The Minister for Justice's proposed draft Bill to reform the libel and defamation laws would have been more welcome earlier in the life of this Government. It is certain that it cannot translate into legislation before the general election. Thus, whatever stage it will have reached when the 28th Dail is dissolved, it will go into limbo, awaiting the pleasure of the Minister's successor in office, if it is to be reactivated.
Nonetheless, Mr O'Donoghue's initiative is a step in the right direction. After more than 15 years of public debate and sustained lobbying for reform of the publishing laws, a Government has finally initiated a legislative response. Work will now begin on drafting the Bill, along the lines set out on Tuesday by the Minister. The drafting process alone could take some months. The prospect of legislation must be, at very best, in the middle distance.
Both the Government and the main opposition party, Fine Gael, have now committed themselves to reform. Fine Gael set the pace, publishing its proposals at the end of October, just before Mr O'Donoghue said he intended to seek Government approval to begin the drafting process. The composition of the next Government will, therefore, determine the final shape of new legislation.
Both the Government's and Fine Gael's proposals contain welcome elements. Both are posited on the assumption that legal change will be accompanied by the establishment of some form of press council or ombudsman to arbitrate between the print media and complainants. The National Newspapers of Ireland has signalled that it is willing to co-operate in this. Ireland is the only country in the EU without such an institution. As a quid pro quo, the newspapers are seeking some fairly modest reforms. They want to be able to publish an apology without admitting liability. Both the Government and Fine Gael appear to be willing to agree to that. The newspapers want to allow the payment of lodgments in court in libel cases. That too seems to be on offer.
Media interests in the past have also argued that the quantum of damages should be a matter for judges, rather than juries, to decide. Mr O'Donoghue seems disposed to agree to this as well. But as Mr Sean Sherwin's recent case showed, this might not necessarily always work in favour of the plaintiff. Juries can be both perceptive and wise.