Seanad debates

Tuesday, 6 March 2007

Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed)

 

3:00 pm

Photo of Jim WalshJim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I listened with interest to the Minister of State's response. While I am not a legal expert, I understand the system and why people would seek a declaratory order. In the case of a person who is seriously defamed, he or she may well decide to seek a declaratory order. It is easy to say it is his or her choice and that he or she can continue the case but one has to take account of an individual whose financial resources may be limited. When one goes to court it is a lottery. Even if one has been advised one has a strong case, no doubt the other side will have been advised in a similar way. Ultimately, the advisers will be the winners in the case.

It is not always possible or prudent for people to pursue their rights. In this proposed legislation, no account has been taken of the ordinary citizen with limited resources who feels strongly he or she has been defamed, whose reputation is in tatters and who wishes to have his or her good name restored. A series of obstacles is in the way of a person achieving this end. I am in favour of an independent press council. We will come to this issue in due course. I do not think it is beyond the wit of anybody to draft legislation to the effect that if a declaratory order were issued, it would be possible for an independent body to award limited compensation up to €50,000 or some such sum to a person who had been awarded a declaratory order.

I recently heard of a case, perhaps not a very good one, which was settled on the basis of the newspaper in question taking a proportion of the plaintiff's costs. The defendant stated he had been vindicated but the plaintiff made the point very clearly that no compensation was paid, only the costs, and the person who took the case was a man of straw. If we are to settle cases on that basis, it does nothing for the restoration of a person's reputation where he or she has been genuinely defamed. The same will happen if this Bill is enacted. In serious cases a person will have, and should have under the law, the right to be vindicated. We need to examine this issue carefully.

It is easy for us to discuss the matter, it is an entirely different matter for the person who finds himself or herself in the Four Courts where we have allowed exorbitant fees to be charged and where people can risk everything they own, and a lot more, by going to court. We need to be mindful of this when we draft legislation. We should seriously examine putting balance into some sections of the Bill and we could do this in section 26. It would be a simple matter to have an independent body that could prescribe compensation to a limited degree. Obviously, people should also have the right to go to court. This would be also a media-friendly approach because, in most cases, people want to be vindicated. People want their reputations restored and would settle for small amounts of compensation. Often in the public mind, the level of compensation determines the correction of the defamation. We need to re-examine aspects of the Bill.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.