Results 6,141-6,160 of 18,728 for speaker:Michael McDowell

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: This is not an effort to find out who is lying or who is telling the truth. This provides that if something is going to be put in writing at the beginning of the case, then the defendant better believe it. It is not stating this is the way in which the truth of allegations will be ascertained.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: If someone is described as a "thieving murderer", theoretically that individual could sue claiming the statement meant he or she was a thief. On another day, the individual could sue again claiming the statement meant he or she had murdered somebody and it is a separate cause of action. This section provides for one cause of action for a statement but all imputations must be sued on at the...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: To take the Senator's example, if one said that all the recent Ministers for Justice have been corrupt, it would refer to me because I am a recent Minister for Justice. If one said that Ministers for Justice are notorious for their corruption, it could be argued that it does not necessarily refer to me. The section provides that the statement is defamatory if it could reasonably be...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I am amused that Senator Norris seems to leave a trail of wreckage behind him every time he goes into a studio.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: The provisions of section 9 are based on what was in the Whelan report and probably also the Law Reform Commission report. The particularity idea is not a random thought of my own. The purpose of this provision is to bring reason to the definition of a class of persons. We must be reasonable in this. I would prefer to cut down these types of inferential libels to the minimum. If a person...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I assure the Senator that this is not the purpose of the section. It is designed to prevent a situation where, in theory, a person who takes a defamation action in respect of an article published in The Irish Times, which is read by a certain number of people on the day it is published, decides to take further action four years later when another person who reads the article, which has been...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I am grateful to Senator Tuffy for coming to the aid of the section. I am beginning, however, to experience a slight sinking feeling about it.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: It could be many things. I agree with Senator Norris that the idea of a body corporate having feelings is far-fetched. The good name of every citizen requires to be upheld by the Constitution——

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: ——but companies are not citizens. I will reconsider the matter between now and Report Stage. It may be better to recast the section to state that a body corporate can only bring a defamation action in respect of a statement made where it has incurred, or is likely to incur, financial loss or where the statement was made with malice. A person could say something about a company or group...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I am concerned that leaving the Bill untouched in this regard would allow a large company to take an individual to court to prove slander or to use the legal process to punish or humiliate a person. I will, accordingly, take another look at it.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: Senator Norris's tone and volume are in direct proportion to the lack of substance in the point he makes. On this occasion he was quite excitable talking about something which he fundamentally misunderstands. When Ireland is brought before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, as the Senator knows, the purpose is to say an Irish law is inconsistent with the European Convention on...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: If someone argues before the Supreme Court tomorrow that something is unconstitutional, and the Attorney General states it is constitutional and that we uphold the right of the Oireachtas to legislate in this fashion, he does not mean that he is binding the Government never to change the law. He is simply upholding the sovereignty of the Irish State and its institutions to have the law the...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: He said it was a U-turn.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: There is no U-turn in saying it is not inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights to have the law one way and then saying we are perfectly free to have it another way. There is a difference between something which is in contravention of the convention and something that is open to a decision, one way or another, by the Irish people having regard to the margin of appreciation....

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: It then goes back to the Supreme Court and because it is a court of law, it must in logic say it must be reversed. If it was wrong the first time it must be twice as wrong the second time. The case then goes for another jury to consider it. That brings the law into disrepute. This is not fanciful; we have seen it happen in recent months when a person appealed to the Supreme Court and was...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: ——because that would be effectively conceding it was wrong to send it back on the first day.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: The point is that if it was excessive on day one it cannot become reasonable on day two simply because a second jury has had another canter at it and has handed out damages, assuming the evidence is the same or roughly the same in both cases. There needs to be some sense in all this. It would be extraordinary if, for instance, Senator Norris wrote a food critique of some restaurant and a...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: The point is that if the Supreme Court is entitled to find that the award is excessive it must at some stage make sense. By the way it is not directory in this case; it is not obliged to do it. However, it can in some cases. It has a choice to suggest the critique of that restaurant in that magazine could not have been worth €150,000 and to substitute that amount for the €500,000...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: I will simply say there is absolutely no connection between on the one hand preserving the right of these Houses to make a decision on this issue and saying it is a matter for these Houses and not for Strasbourg to decide and on the other hand later deciding to amend the law within our own margin of appreciation under the Strasbourg convention.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (20 Feb 2007)

Michael McDowell: The Senator should address the Chair.