Eugene Regan (Fine Gael)

I second the amendment. I am speaking on the alternatives. My amendments relate to a rewording rather than a deletion, to try to insert some objectivity into the test such that "It shall be a defence ... to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that, in the case of a statement consisting of an opinion, the opinion was honestly held.". I suggest that at the time of the publication of the statement, the defendant reasonably believed in the truth of the opinion. Simply to say that the defendant believed is too simplistic and too subjective. I also suggest that where the defendant is not the author of the opinion, he or she must have reasonably believed that the author believed it to be true.

As Senator Norris indicated, the notion that someone else told one that he or she believed the matter to be true is very subjective. If I understand the text, paragraphs (a),(b) and (c) are cumulative. I wonder whether an "and" after (a) might not make that clearer. Also, there is a certain defect in this in that there is no reference, as has been said, to the issue of good faith, malice or improper purpose. We shall be discussing section 24 later, but this section 18, which is replacing the defence of fair comment, obviates in large measure the need for section 24. However, that is a matter I shall address later.