Results 12,561-12,580 of 18,736 for speaker:Michael McDowell

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: Most secretaries who write letters are, unless it is staring them in the face, totally unaware of whether they are defamatory. They assume that their employers are persons of honour and decency and would only put forward observations that are true or whatever. I simply do not believe that a court would award damages of a significant amount against a secretary. Similarly, neither the...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: If all the Members of the Oireachtas were to have visited upon them all the letters sent out in their name and be subject to the consequences attaching thereto, there would be very few of us in the Houses.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I expect that further compliments shall flow in the course of the afternoon.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: It is interesting that slander is not actionable without proof of special damage and except in certain cases. One of the latter instances is imputing dishonesty or criminality to a person, while another is imputing unchastity to a woman, a man or whomever. I am following the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission in merging the two torts. There is, however, a slight reluctance on my...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: Senator Jim Walsh referred to section 5(4). The purpose of this subsection is that if one says something to somebody that is directed towards him or her, it is not defamatory. If one's secretary heard one, in an unintended way — for example, through the office partition — making a defamatory remark about somebody, that should not, of itself, constitute publication. This is a peculiar...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: That is the point. If somebody proceeds to republish the remark, section 5(4) will not protect them in any way. The provision under discussion only extends to someone who was an unintended bystander. If the secretary to whom I refer heard it in an unintended way, contacted the local newspaper and stated that the remark was made in her presence, the publication to the local newspaper and...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: The point about somebody making a mistake and being criminalised is absolutely without foundation, I regret to inform the House.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: No. Subsection (6) provides that if a person makes a statement in an affidavit under this section that is false or misleading in any respect and that he or she knows to be false and misleading, he or she shall be guilty of an offence. That has nothing to do with making an honest mistake. It must be proved that the person knew it was false and misleading at the time he or she made it. The...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: ——for stories which everybody knew to be right. He never even had to testify in the cases. He simply demanded that they prove the case and then walked away from it. This provision simply requires that somebody swears an affidavit saying that what is in his or her pleading is correct. In other words, if the pleading is false and the person knows it to be false, he or she commits...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: All that is required is that the plaintiff or the defendant swear a verifying affidavit, which does not mean that they prove these matters are true from their own knowledge but that they are true to the best of their knowledge and belief. If somebody knew it was false and it was later proven that he or she knew it was false, the affidavit would amount to perjury. Subsection (3) refers to...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: This is not an effort to find out who is lying or who is telling the truth. This provides that if something is going to be put in writing at the beginning of the case, then the defendant better believe it. It is not stating this is the way in which the truth of allegations will be ascertained.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: If someone is described as a "thieving murderer", theoretically that individual could sue claiming the statement meant he or she was a thief. On another day, the individual could sue again claiming the statement meant he or she had murdered somebody and it is a separate cause of action. This section provides for one cause of action for a statement but all imputations must be sued on at the...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: To take the Senator's example, if one said that all the recent Ministers for Justice have been corrupt, it would refer to me because I am a recent Minister for Justice. If one said that Ministers for Justice are notorious for their corruption, it could be argued that it does not necessarily refer to me. The section provides that the statement is defamatory if it could reasonably be...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I am amused that Senator Norris seems to leave a trail of wreckage behind him every time he goes into a studio.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: The provisions of section 9 are based on what was in the Whelan report and probably also the Law Reform Commission report. The particularity idea is not a random thought of my own. The purpose of this provision is to bring reason to the definition of a class of persons. We must be reasonable in this. I would prefer to cut down these types of inferential libels to the minimum. If a person...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I assure the Senator that this is not the purpose of the section. It is designed to prevent a situation where, in theory, a person who takes a defamation action in respect of an article published in The Irish Times, which is read by a certain number of people on the day it is published, decides to take further action four years later when another person who reads the article, which has been...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I am grateful to Senator Tuffy for coming to the aid of the section. I am beginning, however, to experience a slight sinking feeling about it.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: It could be many things. I agree with Senator Norris that the idea of a body corporate having feelings is far-fetched. The good name of every citizen requires to be upheld by the Constitution——

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: ——but companies are not citizens. I will reconsider the matter between now and Report Stage. It may be better to recast the section to state that a body corporate can only bring a defamation action in respect of a statement made where it has incurred, or is likely to incur, financial loss or where the statement was made with malice. A person could say something about a company or group...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I am concerned that leaving the Bill untouched in this regard would allow a large company to take an individual to court to prove slander or to use the legal process to punish or humiliate a person. I will, accordingly, take another look at it.