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

I thank Deputies Carthy, McGrath and Gannon for their contributions. I will start on where there is agreement in what they have said. It is correct to say that the contentious part of the legislation before the House is Part 3, which concerns the abolition of juries. I acknowledge that the colleagues who have spoken are generally supportive of the legislation, notwithstanding their opposition to Part 3. As the Deputies mentioned, we had a very thorough discussion on this issue on Committee Stage. I stand over everything I said at that time.

I will respond to a couple of points that were made by the Deputies. We are discussing amendments Nos. 5, 7, 8 and 9, which are Government amendments, and amendments Nos. 4 and 6, which are in the names of Deputies Carthy and Gannon. I propose to deal with all of those issues in my response. I will get the amendments that are not contentious out of the way.

Amendment No. 5, which I will move, amends section 4 to remove the word "the" because it appears twice. This is simply a technical issue and a typographical error. Amendments Nos. 7 and 9, which I will also move, substitute the word "instituted" with "brought" to provide consistency with the terminology used in the 2009 Act. Amendment No. 8 deletes section 5(1)(c), which removed the definition of "court" from section 26 of the 2009 Act. That is the section that deals with fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest. As colleagues will know, amendment No. 15 proposes a change to that. That is why amendment No. 8 is necessary.

I will now turn to the two amendments proposed by Deputies Carthy and Gannon. Amendment No. 4 proposes to remove the section that deals with the abolition of juries. Amendment No. 6 proposes to substitute a different wording so that there would be a sort of a hybrid process in which a jury could be used to determine certain aspects of a case but a judge would determine other aspects. I will make two general points in response to the issues raised by Deputies Carthy and Gannon in particular. The majority of civil cases before the courts are not determined by a jury. They are determined by a judge sitting alone. That has been a fairly constant progression. From the time of the Courts of Justice Act 1924 onwards, we have seen circumstances where all the personal injuries actions up to 1988 used to be heard by juries in the High Court. These were abolished because it prolonged the hearing of the action and it was too inefficient for the purpose of determining the increasing number of personal injuries actions. The latter argument does not apply here, but the former does in terms of trying to speed up the process.

Very many defamation cases are heard on a daily basis without a jury. In the Circuit Court, damages of up to €75,000 can be awarded, which is a considerable sum of money for damage to reputation. Anyone who takes an action in the Circuit Court does not have a right to a jury. A defamation case in this court is heard by a judge, sitting alone, and individuals get justice there. Similarly in the High Court, many defamation cases are heard without a jury. This can happen if somebody brings forward a claim for defamation and, say, a claim for breach of privacy. The latter claim cannot be determined by a jury and, consequently, many plaintiffs opt to have a High Court judge, sitting on his or her own, determine the action. Any experiences I have had of judges on their own hearing defamation cases have indicated to me that there is not some lesser form of justice. There is no lesser vindication of the rights of the individual when a case is being heard by a judge sitting alone.

I note the points made by Deputy Gannon that sometimes judges come from a certain perspective in society and that juries bring a broader assessment. The purpose of juries is to ensure that they will deal with questions of pure fact in respect of issues that are before the court. This has happened in respect of defamation actions. However, anyone who has ever attended a defamation action will be aware that there are many occasions when the jury has to rise and leave the room so that the questions of law can be dealt by the judge, sitting alone. It is fairly clear that a defamation case heard by a judge sitting alone will be faster than a defamation case heard by a judge and a jury sitting together. This is a matter of common sense. I am also not fearful that it will result in miscarriages of justice or individuals being deprived of the opportunity to vindicate their good name.

I will now deal with amendment No. 6 in more detail. This is being put forward by Deputies Carthy and Gannon. If amendment No. 6 was accepted, it would divide roles between a judge and jury in cases that may involve substantial damages. It is noteworthy that the term is not defined in the proposed amendment. In those cases, juries would have a role in the determination of questions of fact, but would have no role in respect of the assessment of damages. As I noted on Committee Stage, it would be inappropriate to divide functions between a jury and a judge.

Deputy Carthy made the point on the previous occasion - I listened carefully to it - that it happened in criminal proceedings, where a jury determined guilt or innocence and the court then imposed a sentence. In a criminal prosecution, it is not feasible to suggest that, at the end of a determination of guilt, the jury would then proceed to set the sentence. The reason we do not do that is because of the necessity of ensuring consistency in the types of sentence imposed on individuals convicted of similar offences. Similarly, the objective here is to achieve some form of consistency in the damages awarded.

See this speech in context