Results 81-100 of 1,591 for speaker:Eugene Regan

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: I ask for clarity on section 18(3)(b). It states: [T]hat defence shall not fail by reason only of the defendant's failing to prove the truth of those allegations unless - (i) the opinion could reasonably be understood as implying that those allegations are true, or (ii) the allegations are untrue and, at the time of the publication of the opinion, the defendant knew or ought reasonably to...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: I welcome the change to the wording which is appropriate.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: Senator Norris is grammatically correct because the clause has two purposes, "shall have regard" and "shall include". This seems to be more elegant language.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: I am concerned about section 20(5)(b) which, referring an offer to make amends means an offer, "to publish that correction and apology in such manner as is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances,". There is often a major dispute about the form of the apology. In many cases the apology is printed in the corner of page 10 whereas the defamation was published on top fold of the front...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: The amendment proposed raises some very important questions. If one relies on this provision to mitigate the level of damages, time should run from the date of the complaint and I feel this level of specificity is necessary. This point is made in the amendment, though whether it should be 14 days is open to debate. It should be clear that time is of the essence when an apology is to be...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: I return to the net issue of timeliness. In section 22(1)(b), the term used is "as soon as practicable thereafter, in circumstances where the action was commenced". Section 22(1)(a) does not mention timeliness. I wonder if the insertion of the term "in a timely manner before the bringing of the action" would make that link between the mitigation and the fact that an apology was offered in...

Seanad: Budget Statement 2008: Statements (5 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: Hear, hear.

Seanad: Budget Statement 2008: Statements (5 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: Hear, hear.

Seanad: Order of Business (11 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: I wish to speak on the cocaine epidemic and the tragic events of the past week. An issue is raised of human rights and the political philosophy on which we operate. This goes back to John Stuart Mill's principle of individual liberty and that we restrict the individual only to the extent it is necessary in the common interest. We know a link exists between individual usage of cocaine and...

Seanad: Order of Business (11 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: We are in a very serious situation.

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

Eugene Regan: Is it clear from this section that the onus is on the defendant to prove that the plaintiff consented to the statement?

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

Eugene Regan: The issue is that the defence of consent would apply only where the plaintiff is apprised of the full extent of the statement which is to be made and which then is the subject of the action. In circumstances where one is doorstepped and asked to accept or reject a cryptic statement that is put forward, the true situation is not covered. Therefore, some elaboration is needed on the consent...

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

Eugene Regan: To deal with Senator Norris' case and the situation that may arise, perhaps another defence should be built in here for the publisher. We have a whole list of defences, but we may need another defence. I will be putting down amendments on Report Stage for this and other sections of the Bill. We are agreeing to these sections on the basis that further amendments will be submitted on Report...

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

Eugene Regan: I move amendment No. 16: In page 18, lines 26 to 36, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following: "24.—(1) Subject to subsection (4), it shall be a defence (to be known, and in this section referred to, as "the defence of fair and reasonable publication") to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that the statement in respect of which the action was brought was published...

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

Eugene Regan: I appreciate the Minister's outline of the case law. Mr. Justice Ó Caoimh's statement was obiter dictum to the case and cannot be relied on except in the broadest sense. The matter will be a subject of a Supreme Court ruling soon and that is why I say the law has not been settled. We must be conscious we are adopting legislation that might have constitutional impediment in light of the...

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

Eugene Regan: If this section is maintained, I agree with the amendments tabled by Senators Walsh and Hannigan. They are reasonable amendments to the text.

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

Eugene Regan: I agree with Senator Walsh. The paragraph as written provides that failure to respond in the circumstances outlined in the paragraph shall not entitle the court to draw an inference. This means that if the person in respect of whom the article is being written does not respond, an inference can be drawn. The point that has been made is correct. The general situation is that anyone who has...

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

Eugene Regan: In fairness to the Minister, if after the word "if" it read "including, in the particular circumstances", perhaps it would capture the objection that has been raised.

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

Eugene Regan: I will do so on Report Stage.

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

Eugene Regan: I move amendment No. 28: In page 19, subsection (4)(b), line 36, to delete "out of spite, ill will or". I wonder if the language there is as intended — "bad faith or out of spite, ill will or other improper motive"? I am not familiar with the use of "out of spite" being used in legislation of this nature but I will not necessarily press the matter. I want to comment generally on the section.