Seanad debates
Tuesday, 6 March 2007
Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed)
3:00 pm
Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
A very simple question arises from section 24(3)(b) which states that the court is not entitled to draw an inference but then qualifies this by stating that the court would look at whether the plaintiff was reasonable in withholding a response. In what circumstances would a plaintiff be unreasonable in withholding a comment if he or she were contacted by a newspaper? There should be no obligation on him or her to comment. We should not build into our laws the right of the court to have, in some way, discretion in interpreting that. I see no consistency in this. If someone has been charged with a criminal offence, he or she has the right to silence. I know there is some debate about changing that, which I would advocate in respect of serious criminal matters. In this instance, we are allowing the court to draw an inference where somebody may have decided that he or she does not wish to comment on something put to them. I do not think it right or proper to prescribe this in legislation.
No comments