Defamation Bill: The long-awaited Defamation Bill, published yesterday, provides for rapid access to a remedy for those who feel they have been defamed, while also offering more protection to the media when reporting in good faith.
It does not provide for the setting up of a press council, as proposed by the report of the Legal Advisory Group on Defamation, but instead provides for recognition of a press council to be set up by the publishing industry.
This will appoint a press ombudsman to whom complainants can go for redress short of going to court.
The Bill also allows the media a number of defences against being sued not previously available, notably "fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public importance", and makes it harder for individuals to sue without having good reason.
It abolishes the distinct torts (civil wrongs) of libel and slander, replacing them with defamation.
Both the plaintiff and the defendants will have to swear affidavits, on which they can then be cross-examined, verifying their claims and assertions.
It will no longer be an admission of liability, which could be used against a publication in a later court action, to publish an apology. This will allow for speedy apologies where a media organisation gets something wrong and wishes to correct it. A sum of money can be lodged in court by a defendant without admitting liability.
Instead of damages, a plaintiff who successfully sues can seek a declaratory order or a correction order that would force the publication to publish a correction, or a statement that the information published was not true and was defamatory.
The correction order could be combined with damages, while the declaratory order would substitute for damages and permit a speedy resolution of the dispute.
Juries are to be retained in defamation cases, but a range of factors intended to guide the court in relation to general damages is spelt out. The judge is also empowered to direct the jury on the subject of damages.
Aggravated and punitive damages are retained but limited to specific instances.
A new defence of "fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public importance" is created, but it is only available to those who sign up to membership of the press council or have in place similar arrangements allowing members of the public to seek redress.
This defence would cover the publication of a damaging statement that subsequently turned out not to be true, if it was believed to be true in good faith and reasonable efforts were made to verify it.
A list is provided of occasions where absolute privilege applies, protecting an organisation for publishing what was stated, and the defence of qualified privilege (relating to events like public meetings) is given a statutory basis for the first time.
Distributors will be able to avail of the defence of "innocent publication" if they carry a publication containing defamatory material. Corporate bodies can sue for damages, irrespective of whether they suffered financial loss.
It will be possible to sue either in the Circuit or the High Court, and there will be a new jurisdiction limit of €50,000 in the Circuit Court. A new limitation period of a year is introduced, replacing the previous six years within which action had to be brought. However, for exceptional cases, this can be extended to two years.