Joanna Tuffy (Labour)

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 19, subsection (2)(g), line 16, after "obtain" to insert "in advance".

The first part of section 24 (2)(g) states that the plaintiff's version of events should be represented in the publication concerned. If we also allow "the extent to which a reasonable attempt was made by the publisher to obtain and publish a response from that person", that attempt should be made in advance of publication, which would be in keeping with the rest of the section. It makes sense from the viewpoint of having balance and proportion.

Amendment No. 18 requires that "the extent to which the prominence and extent of the representation of that person's response compares with the prominence and extent of the suspicion, allegation or fact concerned" should be taken into account. It would be possible for a newspaper, for example, to have the plaintiff's version of events in the same article that the person was defamed but it might be in small print, while a large heading might defame the person concerned. It is not enough for a plaintiff to be permitted to have his or her version of events in the same publication. The prominence of that version of events in the publication should be similar to the article which is defamatory. At least it should be considered.