Vol. 572 No. 4
67 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform his views on the recommendations of the legal advisory group on defamation; if it is intended to implement the recommendations; if his attention has been drawn to the concern expressed by newspapers and journalists at the proposal for a statutory press council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23388/03]
I asked the legal advisory group in September 2002 to report to me on the issues involved with regard to defamation to make recommendations. This request was on foot of the commitment in the programme for Government. I was conscious that there had been a number of recent developments in this area of the law in other jurisdictions which share our legal tradition. I was also conscious that if we were to have a modern and responsive defamation code that was consistent with best international practice, it was important that these developments be assessed and analysed with a view to their possible incorporation into our domestic regime.
I brought the report of the expert group to Government in June 2003. I should emphasise that it is the group's report, it is not a report by me to Government or indeed a report of the Government. The Government has made no decision in respect of the substance of the contents of the report.
The report contains some 23 separate recommendations. The group also put forward a suggested text for a new defamation Act which would replace the Defamation Act 1961 in its entirety. This is a very useful and helpful approach since we are concerned with a potential legislative outcome and it is, therefore, very informative to see how it is that the various recommendations would translate into legislative form.
Some of the recommendations are more challenging than others. The issue of a statutory press council has been the subject of much comment and analysis since the publication of the report. One of the more specific of the legal advisory group's terms of reference was to consider the nature and extent of any statutory intervention which might attach to the establishment of any entity concerned with the regulation of the press. This is a subject where there is some divergence of views as to the optimum approach to be followed.
On the one hand, there is a need to achieve a form of regulation which is effective and in which the public can have confidence. On the other hand, care must be had to ensure that any regulatory framework does not trespass needlessly upon the traditional freedoms which the press enjoys in all democratic societies.
The group, having carefully weighed up the options, recommended the establishment of a statutory press council with functions which would include the preparation of a press code of conduct and the investigation of complaints concerning alleged breaches of that code. The report sets out in some detail the main features of such a council, including matters pertaining to its operation and structure and the draft defamation Bill contains a template for the legislative intervention which would be required were such an entity to be established.
There are other important recommendations in the report. For example, the proposed new defence of reasonable publication; the suggested re-balancing of the role which judge and jury have at present in defamation actions which are commenced in the High Court; the Circuit Court to have jurisdiction in all defamation cases where the amount of the damages claimed does not exceed €50,000; a suggested one-year limitation period for defamation actions and the enshrinement in legislation of a defence to be known as the "defence of innocent publication" which would be available, among others, to broadcasters, distributors, printers and Internet service providers.
