Seanad debates

Tuesday, 6 March 2007

Defamation Bill 2006: Committee Stage (Resumed)

 

3:00 pm

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)

I support what Senator Jim Walsh said. I welcome the Minister of State's enthusiasm for the Law Reform Commission. I hope that enthusiasm will be sustained throughout the rest of this debate, which cannot go on for very long. I will be suggesting some other things that were recommended vigorously by the Law Reform Commission should be taken on board.

The points made by Senator Jim Walsh are valid. I have a good deal of sympathy for individual journalists who are brought to court because it is a very heavy burden on a professional person. The late Michael O'Toole was a great friend of mine, a wonderful journalist, a good friend of Ireland and of literature and all the rest of it. He wrote the "Irishman's Diary" column in the Evening Press. He was a terrific man. Something quite innocent he wrote was taken up and he was crushed by it for quite a long time. It was a horrendous experience. I am not unaware of that aspect of the matter.

However, if one gets a declaratory order, it is because one is aware that the longer a matter is allowed to remain out there, the more it accrues and acquires substance in the public imagination. A declaratory order should be an instrument to prevent that happening but it should not completely cut off other redress. Why should it? I do not refer to personal redress against a journalist, I refer to the press barons. One should bear in mind that my principal target in this is not particularly the Irish newspapers, it is bringing the horrible stable of English publications under the jurisdiction of our standards. It is unfair that one is not allowed further redress because one nips a matter in the bud.

I remind the House of a case of a man in Waterford. He had a ramshackle hotel and came across as a decent man but perhaps a little eccentric.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.