Seanad debates

Tuesday, 11 December 2007

Defamation Bill: Committee Stage (Resumed)

 

4:00 pm

Photo of Jim WalshJim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 19, subsection (2)(g), lines 15 and 16, to delete "a reasonable attempt was" and substitute "reasonable attempts were".

This is important as it is the judicial interpretation of whether the defence of fair and reasonable publication is accepted by the courts and compliance with the subsections of section 24(2) is germane. Section 24(2)(g) states:

. . . the extent to which the plaintiff's version of events was represented in the publication concerned and, if not so represented, the extent to which a reasonable attempt was made by the publisher to obtain and publish a response from that person.

Leaving a voicemail message for a person after an article is written and an hour prior to publication stating that one has been told something about that person, that an article has been written and is about to go to press and for the person to please telephone back if he or she has a comment to make should not satisfy the situation. Given access to mobile telephones, landlines, e-mail and various communication modes which now exist, it is not unreasonable for "reasonable attempt" to be in the plural. Therefore, if one claims the defence of fair and reasonable publication one must show one made not only one attempt but a number of attempts. I propose changing it to the plural in order that it would read, "to which reasonable attempts were made".

While it is probably implied that these attempts are made prior to publication, paragraph (g) does not state this. Amendment No. 24 would include the words "in advance" and I considered suggesting the phrase "a reasonable time in advance". If one is defamed in an article on which a reporter has worked for weeks, one should have an opportunity to consider for some time what has been stated before one responds. One should not be expected to respond on the hoof and not doing so should not give the green light to the publisher of the offending article to avail of this defence. If this section is passed in its present format it will represent an extremely significant modification of our libel laws.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.