Nicole Ryan (Sinn Fein)

I thank the Minister for being here. It is good to see him back before the House. I am delighted to contribute to the debate on the Defamation (Amendment) Bill.

Defamation reform is long overdue. The current framework under the 2009 Act has proven to be expensive, slow and in many ways inaccessible, especially for ordinary people trying to defend their names. However, the Bill in its current form gets one major thing fundamentally wrong. That is the proposal to abolish juries from High Court defamation trials. We stand firmly opposed to this move, not because we are resistant to change but because we believe the right to have one's reputation judged by a jury of peers is not just a procedural preference, it is a cornerstone of justice. Removing juries does not fix the problem, it dodges it. We all recognise that defamation trials can result in inconsistent and sometimes excessive awards, but instead of addressing the causes by reforming how damages are assessed, for instance, the Government is proposing to take a sledgehammer to a core principle of our legal system. As others have said, this would leave Ireland a complete outlier among common law jurisdictions. The move is not backed by the legal community. The Law Society, the Bar of Ireland and the Judiciary have all expressed concerns about this shift. The Government's pre-legislative scrutiny report urged against this step, yet we are now being asked to accept a Bill that cuts the voice of the public from some of the most sensitive, high-stakes cases before the courts.

Defamation is not just a false statement. It is about a person's good name, standing, integrity and identity. Who better to adjudicate on whether a reputation has been harmed than a jury of one's peers? We are not blind to the challenges. Delays, costs and procedural complexities are real, but they are not unique to defamation and they are not caused by juries alone. If delays were reason enough to eliminate fundamental rights, we would be in very dangerous territory. There are solutions that do not require removing juries altogether. Hybrid models exist, for example, where juries determine liability and judges determine quantum. These are used in other jurisdictions and could prove to be a compromise in this.

We support all the other reforms in the Bill, including the stronger provisions to tackle strategic lawsuits against public participation and making mediation more accessible through safeguards to ensure victims of abuse, coercion or control are not retraumatised by mandatory processes. However, we cannot accept a Bill that strips out public participation in a justice process, especially when it comes to reputation. We tabled amendments, including one that would allow a judge to determine whether a jury is appropriate in a given case, rather than having a blanket ban. That is a sensible, middle-ground approach to this.

We do not want to undermine public confidence in our legal system in the name of procedural convenience. This is a chance to get the balance right between protecting reputations, safeguarding public interest journalism and ensuring access to justice for all. I hope the Minister will reflect on this and that we can all work in this House together to get it right.