Results 4,141-4,160 of 16,537 for speaker:Brian Lenihan Jnr

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Perhaps the Senator would table an amendment to that effect.

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: On Senator Hannigan's amendment, in a sense it might have been grouped with the earlier amendments because I have agreed to revisit the issue whether there should be a number of attempts to obtain a response. On Senator Regan's point, the wording "out of spite, ill will" is not surplus as it makes the defence stricter and for those reasons I would retain it.

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: This is a matter of defence not of claim. I expressed my view earlier that I must view this defence with some suspicion given it is a judicial innovation, and I am anxious to have it restricted and limited as much as is practicable. Truth should be at a premium in defamation proceedings. This creates an occasion of qualified privilege where matters of public interest are concerned. It is...

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: In reply to Senator O'Toole, the crucial point is that we are allowing a defence even though there is an untruth. Senator O'Toole is impressed that we have introduced concepts of fairness and reasonableness. They are being allowed to qualify an individual's reputation and to permit the publication of untruth. It is important that strict qualifications be placed on this facility.

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The reason the terms "applicant" and "respondent" are used in section 26 is that the proceedings in question fall short of an action for defamation in respect of which damages may be awarded. Under section 26(8), no order in regard to damages shall be made when an application for a declaratory order is made. Accordingly, the decision was made that the appropriate titles of the parties are...

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: This amendment would undermine the whole purpose of the legislation. At present, the law on lodgements is clear. In every other class of action in civil proceedings it is open to a defendant to lodge a sum of money in satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim. It is open to a plaintiff to accept, or not accept, that in satisfaction of their claim. If a plaintiff does not accept a lodgement...

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I thank Senator O'Donovan for his encouraging concluding remarks. I am not a learned Minister but listening to Senators this evening reminded me of the learned phase of my existence when one met a client who told one that they were only here as a matter of principle to which one replied: "How much are your principles worth?" That is at the heart of this section. Those who are concerned...

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: It is far from universal.

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: These amendments relate to the correction order in section 28. They seek to offer some flexibility in regard to the timing of the publication of a correction order, where such an order has been made by the court following a successful application by the plaintiff. Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 are related and allow a court to specify the time and date on which a correction order must be...

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The section we are discussing relates not to the declaratory order but to the correction order, when one seeks an apology in the course of a substantive defamation action. That is why there is no reference to a declaratory order at that stage. In other words, it is a stand-alone provision governing the correction that takes place in a substantive defamation action where there is also a...

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Section 29 updates the existing provisions, contained in the 1961 Act, in respect of the award of damages. The parties in a defamation action may now make submissions to the courts regarding damages and various matters are set out in that regard. Section 29(2) is a critical element of the Bill, which requires that where a defamation action is brought in the High Court, the judge shall give...

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: My answer suggests that there is not an inner logic to where the amendment has been tabled. Perhaps the Senator might revisit the matter on Report Stage.

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Senator Norris, who tabled the amendment, is seeking to ensure that in the case of a successful defamation action, the editor and proprietor of the newspaper which published the defamatory statement shall be liable for damages. Although he is not present, I can almost hear him pronounce the words "editor" and "proprietor". This matter is already provided for in existing law. Each...

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The courts have a discretion in this matter. I take it Senator Hannigan is concerned that by not stating expressly in the subsection that this is the case, in some way the tendering of evidence such as that to which he refers will be made quite habitual in actions of this nature. I am willing to examine the amendment and return to the matter on Report Stage.

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I do intend to look at it because when one includes the phrase "with the leave of the court" in legislation, one immediately sends a signal to the courts that they must be careful not to admit prejudicial evidence in a particular context. It might be useful to send such a signal in the context to which we are referring.

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Senator Walsh may intervene in respect of this amendment, which proposes that the press council may make a recommendation regarding the reasonable parameters of damages to be awarded in any case where the newspaper involved apologises in advance of the hearing. It also states, "The court must take such a recommendation into consideration in assessing damages." I am opposed to that because...

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: May I speak to the section first as it might assist consideration of the amendment?

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The amendment is to a section I am considering deleting. That is the reason I was anxious to spare Senator Hannigan some time. Section 35 deals with an arcane branch of our law. Part 5 deals with criminal liability. If I may, I will revert to section 34, which is linked to section 35. Section 34 purports to abolish the common law offences of criminal libel, seditious libel and obscene...

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I would like to reply to the point as it is a serious one. Section 38 provides for current law, that libel defamation is one of those causes of action that ceases upon death and that one's reputation, as a matter of legal action ability, does not survive one's death. There are good reasons of policy for this. The tort is necessarily personal and intimate in character and the principal...

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed). (11 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: There are issues of law and issues of policy here. On the narrow issue of law, as Senator Regan points out, I have the power to revoke the recognition of the press council as it is written into the Bill. That can be exercisable at any time. If the council does not comply with the minimum standards prescribed for it under this Bill, I can revoke it. That is clear and it strikes the balance...