Results 3,361-3,380 of 4,465 for speaker:Jim Walsh

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I am a strong proponent of the list approach because absolute privilege should be confined to where it is essential and necessary for people to function effectively. The question of local authorities is an interesting one. Councillors enjoy some privilege if not absolute privilege when speaking. A case occurred in Wexford a quarter of a century ago when one of my colleagues on the county...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: On the section, I want to raise a number of points, including the point Senator White alluded to earlier with regard to the absolute privilege given to Members. I understand the necessity for that. There is a system to deal with it even though I have some reservations about abuses. However, paragraph (b) states, "contained in a report of a statement, to which paragraph (a) applies,...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I wish to make a suggestion. The Minister is prudent in consulting the Committees on Procedure and Privileges. It might also be useful, however, to consult with the Working Group of Committee Chairmen, because the members would have opinions based on practical experience, which might be helpful.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: This part of the Bill deals with the defence of honest opinion. My amendment, which excludes part of subsection 3(a), is superseded by the Minister's amendment, which removes section 3.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: Yes, indeed. I welcome this change. The last time the Bill was discussed, I pointed out that the plaintiff must give an affidavit and the defendant is not defined in the Bill. I had some concerns that if one is suing a broadcaster or a newspaper — I will stick with the newspaper — it may be unclear who the defendant is. Is it the newspaper itself, the reporter or the editor? There...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: As I said yesterday, I appreciate the Minister's comments on lodgments. However, we should examine this further. If an appeal is based on the substantive issue of defamation, the costs will accord with the decision of the Supreme Court in this regard. Nobody can argue with that. However, an appeal based only on the award of damages exposes the plaintiff, who has succeeded in vindicating...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I support fully section 11. The debate is interesting. Senator McDonald raised the issue of the definition of bodies corporate. It is an issue that should be examined because she referred to organisations that may require protection. I agree with Senator Regan that much of the business activity in this State involves small companies, the directors and owners of which are well known...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: This deals with Supreme Court hearings of appeal arising from a jury award, which can vary. It is a significant change from the current situation. The matter may be relevant because of certain headline awards given by juries in cases in recent years. Where the Supreme Court would hear an appeal and damages in the High Court could be varied, would it have to have regard to section 29 which...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: That is right.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I very much welcome the final comments of the Minister. I hope when we come to it we will find a way to address it. In all this we need to have a level playing pitch. This matter has arisen because of the case involving Mr. Denis O'Brien, where the Supreme Court referred the matter back to the High Court and there was an increased award of damages the second time around. Everybody felt...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: The aim of the Bill, as the Minister rightly put it at the outset, is to strike a balance between freedom of expression and the constitutional right of persons to their good name. Section 7 provides for an affidavit. It is mandatory for a plaintiff to swear an affidavit verifying the assertions and allegations made. Section 7(9) states it is open to the defendant to cross-examine the...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I can offer an example, although I do not know whether it is a good or bad one. Let us say a person is defamed in the media as a rapist when he is in his thirties or forties. It transpires that the allegation is incorrect and without foundation. However, during cross-examination — this is what concerns me — it emerges that when he was 17 he had sex with his girlfriend who was 16 years...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I wish to clarify one point.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: On a point of clarification, while I said the analogy was not a particularly good one, the point I was trying to make was that I had no difficulty with someone being accused, for example, of being a rapist if he or she committed the offence. However, I am trying to distinguish between this and a situation in which, for example, a man who has previously been convicted of rape is, with no...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I thought the Senator did.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I am not clear whether the point raised by Senator Norris is covered by this section, particularly on the point of "contemporaneously or not".

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I do not believe it should be covered. Senator Norris's experience has influenced his thinking on this. However, I have a strong reservation about it. Let us take the example of a newspaper running the same defamatory statement for several weeks which is put on notice by the individual concerned that the statement is untrue. There is an inherent injustice in confining the individual...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I have listened to the points of order raised. Section 1 clearly states, "This Act shall come into operation..." I humbly put it to you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, that anything anybody raises with regard to the Bill under section 1 is valid because it relates to the Act coming into operation. What Senator Callely is talking about is precisely what is in the Act and matters pertaining to the...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: The first few words of section 1(2) are clear in stating, "This Act shall come into operation..."

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: The substance of section 1 deals with the Act. While I know there is a timing issue, it deals with the Act and therefore what Senator Callely is saying is correct.