Jim O'Callaghan
Dublin Bay South · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“This relates to section 69 of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann, which amends Schedule 5 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to add the Courts Service to the Schedule.”
“The first four amendments in this group are minor drafting corrections. They corrected the wording in four places so that the Bill reads consistently. It is changing the word "references" to "a reference". They make no change to the substance or effect of the Bill.”
“The ARP scheme was introduced in July 2022 to recognise the generosity of members of the public who opened their houses, whether in their entirety or through the provision of a room, at their own expense to provide shelter to people displaced by the Ukraine war. The Department of Social Protection administers the scheme on my behalf.”
“I have no doubt it will be challenged, and I have to be able to convince a court, if it is being challenged, that this legislation weighs up conflicting interests and recognises there is a mechanism for somebody who has reformed himself to get off the register.”
“The scheme has been a lifeline for people from Ukraine displaced by the conflict, given high rental market rates and scarcity of rental accommodation.”
“I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in the first instance for presiding over these Stages of the legislation. I am very pleased that this legislation has been enacted. I want to thank a few people very briefly. I thank Deputy McAuliffe for introducing me to Jason Poole. I thank Senator O'Loughlin for her work on this issue in the Seanad.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,181 lines we hold for Jim O'Callaghan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 52 of 84.
“Ireland already participates in and draws down a lot of funding from these streams. The proposed regulations will cover the period 2028 to 2034. As instruments with a Title V legal base, Protocol 21 of the treaty applies and an opt-in under Article 3 is required in order for Ireland to continue utilising funding made available under the programmes. On the proposals themselves, the proposed regulation for a new asylum fund provides for a total considerable amount of money in EU funding, which is significantly increased from what the fund was before. Funding can be drawn down to support member states' capacity to manage and respond to asylum, migration and integration challenges and will be available to support member states' implementation of the pact.”
“Like the Acting Chairman, I want to welcome the guests in the Gallery. I have to say that when I walked in, I thought I was appearing before a grand jury. I welcome them all. I wish them a successful day with Deputy Scanlon. I thank the Acting Chairman and his colleagues for facilitating these motions. This morning, the Government approved my request to seek the approval of this House to opt in to these EU Commission proposals. These proposals form part of the multi-annual financial framework, sometimes referred to as the MFF, package. As the House will know, the MFF is the European Union's long-term budget plan that sets the annual spending limits for various policy areas over a seven-year period. The proposals today relate to the asylum, migration and integration fund, the internal security fund and the justice programme fund.”
“I thank Senators Rabbitte, Cathal Byrne and Nicole Ryan for their contributions. I am very pleased there is agreement that the Bill should pass through Seanad Éireann. Everyone recognises that appointing extra judges will have an impact in increasing efficiency and speeding up cases. I listened very carefully to what my colleagues had to say. In response to Senator Ryan, it is important to acknowledge that the administration of justice operates effectively in Ireland every day. I do not accept that the system is not working. It is working. Obviously, it could always work more efficiently and more resources could be put into it but on a daily basis throughout the country in our District Courts, our Circuit Courts, our High Court and indeed our Court of Appeal, there is justice being administered.”
“Not doing so will result in the introduction of a dual licensing system whereby an applicant for a betting licence could circumvent the enhanced regulatory regime introduced in the 2024 Act by obtaining licenses under the 1929 or 1931 Acts. There are further minor technical amendments to several sections. I am pleased to present the Bill to Seanad Éireann. I do not believe it is a contentious Bill. I hope it will get the support of Senators as it is an important improvement to our justice system.”
“Section 10 provides for the amendment to section 1 of the Streets and House To House Collections Act 1962 to amend the definitions of collection and exempt activity to reflect the definition in the 2024 Act and the fact that charitable and philanthropic gambling activities will be licensed under the 2024. Section 11 provides for an amendment to section 1(2) of the gambling Act which contains a reference to section 9 of the Act where it should have been a reference to section 10. Section 10 when commenced permits the Minister to revoke or repeal the Totalisator Act 1929, the Betting Act 1931 and related statutory instruments. The repeal of both these Acts will ensure that all new license applications for these types of betting must be made under the 2024 Act.”
“Section 5 provides for an amendment to section 2(1)(b) of the Sixth Schedule to Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961, increasing the number of unassigned judges at the District Court by six, from 28 to 34. This again provides the Government with greater flexibility in respect of the appointment of a judge to a particular district. Section 6 provides for an amendment to section 9 of the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995 and increases the statutory limit on the number of High Court judges by six to 55, in line with the working group's recommendation. We now have 55 ordinary judges plus the President of the High Court, Mr. Justice Barniville. Section 7 provides for the amendment to section 10 of the 1995 Act and increases the actual number of ordinary judges of the Circuit Court by six to 51, in line with Government commitments.”
“Section 4 provides for the amendment of paragraph (1)(a)(ii) of the Courts (Establishment and Constitution) Act 1961 and increases the statutory limit on the number of ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal by three, from 18 to 21, thereby setting a new statutory maximum of 21 ordinary judges plus the court president of the Court of Appeal. The section also provides regulatory power to increase the number of judges in the Court of Appeal by one if that is required for operational reasons. That gives a level of flexibility within the Court of Appeal. That mirrors the statutory power available in respect of appointments to the High Court.”
“These improvements are having a significant impact on the most important people before the courts who are the individuals seeking access to justice and who are dependent upon an efficient and effective administration of justice. In regard to the Bill, section 1 provides for the Short Title and collective citation. They are standard procedures. Section 2 provides for the repeal of sections 263 and 271 of the Gambling Regulation Act 2024 to reflect the amendment of the definitions of collection and exempt activity provided for in section 10 of this Bill. It also provides for the repeal of sections 31 and 33 of the Family Courts Act 2024 which are no longer required. Section 3 provides relevant definitions for Part 2.”
“Following the appointment of the additional six judges to the High Court in 2023 there has been an increase of 9% in sitting days between quarter 1 of 2023 and quarter 2 of 2025. More importantly, we have seen real efficiencies and a speeding up of the criminal justice process in the area presided over by the Central Criminal Court, which presides over the most serious criminal prosecutions in the country. The Central Criminal Court has seen the average trial length in days increasing from 7.5 days in quarter 1, 2024 to 11.6 in 2025. This indicates that while case numbers may not be increasing, the complexity level of the cases is having an impact. In the Court of Appeals, appeals have also increased by more than 10% from 573 in 2022 to 635 in 2024. The increase is driven by a higher number of incoming criminal cases.”
“For instance, between the beginning of 2022 and the middle of this year, there has been an increase of 11% in District Court sittings. There has also been a 38% increase in cases resolved in the family law District Court between those periods. In the same period, between the beginning of 2022 and mid-2025 there has been an overall increase of 23% in the number of Circuit Court sittings. There has also been a decrease in waiting times for civil trials in the Circuit Court from 50 weeks to 30 weeks. Similarly, in the High Court waiting times have decreased across most areas of the High Court business and the number of listings has increased by nearly 10% between 2022 and 2024.”
“To go back to the issue of the appointment of extra judges, people may ask why we are doing this. The reason is not that we just want to have more judges so that more people can be appointed as judges. We are doing this so that the people who seek access to justice in Ireland can be accommodated and facilitated. In particular, I want to ensure that if people go to court in Ireland they know that they can have their claim dealt with in a speedy and efficient manner. I am pleased that when we look at the changes in the different courts since the extra 24 judges were appointed starting in the first quarter of 2022, we see that there has been a significant increase and improvement in efficiencies in the courts.”
“The previous Government and I increased the number of judges and appointed approximately 24 of those 44. What I am proposing to do in this legislation is to provide for the extra 20 judges recommended by the working group. The number in the legislation is 21 because one of the judges of the Court of Appeal, Mr. Justice Michael McGrath, has agreed to take on the very onerous and responsible task of being the chairperson of the commission of investigation into abuse in schools. The House should also note that there are a number of provisions in this legislation that will deal with the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Ireland. It has been necessary to put in place a couple of minor amendments to ensure that the gambling regulator, which is doing a very job at present, can proceed to commence its licensing.”
“I am very pleased to present the Bill to the House. As Senators will be aware, Article 36 of the Constitution provides that the number of judges of the various courts shall be regulated in accordance with law. Accordingly, the maximum number of judges of each of the courts is prescribed in legislation. The primary purpose of this legislation is to increase by 21 the number of judges who will sit in our four courts of jurisdiction, excluding the Supreme Court. I am not proposing to add to the number of judges who can be appointed to the Supreme Court. Senators will be aware that a judicial working group reported a number of years ago and recommended that we should increase the number of judges that sit in Ireland. The proposal was to increase by 44 the number of judges who would sit.”
“As I said, the Government will not oppose the Bill. I cannot give him a guarantee that when it gets to Committee Stage I will be able to accept it as it is, but if we take on board some of the proposals and messages I have given, there could be some progress in respect of the Bill.”
“I would like to assure the House that the Government continues to work with determination to strengthen the response of the State of violence against women and girls. The zero tolerance strategy is very effective. Obviously, we need to do more to ensure the scourge of violence against women and girls is treated with the contempt it deserves and individuals know they will be severely punished if they engage in such types of violence. I will also introduce other legislation, which will be of benefit, to ensure that people are not subjected to domestic violence, such as Jennie's law which will provide a register of court judgments so that people will be able to get information about individuals who previously committed serious assaults within an intimate relationship. I ask Deputy Carthy to consider the points I mentioned.”
“Part 5 civil orders provide the preventative stand-alone civil remedy available in respect of relevant conduct such as stalking, harassment or intimidation and, notably, does not require any criminal prosecution or conviction. Part 5 also provides for the making of orders on an ex parte basis, where the court is satisfied that there is an immediate risk to the safety and welfare of the applicant. In addition, the court may grant an interim order, pending the final determination of the application, where the court deems it necessary and proportionate for the safety and welfare of the applicant. I have to point out that there are also orders which are available pursuant to domestic violence legislation. Deputies will be familiar with such legislation. Barring, safety and protection orders are available in the civil courts.”
“A sex offender order prohibits the offender from doing anything the court considers necessary to protect the public. A prohibition may, for example, forbid an offender from going to a specified place. The order is expressed to last for a period of five years or such longer period as the court may specify. Breach of an order is an offence prosecutable summarily or on indictment, with a jail term of up to five years. The offence is, therefore, an arrestable offence. I also want to refer to other provisions in place. Under Part 5 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023, a new system of civil orders was introduced, which is designed to protect victims.”
“The Garda National Protective Services Bureau has a dedicated unit, the sex offender management and intelligence unit, which has oversight and monitoring responsibility at national level for the management of registered sex offenders who are subject to notification requirements. In addition, the sex offender risk assessment and management system operates to support enhanced levels of co-operation and co-ordination between key statutory organisations involved in managing the risk posed to a community by convicted sex offenders. Where An Garda Síochána believes a convicted sex offender poses a serious and imminent risk to the public, an application can be made to the courts for a sex offender order under section 16 of the 2001 Act. This is a civil order applied for in the Circuit Court.”
“The offence is, accordingly, an arrestable offence under the Criminal Law Act 1997, for which a person may be arrested without a warrant. I also want to consider other legislation available, in particular what is referred to as the sex offender register. More broadly, there is a comprehensive framework in place for the management and monitoring of sex offenders in this jurisdiction, which also comprises specific protective mechanisms. The Sex Offenders (Amendment) Act 2023 strengthened our already robust system for monitoring sex offenders. A person convicted of an offence set out in the Schedule to the Sex Offenders Act must notify An Garda Síochána of their movements, including any changes to their name or address and any travel to, from or within the State within three days.”
“The order can be imposed at the time of sentence or at any time prior to the offender's release. Such orders may be imposed where the court is satisfied that the offender has behaved in such a way as to give rise to a well-founded fear that the victim may be subject to harassment or unwanted contact by the offender, such as would cause fear, distress or alarm or amount to intimidation. Appropriate balancing of rights is contained in the section and the standard of proof is specifically set out to be a civil standard on the balance of probabilities. The order can be applied for by a garda, probation officer or victim and can extend for a period of up to 12 months post release. Breach of a harassment order is an offence punishable summarily or on indictment, with a jail term of up to five years.”
“As has been indicated by Deputy Carthy when he referred to some statutory provisions, I too want to refer to the laws in place at present and how they can be used for the purpose of trying to give effect to the legislative purpose behind the Deputy's Bill. I would like to refer to harassment orders, pursuant to the Sexual Offences Act 2017. The House will be aware that section 46 of that Act, which introduced harassment orders for the victims of sexual violence, deals with the particular circumstances that can arise. Under that legislation, a court can impose an order prohibiting a convicted sex offender from contacting or approaching his or her victim for a specified period, exactly the same type of behaviour Deputy Carthy's Bill seeks to address.”
“The legislation appears to me to be modelled on amendments made to the offence of harassment by my predecessor, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, when she was Minister for justice. I want the House to be aware that this week, I brought a memorandum to Government seeking approval not to oppose the Bill on Second Stage. I can confirm that this was endorsed by the Government today. The Bill is well intentioned and aligns with the Government's zero tolerance approach to domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. However, I have some concerns about the added value of the Bill. I know Deputy Carthy will listen to my concerns. They derive from the fact that we already have a range of existing statutory measures designed to protect victims.”
“However, it must also go beyond that because it is a societal issue that requires us to spread the message of the unacceptability of violence in domestic relationships or gender-based violence. That requires education and instruction being given to boys and young men about the inappropriateness of using violence, not just in general society but, in particular, in relationships. As Deputy Carthy has outlined, the Bill he introduced seeks to introduce protections for the victims of sexual violence. It provides that when someone is convicted and sentenced for a crime of sexual violence, at sentencing the judge could impose an order restraining the person convicted of the offence from communicating with or approaching the victim.”
“It is important to state that the Government's approach to combating violence against women and girls is that there should be a zero tolerance approach to gender-based violence and the attitudes that underpin it. On the Bill being debated in the House, I thank and commend Deputy Carthy for introducing the Private Members' Bill. Before I deal with the specifics of the Bill, which, I am pleased to say, I will not oppose, I want to say something that is probably recognised by the mover of the Bill and every Member of the House. The solution and campaign to stop violence against women and girls is in part to be found in our legislative system. It is in part be found in enacting legislation that will, we hope, change and punish certain human behaviour.”
“I welcome to the Visitors Gallery the women who have campaigned very vigorously to stop violence against women and girls. It is also very appropriate that this House is discussing the issue of violence against women and girls today, which, as Deputy Farrell says, is International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. That is a day that is not just recognised in Ireland but is recognised internationally. One of the things I have come to appreciate more since I became Minister for justice is that the scourge of violence against women and girls is not just an issue that faces us in Ireland. Regrettably, it is an international issue that needs to be tackled, not just on a national basis but also an international basis.”
“I move the following Supplementary Estimates: Vote 2 — Department of the Taoiseach (Supplementary Estimate) That a supplementary sum not exceeding €3,389,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 2025, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of the Taoiseach, including certain services administered by the Department and for payment of grants. Vote 6 — Office of the Chief State Solicitor (Supplementary Estimate) That a supplementary sum not exceeding €1,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 2025, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor.”
“I move: That leave be given by the Dáil to introduce the following Supplementary Estimates for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of December, 2025: Vote 32 — Enterprise, Tourism and Employment ( Supplementary Estimate ). Vote 33 — Culture, Communications and Sport ( Supplementary Estimate ). Vote 34 — Housing, Local Government and Heritage ( Supplementary Estimate ).”
“Vote 24 — Justice, Home Affairs and Migration (Supplementary Estimate) That a supplementary sum not exceeding €46,000,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 2025, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration, Probation Service staff and of certain other services including payments under cash-limited schemes administered by that Office, and payment of certain grants.”
“Vote 22 — Courts Service (Supplementary Estimate) That a supplementary sum not exceeding €1,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 2025, for such of the salaries and expenses of the Courts Service and of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court, the Special Criminal Court, the Circuit Court and the District Court and of certain other minor services as are not charged to the Central Fund.”
“I move the following Supplementary Estimates: Vote 20 — Garda Síochána (Supplementary Estimate) That a supplementary sum not exceeding €20,424,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 2025, for the salaries and expenses of the Garda Síochána, including pensions, etc.; for the payment of certain witnesses’ expenses, and for payment of certain grants. Vote 21 — Prisons (Supplementary Estimate) That a supplementary sum not exceeding €27,859,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 2025, for the salaries and expenses of the Prison Service, and other expenses in connection with prisons, including places of detention, and for payment of certain grants.”
“The approach proposed by Deputy Carthy's amendment raises concerns as to how it will operate in practice. It would be a complex issue and would require processes and procedures to be put in place to ensure its efficient delivery. It would require additional resources being allocated to the Courts Service, as I am sure the Deputy can understand. The roll-out and operation of such legislation would require significant public engagement. I know the amendment has not been formally put down but since Deputy Ward raised it, I am not capable and ready at present to proceed down that route. As I say, there is research ongoing as to what can be done to facilitate further the importance service that is carried out by jurors.”
“The Courts Service has also invested in the provision of improved jury facilities in modernised courthouses across the country. That is something we need to take into account. I want to ensure the jury room and the facilities for juries are appropriate in order for them to carry out the very important part of the criminal justice process. There are too many courthouses around the country where the facilities for jurors, practitioners and more importantly, litigants, are not up to standard. My Department is currently undertaking a review of jury service, which will be informed by research on the topic, including the Law Reform Commission's valuable report on jury service, as well as submissions made by the Bar Council and the Law Society and legislative and policy developments in related areas over the past number of years.”
“I have seen frequently, with the call-over of the jury panel, that jurors will approach the registrar and give circumstances and details as to why they say they are not able to serve on a jury. Sometimes the judge will hear this application as well. It is certainly the case for people who are self-employed, for example, those who run a shop on their own, that county registrars and judges take this into account and excuse people if it appears to be the case that it is essential they are not selected for jury service. There have also been a lot of improvements in the jury experience in recent years. There was the introduction of a digitalised jury summons. In fact, I got one myself recently. I responded to it and said I was not available. I was able to say I was excused because, as a Member of the Oireachtas, that is permissible.”
“I take this opportunity, by the way, to commend members of the public who have done such service on juries over the years because the criminal justice system could not operate without individuals serving on juries. No expenses are paid to people called for jury duty but they do get lunch and refreshments provided on a daily basis. There is also a requirement to ensure that employers continue to pay an employee while he or she is on jury service. Employers cannot say they will not pay someone called for jury service. There is a requirement for them to pay an employee while they are engaged in jury duty. I know also that section 9 of the Juries Act 1976 allows a county registrar to excuse a person from attendance.”
“I thank Deputy Ward for his contribution. This is an amendment that was mentioned previously by Deputy Carthy. The purpose of it is to try to provide for the payment to jurors of travel and subsistence expenses, and for reimbursement for financial losses incurred in the exercise of their responsibilities as jurors. It is important to point out that jury service is a very important civic duty. In many respects, it is a bit like voting. It is one of the requirements we demand of a citizen. Deputy Ward may say that when it comes to voting, it is something you can do in the space of half an hour or an hour but when it comes to jury service you can find yourself on a jury for very lengthy periods of time.”
“Having brought the Bill before the House, the Government is satisfied the additional judicial positions are warranted to address the current demands being placed by the courts and to improve efficiencies across all our courts, providing a vital bulwark of our judicial system. The amendments to the Gambling Regulation Act and the Family Courts Act will provide for the more efficient operation of these Acts when fully commenced. I commend the Bill to the House.”
“I am pleased to commend the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2025 to the House. No amendments to the Bill have been tabled on Committee Stage. I particularly acknowledge the co-operation and support that has been given to the Bill by colleagues and party spokespersons across the House. I also extend my thanks to the Oireachtas staff, in particular the staff of the Bills Office for their assistance. As the House is aware, the purpose of the Bill is to provide, by amendment of various Courts Acts, for an increase in the maximum number of ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal, the High Court, the Circuit Courts and the District Courts by 21 judges. The Bill also provides for amendments to the Child Care Act 1991, the Family Courts Act 2024 and the Gambling Regulation Act 2024.”
“I disagree with the Senator suggesting we should criminalise the behaviour of people taking actions that are found to be abusive. That is not a good idea. We must be careful about the types of behaviour we criminalise. If there are abusive court proceedings, there is a civil remedy set out here that is going to be sufficient. Politicians must have a thick skin, as we all do. I do not think we should be running off to the courts when somebody says something about us that is wrong and damaging. However, there are times where people may be very severely damaged in their reputations by the publication of false statements. That is something the Defamation Act is designed to deal with. It is not designed to facilitate people scoring points.”
“It should be said that, unlike stuff we read on social media, if we see something published by the traditional media in Ireland, there is a good belief that what they are publishing is true. We know that sometimes they will get it wrong, but in general if a newspaper publishes allegations that are strong, we know that it must have a good basis for doing so because of the defamation laws. That is one of the understated but important benefits of the balanced defamation laws we have in Ireland. The Senator referred to a number of individual cases. I am not going to go into that. I have said before that we do not want the courts to be used as the place where people go to try to score political points or for the purpose of trying to pursue a greater political agenda. That does not just happen in the field of defamation.”
“As the Senator says, a court knows what bad faith is, but notwithstanding that, in the context of the transposition of the directive, it is probably important that we try to stay loyal to the terminology used within the directive. The Senator also spoke about investigative reporting. My own view is that we have good journalists and good reporting in Ireland. There is an index of journalism and free press throughout the world. Ireland is always in the top ten. Notwithstanding criticism that may come from the media about our defamation laws, we still have a very vibrant media and a media that is regarded internationally as operating in a very free environment.”
“Senator Craughwell asked whether I would consider amending section 34A(d). I will always consider what is said in this House and I will reflect upon it for Report Stage, but my own view at this preliminary stage is that, when I look at section 34A(d), what is set out there is comprehensible. The Senator says I should stop at "the use in bad faith of procedural tactics". What is also included is: such as delaying proceedings, fraudulent or abusive forum shopping or the discontinuation of cases at a later stage of the proceedings in bad faith ... I see no harm in that being included. They are not completely exhaustive; they are examples of the type of behaviour that gives evidence of bad faith.”
“That is all I have to say in respect of those amendments contained within the grouping, namely, amendments Nos. 11 to 19, inclusive. I hope I have answered the Senators' questions.”
“If this legislation is enacted, I do not think we will be seeing many applications being brought under Part 4A because it is already the case that when it comes to issuing defamation proceedings, plaintiffs are aware and will be advised that issuing abuse of court proceedings is not a sensible thing to do. In the first instance, you will be met with an application to strike out. If you are not, you are ultimately going to end up in court for the case to be determined. If you have an abusive case that is not merited, you will lose your case and that will have negative consequences for you. From the point of view of Part 4A, what really distinguishes it is that if someone does it, they find themselves in a situation where the party being sued can also bring a claim for damages against them.”
“Notwithstanding that, generally people institute proceedings in the area where their reputation is established, where they are best known. That sometimes can be more difficult with a very famous person or a person who is renowned internationally. There are many American people living in America who will have reputations here. I do not want to get too detailed, but a court will take into account whether or not the forum is the forum conveniens - the appropriate forum for the taking of proceedings. The Senator also asked if there will be further amendments regarding forum shopping. I do not believe there will be further amendments.”
“If the defendant succeeds in it, they may then be able to proceed and claim damages. I suspect, in most cases, people will realise that it is a big task to be able to convince a court that proceedings being instituted against a person are abuse of court proceedings. In my own experience, most people do not issue court proceedings for the purpose of intimidating others, although that can be the effect of them. The Senator also asked about abusive forum shopping, which is contained in section 34A(d). When we talk about forum shopping, generally that is a term that arises where people are looking to bring proceedings in different jurisdictions. It can happen now in defamation because of publication online. If somebody publishes information about an individual online, it is published all around the world.”
“It is unquestionably the case that defendants in defamation proceedings will not like it. Very many of them will regard the claim as being unfair or abusive, but it is not for them to determine that. Just because a defendant thinks it is unfair that they are being sued for defamation does not mean that it is abuse of court proceedings. There will not always be interim applications. If somebody issues proceedings in the High Court against an entity - let us say a Senator is sued and they believe they are being targeted for abuse of court proceedings - the defendant in that instance can bring an application, pursuant to what is set out here, seeking to strike out the claim under section 34E or looking for a declaration under section 34F. That will be heard promptly. It will be heard before the case progresses any further.”
“It requires lawyers to carefully assess whether a case is good or not. It is fair to say that a lawyer is not going to devote a huge amount of time and energy to a case which they believe is not going to succeed if, at the end of the day, they do not get paid anything for it. Senator Byrne raised a couple of questions. The first was about the reference to the pursuit of unfounded claims in section 34A. The Senator asked if there will always be an application at the outset of defamation proceedings. The answer to that is "No". Most defamation proceedings are not black and white. Where you are dealing with strategic litigation against public participation or abuse of court proceedings, my own view is that they will be a very small element of proceedings which are issued in defamation.”
“The Senator mentioned that one cannot go to court for defamation without money. That is not my assessment of it. I am not going to read them out now, but if you look at some of the very prominent cases that have been taken in defamation in recent years, particularly when the people have been very successful in their defamation claims, very many of them have been people who were hard on their luck, did not have much money and were able to take a case because of the principle that operates for funding in most Irish litigation, which is that the solicitor will take the case on the basis of no foal, no fee. If you win the case, you get your costs; if you lose the case, you get nothing. I know people are sometimes cynical about that rule, but it is a significant aspect of funding litigation in Ireland.”
“What we have to realise is that when proceedings get before a court, every aspect of the dispute is taken into account by the court. Sometimes when it comes to drafting legislation, we should not try to be too prescriptive in what we provide or how we define bad faith. A court understands what is meant by the terms "bona fides" and "bad faith". We have to be careful about being too prescriptive in our definition. I disagree with the senior counsel who gave advice to whomever it was that every case is 50-50. Not every case is 50-50. If every case was 50-50, there would be no purpose in retaining lawyers or anyone to advocate on your behalf. There is no case which is not without risk, certainly in terms of defamation cases. It is certainly not correct to say that every case is 50-50.”
“The meaning of that statement, "Why is politician X so quiet?", in that context was indicative, and the court held it to mean that it is clearly an innuendo suggesting that he was the politician who was involved in that sexual assault. At present, in our law, innuendo is well covered. It is not just in the law at present. The Senator referred to the case of Berry v . The Irish Times . The plaintiff in that case was a former Secretary General of the Department of which I am now the Minister. That was a case that involved a photograph and a sign, a reference to him as being a modern-day felon setter. That was a case in which he ultimately succeeded. Senator Craughwell also mentioned a few other things in terms of discovery and bad faith.”