Results 181-200 of 1,591 for speaker:Eugene Regan
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)
Eugene Regan: I move amendment No. 3: In page 9, to delete lines 43 and 44.
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)
Eugene Regan: The Minister responded when I raised the matter of declaratory orders on Committee Stage. Can he clarify the position at this juncture?
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)
Eugene Regan: A verifying affidavit will be required, in a sense.
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)
Eugene Regan: Very good.
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)
Eugene Regan: I move amendment No. 5: In page 10, to delete lines 17 to 20 and substitute the following: "(3) In this section "multiple publication" means publication by a person of the same defamatory statement in two or more of his or her media publications whether contemporaneously or not.".
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)
Eugene Regan: We discussed the definition of "multiple publication" on Committee Stage. There was some concern about the appropriateness of the definition. Has the Minister had an opportunity to consider the matter? We had a lengthy debate on the subject. I have proposed an alternative definition which, I believe, reflects the intention. I would like to hear the Minister's views on it.
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)
Eugene Regan: I am sure the courts will ultimately clarify the position. I will not press the amendment.
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)
Eugene Regan: I second the amendment.
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)
Eugene Regan: My intention in tabling this amendment was not to over-rule the existing common law where a company can sue for defamation but whether it must prove special damage. In other words, the penultimate clause is whether it has incurred, or is likely to incur, financial loss as a result of the publication of that statement. That is where the change lies. The Minister has relied on a decision of...
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)
Eugene Regan: I appreciate that.
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)
Eugene Regan: I second the amendment. I have not gone so far as to propose deleting the lines but in my amendment I propose using the phrase "in the course" of performing a judicial function. This makes clear that any statements made by a judge in performing his duties or making a ruling, etc., are confined and circumscribed in some shape or form, and that they relate to the case. This is an effort to...
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)
Eugene Regan: I second the amendment. I am speaking on the alternatives. My amendments relate to a rewording rather than a deletion, to try to insert some objectivity into the test such that "It shall be a defence ... to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that, in the case of a statement consisting of an opinion, the opinion was honestly held.". I suggest that at the time of the publication...
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)
Eugene Regan: It is an honest opinion.
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)
Eugene Regan: This section replaces the defence of "fair comment". Fair and reasonable comment on a matter of public interest is what is being replaced. My concern relates to the issue of reasonableness. I have simply tried to refine the drafting, not delete it. I suggested a number of changes that would introduce reasonableness or objectiveness into the wording. Take, for example, where the defendant...
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)
Eugene Regan: I move amendment No. 16: In page 16, line 42, after "apology" to insert the following: "of equal prominence in the publication to contain the apology to that of the original statement". These amendments should, perhaps, be taken in combination with Government amendment No. 18. I have suggested that where there is an apology, it should be given equal prominence to the original alleged...
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)
Eugene Regan: I welcome the fact that the Minister addressed the prominence of the apology, which was an issue raised by me and other Senators on Committee Stage. Time is of the essence in terms of the meaningfulness of an apology. The formulation I proposed in amendment No. 20 has a lighter touch than that suggested by Senator White. It refers to a period within 30 days from the date of the written...
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)
Eugene Regan: I move amendment No. 25: In page 18, to delete lines 35 to 45, to delete page 19 and in page 20, to delete lines 1 to 10. I raised this matter on Committee Stage during the discussion of the defence of fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest. The justification for introducing this defence in the Bill is that it is settled law in this jurisdiction. We have had some...
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)
Eugene Regan: I respectfully disagree with the Minister. The matter should be left to the courts because there is at issue here the interpretation of the Constitution and the balancing of the rights of freedom of expression and privacy. This is the fundamental reason it is not appropriate at this juncture to insert the defence. This does not negate the evolution of the common law and jurisprudence. The...
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)
Eugene Regan: I move amendment No. 54: In page 28, to delete lines 34 to 47 and in page 29, to delete lines 1 to 12. This amendment is concerned with the novel provision that a cause of action for defamation can survive one's death. I wonder whether this is a matter that would be best dealt with by the Press Council rather than legislation. I am not sure it is practical or reasonable. It carries with it...
- Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)
Eugene Regan: I am moving the amendment and am asking the Minister to consider it. I put it in reasonable terms whether there is an alternative way of dealing with the issue contained in this section. That is why I proposed its deletion. I suggest it might be better to have it dealt with by the Press Council on issues that arise of the type that has motivated this section.