Results 3,961-3,980 of 16,537 for speaker:Brian Lenihan Jnr

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I thank Senator O'Toole for his intervention because in my earlier reply I assumed the standard sanction applied to the affidavit, namely, that it was perjury. I will have the subsection examined to determine whether it can be deleted because it is as well for prosecuting authorities considering matters such as these to consider all perjury prosecutions under one rubric instead of having a...

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Not at all. There is a great deal of difference between losing an action and committing perjury. The manner in which a court draws inferences from facts and resolves conflicts of fact does not necessarily involve the inference that one of the witnesses lied. A witness can be under a mistaken apprehension of the facts.

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: As I understand the position on section 8, the person has one cause of action only in respect of the publication of a defamatory statement concerning the person even if more than one defamatory imputation in respect of that person is borne by the statement. This does not deal with the question of multiple publication. It deals with the issue of multiple meaning or imputation in one...

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: It does not deal with the question of multiple publication. Each publication constitutes a separate cause of action, which is well established law and is being addressed in a different section of this legislation. Not alone does the person who wrote the article commit the tort of publishing a libel under current law, but also the newspaper, for example, that printed the article and the...

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I am not sure the section has as wide a scope as suggested by Senator O'Toole. I do not believe it deals with the issue of class action. From what I understand from the report of the Law Reform Commission, the issue raised in this section is an attempt to put clothes on the definition on how one has proof of reference to a particular plaintiff, an issue arising in many libel actions. For...

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: That will be addressed in subsequent sections. The legislation attempts to recalibrate the balance to ensure the press and other media organisations, as defendants, will have to create a culture where apology and admission of wrongdoing becomes more common than it is at present.

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: So are we.

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The multiple publication in the definition in section 10(3) means a publication by a person of the same defamatory statement to two or more persons whether contemporaneously or not. It is the contemporaneity of the publication which is an issue in the subsection. In the circumstances Senator Walsh outlined of a newspaper or other media organisation running the same story day after day, each...

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: That is the point I wanted to make. This can relate to only one distinct item. In Senator Norris's example of a newspaper organisation that wages a campaign against an individual, which is so common in public life and in some areas of private life too, each publication on separate days is a fresh and separate cause of action. I am open to considering whether this can be taken into account...

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: If it were the same newspaper article it would not be a separate publication. The Senator is right and I must correct myself. That is why I used the example of a video recording because if the same recording were used on two occasions I am not sure it would be a separate publication on re-broadcast. If, however, a newspaper article were to be picked up 18 months after publication by...

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Many of the questions on damages will be discussed when we reach the section that covers that matter. Regarding this section, I will discuss with the Parliamentary Counsel whether a more exact definition can be given to address this issue. I accept that broadcasting involves a separate publication every time an item is broadcast but, in respect of one publication to an audience, the fact...

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Senator Mullen is taking the third way.

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The point of departure in this debate was struck by Senator Norris when he said that companies do not have feelings. However, they do have personalities.

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Some Senators seem to be under a misapprehension about the defamation law in that it somehow serves to protect our feelings. It is true that the law of delict in continental countries protects the feelings of the hurt individual in the context of the publication of statements. There is a famous story about a professor in civil law in a continental university who screamed and roared at one...

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: It would have been along the lines of, for example, a statement that the INTO at its head office systematically defrauds teachers in deducting subscriptions in union dues. That clearly would be a serious defamation of the INTO as an organisation. The question arises whether a corporate body, of itself, can take an action for that. I presume damages then accrue to the profit and loss...

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: None of these is a body corporate.

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: That was precisely my point before Senator Norris engaged in mere vulgar abuse. If we are going to recognise bodies corporate, we would cover the entire span of incorporated entities under the companies legislation. That includes commercial and some, but not all, charitable bodies. It also includes older bodies established under Latin letters patent, such as the University of Dublin and...

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I will reflect on it before Report Stage.

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: They are amendments and not sections.

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: We can return to the function of the jury when we come to discuss that section of the Bill. In a High Court action the plaintiff always has the option to serve a notice of trial for judge alone or a notice of trial with judge and jury. The Senator's proposal would deprive the plaintiff of a right existing in Irish law if we abolished the plaintiff the right to have recourse to a jury in a...