Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)

I am conscious that we will not get to a vote but I will try to respond to the issues raised. Senator Stephenson asked me why I am proceeding with this diminution of rights. We have to be careful about the use of the term "right". There is a statutory provision under the Courts of Justice Act 1924 and the Defamation Act 2009 that states someone is entitled to a jury in the High Court so we are entitled to change the law. It is not like a right that comes from the Constitution or the ECHR. It is simply a statutory provision so we are entitled to change it. Simply because we are changing or removing juries from the High Court does not mean it is an interference with a right. People who go to the Circuit Court still have their rights vindicated. Everyone who has a civil action before the High Court that is not heard by a jury has his or her rights vindicated so the idea that simply because there is no jury, that is a diminution of one's rights is not correct.

We also need to recognise that the vast majority of civil actions are dealt with by judges hearing cases and justice is being administered so we cannot say that just because someone does not have a jury in a civil action, he or she is not getting justice. People's access to justice is provided.

Senator McDowell said that it will be a necessity to give reasons if it involves a judge sitting on his or her own. That is correct. However, I would have thought it is an advantage that the public is able to find out why it was that a plaintiff in a particular action lost his or her defamation action or why he or she was awarded €100,000 or €200,000. At present, we do not get that information because all that happens is that the jury comes back with the issue paper and answers "Yes"to the question of whether the plaintiff was defamed, there are a couple of other questions and then damages are assessed. The judge just reads out "Yes, €100,000" and then enters the judgment so we do not get any explanation as to why the jury reached a determination that the plaintiff was defamed and that €100,000 was the appropriate amount of damages so it is to the benefit of the public and in the public interest that we find that out. Senator McDowell said that this will have a detrimental effect because individuals will be identified as untruthful or unreliable and that will hang over their heads for eternity. That is one of the consequences of civil actions in the High Court. Judges write judgments stating: "I disbelieve the evidence of Mr. O'Callaghan. I prefer the evidence of Mr. McDowell".