Results 3,521-3,540 of 4,465 for speaker:Jim Walsh

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

Jim Walsh: The plaintiff may have to pay the costs of the defendant. It represents a major gamble and is grossly unfair. Does the Department not see the inequity in this? The plaintiff may be a law-abiding citizen in court for the first time and would inquire of the legal team when an offer is made. The plaintiff is likely to follow the advice of the legal team. As a consequence, the plaintiff may...

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

Jim Walsh: I believe the plaintiff has a strong choice where an offer is made. I note the Minister of State concurs with the point raised by Senator Maurice Hayes. I cannot see any comparison between a case for defamation and another civil case involving a settlement. A defamation case primarily requires an apology, retraction and the restoration of a person's reputation. I cannot think of any other...

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

Jim Walsh: I accept that. However, if an individual, who is seriously injured, goes to court, it will assess compensation and damages. All that is at issue is the amount. This provision means a person will receive money but no one will know there was a retraction of a libel if the newspapers do not publish it. We are setting a charter where only the ultra-rich will be able to vindicate their names....

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

Jim Walsh: Senator Maurice Hayes claims if we do allow this provision, a person can proceed with a case, no matter the costs. The person ultimately will be faced with costs if they lose their case. Section 27(4) states, "The defendant shall not be required to admit liability in an action for damages for defamation when making a payment to which this section applies." This should be amended to "the...

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

Jim Walsh: There is a need to reform our outdated defamation and libel laws. I agree with fair and reasonable defence. It must be balanced. There is little attempt, however, to balance the rights of the ordinary person whose reputation can be seriously damaged to get proper justice. Everything is stacked against them.

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

Jim Walsh: Like Senator Norris, I am not a legal professional. It is often to my disappointment as it would have been a far more lucrative profession to have pursued. Settlements of this nature rarely come out of the blue. They usually follow some consultation and negotiations between the legal parties on both sides. If a person takes a case, the primary objective is the restoration of his or her...

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

Jim Walsh: I support the tenor of the Bill and compliment Senators Morrissey and Brennan on presenting it to the House. We are fortunate that a number of Private Members' Bills have come before the House in recent times. This is a tribute to Members and the work they put into preparing Bills on matters of import. I was watching the debate on the monitor and noticed how Opposition Members were getting...

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

Jim Walsh: Senator O'Rourke without interruption.

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

Jim Walsh: Reference should be made to an apology being timely and prominent. The Minister is correct with regard to the begrudging nature of many of the apologies which appear in newspapers. They are often late and small, and printed in a little read part of the newspaper, whereas they should be in a prominent position. The more time that passes before a defamatory article is corrected, the more...

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

Jim Walsh: It is difficult to argue against Senator Norris's logic in this regard. While I do not disagree with his comments, the present situation, whereby newspapers feel justifiably constrained from issuing apologies because of the inherent danger of subsequent court cases, raises a dilemma. Subject to what the Minister will say in this regard, the intention of this provision is to allow newspapers...

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

Jim Walsh: I know.

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

Jim Walsh: Yes. However I would have difficulties in removing section 22(4). Its removal would mark a return to the status quo. In other words, newspapers would not publish an apology because of the inherent risk of a case that they would obviously lose as a consequence.

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

Jim Walsh: Most people would be satisfied by an apology. There may also be a need to combine an element of compensation with it, which is missing at present. The establishment of an independent body that could adjudicate in a reasonable manner without all the attendant exorbitant legal costs, as does, for example, the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, would be something of substance. It would allow...

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

Jim Walsh: I shall deal with section 18 when we get to it. On amendment No. 8, I did not catch the reason given earlier for deleting "in accordance with section 16(2)". What effect does that have on the interpretation by the courts of qualified privilege? I should have thought section 16(2) gave some clarity as regards how that might be interpreted. I wonder about its implications, which are not...

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

Jim Walsh: We have had a good debate on this point. Senator Norris raised issues about the amendments that pertain to the section and the Minister gave an outline of honest opinion. From the point of view of mounting a defence, given that the legislation will obviously be interpreted by the courts, the entitlements of the plaintiff and the defendant will be tested in this respect. Section 18(2)(a)...

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

Jim Walsh: On that point, the issue is how it is interpreted. I can see the distinction and the Minister has clearly defined the difference between statements of fact and honest opinion. However, in my mind, there is not an established and definite mark between honest opinion and issues relating to facts that could be held as honest opinion. Are there any cross-references that can be made in that...

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

Jim Walsh: Section 19 deals with distinguishing fact and opinion. Sometimes a newspaper can express an opinion in the heading, so that is very clear. There has been a trend to inject an opinion into reporting. It is rare nowadays to read pure reporting of facts. We may be copying the trend that is found in the British media, but when one goes to other countries, there seems to be a much finer...

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

Jim Walsh: I remember the incident mentioned by the Minister and was here when the Minister delivered his speech as Gaeilge. He was commended by all sides for taking the opportunity to use the Irish language, which should be used more often. I also saw the subsequent newspaper article. The article illustrates a certain prejudice, by either the paper or the reporter. That was not an isolated incident....

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

Jim Walsh: Senator Tuffy's question was one I wished to raise also. Would the Minister also outline in his reply the distinction between this and making a lodgement under section 27, about which I have certain misgivings? Does this arise, as Senator Tuffy suggested, where the case is proceeding, a party decides that he or she wishes to make a settlement, and an approach is made, generally through the...

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

Jim Walsh: Agreed.