Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I do not know. It is like trying to define an elephant — one just knows what it is. Similarly, one knows whether an apology is an apology. A definition of an elephant might not get one very far.

The section is purely in respect of the mitigation of damage. It requires that it be done either before the bringing of the action or as soon as is practicable thereafter in circumstances where the action was commenced before there was an opportunity to make or offer an apology. I do not know whether the 14-days rule would be practical in most cases. The matter probably should be decided by reference to the circumstances of publication. For instance, if a book with defamatory material were published, 14 days might seem an irrelevance, but it might seem like an age to a person defamed by a newspaper.

Section 22(3) states:

In a defamation action, an apology made by or on behalf of a defendant in respect of a statement to which the action relates—

(a) does not constitute an express or implied admission of liability by that defendant, and

(b) is not relevant to the determination of liability in the action.

This is a new provision. The policy behind this section is to encourage newspapers to apologise rather than argue that doing so is putting their heads in a noose and kicking the lever in respect of liability.