of the general scheme. The section relating to alternative dispute resolution and other methods of resolution seems to be quite focused on an assumption that these are all cases involving the media, which, as has been well rehearsed, they are not.

On the judge-only trial, I have been doing this work as a solicitor for more than 25 years and primarily acting for media defendants, whether broadcasters, newspapers or whatever. A lot of that has been for defendants like tabloid newspapers. I have never in all that time got costs award in favour of a tabloid newspaper from a judge. Even where we have won, even in the Supreme Court, we have never got our costs. That says something about how judges, perhaps understandably, perceive different organs of the media. We make this point in our submission. There is a risk that, whether it is entertainment websites, magazines or non-broadsheet type organs of the media, may be disadvantaged by the abolition of juries. It has always been a concern of mine as a practitioner that that is a risk. It is born of that real-time experience that even where we have won a case hands down we have not got our costs.