Results 1,081-1,100 of 4,465 for speaker:Jim Walsh

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: The substance of section 1 deals with the Act. While I know there is a timing issue, it deals with the Act and therefore what Senator Callely is saying is correct.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: It does.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I hope Senator Regan will always do that——

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: ——on the Order of Business when Opposition Senators flout the rules very conveniently.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: He has.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I wish to reconfirm what I said. It is flouted with impunity on the Order of Business every morning and this is wrong. I concur with what Senator Harris said.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: Senator Cummins makes a most interesting point with regard to retrospection and the fact that this Bill might apply to a former colleague who was seriously defamed. However, this raises the question as to the reason the Bill was supported by Fine Gael on the last occasion.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: Senator Cummins may have misunderstood the point I was trying to make. His opinion is that if the Act were retrospective there would be implications in the case he has in mind for the person trying to rectify the defamation made and trying to re-establish their good name. If a similar situation were to arise when the Act was fully implemented, people would face the same problem. It is...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: The aim of the Bill, as the Minister rightly put it at the outset, is to strike a balance between freedom of expression and the constitutional right of persons to their good name. Section 7 provides for an affidavit. It is mandatory for a plaintiff to swear an affidavit verifying the assertions and allegations made. Section 7(9) states it is open to the defendant to cross-examine the...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I can offer an example, although I do not know whether it is a good or bad one. Let us say a person is defamed in the media as a rapist when he is in his thirties or forties. It transpires that the allegation is incorrect and without foundation. However, during cross-examination — this is what concerns me — it emerges that when he was 17 he had sex with his girlfriend who was 16 years...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I wish to clarify one point.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: On a point of clarification, while I said the analogy was not a particularly good one, the point I was trying to make was that I had no difficulty with someone being accused, for example, of being a rapist if he or she committed the offence. However, I am trying to distinguish between this and a situation in which, for example, a man who has previously been convicted of rape is, with no...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I thought the Senator did.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I am not clear whether the point raised by Senator Norris is covered by this section, particularly on the point of "contemporaneously or not".

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I do not believe it should be covered. Senator Norris's experience has influenced his thinking on this. However, I have a strong reservation about it. Let us take the example of a newspaper running the same defamatory statement for several weeks which is put on notice by the individual concerned that the statement is untrue. There is an inherent injustice in confining the individual...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I support fully section 11. The debate is interesting. Senator McDonald raised the issue of the definition of bodies corporate. It is an issue that should be examined because she referred to organisations that may require protection. I agree with Senator Regan that much of the business activity in this State involves small companies, the directors and owners of which are well known...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: This deals with Supreme Court hearings of appeal arising from a jury award, which can vary. It is a significant change from the current situation. The matter may be relevant because of certain headline awards given by juries in cases in recent years. Where the Supreme Court would hear an appeal and damages in the High Court could be varied, would it have to have regard to section 29 which...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: That is right.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I very much welcome the final comments of the Minister. I hope when we come to it we will find a way to address it. In all this we need to have a level playing pitch. This matter has arisen because of the case involving Mr. Denis O'Brien, where the Supreme Court referred the matter back to the High Court and there was an increased award of damages the second time around. Everybody felt...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: As I said yesterday, I appreciate the Minister's comments on lodgments. However, we should examine this further. If an appeal is based on the substantive issue of defamation, the costs will accord with the decision of the Supreme Court in this regard. Nobody can argue with that. However, an appeal based only on the award of damages exposes the plaintiff, who has succeeded in vindicating...