Results 1,501-1,520 of 1,591 for speaker:Eugene Regan

Seanad: Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed) (11 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: I move amendment No. 16: In page 18, lines 26 to 36, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following: "24.—(1) Subject to subsection (4), it shall be a defence (to be known, and in this section referred to, as "the defence of fair and reasonable publication") to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that the statement in respect of which the action was brought was published...

Seanad: Order of Business (11 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: I wish to speak on the cocaine epidemic and the tragic events of the past week. An issue is raised of human rights and the political philosophy on which we operate. This goes back to John Stuart Mill's principle of individual liberty and that we restrict the individual only to the extent it is necessary in the common interest. We know a link exists between individual usage of cocaine and...

Seanad: Order of Business (11 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: We are in a very serious situation.

Seanad: Budget Statement 2008: Statements (5 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: Hear, hear.

Seanad: Budget Statement 2008: Statements (5 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: Hear, hear.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: I ask for clarity on section 18(3)(b). It states: [T]hat defence shall not fail by reason only of the defendant's failing to prove the truth of those allegations unless - (i) the opinion could reasonably be understood as implying that those allegations are true, or (ii) the allegations are untrue and, at the time of the publication of the opinion, the defendant knew or ought reasonably to...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: I welcome the change to the wording which is appropriate.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: Senator Norris is grammatically correct because the clause has two purposes, "shall have regard" and "shall include". This seems to be more elegant language.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: I am concerned about section 20(5)(b) which, referring an offer to make amends means an offer, "to publish that correction and apology in such manner as is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances,". There is often a major dispute about the form of the apology. In many cases the apology is printed in the corner of page 10 whereas the defamation was published on top fold of the front...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: The amendment proposed raises some very important questions. If one relies on this provision to mitigate the level of damages, time should run from the date of the complaint and I feel this level of specificity is necessary. This point is made in the amendment, though whether it should be 14 days is open to debate. It should be clear that time is of the essence when an apology is to be...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: I return to the net issue of timeliness. In section 22(1)(b), the term used is "as soon as practicable thereafter, in circumstances where the action was commenced". Section 22(1)(a) does not mention timeliness. I wonder if the insertion of the term "in a timely manner before the bringing of the action" would make that link between the mitigation and the fact that an apology was offered in...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: I agree this provision is required. In the next paragraph, section 15(2)(g), privilege also attaches where a witness or a legal representative or a juror makes a statement. Consequently it would be entirely incongruous to exclude a judge performing his or her judicial functions from the protection of the privilege afforded in the Bill. Under this section I also wish to ask whether——

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: Very well.

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: Senator White raised the issue I wish to raise, namely, privilege for local authority meetings. In carrying out their public duties, councillors perform important work in the public interest. Was consideration given to the extension of this section to local authority meetings and local area committee meetings? The work of councils is significant. Much of European Union legislation is now...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: The establishment of a tribunal of inquiry is generally a unique event and arises where the political system in a sense becomes somewhat dysfunctional, such that there is a loss of confidence in the system. It is a big step to set up a tribunal of inquiry. It cannot really complete its work without the privilege attached to it. We have long tried to ensure that Oireachtas committees work...

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: The substitution of "public interest" for "public importance" is——

Seanad: Defamation Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages (Resumed) (5 Dec 2007)

Eugene Regan: We are not dealing with No. 8 at the moment. That is fine, thank you.

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

Eugene Regan: The connection Senator Norris has made with sections 9 and 10 is correct. Perhaps section 9 should be revisited in this context. Senator O'Toole observed that he believed himself to be personally identified in criticism of the corporate body of which he was a director. This falls under section 9 rather than section 10. Senator Norris's concern that there is potential for an abuse under...

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

Eugene Regan: This is an important provision designed to provide for finality to litigation in that remitting it back to the High Court for further determination is a very costly process. On balance the provision is probably well based. The main finding in the lower court is one of defamation and regarding the inferences drawn in the High Court, the Supreme Court could draw different inferences from the...

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

Eugene Regan: Affidavits are normally sworn for the purposes of the case in question. Will the Minister clarify how the affidavits which are sworn in an action could be viewed by the authorities, and an offence could be prosecuted? I support the principle of affidavits. However, section 7(13) states, "This section does not apply to an application for a declaratory order." If we are to be consistent, I...