Results 921-940 of 4,465 for speaker:Jim Walsh

Seanad: Courts and Court Officers (Amendment) Bill 2007: Second and Subsequent Stages (27 Feb 2007)

Jim Walsh: I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I also welcome this short Bill which, although small in content, is not inconsequential in that the number of judges we have has a bearing on the administration of justice, its efficiency and effectiveness. The Bill will increase the number of judges by four each in the High Court and Circuit Court and six in the District Court. As the Minister...

Seanad: Courts and Court Officers (Amendment) Bill 2007: Second and Subsequent Stages (27 Feb 2007)

Jim Walsh: Not those about which I am speaking.

Seanad: Courts and Court Officers (Amendment) Bill 2007: Second and Subsequent Stages (27 Feb 2007)

Jim Walsh: I am not speaking about the most productive sectors. It is sometimes difficult for politicians to resist playing politics with serious issues like this. It is a pity if that should happen as ultimately the public will not thank us. Two decades ago we had an example in this country of a Government which operated with such profligacy that a whole generation of Irish people had to emigrate...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Jim Walsh: Agreed.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Jim Walsh: I have some queries regarding subsection (2) in particular, which states: [I]t shall be a defence to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that the statement in respect of which the action was brought was - (a) made in either House of the Oireachtas by a member of either House of the Oireachtas, (b) contained in a report of a statement, to which paragraph (a) applies, produced by or...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Jim Walsh: I thank the Minister for agreeing to consider the issue. I was unaware that Members affected by defamatory remarks could contradict them. There is a time lapse and the concern would be that an initial publication could be very damaging or injurious to the affected person. Perhaps the Minister could consider the matter to see if action could be taken. I would appreciate it.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Jim Walsh: I shall deal with section 18 when we get to it. On amendment No. 8, I did not catch the reason given earlier for deleting "in accordance with section 16(2)". What effect does that have on the interpretation by the courts of qualified privilege? I should have thought section 16(2) gave some clarity as regards how that might be interpreted. I wonder about its implications, which are not...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Jim Walsh: We have had a good debate on this point. Senator Norris raised issues about the amendments that pertain to the section and the Minister gave an outline of honest opinion. From the point of view of mounting a defence, given that the legislation will obviously be interpreted by the courts, the entitlements of the plaintiff and the defendant will be tested in this respect. Section 18(2)(a)...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Jim Walsh: On that point, the issue is how it is interpreted. I can see the distinction and the Minister has clearly defined the difference between statements of fact and honest opinion. However, in my mind, there is not an established and definite mark between honest opinion and issues relating to facts that could be held as honest opinion. Are there any cross-references that can be made in that...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Jim Walsh: Section 19 deals with distinguishing fact and opinion. Sometimes a newspaper can express an opinion in the heading, so that is very clear. There has been a trend to inject an opinion into reporting. It is rare nowadays to read pure reporting of facts. We may be copying the trend that is found in the British media, but when one goes to other countries, there seems to be a much finer...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Jim Walsh: I remember the incident mentioned by the Minister and was here when the Minister delivered his speech as Gaeilge. He was commended by all sides for taking the opportunity to use the Irish language, which should be used more often. I also saw the subsequent newspaper article. The article illustrates a certain prejudice, by either the paper or the reporter. That was not an isolated incident....

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Jim Walsh: Senator Tuffy's question was one I wished to raise also. Would the Minister also outline in his reply the distinction between this and making a lodgement under section 27, about which I have certain misgivings? Does this arise, as Senator Tuffy suggested, where the case is proceeding, a party decides that he or she wishes to make a settlement, and an approach is made, generally through the...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Jim Walsh: Reference should be made to an apology being timely and prominent. The Minister is correct with regard to the begrudging nature of many of the apologies which appear in newspapers. They are often late and small, and printed in a little read part of the newspaper, whereas they should be in a prominent position. The more time that passes before a defamatory article is corrected, the more...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Jim Walsh: It is difficult to argue against Senator Norris's logic in this regard. While I do not disagree with his comments, the present situation, whereby newspapers feel justifiably constrained from issuing apologies because of the inherent danger of subsequent court cases, raises a dilemma. Subject to what the Minister will say in this regard, the intention of this provision is to allow newspapers...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Jim Walsh: I know.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Jim Walsh: Yes. However I would have difficulties in removing section 22(4). Its removal would mark a return to the status quo. In other words, newspapers would not publish an apology because of the inherent risk of a case that they would obviously lose as a consequence.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Jim Walsh: Most people would be satisfied by an apology. There may also be a need to combine an element of compensation with it, which is missing at present. The establishment of an independent body that could adjudicate in a reasonable manner without all the attendant exorbitant legal costs, as does, for example, the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, would be something of substance. It would allow...

Seanad: Defence of Life and Property Bill 2006: Second Stage (28 Feb 2007)

Jim Walsh: I support the tenor of the Bill and compliment Senators Morrissey and Brennan on presenting it to the House. We are fortunate that a number of Private Members' Bills have come before the House in recent times. This is a tribute to Members and the work they put into preparing Bills on matters of import. I was watching the debate on the monitor and noticed how Opposition Members were getting...

Seanad: Defence of Life and Property Bill 2006: Second Stage (28 Feb 2007)

Jim Walsh: Senator O'Rourke without interruption.

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

Jim Walsh: Senator Norris felt strongly about this amendment, which seeks to insert the word "automatically". He had some concerns in this regard on which he might well want to elucidate himself, rather than me doing it. Both amendments are more or less connected.