Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

People got very offended by overhearing a conversation on a mobile phone, but were not offended by hearing the conversation of two people walking down the street. They thought it was very rude to have a mobile phone conversation on a bus or a train. Mores change and while leaving a mobile phone switched on in court is slightly irritating, it is not a capital offence and should not be dealt with as a contempt. It is prissy to get too worried about it. It is also irritating when someone's mobile phone rings on Committee Stage of Bills in this House, but it is not worth getting up in a heap about. The dignity of the courts would be affected if everybody wantonly disregarded the instruction to turn off mobile phones. However, the dignity of a court is not such that it must be protected by punishing people who, in good faith, forget to turn off their mobile phones. It happens to us all. I am carrying a mobile phone as I speak, but it has not interrupted us yet.

Where the defendant is the person who published the statement and wrote it, the section is fairly simple. However, where the defendant is The Irish Times Limited or Independent News and Media and the article in question has been written by Senator Norris about the Polish President or the Pope, it is not a matter for the newspaper editor to say that he believes that the Senator's opinion is correct, or that he shares his opinion. It is a matter for him to say that he believes it is the Senator's honest opinion and that he is not writing it maliciously. That is a fair standard. If the Senator wants to make a very critical onslaught on somebody based on agreed facts, the editor of the newspaper should not be required to prove the state of his mind. The editor should be entitled to say he believes the Senator believed this was an honest opinion. It would put an impossible onus on editors if they had to share the opinion or else prove what went on in someone else's head, who might not even be available as a witness. One could publish a syndicated article and be in desperate trouble if the author of the article lived in Australia. The article could manifestly be an opinion, but the editor could not prove the state of mind of the author.

The verifying affidavit provided in section 7 deals with assertions or allegations of fact. I am subject to correction, but I do not think one would have to put in an affidavit dealing with questions of honesty of opinion.