David Norris (Independent)

The figure was repeatedly adjusted. Everything was done to humiliate him, after which he was not awarded his costs. I would be very careful in this regard.

It is fair that one cannot libel the dead. We all use this when we tell stories. In one particular story I refer to the late Sir Laurence Olivier. The only reason I name him is that I know he is dead and cannot take a libel case. It is a funny story and as he has been dead for a long time, no one at a dinner party will be overly concerned. We should examine the possibility of introducing a limited period under which a dead person can be libelled. Libel is particularly painful for people in the immediate aftermath of death. Why not provide that the right not to be libelled will not be extinguished for a year after death in the interests of the family of the deceased? Liam Lawlor, who was not, God knows, a saint, comes to mind. He did not deserve the kind of lies which were told about him to the grief of his family. What about the case of a well-known murderer — I will not mention his name — whose son was photographed while cycling through Trinity College where he was studying for a degree? His name and association with the murderer were then published in a newspaper. Was that in the public interest? Will this type of practice be addressed in the legislation?

Let us look at the ethos of newspapers. They do not give a damn about the damage they do. I have consistently raised the point that every single newspaper, including the most reputable in the land, routinely publish the name, address, occupation and photograph of accused persons who may or may not be found guilty. If they are found innocent they have already been very severely punished but no editor has taken up this issue. That is the prevailing ethos in the press.

I am pleased to have an opportunity to address some of the provisions of the Bill in more detail. The Bill provides a curious protection of a judge. It states: "Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), it shall be a defence to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that the statement in respect of which the action was brought was .... made by a judge, or other person, performing a judicial function". The Minister should remove this from the Bill. For what reason should a judge be allowed to defame a citizen in giving a judgment? I refer the Minister to Nell McCafferty's reports from the District Court and the outrageous and disgraceful things the judges got away with saying. Are judges to be allowed under this provision to humiliate with no substance distressed persons appearing in court before them and to be granted an immunity? Why should judges be granted an immunity?

I suggest the Minister consider carefully circumstances in which judges can take libel actions. I have been involved in such circumstances — although not personally — for saying that the licensing situation in Dublin had gone out of control and that every second-hand newsagent's shop was being licensed. I said I did not know who were the judges responsible and whatever kind of lunatics were handing out the licences. The station was sued because of my use of the word "lunatic", which is in common usage in England. Substantial sums of money were gained by that judge, not once, but twice. I am not sure that judges should be protected in this way.

I regard one section of the Bill as appalling and I want the Minister to remove it. I refer to section 18, the defence of honest opinion. Section 18(1) states:

It shall be a defence (to be known, and in this Act referred to, as the "defence of honest opinion") to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that, in the case of a statement consisting of an opinion, the opinion was honestly held.

It seems one can say whatever one likes about a person so long as one can say in court that one thought that was the case and that it was one's opinion. This is ridiculous.

Section 18(2)(a) states:

[A]t the time of the publication of the statement, the defendant believed in the truth of the opinion or, where the defendant is not the author of the opinion, believed that the author believed it to be true,

This is kowtowing to editors.

This Bill is a dreadful day's work. There are a few good points in it. I support a balanced approach and I support investigative journalism but I do not for one minute accept that people in public life should be subject to a lower standard of proof. They should be held to their views if they say one thing while passing laws and their private behaviour goes in another direction. I agree this should be exposed. However, to go after their children by photographing them and listening to their telephone conversations is abhorrent. There is nothing in this Bill that will prevent it because we have given up on privacy. This was supposed to be the balancing act. The newspaper editors would be given this free charter but the private citizens were to be protected by privacy laws and they have now been dropped because we have given in. That is the measure of the fear, not only of the ordinary citizen in this country, but even of the legislators. They are afraid to squeak.