Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

To take the Senator's example, if one said that all the recent Ministers for Justice have been corrupt, it would refer to me because I am a recent Minister for Justice. If one said that Ministers for Justice are notorious for their corruption, it could be argued that it does not necessarily refer to me. The section provides that the statement is defamatory if it could reasonably be understood to refer, in particular, to the person in question. In those circumstances, a court must decide whether the statement "Ministers for Justice are corrupt" reasonably refers to one particular Minister for Justice. If it does, that is sufficient to the defamation of that person. If one claimed "all Ministers for Justice in recent years have been corrupt", it can only mean that each and every one of them was defamed. There would be no doubt that it was intended to refer to the individual.

The term "in particular" means there is particularity in the provision. If an individual stated "Ministers for Justice are corrupt and lazy politicians", it would be up to me to argue to a jury that such a statement could be reasonably understood as referring to me. For example, if it were stated gardaí are well known for x, y and z and if one garda were to claim it referred to him, the court would say it was outside the pale and too general. By contrast, the reference to Ministers for Justice is to a narrow group. Using the Senator's example of "all Ministers for Justice are corrupt", it is simple that it refers to me in particular and I qualify. It is a reasonableness test and would not apply to all, say, teachers or gardaí as a category. If it is qualified by the term "all" and referred to a small group of people such as recent Ministers for Justice, it would reasonably be capable of referring to me.

I also advise the Senator not to make such a statement.