Results 5,881-5,900 of 18,761 for speaker:Michael McDowell

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I do not want to get dragged into a retrospective evaluation of that kind of litigation except to say that I have a strong view that, irrespective of whether a judge or a witness had a mobile telephone in court, it is not a matter of huge consequence. We are all very prissy on this subject. It is a passing thing. Five years ago, people wrote letters to the editors of newspapers claiming...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: People got very offended by overhearing a conversation on a mobile phone, but were not offended by hearing the conversation of two people walking down the street. They thought it was very rude to have a mobile phone conversation on a bus or a train. Mores change and while leaving a mobile phone switched on in court is slightly irritating, it is not a capital offence and should not be dealt...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I must agree with Senators Walsh and Hayes. The section does not just deal with basic standards of truthfulness and professionalism, which, unfortunately are sometimes lacking in media coverage of events. There is a low standard set in some areas, which I must deprecate. I remember coming to the House once and deciding, in order to promote the use of Irish, that I would deliver a Second...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: That is true. If someone is willing to lie in depth and be inventive about it, he can get away with murder.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: Senator Norris might not have.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: Incidentally, this replicates section 21 of the 1961 Act, where it is called unintentional defamation. The purpose of this procedure is to allow a person who has unintentionally defamed somebody to make amends. It is rarely used. The kernel of it is evident in section 21(2) of the Bill, which states: Subject to subsection (3), it shall be a defence to a defamation action for a person to...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I apologise for forgetting to deal with that issue. Subsection (3) is designed to state that this is only available to a defendant at the very beginning. One cannot submit a defence stating that this is not defamatory, it is true or it did not refer to the plaintiff, and then decide to consider pulling the rug from under the plaintiff. At a late stage in the proceedings when a person has...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: Yes. One could do all of these things by way of a settlement of an action.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I suppose Senator Tuffy is correct in that sense, but the purpose is that this is a formal procedure which one must invoke before submitting one's defence. One cannot submit one's defence and afterwards state one is taking a totally different approach to the case, such that one will invoke the defence of an offer to make amends. It does not stop one doing all the things one could do to make...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: It is implied that the apology cannot be placed in the "Lost and Found" column or in the small advertisements at the back of the paper.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: One must read sections 20 and 21 together. Section 21 states: If an offer to make amends under section 20 is accepted the following provisions shall apply: (a) if the parties agree as to the measures that should be taken by the person who made the offer to ensure compliance by him or her with the terms of the offer, the High Court or, where a defamation action has already been brought, the...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I do not know. It is like trying to define an elephant — one just knows what it is. Similarly, one knows whether an apology is an apology. A definition of an elephant might not get one very far. The section is purely in respect of the mitigation of damage. It requires that it be done either before the bringing of the action or as soon as is practicable thereafter in circumstances where...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: The purpose of these essentially technical amendments is to provide continuity with the correct reference to a court established by law in the State, as already corrected in section 15(2)(i)

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: The Senator is thinking of section 14.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: Senator Norris is seeking a new provision requiring people, where they plead what used to be justification, to set out the facts upon which they will rely with regard to such justification. I will look at that between now and Report Stage. I believe it is already covered by rules of court but I could be wrong, and I do not know if it is necessary to put it into primary legislation. On...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: Amendment No. 6 to section 16 and amendment No. 7 to section 18 are technical drafting amendments. Amendment No. 8 to section 18, which provides for the defence of honest opinion, ensures that the reference in that section to section 16 on the defence of qualified privilege should be in accordance with all of section 16 and not limited to subsection 16(2).

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I was about to point out that Senator Norris's arcane views on the law of libel and on freedom of expression would jar in the minds of most people from north America, but I will not say that now. I wonder about the situation in the Czech Republic, but I will not speculate. Subsection 18(3)(a) is based on the terms of section 23 of the 1961 Act.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: It states: In an action for libel or slander in respect of words consisting partly of allegations of fact and partly of expression of opinion, a defence of fair comment shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every allegation of fact is not proved, if the expression of opinion is fair comment having regard to such of the facts alleged or referred to in the words complained of as are...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: ——whether the old version is better than the new one.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I was quoting the older section. The new subsection may be phrased less eloquently. Regarding the law in respect of fair comment and the defence of honest opinion, juries often believed that while someone held an opinion, it was not a fair one. They misunderstood the nature of the law. That juries needed to decide whether something was an honest view rather than a fair one needed to be...