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

I will be brief in response. I note what Deputy Carthy said about the provenance of the Reynolds defence, which emanated from the British House of Lords. I am not trying to open up old wounds, but the jury system came from the British system of justice that operated in Ireland. I will not go back on that.

Deputy Carthy said that people should not tell lies. Everyone agrees with that. However, most defamation actions do not involve a defendant who has deliberately told lies. Most defamation actions that arise are as a result of an error that has been made. The whole purpose of the legislation we are introducing here, the new statutory provision, is to recognise that there are circumstances where, for responsible journalism, broadcasters or newspapers could be doing a story that is very much in the public interest, whether it is about exposing wrongdoing in nursing homes, crèches or politics, and could have taken responsible steps to ensure the story is in the public interest and has been investigated. However, there may be a factual error within the story. The error may be that the story identifies me as opposed to, say, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Does that minor error mean they have no protection?

The purpose of what was originally the Reynolds-type defence, what now is in section 26 and what is going to be proposed in this new provision, was to recognise that there will be occasions when a responsible journalist may have made a mistake in one or two details but because the general story was in the public interest and because the journalist had gone out of the way to verify the truth of what he or she published, and that he or she sought a response from the individual who subsequently becomes the plaintiff, all those factors taken into account can, in certain circumstances, give them a form of defence. However, this defence only kicks in where there is a mistake. It is not always the case, but sometimes can be, particularly online where most defamation happens now, that in an orthodox defamation action against a media defendant, the media has gone of their way deliberately to tell lies. My experience is that does not happen. Mistakes happen, and in certain instances where there has been public interest journalism and the media have abided by certain ground rules, they should be able to avail of a defence. It is up to the court to determine whether they get it, but they should be entitled to avail of it.

See this speech in context