Eugene Regan (Fine Gael)

I ask for clarity on section 18(3)(b). It states:

[T]hat defence shall not fail by reason only of the defendant's failing to prove the truth of those allegations unless -

(i) the opinion could reasonably be understood as implying that those allegations are true, or

(ii) the allegations are untrue and, at the time of the publication of the opinion, the defendant knew or ought reasonably to have known that those allegations were untrue.

Amendment No. 9 states:

(ii) where the defendant does not prove the truth of those allegations-

(I) the opinion could not reasonably be understood as implying that those allegations were true, and

(II) at the time of the publication of the opinion, the defendant did not know or could not reasonably have been expected to know that those allegations were untrue.

It is the use of the word "and" between the two subparagraphs that I query. Does it make sense to use it? The amendment also changes the wording from "the defendant knew or ought reasonably to have known that those allegations were untrue" to "the defendant did not know or could not reasonably have been expected to know that those allegations were untrue". What are the Minister's views on this wording?