Results 12,881-12,900 of 18,761 for speaker:Michael McDowell

Written Answers — Crime Levels: Crime Levels (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I propose to take Questions Nos. 170 and 171 together. The information requested by the Deputy in respect of the years 2002 to 2005 is available in the relevant Garda Annual Reports, copies of which are available in the Oireachtas Library. Following the submission to me in 2004 of a report and recommendations by an expert group on crime statistics, I decided that the compilation and...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: The purpose of these essentially technical amendments is to provide continuity with the correct reference to a court established by law in the State, as already corrected in section 15(2)(i)

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: The Senator is thinking of section 14.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: Senator Norris is seeking a new provision requiring people, where they plead what used to be justification, to set out the facts upon which they will rely with regard to such justification. I will look at that between now and Report Stage. I believe it is already covered by rules of court but I could be wrong, and I do not know if it is necessary to put it into primary legislation. On...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: Amendment No. 6 to section 16 and amendment No. 7 to section 18 are technical drafting amendments. Amendment No. 8 to section 18, which provides for the defence of honest opinion, ensures that the reference in that section to section 16 on the defence of qualified privilege should be in accordance with all of section 16 and not limited to subsection 16(2).

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I was about to point out that Senator Norris's arcane views on the law of libel and on freedom of expression would jar in the minds of most people from north America, but I will not say that now. I wonder about the situation in the Czech Republic, but I will not speculate. Subsection 18(3)(a) is based on the terms of section 23 of the 1961 Act.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: It states: In an action for libel or slander in respect of words consisting partly of allegations of fact and partly of expression of opinion, a defence of fair comment shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every allegation of fact is not proved, if the expression of opinion is fair comment having regard to such of the facts alleged or referred to in the words complained of as are...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: ——whether the old version is better than the new one.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I was quoting the older section. The new subsection may be phrased less eloquently. Regarding the law in respect of fair comment and the defence of honest opinion, juries often believed that while someone held an opinion, it was not a fair one. They misunderstood the nature of the law. That juries needed to decide whether something was an honest view rather than a fair one needed to be...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: It was an expression of opinion.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: That would have been a different matter. The writer could have stated that the facts of a particular case warranted my arrest, but it looked like a statement of opinion rather than a statement of fact that I had done something unlawful. I tend to take these matters with a grain of salt. It is important to have a system of law in which people's honest opinions are statable when they are...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: Section 16(2) is the general defence of qualified privilege. This is to deal with situations where somebody says something which is factually untrue such as "You are a thief" or words to that effect. However, if the person thought on the occasion that he or she said the words that the man in question was a thief, that is an occasion of qualified privilege and as such is a defence. For...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: ——and put in the phrase, "in my opinion", that would clearly have to be taken into the equation in deciding whether this was an occasion for pleading the defence of honest opinion. Those three rules are set out there to guide the court. If I just said, "Senator A is wholly disreputable and should not be a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas", out of the blue, without any factual...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: This is a statement of the law relating to malice. It is based on the Law Reform Commission's recommendations.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: The concept in the provision is that if the statement in question has no connection with the purpose of the defence, which is to allow people express honest opinions on the basis of facts, the plaintiff can prove that the defence of qualified privilege is being dragged into the defence in a circumstance where it is purely technical and should not substantially avail a defamatory statement....

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: It is not the defendant's defence; it is the statutory defence.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I do not want to get dragged into a retrospective evaluation of that kind of litigation except to say that I have a strong view that, irrespective of whether a judge or a witness had a mobile telephone in court, it is not a matter of huge consequence. We are all very prissy on this subject. It is a passing thing. Five years ago, people wrote letters to the editors of newspapers claiming...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: People got very offended by overhearing a conversation on a mobile phone, but were not offended by hearing the conversation of two people walking down the street. They thought it was very rude to have a mobile phone conversation on a bus or a train. Mores change and while leaving a mobile phone switched on in court is slightly irritating, it is not a capital offence and should not be dealt...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I must agree with Senators Walsh and Hayes. The section does not just deal with basic standards of truthfulness and professionalism, which, unfortunately are sometimes lacking in media coverage of events. There is a low standard set in some areas, which I must deprecate. I remember coming to the House once and deciding, in order to promote the use of Irish, that I would deliver a Second...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: That is true. If someone is willing to lie in depth and be inventive about it, he can get away with murder.