Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I thank the Minister for clarifying the matter, which is helpful. First, in circumstances where the plaintiff is called by the defendant and is then regarded as their witness, presumably the testimony he or she would give would not be the testimony that suited the defence. Would he or she not then have the right to cross-examine?

Second, the defendant and plaintiff are referred to in subsection (9). It is clear who the plaintiff is but the defendant might not be so clear. If I were defamed in, say, The Messenger, and I take an action, I might not want to take an action against the author, the editor and the publication itself because I would be exposed to three different costs if the case were unsuccessful. The Minister will agree that even if one has a cast-iron case going to court, it tends to be a lottery to some extent. One might confine the action to the person whom one regards as the defendant. That would allow an unfair situation to develop where the defendant need not put forward the author or the reporter if their evidence might not best suit their case. They could put forward the editor or vice versa. The plaintiff is defined to some extent in the definitions section but the defendant is not so defined and I am concerned about that. People will be reluctant to do that because of the cost.

In general, unless people have significant financial means, they are very reluctant to go to court on any issue because of the prohibitive costs involved. For them to access justice, therefore, is difficult. I am concerned about that. It will be clear who the plaintiff is and, therefore, there is no concern for the defendant. When it comes to calling witnesses, however, what powers has the plaintiff to define who the defendant is other than the initial action he or she takes by naming the parties against whom he or she is claiming defamation? If that is a multiplicity of defendants, there is another obstacle from the point of view of the plaintiff because of the significant costs involved.