Results 12,581-12,600 of 18,736 for speaker:Michael McDowell

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

Michael McDowell: Senator Norris's tone and volume are in direct proportion to the lack of substance in the point he makes. On this occasion he was quite excitable talking about something which he fundamentally misunderstands. When Ireland is brought before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, as the Senator knows, the purpose is to say an Irish law is inconsistent with the European Convention on...

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

Michael McDowell: If someone argues before the Supreme Court tomorrow that something is unconstitutional, and the Attorney General states it is constitutional and that we uphold the right of the Oireachtas to legislate in this fashion, he does not mean that he is binding the Government never to change the law. He is simply upholding the sovereignty of the Irish State and its institutions to have the law the...

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

Michael McDowell: He said it was a U-turn.

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

Michael McDowell: There is no U-turn in saying it is not inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights to have the law one way and then saying we are perfectly free to have it another way. There is a difference between something which is in contravention of the convention and something that is open to a decision, one way or another, by the Irish people having regard to the margin of appreciation....

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

Michael McDowell: It then goes back to the Supreme Court and because it is a court of law, it must in logic say it must be reversed. If it was wrong the first time it must be twice as wrong the second time. The case then goes for another jury to consider it. That brings the law into disrepute. This is not fanciful; we have seen it happen in recent months when a person appealed to the Supreme Court and was...

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

Michael McDowell: ——because that would be effectively conceding it was wrong to send it back on the first day.

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

Michael McDowell: The point is that if it was excessive on day one it cannot become reasonable on day two simply because a second jury has had another canter at it and has handed out damages, assuming the evidence is the same or roughly the same in both cases. There needs to be some sense in all this. It would be extraordinary if, for instance, Senator Norris wrote a food critique of some restaurant and a...

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

Michael McDowell: The point is that if the Supreme Court is entitled to find that the award is excessive it must at some stage make sense. By the way it is not directory in this case; it is not obliged to do it. However, it can in some cases. It has a choice to suggest the critique of that restaurant in that magazine could not have been worth €150,000 and to substitute that amount for the €500,000...

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

Michael McDowell: I will simply say there is absolutely no connection between on the one hand preserving the right of these Houses to make a decision on this issue and saying it is a matter for these Houses and not for Strasbourg to decide and on the other hand later deciding to amend the law within our own margin of appreciation under the Strasbourg convention.

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

Michael McDowell: The Senator should address the Chair.

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

Michael McDowell: That is what I said at the beginning and the Senator said it had nothing to do with it.

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

Michael McDowell: Section 12 allows a person who has gone to the High Court to sue a newspaper to say that the damages he or she was awarded were inadequate, and then to go to the Supreme Court and say he or she was accused of being corrupt, that the jury heard the evidence over ten days and awarded him or her €10,000, that he or she was a politician, that this was a serious allegation and that he or she was...

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

Michael McDowell: It said it did not need to be tinkered with to make it convention compliant, which is a different proposition. It is great when there is a case with which one cannot see any problems. The case the Senator is addressing here is that because the Irish Government successfully upheld the status quo in Strasbourg, it was somehow bound never to amend it. That is simply not a runner.

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

Michael McDowell: It is not a runner.

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

Michael McDowell: I am making the simple and straightforward case that this is not mandatory. It does not say that the Supreme Court shall impose its own will. It simply says it may do it. It may well be that, in most cases, the Supreme Court will decide not to do it and send it back. At some point, as in the recent case, the Supreme Court should surely be in a position to say that this is ridiculous; that...

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

Michael McDowell: One solution would be if the power to make a decision was circumscribed so that the Supreme Court might, where it is of the view it would be unjust to remit the matter to the High Court, or where the parties consent, then it would deal with the question of damages. It has to deal with its own award of damages. Clearly, at some stage the cycle has to stop. I take Senator Norris's point that...

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

Michael McDowell: The effect of this amendment would be to deprive judges of absolute privilege when they administer justice. This would be a very far-reaching change. It would be extraordinary if a judge were liable to be sued because he said he thought somebody was the lowest piece of work that ever came into his court or he believed somebody murdered his wife or whatever else. I do not think we should...

Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2007: Second Stage (Resumed) (21 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: That was a different Brennan.

Courts and Court Officers (Amendment) Bill 2007: Order for Second Stage (21 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I move: "That Second Stage be taken now."

Courts and Court Officers (Amendment) Bill 2007: Second Stage (21 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." The maximum number of ordinary judges of each court is prescribed by law and can only be altered by way of primary legislation. Legislation currently provides that the number of ordinary judges of the High Court shall not be more than 31. When I use the term "ordinary judges" I am referring to judges other than the President of the court in...