Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)

I believe it is a very retrograde step to remove a jury from this situation in the High Court. Juries have proven their worth in the justice system over time. The Minister had a different opinion himself when he was on the Opposition benches. I would be very concerned at what he is doing here.

We all know that defamation is very serious. I was a victim myself of it one time and it is a frightfully expensive process to engage with. For a person who is defamed by a media outlet or something like that is frighteningly expensive. My case was short and brought to a cessation statements that were untrue. I wanted nothing for myself only to clear my good name and have a donation given to a charitable cause, namely, local district hospice units. I was shocked by the cost of the case. There was no hearing. It was just a number of emails back and forward, and maybe one or two phone conversations, but it was a phenomenal bill. When I queried it, I was told that representation to challenge defamation was frightfully expensive. The legal eagles make the money. We have juries who will give of their time, so we must support them 100%. They sit in a voluntary capacity, but it is the legal eagles who get all the money. The cost should not be so prohibitive for the person who is nakedly and blatantly defamed. People should be able to have recourse. The best form of recourse to justice is having the case tried in front of one's peers in the form of a jury, with a judge presiding. That should be a basic requisite in legislation. I do not know why the Minister has changed his mind since he was the spokesperson in opposition. It is funny how people change when they move to that side the House. The system here is too powerful and maybe it does not allow Ministers to have the views they want to have. I am aware the Minister is privy to advice from the Attorney General and everything else. Nonetheless, the removal of a jury at any level is a retrograde step. People have been willing to serve and have served, except for the Special Criminal Court. In the case of civil litigation, juries are necessary and should be kept. I appeal to the Minister to accept the later amendment if he will not accept this one.

See this speech in context