Results 6,161-6,180 of 18,761 for speaker:Michael McDowell

Courts and Court Officers (Amendment) Bill 2007: Second Stage (21 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: Judges' salaries are a charge on the Central Fund and, therefore, there must be legislation underpinning their appointment.

Courts and Court Officers (Amendment) Bill 2007: Second Stage (21 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I have sanctioned 18 extra support staff.

Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2007: Second Stage (Resumed) (21 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: That was a different Brennan.

Courts and Court Officers (Amendment) Bill 2007: Order for Second Stage (21 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I move: "That Second Stage be taken now."

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: That is what I said at the beginning and the Senator said it had nothing to do with it.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: Section 12 allows a person who has gone to the High Court to sue a newspaper to say that the damages he or she was awarded were inadequate, and then to go to the Supreme Court and say he or she was accused of being corrupt, that the jury heard the evidence over ten days and awarded him or her €10,000, that he or she was a politician, that this was a serious allegation and that he or she was...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: It said it did not need to be tinkered with to make it convention compliant, which is a different proposition. It is great when there is a case with which one cannot see any problems. The case the Senator is addressing here is that because the Irish Government successfully upheld the status quo in Strasbourg, it was somehow bound never to amend it. That is simply not a runner.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: It is not a runner.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I am making the simple and straightforward case that this is not mandatory. It does not say that the Supreme Court shall impose its own will. It simply says it may do it. It may well be that, in most cases, the Supreme Court will decide not to do it and send it back. At some point, as in the recent case, the Supreme Court should surely be in a position to say that this is ridiculous; that...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: One solution would be if the power to make a decision was circumscribed so that the Supreme Court might, where it is of the view it would be unjust to remit the matter to the High Court, or where the parties consent, then it would deal with the question of damages. It has to deal with its own award of damages. Clearly, at some stage the cycle has to stop. I take Senator Norris's point that...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: The effect of this amendment would be to deprive judges of absolute privilege when they administer justice. This would be a very far-reaching change. It would be extraordinary if a judge were liable to be sued because he said he thought somebody was the lowest piece of work that ever came into his court or he believed somebody murdered his wife or whatever else. I do not think we should...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: ——for stories which everybody knew to be right. He never even had to testify in the cases. He simply demanded that they prove the case and then walked away from it. This provision simply requires that somebody swears an affidavit saying that what is in his or her pleading is correct. In other words, if the pleading is false and the person knows it to be false, he or she commits...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: All that is required is that the plaintiff or the defendant swear a verifying affidavit, which does not mean that they prove these matters are true from their own knowledge but that they are true to the best of their knowledge and belief. If somebody knew it was false and it was later proven that he or she knew it was false, the affidavit would amount to perjury. Subsection (3) refers to...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: This is not an effort to find out who is lying or who is telling the truth. This provides that if something is going to be put in writing at the beginning of the case, then the defendant better believe it. It is not stating this is the way in which the truth of allegations will be ascertained.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: If someone is described as a "thieving murderer", theoretically that individual could sue claiming the statement meant he or she was a thief. On another day, the individual could sue again claiming the statement meant he or she had murdered somebody and it is a separate cause of action. This section provides for one cause of action for a statement but all imputations must be sued on at the...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: To take the Senator's example, if one said that all the recent Ministers for Justice have been corrupt, it would refer to me because I am a recent Minister for Justice. If one said that Ministers for Justice are notorious for their corruption, it could be argued that it does not necessarily refer to me. The section provides that the statement is defamatory if it could reasonably be...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I am amused that Senator Norris seems to leave a trail of wreckage behind him every time he goes into a studio.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: The provisions of section 9 are based on what was in the Whelan report and probably also the Law Reform Commission report. The particularity idea is not a random thought of my own. The purpose of this provision is to bring reason to the definition of a class of persons. We must be reasonable in this. I would prefer to cut down these types of inferential libels to the minimum. If a person...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I assure the Senator that this is not the purpose of the section. It is designed to prevent a situation where, in theory, a person who takes a defamation action in respect of an article published in The Irish Times, which is read by a certain number of people on the day it is published, decides to take further action four years later when another person who reads the article, which has been...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I am grateful to Senator Tuffy for coming to the aid of the section. I am beginning, however, to experience a slight sinking feeling about it.