Eugene Regan (Fine Gael)

I disagree with the Minister on the definition as I do not believe that in the manner this is framed, an opinion can include suspicion. If we read this as including suspicion, section 4 would read:

A person who, apart from this section, would be so liable shall not be liable in damages in respect of the communication, whether in writing or otherwise, by the person to an appropriate person of his or her suspicion that an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 2010 has been or is being committed unless—

(a) in communicating his or her suspicion to that appropriate person did so—

(i) knowing it to be false,

How can a suspicion be false?

How can a suspicion be misleading, frivolous, vexatious or reckless as to whether it was false, misleading, frivolous or vexatious? The whole section appears to be constructed around a specific meaning of the word "opinion". This means a suspicion requires facts upon which one would reasonably form an opinion based on these facts. Therefore, when a whistleblower has a suspicion, he or she has an obligation to check and double check the suspicion before forming an opinion because failure to do so renders him or her liable to criminal sanction. There is a contradiction in the manner in which the provision is framed, especially if, as the Minister argues, an opinion includes suspicion. If it is to include suspicion, the word "suspicion" must be clarified either in the section or in the definitions.