Seanad report:In a strong attack on a provision in the Defamation Bill enabling a defendant to lodge money in court in satisfaction of an action, Jim Walsh (FF) said: "If we allow the Bill to go through with this in it, I think we're in dereliction of our duties. Of all the things in the Bill this is the one that is for me most galling."
David Norris (Ind) who said he would be seeking the deletion of this section of the Bill, had earlier asked if it meant that where a plaintiff did not accept a sum that had been lodged, he or she could be penalised (in terms of costs) if a smaller sum was awarded.
Minister of State for Justice Frank Fahey said this was so.
Mr Walsh said that where someone was defamed and went to court, the defendant could offer a certain amount of compensation without making an apology or acknowledging the defamation. Where a court found that someone had been seriously defamed but the damages awarded were less than the original sum offered, the plaintiff could then be lumped with absolutely enormous legal costs. He could not understand why the department did not see the inequity in that. They were setting a charter where only the ultra-rich would in fact be able to vindicate their name and as a republican, that was totally anathema to him. At the very least the section should be amended to state that an offer of compensation without an apology, a correction or a retraction was in fact no offer at all.
Maurice Cummins (FG) said he was in full agreement with Mr Walsh. "What we're talking about in this whole Bill is getting the balance right. I think the balance is tilted one way, particularly in this section."
Mr Norris said in a situation where injustice had been done why should the citizen not have his or her fees covered, if they would have been covered had he or she not accepted a smaller amount.
This was guess the weight of the pig at the funfair.
These matters were far too serious for the individual to be treated in this manner.
"I am certainly going to put down an amendment to delete this section and I sincerely hope it will spark a revolt on the Government side.
"If FF and the PDs split on this, they could not split on a better issue in my opinion. Talk about inhibiting investigative journalism.
"What about inhibiting people from restoring their good name?"
Maurice Hayes (Ind) said he did not think there was any justification for treating libel actions any differently from any other actions where a lodgement in court was accepted.
It was up to the court to decide at a certain time what was the reasonable sort of price to be put on the hurt involved and what redress was needed.
The practice of lodgements in court was well tested.
Mr Fahey said the reform of the lodgement in court procedure in regard to defamation was likely to encourage early settlement of actions and to help reduce legal costs.
*****************************************
If ever there was a case in which public opinion required independent reassurance about an investigation, that concerning the fatal injuring of Derek O'Toole in Lucan last Sunday was it, Maurice Hayes said. It seemed to be a ready-made case for investigation by a Garda ombudsman if such was in operation, said Dr Hayes, who is a former Northern Ireland ombudsman.
House leader Mary O'Rourke said everyone understood that "known to the gardaí" was a loaded phrase, and the meaning behind it. "I think it was an attempt to smear before the investigation ever got under way at all."