Results 841-860 of 1,150 for speaker:Frank Fahey

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: Section 24(2)(f)(i) makes specific reference to adhering to a code of standards equivalent to those of the press council where the publisher of the periodical is not a member of the press council. This provision is very sensible as a periodical may for whatever reason — it could be valid from its perspective — decide not to be a member of the press council. We should allow such a...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: While amendments Nos. 17 and 18 would preserve section 24(2)(g), they seek to alter its meaning by providing that the plaintiff's version of events must be obtained in advance and so obtained the nature and extent of their representation compared with the suspicion, allegation or fact concerned. While I have sympathy for and understanding of the thinking behind the proposed amendments they...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: While I accept the thrust of the Senators' arguments, my difficulty with the amendment is that it is simply too prescriptive and we cannot be too prescriptive in legislation of this nature. The matter is best left to the courts to decide.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: I am prepared to clarify further the reason for this requirement. In doing so, I make it clear I am not necessarily agreeing to any change in the position I now hold. I am prepared simply to seek further clarification on the basis that all Members are in agreement that I should do so.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: The proposed amendment would weaken the conditions of the operation of the new defence of fair and reasonable publication. I see no reason the publisher of a periodical claiming the defence should not be required to show specifically that they did not act out of spite or ill will. Therefore, the amendment is opposed.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: Amendment No. 20 effectively follows on from the proposed amendment No. 17 by seeking to add an extra condition in pleading the defence of fair and reasonable publication that a reasonable effort had been made to obtain and publish the plaintiff's version of events. I have a certain understanding of the thinking behind the proposed amendment. However, I hold the view that seeking to add...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: I repeat that we simply cannot allow the legislation to be prescriptive to the point where we are tying the hands of the court. It would make the defence almost impossible and it is for this reason we must leave these matters to the discretion of the court. While, as I stated previously, I might agree with the principles behind the case being made, in the interests of good legislation, we...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: Section 24(3)(b) does not allow the court to draw any inference from the plaintiff's reasonable decision not to respond to the newspaper. In other words, one could refuse to comment on whether one denies the story. Therefore, no inference is being drawn in regard to section 24(3)(b).

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: The intention in section 26 is to provide a clear indication to a potential applicant that he or she might seek the new relief of a declaratory order. Thus, the section provides that such orders should be sought in the High Court. This is not an issue of jurisdiction. There is no benefit to providing that such orders should be sought in the Circuit Court. The District Court does not have...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: As I have explained previously, it would not matter. If one brought a case in the Circuit Court and appealed the decision, it would go automatically to the High Court.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: If one did not appeal the decision, it is not an issue.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: It is not an issue. It cannot be held in the District Court so, if one appeals the decision, it goes to the High Court.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: The text of section 26, which provides for the new remedy of a declaratory order, provides throughout for mention of applicant and respondent. This is the correct approach, as no defamation action has been lodged and thus we cannot speak of plaintiff and defendant.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: Essentially, if the plaintiff wants a quick fix, as it were, he or she will seek a declaratory order. That is his or her choice. If he or she wants to prove defamation, he or she will choose another approach. Section 26 provides for this more expeditious remedy to the applicant where an allegedly defamatory statement has been published and the court is satisfied it is so, and that the...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: The proposal was first contained in a report of the Law Reform Commission in 1991. It was further recommended by the legal advisory group on defamation in 2003.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: The court will decide on the application. If a person seeks a declaratory order the person must understand that damages cannot be awarded.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: If one seeks damages one should apply for a standard defamation order. It is up to the courts to grant a declaratory order and the courts must decide that the defendant has no defence. The defendant may be able to offer a defence. The issue of compensation is a separate matter.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: I have no further comment.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: In short, yes.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: That is the point. Section 27 brings defamation proceedings into line with other actions for damages by allowing the defendant to lodge in court, with the defence, a sum of money in satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim. This lodgement may be made without admission to liability. Section 3 is intended to facilitate a plaintiff who may wish to ensure that some measure of public recognition...