Results 281-300 of 1,150 for speaker:Frank Fahey

Prisons Bill 2006 [Seanad]: Report Stage (7 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: Agreed.

Prisons Bill 2006 [Seanad]: Report Stage (7 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: I move amendment No. 10: In page 13, line 8, to delete "or" where it secondly occurs and substitute the following: ", a member of Dáil Éireann for the constituency in which the prisoner ordinarily resided,".

Prisons Bill 2006 [Seanad]: Report Stage (7 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: I move amendment No. 12: In page 13, line 12, after "Punishment" to insert the following: "or, if the prisoner is a national of another state, a diplomatic or consular officer of that state".

Prisons Bill 2006 [Seanad]: Report Stage (7 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: I move amendment No. 13: In page 13, line 14, after "subparagraph (ii)" to insert the following: "or the United Nations Committee against Torture or any document relating to the registration of electors (including entry in the postal voters' list) or to voting at an election or a referendum".

Prisons Bill 2006 [Seanad]: Report Stage (7 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: Amendment No. 16 on subsection 14(1) would allow a prisoner to send a petitioner to the Minister concerning the decision of an appeal tribunal affirming the sanction. I do not propose to accept the amendment because it is not appropriate for the Minister to become involved once a tribunal has issued its decision. If one is to have a conclusive appeal, there must be some finality. Amendment...

Prisons Bill 2006 [Seanad]: Report Stage (7 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: I apologise, that is correct.

Prisons Bill 2006 [Seanad]: Report Stage (7 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: The amendment would have the effect of allowing persons other than barristers or solicitors of at least seven years standing to act as a member of an appeals tribunals. I do not propose to accept the amendment. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights and legal opinions obtained by the Office of the Attorney General point to the possibility that imposing a loss of remission as a...

Prisons Bill 2006 [Seanad]: Order for Report Stage (7 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: I move: "That Report Stage be taken now."

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: I expected a long contribution from Senator Norris.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: The reputations of Senator Jim Walsh and Senator Norris precede them on this issue. I propose to deal with amendments Nos. 10 and 11 together. The amendments proposed by Senator Norris do not provide for any additional clarification of the provision. I am advised by the Parliamentary Counsel that the proposed wording would not be normal in drafting legislation and might have the effect of...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: I propose to deal with amendments Nos. 12 and 14 together. Amendment No. 13 is a technical amendment. Senator Cummins's amendment No. 12 would radically alter the purpose of the proposed new defence of fair and reasonable publication. Section 24(1) provides for the defendant in a defamation action to prove that the statement in respect of which the action is brought was published in good...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: Section 24(2)(f)(i) makes specific reference to adhering to a code of standards equivalent to those of the press council where the publisher of the periodical is not a member of the press council. This provision is very sensible as a periodical may for whatever reason — it could be valid from its perspective — decide not to be a member of the press council. We should allow such a...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: While amendments Nos. 17 and 18 would preserve section 24(2)(g), they seek to alter its meaning by providing that the plaintiff's version of events must be obtained in advance and so obtained the nature and extent of their representation compared with the suspicion, allegation or fact concerned. While I have sympathy for and understanding of the thinking behind the proposed amendments they...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: While I accept the thrust of the Senators' arguments, my difficulty with the amendment is that it is simply too prescriptive and we cannot be too prescriptive in legislation of this nature. The matter is best left to the courts to decide.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: I am prepared to clarify further the reason for this requirement. In doing so, I make it clear I am not necessarily agreeing to any change in the position I now hold. I am prepared simply to seek further clarification on the basis that all Members are in agreement that I should do so.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: The proposed amendment would weaken the conditions of the operation of the new defence of fair and reasonable publication. I see no reason the publisher of a periodical claiming the defence should not be required to show specifically that they did not act out of spite or ill will. Therefore, the amendment is opposed.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: Amendment No. 20 effectively follows on from the proposed amendment No. 17 by seeking to add an extra condition in pleading the defence of fair and reasonable publication that a reasonable effort had been made to obtain and publish the plaintiff's version of events. I have a certain understanding of the thinking behind the proposed amendment. However, I hold the view that seeking to add...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: I repeat that we simply cannot allow the legislation to be prescriptive to the point where we are tying the hands of the court. It would make the defence almost impossible and it is for this reason we must leave these matters to the discretion of the court. While, as I stated previously, I might agree with the principles behind the case being made, in the interests of good legislation, we...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: Section 24(3)(b) does not allow the court to draw any inference from the plaintiff's reasonable decision not to respond to the newspaper. In other words, one could refuse to comment on whether one denies the story. Therefore, no inference is being drawn in regard to section 24(3)(b).

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (6 Mar 2007)

Frank Fahey: The intention in section 26 is to provide a clear indication to a potential applicant that he or she might seek the new relief of a declaratory order. Thus, the section provides that such orders should be sought in the High Court. This is not an issue of jurisdiction. There is no benefit to providing that such orders should be sought in the Circuit Court. The District Court does not have...