Results 13,381-13,400 of 18,736 for speaker:Michael McDowell

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Mar 2007)

Michael McDowell: Exactly. Such an accusation must be dealt with more seriously than an idiot store detective challenging one in the wrong as one leaves a supermarket. Different graduations of seriousness exist. One may experience ten minutes of embarrassment and one's neighbours may state, "Did you see Norris? He was stopped coming out of such-and-such a shop." That may be bad but it is completely...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Mar 2007)

Michael McDowell: No, not this. They were lobbying for the total abolition of the jury damages.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Mar 2007)

Michael McDowell: I tried to be reasonable.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Mar 2007)

Michael McDowell: As a Joycean scholar——

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Mar 2007)

Michael McDowell: ——the Senator's insistence on accessible and understandable language astounds me.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Mar 2007)

Michael McDowell: As I understand it, it has always been the rule, except in defamation cases, that juries should be given directions as to all of their functions, including the assessment of damages. When personal injury cases were decided by juries, it was the case that they were given directions by the courts how they should approach the issue of awarding damages. I am trying to achieve rationality in this...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Mar 2007)

Michael McDowell: The phrase "directions to the jury" is well understood and is not a term of arcane art. If one inquires what stage a case has reached and the judge gives directions to the jury, it is clear what he or she is doing, namely, setting out the principles on which jurors are to approach the case. The function of a judge in a jury trial is to instruct the jury as to the legal principles it must apply.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Mar 2007)

Michael McDowell: It would be a usurpation of the jury's function to say a case is worth €45,000, not a penny more nor less, and to direct the jury to give that amount. On occasion, the Court of Criminal Appeal has reversed directions by trial judges not to acquit someone because that is a jury function. It is not the function of a judge to tell jurors to write "Guilty" in a box on the jury paper. We are...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Mar 2007)

Michael McDowell: If public figures appear before courts suing for damages, it is far preferable as to their truthfulness and damages that 12 men and women should decide the issue than a single judge, who will immediately be accused of getting it wrong or will be attacked in a newspaper article by someone who does not agree with the outcome of the case. To impugn the verdict, people will look through the...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (21 Mar 2007)

Michael McDowell: I am not.

Order of Business (22 Mar 2007)

Michael McDowell: It is proposed to take No. 12a, motion re referral to select committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the terms of the accession to the Convention on the International Hydrographic Organisation; No. 12b, motion re referral to select committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of Memoranda of Understanding on the Nordic Battlegroup and Operational Headquarters; No. 13, motion...

Order of Business (22 Mar 2007)

Michael McDowell: I am prepared to be reasonable on the matter. The Government's attitude is one of reasonableness. Let us be clear that there is no sweeping of this under the carpet. If this is referred to a committee, every Member of this House is entitled to attend and discuss it at length.

Order of Business (22 Mar 2007)

Michael McDowell: It is not too important for every Member, if they are interested in the matter, to attend the meeting and express their point of view. If that committee comes up with a radical difference of opinion, which deserves further debate in this House, we can decide it in that context. However, let us first ascertain where people stand on the issue. I agree with Deputy Quinn that our opposition...

Order of Business (22 Mar 2007)

Michael McDowell: It is not a debating issue, it is a profound issue that the Labour Party does not share with its proposed allies.

Order of Business (22 Mar 2007)

Michael McDowell: Any coherent——

Order of Business (22 Mar 2007)

Michael McDowell: It is not a red herring. The two parties are radically divided on this as on many other issues.

Order of Business (22 Mar 2007)

Michael McDowell: They do not have a common position and they are codding the people that they could form an alternative government.

Order of Business (22 Mar 2007)

Michael McDowell: The two parties do not agree on these issues.

Order of Business (22 Mar 2007)

Michael McDowell: Let us send it to the——

Order of Business (22 Mar 2007)

Michael McDowell: Let us send the issue to the committee——