Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)

There is much to welcome in the legislation as proposed. While we support many of the anti-SLAPP measures that are included, like others, we in the Social Democrats recoil at the absence of juries within the courts system. Juries provide the judgment of a person's peers. Juries have a sense of public confidence and democratic principles built into them by their very nature. Juries reflect public values and real-world experience. They enhance trust in the justice system and represent a core element of democratic justice - the people's justice. We do not agree with removing juries and simply having the judgment of members of the Judiciary. While judges play an absolutely vital role, in many instances they are not reflective of society as a whole when it comes to their demographic profile. That is certainly some thing we would like to see changed and enhanced but it is not the case at the moment. Juries provide protection against judicial overreach and ensure fair and balanced decisions, especially in high-stakes cases. Consideration should be given to alternatives to abolishing juries. We could address court delays by hiring more judges. Ireland has the lowest number of judges per capita in Europe. We could also consider hybrid models such as those that exist in New Zealand and British Columbia, where jury trials can be requested and approved by a judge.

The Bill removes the long-standing right to a jury trial in defamation cases. This right dates back to the Magna Carta, which is more than 800 years old. It cuts ordinary citizens out of the judicial process and undermines democratic participation in legal decision-making. This is of major importance and should be protected when it comes to jury trials. Juries ensure fairness and reduce bias. The fact that a cross-section of society is making a determination on the standing of a person is important, especially in cases involving powerful entities. Juries offer a check on the erosion of civil rights and support citizens' involvement in justice, just like their involvement in politics when them to go out and vote.

Jury trials apply in other civil rights cases involving questions of liberty, free speech, reputation and property and singling out defamation creates inconsistency and unfairness within legal practice. Jury trials for defamation are still allowed in the US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and much of Australia. Abolishing them would make Ireland an outlier. One of the Government's justifications is the unpredictability of awards. On the surface, this might seem like a fair enough argument but it does not stand up to scrutiny. For example, very few jury awards have been overturned on appeal. We also have the Supreme Court case which has offered very clear guidelines in this area. Speeding up trials is another justification but there are no examples of this. In Britain, when similar legislation was introduced in 1998 in personal injuries cases, the opposite was true. There is no evidence that jury trials are more costly. Judge-only trials have also been lengthy and jury verdicts are harder to appeal, often resulting in faster resolutions.

Jury trials have long protected civil rights. The recent Supreme Court changes have addressed many of the Government's concerns. No compelling reasons to eliminate jury trials in defamation cases have been presented and backed up by evidence. It is better to let recent reforms take effect and monitor outcomes before removing that fundamental right. Preserving jury trials safeguards the democratic process. It is important in any democracy to build public trust in the judicial system.

See this speech in context