The need for an overhaul of the State’s defamation laws has been widely recognised for many years, but progress has been painfully slow. A succession of authorities, including the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights, the European Commission and freedom-of-speech groups, have condemned an Irish regime that is slow, unpredictable, costly and characterised by huge awards. The costs involved in defending even the most baseless or vexatious cases – including cases which never go to trial – are so high as to threaten the viability of many media organisations. The Press Council is not exaggerating when it argues that reform is required to protect freedom of the press, and that delays to date “have eroded this fundamental freedom”.
Any defamation law must balance the freedom of the media with the rights of citizens to their good name. A long-delayed review of the present Act, produced by the Department of Justice in March last year, steered a careful course in balancing those rights,but set out reforms that would mark a very clear improvement. A general scheme of a new Defamation Bill, published earlier this month, remains broadly faithful to those recommendations.
A key change is the abolition of juries in High Court defamation actions – a reform that would bring this area of law into line with nearly all other civil litigation, while shortening trials and making decision-making more transparent. The chief beneficiaries of current defamation law are the rich and powerful.
A proposed new right to seek dismissal of groundless claims – a so-called “anti-Slapp” (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) defence – could help protect journalists against attempts to impede their investigative work with pre-emptive actions. Provision for the automatic dismissal of cases where the plaintiff has taken no steps within two years of initiating proceedings is welcome for the same reason.
Markets in Vienna or Christmas at The Shelbourne? 10 holiday escapes over the festive season
Ciara Mageean: ‘I just felt numb. It wasn’t even sadness, it was just emptiness’
Stealth sackings: why do employers fire staff for minor misdemeanours?
Carl and Gerty Cori: a Nobel Prizewinning husband and wife team
There are regrettable omissions from the draft scheme. Most notable is the absence of a “serious harm” test such as that introduced to positive effect in England and Wales in 2013. The draft provides for that test in cases involving bodies corporate, public authorities and retailers but not for all defamation cases. A serious harm test – which would require claimants to prove at the outset that the alleged defamation was likely to cause serious harm to their reputation – would help to stop libel tourism and reduce the number of unwarranted but costly claims.
A vibrant media with the ability to hold powerful individuals and institutions to account is a cornerstone of any healthy democracy. In Ireland, that ability is severely impaired by the law as it stands. After a decade of debate and discussion, now is the time to pass the law.