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

I think I had indicated everything I wanted to say. I am conscious that it was last July we were here, so just to remind people, the amendments we are talking about seek to change the situation in respect of the proposal to abolish juries. One of the points I mentioned the last time is that the law at present is that the plaintiff, the person taking the defamation action, can decide whether there is a jury in the High Court. If the plaintiff in the High Court wants a jury, they get a jury. If the defendant in the High Court does not want a jury, it does not have any impact because the decision is one exclusively to be made by the plaintiff. The alternative, of course, is that you just have a defamation action that is heard by a judge sitting alone. That has happened on many occasions in the past in the High Court. It always happens in the Circuit Court as you have no entitlement to a jury in a Circuit Court defamation action. The last time, some people referred to the right to trial by jury. This is not an example of where that right is being affected. The right to trial by jury as set out in the Constitution is the right to be tried on criminal charges before a jury, provided those criminal charges are not minor or charges that can be dealt with by a special court as provided for in the Constitution. A decision was made many years ago in the 19th century that defamation actions would be heard by a jury. It was the case that virtually all civil actions were heard by juries in the past. We removed the role of juries in civil actions because of the inconvenience of empanelling a jury to hear personal injury actions or other types of actions. It is now the case in the High Court in civil proceedings that the only proceedings that really have a jury are defamation proceedings, assault proceedings, trespass to the person proceedings and, interestingly, malicious falsehood. Therefore, there will still be jury actions in the civil part of the High Court for those types of cases, but predominantly civil cases are determined in the High Court without a jury.

I listened very carefully to what Senators had to say on the previous occasion. I was concerned that I may have been subject to filibustering on the previous occasion. That may or may not be the case but I am conscious I have to come back to the Seanad in the future. As things stand at present, I intend to proceed with the Bill as is, to be frank, as I am anxious to get the Bill through and enacted. Even though I listen to what people have to say, putting forward amendments will delay this quite significantly because I have to go back to Government, get approval and also it is more complicated than people think. I have had my say in respect of it. The Senators may wish to push it to a vote.