Results 12,621-12,640 of 16,537 for speaker:Brian Lenihan Jnr

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The multiple publication in the definition in section 10(3) means a publication by a person of the same defamatory statement to two or more persons whether contemporaneously or not. It is the contemporaneity of the publication which is an issue in the subsection. In the circumstances Senator Walsh outlined of a newspaper or other media organisation running the same story day after day, each...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: That is the point I wanted to make. This can relate to only one distinct item. In Senator Norris's example of a newspaper organisation that wages a campaign against an individual, which is so common in public life and in some areas of private life too, each publication on separate days is a fresh and separate cause of action. I am open to considering whether this can be taken into account...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: If it were the same newspaper article it would not be a separate publication. The Senator is right and I must correct myself. That is why I used the example of a video recording because if the same recording were used on two occasions I am not sure it would be a separate publication on re-broadcast. If, however, a newspaper article were to be picked up 18 months after publication by...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Many of the questions on damages will be discussed when we reach the section that covers that matter. Regarding this section, I will discuss with the Parliamentary Counsel whether a more exact definition can be given to address this issue. I accept that broadcasting involves a separate publication every time an item is broadcast but, in respect of one publication to an audience, the fact...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The section before the House deals with the citation and commencement of the Bill when enacted. In reply to the more general point, it is a matter for Seanad Éireann to regulate its procedures. The Government made a decision that the Bill should be restored to the Order Paper on the commencement of Committee Stage. As Senator Norris is well aware, Seanad Éireann is a body with a...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Dublin University has been fairly continuous to the Senator.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: It is not for me to talk to Senators about their own procedures but they are trying to have it both ways in their more recent comments on this Bill.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: No, I mean the Senators opposite. The Seanad has voted to restore the Bill which the Seanad voted for on Second Stage and not a different Bill prepared by the Minister.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: If a new Bill was required then this would be a new Bill. However, this Bill was approved by this House on Second Stage. I appreciate the point made by Senators Regan and Norris that this is a Bill which may require amendment. It would have been open to the Government to have commenced the discussion on this Bill at section 20 but we did not do so; we have returned to the beginning of the...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: We were given the option.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The new tort of defamation is defined in section 5 of the Bill. It states: The tort of libel and tort of slander . . . shall cease to be so described, and . . . shall, instead, be collectively described, and are referred to in this Act, as the "tort of defamation". When one is transiting from a particular cause of action to another, it is desirable that it be done in clear language in a...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: With the leave of the Leas-Chathaoirleach, I will return to section 1 with Senator O'Toole who asked a question about the commencement of the legislation. I appreciate we have moved on two sections but I am delighted to deal with the issue. This Bill could be enacted without a commencement provision. It could enter into force seven days after the signature of the President. I am open to...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (4 Dec 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: I am happy to go back to the Parliamentary Counsel and have him examine the issue raised by Senator Regan. The matter will be examined but it has been included out of an abundance of caution. On Senator O'Toole's point, I would favour having a fixed date for the commencement of the Act and inserting that date in the legislation. The best solution is that one would fix a definite date upon...

Written Answers — Residency Permits: Residency Permits (29 Nov 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The person in question was originally granted permission to remain in the State in September 2001 based on her parentage of an Irish born child, under the particular conditions which existed at that time. The person concerned currently has permission to remain in the State until 2009. There are no records to suggest that the person concerned is the subject of a Deportation Order. The...

Written Answers — Residency Permits: Residency Permits (29 Nov 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The person concerned arrived in the State on 20 June, 2005 with her 6 year old son and applied for asylum the following day. Her application was refused following consideration of her case by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and, on appeal, by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. Subsequently, in accordance with Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, she was informed...

Written Answers — Residency Permits: Residency Permits (29 Nov 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The person concerned arrived in the State on 18 November, 2005 and applied for asylum. On 27 December, 2005 the person concerned gave birth to a baby boy in the State and included her child under her application for asylum in the State. The application was refused following consideration of their case by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and, on appeal, by the Refugee...

Written Answers — Residency Permits: Residency Permits (29 Nov 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The person concerned arrived in the State on 21 October, 2006 and applied for asylum 4 days later. The application was refused following consideration of his case by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and, on appeal, by the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. Subsequently, in accordance with Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, he was informed by letter dated 25 January,...

Written Answers — Residency Permits: Residency Permits (29 Nov 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: The person concerned arrived in the State on 9 March, 2007 and applied for asylum. The application was refused following consideration of his case by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner. The person concerned did not appeal this decision. Subsequently, in accordance with Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999, as amended, he was informed by letter dated 15 June, 2007, that the...

Written Answers — Citizenship Applications: Citizenship Applications (29 Nov 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: An application for a certificate of naturalisation from the person referred to in the Deputy's Question was received in the Citizenship Section of my Department in June 2004. Officials in that section inform me that processing of the application has commenced and the file will be forwarded to me for a decision in the near future. I understand that the person concerned was not informed, at...

Written Answers — Decentralisation Programme: Decentralisation Programme (29 Nov 2007)

Brian Lenihan Jnr: Under the centrally agreed protocols which apply to the decentralisation scheme, those applicants who, prior to September 2004, listed Roscommon as their first preference on the Central Applications Facility (CAF), are dealt with first. I understand from the Property Registration Authority (Land Registry) that the person concerned is not on the CAF priority list. The Property Registration...