Results 5,841-5,860 of 18,728 for speaker:Michael McDowell

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

Michael McDowell: I told the Chair and the House that we intend to allow the Bill to proceed to Committee Stage.

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

Michael McDowell: That would have been a different matter. The writer could have stated that the facts of a particular case warranted my arrest, but it looked like a statement of opinion rather than a statement of fact that I had done something unlawful. I tend to take these matters with a grain of salt. It is important to have a system of law in which people's honest opinions are statable when they are...

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

Michael McDowell: Section 16(2) is the general defence of qualified privilege. This is to deal with situations where somebody says something which is factually untrue such as "You are a thief" or words to that effect. However, if the person thought on the occasion that he or she said the words that the man in question was a thief, that is an occasion of qualified privilege and as such is a defence. For...

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

Michael McDowell: ——and put in the phrase, "in my opinion", that would clearly have to be taken into the equation in deciding whether this was an occasion for pleading the defence of honest opinion. Those three rules are set out there to guide the court. If I just said, "Senator A is wholly disreputable and should not be a Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas", out of the blue, without any factual...

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

Michael McDowell: This is a statement of the law relating to malice. It is based on the Law Reform Commission's recommendations.

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

Michael McDowell: The concept in the provision is that if the statement in question has no connection with the purpose of the defence, which is to allow people express honest opinions on the basis of facts, the plaintiff can prove that the defence of qualified privilege is being dragged into the defence in a circumstance where it is purely technical and should not substantially avail a defamatory statement....

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

Michael McDowell: It is not the defendant's defence; it is the statutory defence.

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

Michael McDowell: I do not want to get dragged into a retrospective evaluation of that kind of litigation except to say that I have a strong view that, irrespective of whether a judge or a witness had a mobile telephone in court, it is not a matter of huge consequence. We are all very prissy on this subject. It is a passing thing. Five years ago, people wrote letters to the editors of newspapers claiming...

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

Michael McDowell: People got very offended by overhearing a conversation on a mobile phone, but were not offended by hearing the conversation of two people walking down the street. They thought it was very rude to have a mobile phone conversation on a bus or a train. Mores change and while leaving a mobile phone switched on in court is slightly irritating, it is not a capital offence and should not be dealt...

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

Michael McDowell: I must agree with Senators Walsh and Hayes. The section does not just deal with basic standards of truthfulness and professionalism, which, unfortunately are sometimes lacking in media coverage of events. There is a low standard set in some areas, which I must deprecate. I remember coming to the House once and deciding, in order to promote the use of Irish, that I would deliver a Second...

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

Michael McDowell: That is true. If someone is willing to lie in depth and be inventive about it, he can get away with murder.

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: The purpose of these essentially technical amendments is to provide continuity with the correct reference to a court established by law in the State, as already corrected in section 15(2)(i)