Results 5,381-5,400 of 16,537 for speaker:Brian Lenihan Jnr

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Section 29 provides that where a defamation action is brought in the High Court, the judge shall give directions to the jury in the matter of damages. That updates the existing provisions on an award of damages. The parties to a defamation action may now make submissions to the court in the matter of damages. Subsection (4) sets out a number of factors to which the court — and it is made...

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: There was nothing specialised about that.

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Senator Norris raises a very interesting point. I do not believe we have arrived at the transatlantic position where the judge can say virtually nothing to the jury other than in the form of a direction, which is the position in the United States. When we use the word "direction", we use it in a broader sense and resting on the principle that matters of law are for the judge and matters of...

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Amendment No. 42 is consequential on the Government's amendment approved on Committee Stage to ensure the correct reference is to all of section 16, on qualified privilege, rather than just section 16(2). It is a technical amendment.

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Senator Mullen should be careful in seconding all Senator Norris's proposals because this one refers expressly to the editors and proprietors of newspapers who should not be singled out as a class in ordinary legislation when they are already comprehended by it. The position is that in any defamation action taken on its own merits, for example, in the case of a newspaper, it is possible to...

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I propose to take amendments Nos. 44 to 48 together because they are essentially linked. I agreed on Committee Stage to reconsider an issue raised by the Labour Party, namely, that the express permission of the court be required prior to a defendant being allowed to give evidence of any matter that might have a bearing on the reputation of the plaintiff in a defamation action. I am...

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Of course, the entire Bill is about how one computes damages in a libel action. Specifically, section 29 sets out the standards to be applied and there is a list of matters which the jury must take into account in arriving at an award of damages. Essentially, this amendment is trying to add an additional matter which should be taken into account, namely a recommendation of the Press Council....

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The present law therefore gives the plaintiff an option and I would be reluctant to withdraw that option from a plaintiff.

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: We are now discussing an obscure corner of the law, namely, the law relating to criminal libel. Section 35 relates to the proposal to establish an offence of the publication of a gravely harmful statement. I indicated on Committee Stage that I was considering this matter. On reflection, I do not think it is desirable to create a criminal offence of the publication of gravely harmful...

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I intend to bring forward proposals for sanctions in the Dáil and I will bring them to the Seanad. I have no option but to do that under the Constitution.

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I did not expect such a welcome for a matter I thought was an exercise in common sense. I must warn Senator O'Toole that we still have three offences in the Constitution and out of respect for the Constitution I am obliged to provide penalties for those offences. All of those offences are subject to the sanction of the High Court before the offence can be prosecuted or proceeded with, which...

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: It is Senator Regan's amendment.

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: He seems to express a reluctance about it, which I share.

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I see.

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: If we deleted these sections, a cause of action could accrue in respect of defamation of a deceased person. That is the effect of the amendment proposed by Senator Regan, as I understand it.

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: So a defamation action will survive the person's death and the next of kin or executor can sue in the name of the deceased person and recover damages for that person's estate?

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Does the Senator want to delete this?

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The provisions in section 38 are a modest advance on the current legal position whereby a cause of action ceases on the alleged defamed person's death. Subsection (2) provides that a cause of action vested in a person immediately before his death shall survive for the benefit of his estate. However, monetary damages are not recoverable. Only special damages could be recovered. Subsection...

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I do.

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

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I misunderstood the Senator because of the reference to the Press Council. I now see exactly what his intention is. It is a new amendment that was not raised on Committee Stage. However, it is interesting and I must reflect on it. I will bring forward proposals in the other House if necessary.