Results 1,101-1,120 of 4,465 for speaker:Jim Walsh

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

Jim Walsh: Like Senator White, I will refer to other examples in the section when they arise. Speaking on amendment No. 3, I fail to understand how a judge can be prevented from commenting on a case which is then reported. Because of the nature of the people who come before the courts, judges will often comment in very derogatory terms about the criminal activities of some of those people. It is...

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

Jim Walsh: There should be a judicial commission and were such a commission comprised exclusively of judges, I would have no objection. I refer to instances in which judges step out of line, of which there have been examples. The Oireachtas has conducted inquiries to deal with such issues and such inquiries should have had a structure other than the cumbersome model under which my colleague, Senator...

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

Jim Walsh: I am a strong proponent of the list approach because absolute privilege should be confined to where it is essential and necessary for people to function effectively. The question of local authorities is an interesting one. Councillors enjoy some privilege if not absolute privilege when speaking. A case occurred in Wexford a quarter of a century ago when one of my colleagues on the county...

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

Jim Walsh: On the section, I want to raise a number of points, including the point Senator White alluded to earlier with regard to the absolute privilege given to Members. I understand the necessity for that. There is a system to deal with it even though I have some reservations about abuses. However, paragraph (b) states, "contained in a report of a statement, to which paragraph (a) applies,...

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

Jim Walsh: I wish to make a suggestion. The Minister is prudent in consulting the Committees on Procedure and Privileges. It might also be useful, however, to consult with the Working Group of Committee Chairmen, because the members would have opinions based on practical experience, which might be helpful.

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

Jim Walsh: This part of the Bill deals with the defence of honest opinion. My amendment, which excludes part of subsection 3(a), is superseded by the Minister's amendment, which removes section 3.

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

Jim Walsh: Yes, indeed. I welcome this change. The last time the Bill was discussed, I pointed out that the plaintiff must give an affidavit and the defendant is not defined in the Bill. I had some concerns that if one is suing a broadcaster or a newspaper — I will stick with the newspaper — it may be unclear who the defendant is. Is it the newspaper itself, the reporter or the editor? There...

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

Jim Walsh: I have some reservations about this amendment as it may be lowering the bar. The thrust of my argument on this Bill is not to allow that to occur. I appreciate what was said by the legal Members about public importance. However, the terms "the opinion related to a matter of public interest" may not necessarily mean it is in the interest of the public. There may be a legal connotation....

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

Jim Walsh: I support Senator Regan's comment.

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

Jim Walsh: I oppose the reference to "substantial mitigation" in Senator Alex White's amendment. If the article was defamatory and poorly researched in the first place those responsible should face the consequences. Senator Norris contended in an earlier debate that it should be a case of print the truth or pay the price. I fully subscribe to that. However, I have some support for the timeframes...

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

Jim Walsh: The Senator is ungrateful.

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

Jim Walsh: On the issue of consent, it generally arises by way of a telephone call to the person concerned.

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

Jim Walsh: If a person consents to a publication, he or she may not be fully aware of its full content. I have concerns that a person might indicate he or she is happy with a statement, but without knowing the detail of the full article, it is impossible for a person to give such consent. I do not know the case law on this issue but consent in this regard is not good enough. Such consents are...

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

Jim Walsh: No, I cannot think of the right answer to that question, one that would not get me into more trouble. On the question of consent — I am sure the Minister would be able to advise me on this — there is reference in a later section of the Bill to the interaction between the reporter and the person who is defamed. Rather than inserting a defence of consent, I wonder if that later section...

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

Jim Walsh: I cannot say off the top of my head, but there are sections dealing with interaction that takes place. For example, section 24(3) deals with the issue, as do other areas. I wonder whether it is necessary to include it. A kind of confusion can arise. It would not be uncommon if somebody was contacted off guard by a reporter who knew what he was doing and told the reporter he could publish...

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

Jim Walsh: I said this on the previous occasion we debated this issue, when the Minister's predecessor took the debate, and I did not get far. This is a significant shift in our defamation laws. I agree with Senator Norris. The good faith criteria are weak. There is an amendment to remove section 24(1)(a), "in good faith", and even paragraph (b), "in the course of, or for the purposes of, the...

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

Jim Walsh: One of the many great things.

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

Jim Walsh: I welcome the Minister's comments as regards the premium on the truth, and it should be the criterion by which all sections of the Bill are measured.

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

Jim Walsh: To follow through on the point I made earlier about the statement being true, I wonder whether we are proceeding with that. I heard what the Minister had to say on the advisability of it because of the codification. If section 24(1)(a) was to read, "[I]n good faith, following implementation of best practice in establishing the truth of the public statement, and...", then the term "In good...

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

Jim Walsh: I move amendment No. 23: In page 19, subsection (2)(g), lines 15 and 16, to delete "a reasonable attempt was" and substitute "reasonable attempts were". This is important as it is the judicial interpretation of whether the defence of fair and reasonable publication is accepted by the courts and compliance with the subsections of section 24(2) is germane. Section 24(2)(g) states: . . . the...