Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am thankful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate today on this Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024. It is a very important document. It is very important in terms of the principles it is setting out to abolish juries, which are a vital part of the public and in protecting public discourse. I wish to talk about that. Unfortunately, I will not do so as eloquently as my colleagues. While a lot of the points will probably be repeated, they are important and need to be repeated because this will have very serious implications for the future, the future of the court system and the future of public participation in it, which is vitally important.

I thank the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, for coming today to give a briefing in the audiovisual room. It gave a briefing and a lot of useful information to Members on the importance of juries. It was instructive to attend, listen and hear what had to be said. I probably did not understand fully the importance of juries and the reason they have existed through our system for so long. It goes back to the Irish Magna Carta when juries came into play in court cases. Juries have been there for so long and yet, if this Bill goes through today, it will get rid of them. Unfortunately, this Bill will go through because Government Members will make sure it goes through. That is sad.

I ask the Minister of State, even at this late stage, to withdraw the Parts in respect of the abolition to juries to allow this Bill to go through properly. That would be important and could do a lot. Perhaps he actually could have a rethink on this. That would make sense. The justice committee, of which I am a member, published a detailed report on this Bill. I wonder whether the reports feed into any decision-making within Departments at all. I have my severe doubts as to whether they do or not. Some points might be taken on board at some stage but in my experience, they do not really feed in. Reports are still important because they show that committees considered the legislation being proposed and that they put forward a report. The fact they are not taken on board is instructive as well. From that point of view, it probably is important to do that.

The evidence and reasons given for retaining juries were a lot more extensive and detailed than the reasons for getting rid of them, which also is instructive. In the audiovisual room, Declan Doyle SC stated that the collective wisdom of 12 members of society is vastly preferable in the interpretation of what a publication is actually saying to the reader than the interpretation of one appointed judge who, in all probability, is male, pale and stale. That is interesting. It shows the importance juries have, especially in cases of defamation as they relate to how someone’s standing with his or her peers has been affected. The peers of the people before the courts are the jury, not the judges. Very few people are peers to judges in Irish society.

The restoration and the vindication of the reputation of a person is much more valuable when it is done by fellow citizens than by a professional judge. That was the tenet of everyone who was in the audiovisual room today, where a retired judge, barristers, practising barristers and people from the education side of things were in attendance. The tenet of it was it is vitally important, particularly in defamation cases, that it is people’s peers who make the decision on whether a person has been defamed or not. That is what we are losing here in this case. Moreover, we appear to be losing it, at best, on grounds that do not apply any more. As was outlined, the Supreme Court set out the parameters for defamation cases in the case of Higgins v. the Irish Aviation Authority in 2022, which came after this report, on which this whole legislation is based. That maybe leads us to the question as to how responsive the Department is in making and drafting legislation. Alternatively, the Department may have just wanted to achieve different things. It could be looked at in that way, too. The Supreme Court has dealt with all these things. The courts have dealt with the issues this legislation is supposed to be dealing with in reducing the quantum, the amount and the making of the so-called arbitrary awards juries are making. This has all been dealt with and it is happening. That should be taken on board by the Minister of State.

This is serious legislation. Based on what the Minister of State has said, there does not appear to be any parameters for a review as part of this legislation or it does not seem to have been looked at as part of this legislation. The Minister of State will state, as does every Department, that legislation is reviewed all the time anyway and that kind of stuff but that is not actually the case. It will be many years before anything will be looked at in this regard. At the very least, this legislation should have a review included in it, given what has been outlined by every Opposition Member and indeed Government Members who have spoken on this, which is that there is no need for this to take place. It should be reviewed and reviewed quickly after it becomes into being to see if it is having the desired effect and whether the counter-effect is taking place as well. As was outlined today, the UK abolished juries some time ago for the same kind of reasons. That is another debate about whether we seem to just slavishly follow everything that happens in the UK, as if it is the divine prodigy or something. We just seem to slavishly follow it.

It has been shown in the UK that the measure has not reduced costs but actually increased costs, and that because judgments are written down and judges give their reasons, the avenue of appeals is opened, as outlined by Deputy O’Callaghan. There are actually increased costs in the UK, not reduced costs, and that is what we are going to see here because we follow what is done there. That is an important point.

The SLAPP legislation is welcome. It is good that the Minister of State seems to have followed the EU recommendations on this and what has happened at EU level. That is important. It should make for an effective measure on SLAPP procedures. I hope that is the case. We will see how it works. From this point of view, the legislation is important. Stand-alone legislation on SLAPP procedures would be very valuable to have in the State because SLAPPs are used by wealthy people to stop others from looking into and reporting on what they are doing. The provision in this regard is one positive that comes out of this legislation.

The Minister of State outlined that he is going to introduce amendments on Committee Stage. As usual, the debate will be stifled and we will not have discussions. There will probably be amendments making significant changes. That is a bad way of legislating, which is worrying. For all these reasons, the legislation should be withdrawn. We should look into whether it is valuable or actually makes sense to remove juries.

See this speech in context