Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Similarly, there are many great advantages to being a member of a political party but there are also disadvantages, as I am sure the other Deputies here will acknowledge. One of the consequences of membership of a political party is the need for compromise. There has been a general election since the Second Stage debate. Fianna Fáil put forward a manifesto, which I supported. It included a requirement that the defamation Bill that was going through the Houses of the Oireachtas be enacted. There was then a debate between different parties about the formation of Government. A programme for Government was agreed between the two parties. I am a Minister in that Government. I am bound, because of the principles of compromise and collective responsibility, to give effect to what was agreed in the programme for Government. It was agreed in the programme for Government that there was to be enactment of the defamation Bill as it went through Second Stage. Deputy Connolly can say that lacks moral courage, but that is the difference between being an Independent and being a member of a political party. Whether or not juries remain in High Court defamation actions is not a question of morality. It may, however, be a question of morality when we consider what I said in the Oireachtas previously. Others will, no doubt, present it as me changing my mind. I do not agree with that. What can be seen here is a recognition of the compromise that is required if one becomes a Minister in a Government and if one signs up to a programme for Government that contains a principle that conflicts with what one said earlier. Deputy Connolly and other Deputies are perfectly entitled to criticise me in light of what I have said previously. However, I must recognise, as Minister for Justice in a Government that has a programme for Government in place, that I am bound by the terms of the programme for Government.

I will advance the basis on which that has been put into the programme for Government and the basis on which it is provided that the Government wishes to remove juries from defamation actions. There are very few civil actions remaining where juries determine the cases. The only civil actions remaining in the High Court where a jury determines the outcome are defamation, false imprisonment and trespass to the person, sometimes known as assault. Those are the only cases in which one has an entitlement to get a jury in a civil case in the High Court. If one takes a defamation case to the Circuit Court, there is no issue because one is not entitled to a jury in a Circuit Court defamation action. I ask rhetorically that if people genuinely believe juries are so necessary for the purpose of vindicating one's good name, why then is there no amendment that states there should be a jury in a Circuit Court hearing of a defamation action.

The principal reason the programme for Government contains this provision, which requires that the defamation Bill be enacted as it stands, is the belief that the removal of juries will speed up trials. That is one of the reasons. It is probably hard to dispute that the removal of juries would speed up a trial. As I indicated at the outset, and as a judge who presides over civil jury actions in the High Court noted recently, it takes time to put in place a jury. Individuals are selected. They are told to come to court at 10.30 a.m. There is then a process to select a jury, which invariably goes on until 1 p.m. Jurors can be challenged. At that stage, you have lost half a day. The jury is then empanelled and sworn in. There follows an opening speech to the jury. Counsel for the plaintiff gives an opening speech. The case then goes on in the orthodox way with witnesses giving testimony. At the end of the evidence from both sides, there are closing speeches to the jury. There is then the judge's charge to the jury. There is then the deliberation and determination of the jury. Notwithstanding what anyone may think, it is empirically clear that the length of time it takes to determine a defamation action will be reduced if juries are removed. I do not think that can be disputed and it was not something I suggested on Second Stage. Time is expended in that way. Time in the civil courts means money and expense. It is inevitably true that the longer a case goes on, the more costly it will be.

Deputy Sherlock mentioned earlier that defamation actions are the most expensive. That is not my understanding. If she looked at the fee notes from a commercial case, she would notice they are considerably higher. Even taking her point, it reveals that the longer a case goes on, the more it will cost.

I would have thought that was the principal reason Government included this in the programme for Government.

Then there are issues of certainty as to what will be awarded. If somebody asks a senior counsel what the likely outcome is of succeeding in a case for personal injuries, for example, a broken leg, that senior counsel will be able to assess fairly accurately the likely award from the judge. It will be within a range of figures. We now have the personal injuries guidelines. They will be able to accurately advise a client as to the likely outcome. That is an advantage for a plaintiff. Similarly, it is important for a person being sued, who can be told what the likely award against him or her will be if it goes wrong.

One of the downsides of assessments of damages being determined by a jury is that it is extremely difficult to tell a client, whether a plaintiff or a defendant, what the likely outcome of a jury is. I have great respect for juries and they generally, in my assessment, get it right, but jurors' predictions and outcomes are very hard to advise on. That has an impact on people being sued and on insurance companies covering people being sued. They do not reliably know what range of figures could be involved. That is the reason, notwithstanding the eloquent contributions of all four Members here this evening, that I - and it is a roundabout way of going to it - cannot agree to the amendment tabled in the name of the Labour Party Deputy and I must insist that the section continue as it is. I hope that has not put the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to sleep or anything like that. That is the end of my contribution.

See this speech in context