Skip to main content
Normal View

Defamation Law.

Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 5 May 2004

Wednesday, 5 May 2004

Questions (37, 38)

Róisín Shortall

Question:

31 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position regarding his consideration of the recommendations of the legal advisory group on the defamation law, particularly in regard to the proposals for the establishment of a statutory press council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12686/04]

View answer

Jim O'Keeffe

Question:

145 Mr. J. O’Keeffe asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when he will publish the Bill reforming libel law and providing for the regulation of the press; if he has abandoned his proposals for a statutory, Government appointed press council; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12873/04]

View answer

Written answers

I propose to take Questions Nos. 31 and 145 together.

I indicated in my answer to Parliamentary Question No. 48 of 29 January 2004 that I intended to study carefully the responses received during the public consultation process, which I had initiated after the publication of the report of the legal advisory group on defamation in June 2003. That consultation period ended on 31 January and my Department received over 30 responses from concerned organisations and private individuals. These are posted on my Department's website.

As well as inviting written submissions on the report, I held a major conference on 1 December 2003 to facilitate an exchange of views from a cross-section of interested parties. The conference was well attended and thought-provoking. I had made it clear when I brought the report to Government in June 2003 that it was the group's report; it is not a report by me to Government or indeed a report of the Government and the Government has made no decision in respect of the substance of the contents of the report.

Aside from the recommendations on a press council, there were other important recommendations in the report on defamation which will require consideration. 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.

However, it would be fair to say that a majority of the responses received during the public consultation process addressed the recommendation put forward by the legal advisory group with regard to the establishment of a statutory press council. This recommendation came on foot of one of the more specific of the legal advisory group's terms of reference, which 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 set out, in some detail, the main features of such a council, including matters pertaining to its operation and structure. The draft general scheme for a new Defamation Bill, set out in the group's report, contains a template for the legislative intervention which would be required were such an entity to be established.

At their request, I met representatives of the steering committee of the press industry on 26 April to receive their draft proposals for a press ombudsman and a press council. The broad content of these proposals have been subsequently reported in the media. I promised the steering committee that I would give careful consideration to their proposals, which I understand may be further developed. I will also be giving the same consideration to the comments submitted by others on the issue of a press council.

I have expressed the view on a number of occasions that the particular model examined by the advisory group is by no means the only, or, for that matter, the most obvious model for a press council. There could be a body chaired by, say a judge and composed of nominees of a variety of groups to reflect the different interests involved. Appropriate statutory recognition could be given to such a press council. Other models have been suggested during the consultation process as to how a press council could be composed and these will be given careful consideration by me before bringing a proposal to Government.

I am satisfied that the public consultation process that I have engaged in is assisting towards the formation of a reasonable consensus on this issue. I look forward to bringing proposals to Government later this year.

Question No. 32 answered with QuestionNo. 19.
Top
Share