Results 12,901-12,920 of 18,736 for speaker:Michael McDowell

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

Michael McDowell: Senator Norris might not have.

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

Michael McDowell: Incidentally, this replicates section 21 of the 1961 Act, where it is called unintentional defamation. The purpose of this procedure is to allow a person who has unintentionally defamed somebody to make amends. It is rarely used. The kernel of it is evident in section 21(2) of the Bill, which states: Subject to subsection (3), it shall be a defence to a defamation action for a person to...

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

Michael McDowell: I apologise for forgetting to deal with that issue. Subsection (3) is designed to state that this is only available to a defendant at the very beginning. One cannot submit a defence stating that this is not defamatory, it is true or it did not refer to the plaintiff, and then decide to consider pulling the rug from under the plaintiff. At a late stage in the proceedings when a person has...

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

Michael McDowell: Yes. One could do all of these things by way of a settlement of an action.

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

Michael McDowell: I suppose Senator Tuffy is correct in that sense, but the purpose is that this is a formal procedure which one must invoke before submitting one's defence. One cannot submit one's defence and afterwards state one is taking a totally different approach to the case, such that one will invoke the defence of an offer to make amends. It does not stop one doing all the things one could do to make...

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

Michael McDowell: It is implied that the apology cannot be placed in the "Lost and Found" column or in the small advertisements at the back of the paper.

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

Michael McDowell: One must read sections 20 and 21 together. Section 21 states: If an offer to make amends under section 20 is accepted the following provisions shall apply: (a) if the parties agree as to the measures that should be taken by the person who made the offer to ensure compliance by him or her with the terms of the offer, the High Court or, where a defamation action has already been brought, the...

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

Michael McDowell: I do not know. It is like trying to define an elephant — one just knows what it is. Similarly, one knows whether an apology is an apology. A definition of an elephant might not get one very far. The section is purely in respect of the mitigation of damage. It requires that it be done either before the bringing of the action or as soon as is practicable thereafter in circumstances where...

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

Michael McDowell: I do not believe so because there are occasions on which a newspaper will admit certain circumstances look bad. For example, a newspaper may say it did not mean to treat Senator Norris very unfairly and wants to apologise to him therefor. It might also say, however, that it does not want to throw away all its defences if it gets into a legal brawl. The philosophy behind the provision,...

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

Michael McDowell: Generally speaking, the apology would be written, although it might be broadcast in the case of broadcast media.

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

Michael McDowell: I acknowledge the arguments made by Senators and think the term "timely and conspicuous" might address the issue.

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

Michael McDowell: Senator Norris is entitled to his strong conviction but he should not attribute motives to those who proposed to amend the law, which are venal or corrupt. In 1991 the Law Reform Commission, which at the time was chaired by Mr. Justice Ronan Keane, published a report on defamation law. On page 10 of that report it is stated: We referred in our Consultation Paper to the representations we...

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

Michael McDowell: Regardless of the electoral cycle involved, the Law Reform Commission, which was established by the Oireachtas, took the view that the all duck or no dinner aspect to an apology was an inhibiting factor that drove people to litigation and stopped them from acting decently because they put their heads in nooses when they did. I agree with Senators Mansergh and Maurice Hayes that we would like...

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

Michael McDowell: No, they said they were the servant or agent for the purpose of driving the car because it was a vicarious liability implied by statute. However, they were not authorised to comment on who was to blame and it was not an admission made by the defendant. For example, in the case of an accident if a driver hops out of a bus and says he is sorry, that does not mean CIE has made an admission...

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

Michael McDowell: Unless their lawyers say, "You have an open goal now. You can kick the ball in as many times as you like".

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

Michael McDowell: It is not pure venal base politics to accept his view.

Seanad: Defence of Life and Property Bill 2006: Second Stage (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I welcome the opportunity to address the House on Senator Morrissey's Bill, the subject matter of which is one of great interest not only in the Oireachtas but in the country at large. It is a subject I consider to be of the utmost importance. Senators are aware of cases in which persons have entered a house or a property without adequate excuse and with criminal intent with the result that...

Seanad: Defence of Life and Property Bill 2006: Second Stage (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: ——the Law Reform Commission has since published a consultation paper on the subject of legitimate defence. This publication was part of a series which is being undertaken by the Law Reform Commission into the law on homicide in this jurisdiction. I ask Senator Cummins to note that the consultation paper on legitimate defence makes a clear distinction between the deployment of defence in...

Seanad: Defence of Life and Property Bill 2006: Second Stage (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: Yes. That would include a child coming in to steal from a person's orchard.

Seanad: Defence of Life and Property Bill 2006: Second Stage (28 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I listened carefully to Senator Cummins and I do not see why Senator Brian Hayes cannot listen to me.