Brendan Kenneally
Question:18 Mr. Kenneally asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform his views on the contents of the Law Reform Commission report on defamation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6651/97]
Other Questions. - Defamation Laws.
Hugh Byrne
Question:19 Mr. H. Byrne asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform his views regarding reform of the defamation laws; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6654/97]
Hugh Byrne
Question:26 Mr. H. Byrne asked the Minister for Equality and Law Reform whether he will bring forward legislation which will provide that deceased persons can be libelled; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6653/97]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 18, 19 and 26 together. In the past I indicated that the law of defamation raises complex legal and constitutional issues. It is beyond question that there are competing rights in this area — to a good name, to privacy and to freedom of expression. A good defamation law requires the careful reconciliation of these rights. I also refer to the fact that the influences which bear upon the law of defamation derive from a multiplicity of sources which include the common law, statute, international law and the fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution.
The Law Reform Commission report on the civil law of defamation is a comprehensive document which deals with this topic in a clear and lucid way. Many of the recommendations are difficult to quarrel with, for example, the proposal to abolish the outmoded distinction between libel and slander and the emphasis the commission places on the desirability of developing timely and effective remedies which will provide an alternative to damages for those who are anxious to vindicate their good name. The proposals in the latter area are of particular importance because there is a perception that our current law is too centred on the award of damages and that damages may not necessarily be the appropriate remedy in all cases. The commission also has interesting proposals aimed at rationalising the range of defences which would be available in a defamation action.
Other proposals are more controversial. At present, a plaintiff must show that a statement complained of is defamatory. However, he or she is not obliged to prove that such a statement is false since the law presumes the falsity of defamatory statements. In consequence, it is for the defendant to establish the truth of the statement if the defence of justification is raised. A majority of the commission recommended that this presumption of falsity should be abolished. This would be a radical change in our existing law. The Law Reform Commission proposals for a new cause of action with regard to defamation of the dead are also somewhat contentious. One of Deputy Byrne's questions deals exclusively with this matter and, in that context, I refer him to the reply I gave to a similar question in this House on 19 February last.
On taking up office as Minister for Equality and Law Reform, I took a conscious decision to concentrate my legislative effort on those areas of the law which had hitherto been somewhat neglected, namely, those relating to the family and to inequality within our society. It is a regrettable fact of life that the need to prioritise means that some issues will, of necessity, be dealt with less expeditiously than others. Reform of defamation law has been one such issue but the matter is under continuing review taking into account the need to dispose of current legislative priorities which are in hand in my Department.
Does the Minister believe that the current defamation laws limit the freedom of the press in respect of investigative journalism?
Yes, the current laws limit the freedom of the press. They provide that a person may not be defamed and is entitled to a good name. Those laws evolved over a lengthy period and result from an amalgam of common, statutory, constitutional and international law. Of course, there have to be and there are restraints, otherwise a person's good name could be damaged for which there would be no remedy. What those constraints ought to be is a matter for consideration, requiring careful, detailed study as very serious issues are involved. As any Member of the House will know, the protection of the good name of the individual is a very important matter and must be protected within reasonable constraints, striking a balance, on the one hand, between the rights of newspapers and other media to report and, on the other, the rights of the individual.
Has the Law Reform Commission taken into account the recent advent of defamation on the Internet? What is the position in regard to this? No doubt the Minister is aware that in Northern Ireland a case arose recently of a person allegedly accused of being a child sex abuser and through the Internet it was possible to ascertain his identity, where he lived and so on. How do our laws on defamation cater for such circumstances? For example, can such a defamed person lodge a claim in the country of its origin against the countries in which the totality of information on the Internet is available or against the various other sources now opened up through the Internet? The Internet would appear to introduce a whole new set of potential defamation circumstances into our defamation laws. Has this aspect been considered recently?
I am not aware whether the report of the Law Reform Commission referred specifically to defamation through the medium of the Internet; it probably did not but I cannot be certain of that. The general principles applicable to defamation on the Internet would be the same as those applicable to defamation disseminated in any other way.
The issue raised by Deputy McDaid is an interesting one and highlights the point I made earlier that this subject has connotations in international law as well as many others. The question of cross-boundary defamation is not confined to the Internet. For example, there are newspapers that may contain a defamatory article on a person which are circulated in more than one country — perhaps an Irish paper being circulated in the United Kingdom or a United Kingdom newspaper being circulated here or radio or television broadcasts that could be defamatory and be picked up in another country. Therefore, there is an international dimension to determining the appropriate venue at which an action for damages could arise in a cross-boundary case.
However, this is not the time or place to engage in a detailed analysis of the private, international problems that arise. The law is there to deal with them.
The question arises for my Department as to what review may be necessary of the legal position obtaining. When continuous legislative matters in hand in my Department — both before this House and in course of preparation — have progressed sufficiently we will undertake a more in-depth examination of the defamation question to ascertain what further amendment, if any, of the law may be necessary.
Since the Minister has agreed that his Department will be examining defamation laws in regard to the Internet, does he agree that a number of questions should be raised and placed on record with regard to the venue at which a defamed person can sue? For example, is that location where the information is read, where it has been loaded or in any country through which it is channelled? Does he agree that a whole new spectrum of defamation is about to be opened up through the Internet? Does he also agree that this overall question is worthy of examination since I can foresee such cases arising in the not too distant future?
While the Internet may represent a new form of dissemination of potentially defamatory matter, I would envisage that the broad legal principles applicable would be no different from those applicable to dissemination of defamation in any other cross-border manner. Of course, the question arises of the source from which the particular defamation on the Internet emanated which could well present problems for any person defamed in that manner.