Results 6,301-6,320 of 7,652 for speaker:Joanna Tuffy

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

Joanna Tuffy: I thank Senators Jim Walsh and Maurice Hayes. The more I look at it, what the Minister of State has said does not make sense. How can one take into consideration whether something was fair and reasonable if, after publication, one looked at whether the defendant made an attempt to contact the person for a response? That is after the event. If somebody published something defamatory and he...

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

Joanna Tuffy: Yes.

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

Joanna Tuffy: Exactly.

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

Joanna Tuffy: I agree with the other Senators. It would be acceptable if the Minister of State were to say he would look at the matter between now and Report Stage. Section 24(2) deals with whether it was fair and reasonable to publish the statement. Paragraphs (a) to (f) and (h) all deal with the time of the statement or beforehand. Paragraph (g) is the one paragraph that allows for the possibility of...

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

Joanna Tuffy: I move amendment No. 20: In page 19, subsection (4), between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following: "(d) as far as practicable, he or she made a reasonable attempt to obtain in advance and publish a response from the person to whom the publication related, and". This amendment is similar to an earlier amendment. Obviously, it is part of the defence that an attempt was made in advance to...

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

Joanna Tuffy: I move amendment No. 21: In page 20, subsection (1), line 41, after "the" to insert "District Court, Circuit Court or". We tabled this amendment because it allows for a declaratory order. As there are no damages with such an order, we believe there is no reason to confine it to the High Court. In particular, in light of the costs involved in going to the High Court, it seems unreasonable...

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

Joanna Tuffy: To return to what the Minister of State said——

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

Joanna Tuffy: Yes. I understand what he is saying and can see that allowing a District or Circuit Court to decide the issue would be a new development. On the other hand, why should we not allow them to decide these issues? One has a judge and a court. Why must so many things go to the High Court for determination? It is very off-putting for many people, especially those who do not have the money to...

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

Joanna Tuffy: I move amendment No. 22: In page 21, subsection (6), line 19, to delete "applicant" and substitute "plaintiff". This is a technical amendment that aims purely for consistency in language. The word "plaintiff" is used in previous sections and we suggest that the "applicant" should refer to the "plaintiff".

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

Joanna Tuffy: It is being withdrawn but I ask the Minister of State to reconsider the matter.

Seanad: Order of Business (6 Mar 2007)

Joanna Tuffy: I also wish to raise the tragic death of Derek O'Toole and how it is being dealt with by the Garda. What happened took place in Lucan in my constituency and Derek O'Toole was, and his family are, constituents of mine. There is a need for an independent element of any investigation carried out into Derek O'Toole's death, all the circumstances surrounding it and the media coverage of it....

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

Joanna Tuffy: While I accept what the Minister said with regard to the definition, does "apology" mean a written apology? An apology could be also made personally. I would think a newspaper should make a written apology.

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

Joanna Tuffy: I appreciate the support shown by Members and withdraw the amendment.

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

Joanna Tuffy: Will the Minister clarify the meaning and purpose of subsection (1)(c)?

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

Joanna Tuffy: When I read that sentence I was not sure what it meant and I immediately thought that perhaps it meant the purpose of the defendant's defence, whereas the reference to defence is meant in more general terms.

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

Joanna Tuffy: I appreciate that, but I consider the paragraph to be a little unclear. However, I do not have an alternative.

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

Joanna Tuffy: Does subsection (3), "An offer to make amends shall not be made after the delivery of the defence in the defamation action concerned.", preclude the defendant in the middle of the case, after making his or her defence which could include an offer to make amends, from reaching a settlement with the plaintiff?

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

Joanna Tuffy: I am not sure it is clear in the section that an offer to make amends applies so restrictively, but I accept the Minister's point in that regard. Could subsection (3) have stated instead that it will not be a defence to make an offer of amends after the delivery of the defence?

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

Joanna Tuffy: Would that include doing something along the lines of making amends as part of a settlement?

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

Joanna Tuffy: That is not clear from the way it is phrased.