Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)

The Ceann Comhairle is far too efficient for my liking.

I will propose the deletion of the entire section. Section 4 relates to the role of the jury in High Court defamation actions. It would be important if the Minister could give us clarity on whether he is planning to proceed with this section in its entirety. I put on the record very strongly that Sinn Féin is opposed to the removal of juries from High Court defamation cases as a matter of principle and we will not be able to support the Bill if this remains the Minister's position. It is important to put on the record that our opinion is shared by many in the legal profession. It would leave Ireland as a complete outlier in common law jurisdictions globally.

I was not part of the pre-legislative scrutiny deliberations, but having read the transcripts of the Oireachtas committee and the final pre-legislative scrutiny report, the importance of members of the public determining in issues relating to damage to reputation and freedom of expression was very clearly highlighted by both the Bar Council and the Law Society. This holds weight and seems like eminent common sense. In adjudicating whether a person's reputation is damaged, who better to pass that judgment than a jury of one's peers?

Of course, nobody is suggesting the current system works perfectly. It is fair to say it does not always, particularly when it comes to the provision of damages. That seems to be the Government's argument, namely, that juries award damages inconsistently and sometimes excessively. Going back to the committee deliberations, everyone is open to having a discussion on how we deal with that issue without removing juries entirely. Perhaps juries could make determinations but we could restrict adjudication on the quantum of rewards to the Judiciary. There is space to address what Government says is the primary issue without throwing the baby out with the bath water or, as somebody said, taking a sledgehammer to a screw.

Unfortunately, I have noticed a tendency across a number of governments that, as opposed to fixing an issue, they ban it, get rid of it or overcorrect it. I have seen this time and again when Government Departments delay EU directives, for example, and then the simple solution is to just ban a practice when a number of member states might simply adjust.

Is the Minister open to reconsidering his approach to the outright gutting of the role of ordinary people serving on juries and making determinations as to whether defamation has occurred? Is he willing to have discussions on later Stages of the Bill? Like his predecessor, is he intent on going ahead with this, knowing that if we resolve this issue alone, we could easily come to a consensus and have a Bill that has the full support of this House? I urge the Minister to consider his approach carefully.

See this speech in context