Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

92. To ask the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality the status of his departmental review on defamation that was scheduled to conclude in September 2017; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52367/17]

Charles Flanagan (Laois, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My Department launched a public consultation on the operation of the Defamation Act 2009 on 1 November 2016. The Review is being undertaken in accordance with Section 5 of that Act.

The key objective of defamation law in Ireland is to ensure effective protection for the right to good name and reputation guaranteed by Article 40.3.2 of the Constitution, while also ensuring due regard for the right to freedom of expression in a democratic society, contained in Article 40.4.1(i). The rights to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and to protection of reputation under Article 8 of the Convention are also relevant.

The overall question posed by the public consultation is whether the 2009 Act strikes the right balance, in practice, between protecting freedom of expression and protecting good name and reputation – taking account of relevant developments such as intervening jurisprudence, changes in other common-law jurisdictions and the increasing importance of digital communications. Specifically, the aims of the public consultation were as follows:

- To promote an exchange of views and experiences regarding the operation in practice of reforms to the 2009 Act,

- To review recent reforms of defamation law in other relevant jurisdictions,

- To examine whether Irish defamation law, and in particular the Defamation Act 2009, remains appropriate and effective for securing its objectives, including in light of any relevant developments since 2009,

- To explore and weigh the arguments (and evidence) for and against any proposed changes in Irish defamation law intended to better respond to its objectives, and

- To publish the outcomes of the review, with recommendations on appropriate follow-up measures

The Department received 41 submissions to the review from a wide variety of stakeholders. The submissions are published and available on the Department’s website. The timeframe for the review was extended due to requests by stakeholders for more time to prepare their submissions, the complexity of the issues, the wide scope of the submissions received, other urgent legislative priorities, and significant intervening judgments of relevance from the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court.  

My Department has carried out extensive work on the review and I expect to receive a final report, with options for potential reform in this area of law, during the first quarter of 2018.