Results 5,361-5,380 of 16,537 for speaker:Brian Lenihan Jnr

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: It is introducing an innovation in our law. The philosophy of this Bill is very clear. As Senator Harris pointed out, we must have a free press, but a free press is not entitled to abuse the reputations of individuals by the publication of falsehoods. When one analyses what is a falsehood — clearly it can be an untrue fact — and when one enters the realm of opinion, "Comment is free but...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: ——honestly arrived at and therefore I cannot sue Senator Norris for that even though I would suggest there is no underlying factual basis for the assertion that he made.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: In any event I agree with Senator Harris's philosophy in this matter, that it is not worthwhile to sue newspapers, but that is purely a personal point of view. We all have an interest in this matter. We all are public figures. There is one ex-barrister, two current members of the Bar and two journalists present, one of whom also happens to be a legal practitioner.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Three journalists, excuse me. There is quite a proliferation of interested parties around this House. In this legislation we must ensure respect for those two fundamental principles — the right of the individual to his or her reputation and the absolute right of the press in a free society to publish freely about matters. Within that framework we must achieve another purpose, namely, to...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Was it said outside the House?

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I did address it in sense. I was concerned that the acceptance of such an amendment would, rather than clarify the existing law, introduce a further change. I gave the example of Senator Norris's recent comments on my legislative endeavours and said that I did not believe it should be essential for him to prove in an action by me that he was reasonable. I would view his opinions on the...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The Government has tabled an amendment to section 22, the section that deals with apologies, with regard to the prominence of an apology. Section 20 deals with an offer of amends procedure, that exists since the 1961 Act. It would be inappropriate in the context of the offer of amends provision to insert any provision about the prominence of an apology because the offer to make amends is...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Amendment No. 18 is a Government amendment to section 22. Section 22 permits an apology to be given in evidence. The fact of an apology or the offer of an apology to the plaintiff can be given in evidence in a defamation action in mitigation of damage. This is an important and essential part of our law. The Government proposal makes clear that the evidence of the apology can be given in...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: In respect of time lines, as Senator Walsh pointed out, the formula used in the Bill is "as soon as practicable". I am being asked to go beyond that and have concepts of strict time limits within which the apology will only operate for the purpose of the section — within 30 days, which is Senator Regan's proposal, or Senator Alex White's proposal which is that we can have an apology as a...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The Chief Parliamentary Counsel's advice is that the proposed wording would not be normal in drafting legislation and does not provide for any additional clarification of the provision. However, the Chief Parliamentary Counsel also warned that it might have the effect of changing the meaning. I fear that is precisely what the Senator is trying to do in this case. Of course the whole...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Amendment No. 29 is a Government amendment.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: That is the intention.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: This does not go as far as the Sullivan case.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Several issues arise in regard to this section. My comments on Committee Stage were precisely that and were made in the context of a proposal that we should not legislate in this area. Senator Regan has restated that proposal in advocating that we simply delete the section and do not address this issue. I disagree. Senator Regan referred to pending legislation before the Supreme Court,...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Senator Mullen referred to that. I was open in my attitude to this Bill which was introduced to this House in the lifetime of the previous Seanad. On my appointment as Minister, I decided to review it. This included a process of consultation with interests in the legal profession many of whom take the views put forward by Senators Norris, Mullen and Walsh. I also met representatives of...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I have reflected further on the proposal Senator Walsh made on Committee Stage and again today and am happy to say that essentially I am accepting his amendment through my amendment No. 33. Section 24(3)(b) as drafted provides that a court shall not draw an inference from a plaintiff's failure or refusal to respond to attempts by the defendant to elicit the plaintiff's version of events....

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: We are still on section 24, of course. The Seanad has already amended the Bill and accepted a Government amendment, after the hullabaloo, which has provided "the extent to which the plaintiff's version of events was represented in the publication concerned and given the same or similar prominence as was given to the statement concerned" and "if the plaintiff's version of events was not so...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Section 26 provides for the making of a declaratory order by the court that the statement of a respondent is false and defamatory. Subsection (2) provides that the court shall make the order if it is satisfied on the basis of conditions set out and is consequential on acceptance of amendment No. 18. The effect of the amendment is that an apology in the context of a request by an applicant...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: As I explained on Committee Stage, to accept this amendment would be to overturn the very essence of the reforming modernisation of our law on defamation — to maintain a connection between a lodgement and a failure to accept liability. Subsection (4), which Senator Walsh proposes to amend, is a critical component of the section in that it ensures both parties to an action are placed on an...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: This is a technical amendment designed to improve the drafting of the provision in section 28(3) regarding the timescale involved in application for a correction order.