Mr. Michael Kealey:

I will answer Senator Ruane's question. The position in Ireland at present is that either party can insist on a jury trial. Plaintiffs or defendants can say they want a jury trial and it will happen, and it does not matter if the other side disagrees. In the United Kingdom, both parties have to say they want a jury trial. If they both agree, the judge determines whether it should take place. The reality of the situation is that because of the additional costs in, and complexity of, defamation trials, judges have not had jury trials, even in the very rare cases where both sides have said it is what they want. It simply does not happen because of the costs involved.

I will come back to the issue of costs for a moment, particularly the point that Dr. Hanna has just made on people being sued. Jury trials are longer than non-jury trials. This is a straightforward position. At the very least, there will be two speeches to the jury by both sides. The judge has to charge the jury and explain the legal principles that are applied. Jury trials generally take three or four times longer than a trial would take before a judge alone. What does this mean in practice? Every day that people are in the Four Courts, they are spending €40,000. For a one-day trial, it is €40,000. A six-day trial costs one side €240,000. If parties have the possibility of an award being made against them, whether as plaintiffs or defendants, it will give them sleepless nights.

The problem we have with jury trials and the fact they are so much longer and, therefore, so much more costly is that defamation nowadays has become a game for the very rich and the very poor. The very rich can afford it and the very poor can take cases on the basis that even if they lose, it will not matter because they have no assets to pay the other side's cost. For a large number of people in Ireland, being a party in a defamation case, either as a plaintiff or a defendant, is simply unaffordable. At the very least, getting rid of juries in defamation cases would reduce costs. It has reduced costs in the UK, even though the costs there are considerably higher than they are here. It will reduce costs, bring cases on more speedily and get the balance right between a person's right to reputation and the right to freedom of expression.