Recommendations to overhaul libel laws

The Law Reform Commission issued a report on The Civil Law of Defamation in 1991 in which it recommended a major overhaul of …

The Law Reform Commission issued a report on The Civil Law of Defamation in 1991 in which it recommended a major overhaul of our libel laws. It recommended that the Defamation Act of 1961 be repealed and new legislation enacted.

The distinction between libel and slander should be abolished. Defamation should be defined for the purposes of legislation. The rule of law under which legal innuendo in a single publication gives rise to a separate and distinct cause of action should be abolished and be replaced by a provision that a claim in defamation based on a single publication shall give rise to a single cause of action.

The Rules of Court should state that where the plaintiff in a defamation action alleges that the words or matter complained of were used in a defamatory sense other than their ordinary meaning: (1) he must give particulars of the facts and matters on which he relies in support of such a sense and (2) he must specify the persons or class of persons to whom these facts and matters are known.

In any defamation action, evidence that the defendant made or offered an apology to the plaintiff should not be construed as an admission of liability and, when issues of fact are being tried by a jury, they should be directed accordingly.

READ MORE

The practice of pleading in the statement of claim that the publication was made "maliciously" should be discontinued and the rules of court should expressly provide that it shall not be necessary.

A general defence of "fair report" should not be introduced. The title of the defence of fair comment should be changed to "comment based on fact".

There should be a statutory provision setting out guidelines for the court in distinguishing between fact and comment.

The Commission also recommended that all issues of fact, other than damages, in both the Circuit Court and the High Court, should be determined by juries. The actual amount of damages, however, would be fixed by judges while juries would indicate at what level - nominal, compensatory or punitive - the damages should be assessed.