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

I thank Deputies for their contributions. I will try to deal with the issues they raised.

Deputy Carthy spoke about the definition of "periodical" in section 3. I am happy to give consideration to an amendment, if the Deputy tables it on Report Stage, which he has indicated he will do. At present, however, I am not fully aware of the detail of what he proposed but, as I said, I will give consideration to any amendment he puts down.

Deputy Carthy also spoke about how the media can publish lies. Generally, when it comes to defamation, people do not deliberately defame somebody. What generally occurs is a mistake is made or somebody uses incorrect language that has a meaning that goes beyond what was his or her intention, and it is a matter for the court to determine what the meaning is. Even though somebody may not have intended the language used to be defamatory, that is not sufficient. If the court believes the meaning of it is defamatory, that is sufficient. As I said previously, judges determine defamation actions every day of the week in the Circuit Court, which is where more people take cases than in the High Court.

Deputy Carthy also suggested that I said - in fairness to him this was not intentional - that juries were the reason for delay. I am not saying that juries are the reason for delay, but the presence of a jury in a case will inevitably mean that the case will take longer than if there is not a jury. That is a very clear situation.

There were many references to what was said by the Bar Council, former members of the Judiciary and the Law Society. Like Deputy Connolly, I have great respect for all three of those entities, but it is our function to legislate. I have great respect for judges, barristers and solicitors, but they are not elected. Who elected them? Nobody did. We are elected by the people. We should make our decision in the confidence that we are the people who have been elected. We should not defer all the time to people who we believe are better-informed than us.

Deputy Carthy also asked what the point was in having Committee Stage, if I am bound by the programme for Government. The point I was making is it is a central premise of the legislation we are discussing, and a significant change, that juries will be removed from High Court defamation actions. That is the point I was making in respect of the issue.

Deputy Gannon referred to what is being put forth as solely a Fine Gael proposal, but it was also in the Fianna Fáil manifesto, which I supported. It is supported by the Government. It is unfair to categorise it as coming from just one entity.

Deputy Connolly talked about conscience. Maybe my level of conscience is not as heightened as Deputy Connolly's, but I do not view the abolition of juries in the High Court in the same way as issues such as Gaza, neutrality or war should be considered. I appreciate that this is a significant change, but it is not a principle of such conscience for me that I am required to genuflect before it.

There was also reference to cost and the jurisprudence that will arise.

It probably is the case, as I said previously, that there will be more reserved judgments of the High Court when it comes to defamation than was the case when there were just juries. When you get a jury award, you do not get a written decision; the jury just give an outcome. That is why the outcomes are immediate. In most other civil actions, a High Court judge will reserve judgment and you get a written judgment subsequently. That takes a period of time. There obviously is as well a benefit in being able to see a written reserved judgement because it gives an indication of the reasons for the decision that is being made.

There was a lot reference to what I said on Second Stage. The primary point I made on Second Stage was that where most defamation happens in Ireland at present is online. People are defamed in many instances by anonymous people online on social media where heinous incorrect allegations are made about them. I identified on Second Stage that we needed to put on a statutory basis what is in effect now known as a Norwich Pharmacal order. That applies when a person who is being defamed online now has to go to the High Court to get an order for the High Court requiring the social media company to provide information to them of the account and the identity of the account holder who has defamed him or her. Fortunately, that has been included, and is one of the amendments within the Bill that we will be discussing presently. The contribution I made on Second Stage was not as limited as is put out there.

Deputy Connolly spoke about the Higgins judgment. The Higgins judgment is a clear judgment. It sets out what the rules are in respect of awards. If it is so clear, one wonders what is the necessity to have a jury if it is the case that the awards are so accurately prescribed by the Supreme Court in the Higgins judgment.

People talk about the common law world. In America, they have juries for most things. Any of the big cases in America you hear of - civil actions - go to a jury and it is a very different type of business than that which operates in the administration of justice in Ireland. Fortunately, jury trials in Ireland never became like jury trials in the United States of America, but I think it is the case, and I am open to correction on this, that juries do not determine defamation actions in the High Court in England and Wales.

I thank people for their contribution. I cannot agree to the amendment put forward by the Labour Party and I will have to seek to push section 4, which is an important part of the legislation.

See this speech in context