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

I will make a brief one. I suppose the point Senator Stephenson is making is a court could direct that a defamation action would be heard with a jury, if it were in the interests of justice to make such an order. Again, how is a court supposed to determine that one case should be heard by a jury in the interests of justice and the other should not? We would need to have a statutory scheme set out that would inform a court what are the interests of justice that would need to be taken into account. Otherwise, we would just be saying to a High Court judge whether he or she thinks it is in the interests of justice to hear a case with a jury. Again, there will be circumstances where the plaintiff may argue that it is in the interests of justice for it to be heard by a jury perhaps because the plaintiff is a controversial, well-known person, but that is not an adequate reason for a court to state it is in the interests of justice for a jury to determine this. Notwithstanding the effort made by Senator Stephenson in tabling the amendment, there is insufficient clarity within it to enable a court to determine what the interests of justice are that would designate that a jury should be allowed in a particular case. I have to oppose the amendment.