Results 11,201-11,220 of 16,537 for speaker:Brian Lenihan Jnr

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: This is a technical amendment designed to improve the drafting of the provision in section 28(3) regarding the timescale involved in application for a correction order.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Section 29 provides that where a defamation action is brought in the High Court, the judge shall give directions to the jury in the matter of damages. That updates the existing provisions on an award of damages. The parties to a defamation action may now make submissions to the court in the matter of damages. Subsection (4) sets out a number of factors to which the court — and it is made...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: There was nothing specialised about that.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Senator Norris raises a very interesting point. I do not believe we have arrived at the transatlantic position where the judge can say virtually nothing to the jury other than in the form of a direction, which is the position in the United States. When we use the word "direction", we use it in a broader sense and resting on the principle that matters of law are for the judge and matters of...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Amendment No. 42 is consequential on the Government's amendment approved on Committee Stage to ensure the correct reference is to all of section 16, on qualified privilege, rather than just section 16(2). It is a technical amendment.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Senator Mullen should be careful in seconding all Senator Norris's proposals because this one refers expressly to the editors and proprietors of newspapers who should not be singled out as a class in ordinary legislation when they are already comprehended by it. The position is that in any defamation action taken on its own merits, for example, in the case of a newspaper, it is possible to...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I propose to take amendments Nos. 44 to 48 together because they are essentially linked. I agreed on Committee Stage to reconsider an issue raised by the Labour Party, namely, that the express permission of the court be required prior to a defendant being allowed to give evidence of any matter that might have a bearing on the reputation of the plaintiff in a defamation action. I am...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I did address it in sense. I was concerned that the acceptance of such an amendment would, rather than clarify the existing law, introduce a further change. I gave the example of Senator Norris's recent comments on my legislative endeavours and said that I did not believe it should be essential for him to prove in an action by me that he was reasonable. I would view his opinions on the...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The Government has tabled an amendment to section 22, the section that deals with apologies, with regard to the prominence of an apology. Section 20 deals with an offer of amends procedure, that exists since the 1961 Act. It would be inappropriate in the context of the offer of amends provision to insert any provision about the prominence of an apology because the offer to make amends is...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Amendment No. 18 is a Government amendment to section 22. Section 22 permits an apology to be given in evidence. The fact of an apology or the offer of an apology to the plaintiff can be given in evidence in a defamation action in mitigation of damage. This is an important and essential part of our law. The Government proposal makes clear that the evidence of the apology can be given in...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: In respect of time lines, as Senator Walsh pointed out, the formula used in the Bill is "as soon as practicable". I am being asked to go beyond that and have concepts of strict time limits within which the apology will only operate for the purpose of the section — within 30 days, which is Senator Regan's proposal, or Senator Alex White's proposal which is that we can have an apology as a...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The Chief Parliamentary Counsel's advice is that the proposed wording would not be normal in drafting legislation and does not provide for any additional clarification of the provision. However, the Chief Parliamentary Counsel also warned that it might have the effect of changing the meaning. I fear that is precisely what the Senator is trying to do in this case. Of course the whole...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Amendment No. 29 is a Government amendment.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: That is the intention.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: This does not go as far as the Sullivan case.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The position has not changed. I am glad the Senator has given me an opportunity to put the position on the record of the House. During the Committee Stage discussion on section 3(2), Senator Regan sought clarification on the last part of that provision, which appears to provide for retrospection. I agreed to re-examine the wording of the section. The amendment before the House proposes to...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The advice of the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel was sought. I was advised that this is a standard drafting provision and that no change is required to the text. The purpose of section 3(1) is to ensure that when this legislation is enacted, it will not have retrospective effect. Clearly, it has to speak from the time of its commencement....

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: This amendment proposes the deletion of section 7(13), the purpose of which is specifically to disallow the application of the section in the context of declaratory order provisions. In other words, one will not need a verifying affidavit in such cases. The reason for this measure is that it is clear that applications for declaratory orders are not the same as normal defamation actions —...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: It will be required under the section of the Bill relating to declaratory orders.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Report and Final Stages (11 Mar 2008)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The advice available from the Attorney General's office and the parliamentary counsel is that the provision, as drafted, is clear in providing that a person has a single cause of action in relation to multiple publications subject to subsection (2) where the court may grant leave to a person to bring more than one defamation action in respect of a multiple publication where it considers that...