Results 3,341-3,360 of 4,465 for speaker:Jim Walsh

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I said this on the previous occasion we debated this issue, when the Minister's predecessor took the debate, and I did not get far. This is a significant shift in our defamation laws. I agree with Senator Norris. The good faith criteria are weak. There is an amendment to remove section 24(1)(a), "in good faith", and even paragraph (b), "in the course of, or for the purposes of, the...

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: One of the many great things.

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I welcome the Minister's comments as regards the premium on the truth, and it should be the criterion by which all sections of the Bill are measured.

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: To follow through on the point I made earlier about the statement being true, I wonder whether we are proceeding with that. I heard what the Minister had to say on the advisability of it because of the codification. If section 24(1)(a) was to read, "[I]n good faith, following implementation of best practice in establishing the truth of the public statement, and...", then the term "In good...

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I move amendment No. 23: In page 19, subsection (2)(g), lines 15 and 16, to delete "a reasonable attempt was" and substitute "reasonable attempts were". This is important as it is the judicial interpretation of whether the defence of fair and reasonable publication is accepted by the courts and compliance with the subsections of section 24(2) is germane. Section 24(2)(g) states: . . . the...

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I thank the Minister for his reply. I understand the parliamentary draftsman stated the singular may be interpreted as the plural. Let us remove the concept of "may" and make this mandatory by including the plural. This is a significant shift in favour of freedom of expression and against the plaintiff in the case. In the circumstances, it would be fair and reasonable for the publisher to...

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: Will the words "in advance" be inserted?

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I move amendment No. 27: In page 19, subsection (3)(b), lines 25 to 30, to delete all words from and including "if," in line 25 down to and including "published" in line 30. This is an amendment about which I feel strongly. I suggest section 24(3)(b) should read, "entitle the court to draw an inference" and that the following be deleted, "if, in the particular circumstances of the case, the...

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I am strongly of the view that the wording should be deleted. I fully support the fact that the court should not be able to draw any inference. Once one goes beyond that, one is asking the court to ask if the plaintiff was reasonable in withholding a response — very subjective — or whether the plaintiff felt that the denial or refutation would in itself lead to an inference being drawn....

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: We are now dealing not just with domestic publications but international publications with Irish editions, which come in the main from England. If one picks up any newspaper, one would find statements that would fit the bill in regard to subsection (4)(b).

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: On the issue of consent, it generally arises by way of a telephone call to the person concerned.

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: If a person consents to a publication, he or she may not be fully aware of its full content. I have concerns that a person might indicate he or she is happy with a statement, but without knowing the detail of the full article, it is impossible for a person to give such consent. I do not know the case law on this issue but consent in this regard is not good enough. Such consents are...

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: No, I cannot think of the right answer to that question, one that would not get me into more trouble. On the question of consent — I am sure the Minister would be able to advise me on this — there is reference in a later section of the Bill to the interaction between the reporter and the person who is defamed. Rather than inserting a defence of consent, I wonder if that later section...

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I cannot say off the top of my head, but there are sections dealing with interaction that takes place. For example, section 24(3) deals with the issue, as do other areas. I wonder whether it is necessary to include it. A kind of confusion can arise. It would not be uncommon if somebody was contacted off guard by a reporter who knew what he was doing and told the reporter he could publish...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I have some reservations about this amendment as it may be lowering the bar. The thrust of my argument on this Bill is not to allow that to occur. I appreciate what was said by the legal Members about public importance. However, the terms "the opinion related to a matter of public interest" may not necessarily mean it is in the interest of the public. There may be a legal connotation....

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I support Senator Regan's comment.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: I oppose the reference to "substantial mitigation" in Senator Alex White's amendment. If the article was defamatory and poorly researched in the first place those responsible should face the consequences. Senator Norris contended in an earlier debate that it should be a case of print the truth or pay the price. I fully subscribe to that. However, I have some support for the timeframes...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: The Senator is ungrateful.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: Like Senator White, I will refer to other examples in the section when they arise. Speaking on amendment No. 3, I fail to understand how a judge can be prevented from commenting on a case which is then reported. Because of the nature of the people who come before the courts, judges will often comment in very derogatory terms about the criminal activities of some of those people. It is...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Jim Walsh: There should be a judicial commission and were such a commission comprised exclusively of judges, I would have no objection. I refer to instances in which judges step out of line, of which there have been examples. The Oireachtas has conducted inquiries to deal with such issues and such inquiries should have had a structure other than the cumbersome model under which my colleague, Senator...