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 55 of 84.
“The number of appeals pending is increasing because of the number of people who arrived during the previous three years. I also recently announced that Ireland has signed an operational plan with the European Agency for Asylum, EUAA. I know this will provide us with great support. Under the agreement, up to 30 new personnel from that association will assist us in our supports. That is about the processing of international protection applications. I cannot ignore the fact that approximately 81% of applications are rejected at first instance. Approximately 70% to 76% of those refusals are appealed but even on appeal, only 25% to 30% of appeals are granted. I cannot shy away from the fact that the majority of people who apply for international protection are refused.”
“Let us be clear that the policy objective of the Government is to ensure that by the middle of June 2026, applications for international protection made after that date will be processed extremely quickly; within 12 weeks, including the appeals process. I think that is a fair system. I know others in the House may think it is unfair to process applications with such speed but I disagree. My view, and the policy I am seeking to set out, is that it is fairer on everyone concerned if we can get a determination in respect of applications promptly and within the 12-week period. A person who brings an application before the IPO has an entitlement to appeal a decision to IPAT. At the end of 2024 there were 9,700 appeals pending; as of now there are nearly 17,000 appeals pending. We are getting through the appeals faster this year than last year.”
“It will seek to put in place a requirement, imposed on me, on my office and on the appeals process, that we determine applications within a period of 12 weeks. That is something people may think cannot be achieved but I am pleased to tell this House that since July of this year we have been running a pilot project within the IPO and the International Protection Appeals Tribunal, IPAT, which has been assessing applications from three countries - Georgia, Brazil and India - to see whether we can fulfil our time obligations that will kick in during June of next year. I am pleased to say that pilot has been successful. We have seen over 300 decisions from applicants from those countries which have gone through first stage, the appeals stage, and in many instances deportation orders signed, within a period of 12 weeks.”
“We have seen an increase in the number of staff at the IPO, but we also seen an increase in the use of ICT and technology. It is now a paperless office. The Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and I have visited the IPO and we have seen that it is run extremely efficiently. We can see the benefit of further investment in the IPO in the numbers of decisions it is making each year. Last year it delivered 14,000 first decisions, compared with 8,500 in 2023. Already this year we have seen 16,600 decisions. I am confident that by the end of this year we will see the IPO produce 20,000 decisions. This is achieving the policy objective that the Minister of State and I have set. We want to see applications determined more quickly and efficiently. Later this year or early next year I will bring a new international protection Bill before the House.”
“Each individual who comes to Ireland and claims asylum, or international protection as it is more formally called, will have an interview in the IPO. Their account will be appraised by an officer and a determination will be made in respect of it. My predecessor started the process of improving the numbers within the IPO and I commend her on doing so. There were 143 IPO staff in 2019 and I am pleased to say that today there are 620, which is an increase of 334%. It is extremely important for people who come and make an application for international protection to have their applications dealt with promptly. It is fairer for them to have their applications dealt with promptly and it is fairer for the Irish system as well.”
“I urge people to ensure we do not allow extremists and people involved in criminal activity to dictate and mould how we will respond in terms of policy to the issues raised in respect of international protection. It is important not only that we condemn those acts but also that we do not permit the individuals who were behind perpetrating them to have any belief that their actions will mould or change our behaviour. In terms of the processing of international protection applications, it is obviously the case that if 18,500 people come to Ireland claiming international protection, as was the case last year, it will be a very significant job to process those applications. That processing is done by my Department through the International Protection Office, IPO.”
“We then saw serious acts of violence and rioting committed against members of An Garda Síochána and attempts were made to attack and cause damage to the centre in Citywest. Last weekend, we saw the reprehensible act of an individual trying to set a building on fire in the knowledge that there were people in that building. Let us be honest about it: that was an attempted murder if ever I saw one, in terms of the consequences of a fire going up on that stairwell. I refer to those three reprehensible acts because it is extremely important that in this House we do not allow that extreme behaviour or the criminal acts of others to dictate our policy when it comes to international protection. I know all of us in this House will be outraged by the acts I have recounted.”
“In fact, in truth, we were not able to provide accommodation for everyone. That is the important architecture in understanding the system of international protection. I also want to say something at this stage, in parenthesis if I can, about events that have taken place over the past two weeks. We have seen some reprehensible acts over the past two weeks. I mention them not just for the purpose of condemnation but also for the purpose of communicating a message. We saw approximately two weeks ago an allegation of serious sexual assault against a child being made against a person who had applied for international protection and had been refused but was still being accommodated within an International Protection Accommodation Services, IPAS, centre.”
“People who are rejected at first instance must be given the capacity for appeal. Unquestionably, what puts tension and pressure on the Irish system of governance is the fact that we must provide accommodation. When, prior to Covid, we were processing 2,000, 3,000 or 4,000 applications per year, we are able to do so. In fact, the criticism at the time was that direct provision centres were not suitable enough and needed to be improved, and unquestionably they did. That was the political argument at that stage. In 2022, 2023 and 2024, because of the numbers arriving in, there was a crisis in the system. That is unquestionably the case and neither I or the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, would have any hesitancy in saying that the surge in numbers created a crisis. It was extremely difficult to provide accommodation for every person.”
“What does, however, distinguish international protection applications from other individuals who are coming to Ireland on a work or holiday visa is that in the context of international protection, we have obligations to fulfil. The two most prominent obligations are to provide a place of accommodation for people who come here claiming international protection and to process their applications. The reason we have to do that is that it is not the case that simply because somebody claims to be entitled to international protection, they are so entitled. Every country in the European Union and the world has a system in place for the purpose of appraising and assessing those applications to determine whether they are valid or should be rejected. In each European Union country, there is an obligation to provide an appeal mechanism.”
“I just wanted to set those statistics in context because it is important that we do not allow the discussion about international protection to be viewed solely as the cause of immigration in Ireland or as what it is being generated by; it is not. There is a whole variety of other reasons people are coming into Ireland. Most of them are coming in to work. The Minister of State has responsibility for the visa systems. Last year, we issued approximately 150,000 visas for people to come to Ireland, many of them to work. Many of them come for holidays and the short term. It is important that we understand and get a sense of the proportion of people coming here to seek international protection in the context of general immigration.”
“In 2024, 18,500 people arrived to Ireland claiming international protection. During 2022, 2023 and 2024, in the region of 44,000 or 45,000 people came into Ireland and claimed international protection. At the same time, we were also providing temporary protection to people who were fleeing the war in Ukraine. I will not go into the details of the distinction between temporary protection and international protection but obviously it is known that when it comes to temporary protection, people similarly are entitled to come here for that purpose. A significant number of people came into Ireland claiming either international protection or permanent protection on the basis of what was happening in Ukraine and, indeed, what was happening internationally.”
“Those consisted of 34,700 Irish citizens, 10,600 other EU citizens, 3,000 UK citizens and 21,500 other citizens, including Ukrainians. It is important to set out those figures for the numbers coming to and leaving Ireland before we come to assess and appraise the figures in respect of international protection. Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, the number of people coming into Ireland were approximately 3,000 to 4,000 each year. The numbers obviously dropped significantly in 2020 and 2021 because of the travel ban and the impact of Covid restrictions. I think 1,500 and 2,500, respectively, came into Ireland in 2020 and 2021. There was then a significant increase in the numbers coming in in 2022 and 2023. In fact, in each of those years 13,500 people arrived to Ireland claiming international protection.”
“On immigration generally, I would like to put on the record some of the statistics in respect of the numbers of people who came into Ireland so we can assess the numbers of people coming in and claiming international protection. The Central Statistics Office, CSO, produces finely tuned statistics on the matter. For the year ending April 2024, the CSO recently recorded that 149,200 people immigrated into Ireland. Of those, 30,000 were returning Irish citizens, 27,000 were other EU citizens, 5,400 were UK citizens and approximately 86,800 were citizens of other countries, including Ukraine. I will return to that issue presently. Those were the numbers who came into Ireland. Of course, people leave each year. Approximately 70,000 people left Ireland in the year ending April 2024.”
“We need to put the numbers of people coming in and claiming asylum into the context of the general figures for immigration in Ireland. In doing that, and in forming that context, I always go back to the population of the island that existed 185 years ago in 1840. The population of Ireland before the Famine was 8 million. The devastation of the Famine is evident from the fact that today on the island of Ireland we have not yet got back to those figures. What we have noticed in recent years, and this is particularly aligned with our economic success and the attractiveness of Ireland as a country, is that immigration has increased significantly. If I had to choose between the population of Ireland going up or down, I would favour the former. We saw what happened for many years when the population was declining and it can destroy a country.”
“When we talk about international protection, we are talking about the term that is used for the purpose of describing individuals fleeing war and persecution. The term "international protection" became common in usage within the European Union. For the purpose of trying to identify what are the laws in Ireland governing international protection, I refer people to the International Protection Act 2015. As Members will be aware, that legislation, in effect, transposes into Irish law the directives and regulations in respect of international protection that were agreed to and introduced by the European Union. It is important at the outset that we understand by "international protection". The reason I wanted to make that opening comment is international protection is only an element, a proportion, of immigration into Ireland.”
“Both I and the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, very much welcome the opportunity to discuss in Dáil Éireann the processing and enforcement of international protection. It is important to emphasise what, in fact, is meant by "international protection". It is sometimes confused with other areas of immigration. "International protection" is the term that we use to describe those people who come to countries such as Ireland, or indeed any other country, because they say that they are fleeing persecution or war. It derives from the 1951 Geneva Convention, which was put in place in the aftermath of the Second World War when we saw very many examples of people being persecuted in countries or having to flee war because of events outside their control.”
“The fact that he came to Dublin today for a meeting is indicative of how seriously he takes it, and the fact that I and the Minister, Deputy Browne, met him is indicative of how seriously we take it. I hope there will be a solution in the short term, and we can look at other matters in the longer term in due course.”
“I appreciate the importance of it. I certainly want to see it continue. With regard to what has happened with the funding, the funding had originally been provided, and is still being provided, by the Department of housing under the regeneration projects in Limerick. In fairness to the Minister, Deputy Browne, his Department indicated a number of years ago that it would be gradually reducing the moneys provided for the scheme, so it was flagged a number of years before now. As Minister for justice, I obviously want to try to ensure that the wishes of the Garda continue to operate. I know the Garda wants the cameras to continue and I know the Mayor of Limerick wants them to continue but, at present, I cannot identify a funding source within the Government that is available. We had a good meeting with Mayor Moran, however.”
“He is fully aware and, I think, committed to ensuring that it stays there. I also agree with him that An Garda Síochána wants these cameras to remain, as they are of significant use to it. All I will say to the Senator at this stage is I hope a solution will be found to ensure the ongoing funding. I cannot give her a commitment in respect of that yet but I know Mayor Moran is very much engaged in that issue. We had a meeting today and I would like to see a resolution agreed in respect of the matter.”
“I am fully aware that CCTV is important. It is very much going to be centrally part of the local community safety partnerships that have been established throughout the country. It is also the case that under the Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Act 2023, the Garda Commissioner will have a significant role to play in the approval of CCTV schemes into the future. I am aware that many public representatives in Limerick are concerned about the issue the Senator is highlighting here. For instance, I had a meeting earlier on today with the Mayor of Limerick, Mr. John Moran. I thank him for coming up. There was a meeting between Mayor Moran, the Minister, Deputy Browne, and me. I hope it will be possible for the CCTV scheme to continue to operate as it has done over the past decade. As I said, we had a very good meeting with Mayor Moran.”
“As the Senator will be aware, the day-to-day funding of those CCTV schemes has, for many years, come from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and is part of the regeneration projects in Limerick, with a significant contribution also being made, I have to say, by Limerick City and County Council. I understand the CCTV system concerned consists of approximately 240 cameras, which is a very significant number of cameras, and that operating costs for 2024 were over €800,000. As such, the infrastructure in place in Limerick is well outside the scope of the grants administered by my Department. The type of CCTV funding that is provided by the Department of justice is for community-based CCTV cameras and schemes that have got grants of up to €40,000 for capital expenditure and up to €5,000 for maintenance under the scheme.”
“An Garda Síochána has certain cameras that it puts in place and that it requires. They are of great assistance to it in combating crime. The particular type of CCTV camera the Senator referenced is one that was established under the regeneration programme in Limerick around ten years ago, which was part of a much broader initiative to improve the quality of life of local communities in Limerick. I note what the Senator said about the communities in Moyross and other areas, about how they are very dependent upon these CCTV cameras.”
“I thank Senator Ryan for raising this important matter. I am fully aware of her interest in CCTV cameras in Limerick. The matter is extremely important, as she stated. One of the things I, as Minister for justice, am seeking to do is ensure that people feel safe in their communities, whether that is in Limerick or in any other part of the country. It is unquestionably the case that where people have CCTV cameras, they feel a greater sense of security. It is unquestionably the case that the presence of cameras deters criminal activity and antisocial behaviour. I am well aware of the important role CCTV cameras play in trying to combat crime and antisocial behaviour. As the Senator is aware, there are a variety of CCTV cameras that operate throughout our communities, and not just in Limerick.”
“That, eventually when we get to it, is apparent from the new statutory scheme I am introducing later in this Bill. There was mention of emails coming in making outrageous allegations. Unfortunately, we live in a world where lots of people produce crazy defamatory publications about people. If it is published to one person it is defamatory, but because of the proliferation of defamatory publications a lot of us do not bother doing anything about them. I used to think people believed everything they read but as time goes on, people are becoming more discerning and they recognise not everything they read is true. I will push section 11 to a vote.”
“It is part of the consequence of defamation that is not really recognised in our statutory scheme. There have been prosecutions for the release of information from An Garda Síochána about investigations. There have also been convictions. The Senator spoke about social media and said there are outrageous publications on social media. That is the case. In many instances, if somebody wants to get information about the publisher on social media, at present they have to go court to get a Norwich Pharmacal order to get the details. Like the Senator said, they can use whatever name they want. Ultimately, people will still have to apply to the social media company to get the details identifying the publisher. Social media companies say that has to be through a court process because they want the protection of a court process.”
“It shows the usefulness of the Upper House that we are having a very detailed discussion about this. I also note what Senator McDowell said about Report Stage. I did not know that. I am not guaranteeing anything but I will consider whether amendments can be tabled to take into account what Senators said. I want to clarify for Senator Craughwell that I did not say it was in the public interest that the Garda investigation would get into the public domain. I said the defence of truth allowed it as a defence to say there was a Garda investigation. I recognise that can be a breach of statute and a criminal offence. It can also constitute a breach of a person's privacy. Senator Craughwell spoke about the impact on families. That is certainly the case.”
“I note Senator McDowell said not one comment on this debate had been published. That is reflective of the fact that newspapers do not have to be objective or cover debates one may believe are important but they decide, for their own interests, they do not wish to cover.”
“The last is, "in all of the circumstances of the case, it was fair and reasonable to publish the statement." The new provision states, "the defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement was in the public interest". I will reflect on that to see whether it is necessary to include the word "fairly" again. It is also important to note that subsection 2 of the proposed new section 26 says that for the purposes of determining whether or not the defendant reasonably believed publishing the statement was in the public interest, that belief must be "arrived at after the making of such enquiries and checks as it was reasonable to expect of the defendant." It is not a million miles away from what is there at present but it is an effort to make it more manageable.”
“At present, it says it is a defence to prove that: ( a ) the statement in respect of which the action was brought was published (i) in good faith ... That is in the new provision as well. In the course of, or for the purpose of, the discussion of a subject of public interest is also in the new provision. The Act continues, "the discussion of which was for the public benefit". That has been removed. I think the reason, as I explained earlier in response to Senator Ruane, is it makes it very complicated to have that addition. The third comparison is, "in all of the circumstances of the case, the manner and extent of publication of the statement did not exceed that which was reasonably sufficient". That is not included in the new one.”
“While there have been many defamation claims and many examples of where section 26 has been pleaded and relied upon, it is surprising we are not able to identify one example of where it succeeded. It is important to note the justice committee made a recommendation in its report that section 26 be simplified. I know what Senator McDowell said about the Dáil being quiet about it but it had an opportunity - in pre-legislative scrutiny or in the review of the Oireachtas committee's report - to look at this. I will compare section 26(1) as it exists at present with the new section 26. The substance of the current law is set out in section 26(1). Section 26(2) just provides examples the court should take into account. Section 26(3), I think, says something that does not necessarily have to be said. The substance of the defence is section 26(1).”
“It is hard to give examples of the type of defence that would operate or how it would successfully operate. I do not like referring to cases particularly as Minister for justice but as I said earlier, the BBC did not succeed in its defence in the case brought against it by Gerry Adams. There have to be some cases out there that will get the benefit of section 26. It has not happened to date. If it has been there for 14 or 15 years, it is surprising that there has not been a successful vindication of that defence to date. I note what Senator Mullen said in respect of that. It is not the same as saying there has not been a prosecution and it is not working.”
“We talked about the person in the room on his own with his computer. If he complies with the test, prepares a well-researched publication, makes the necessary inquiries and checks that are reasonable to expect of the defendant and what he is publishing is on a matter of public interest, if he reasonably believed publishing the statement was in the public interest and if the statement was published in good faith, notwithstanding the fact that he is up in an attic, he will get the benefit of that defence. He should be entitled to that defence in the same way as an editor of a newspaper sitting in a larger office will be entitled to the benefit of the defence as well. We cannot assume that just because someone is a solitary sole operator, their intentions will be malign. The test should apply across the board.”
“We will come back to that. Part of the reason the media in Ireland are responsible and careful is the defamation laws, which have had a positive impact on Irish journalism and media. You know if you read something in a respected Irish newspaper that it is, to a large extent, true and if they get it wrong, that will be established fairly promptly. I note Senator McDowell's point about the Press Council. It is preferable if the new section 26 is not just limited to people who decide to become part of the Press Council. We need to ensure that if there is a statutory defence available, it should be broadly available to anyone who comes within the parameters of the defence. It is important we do not limit this defence to journalists. We all know the world is extending; there are activists and people involved in academia.”
“Newspapers should also recognise that there is an obligation on this House to respect and vindicate the good names of individuals. In general, we have a responsible media. I am not including social media. We do not see the type of wild stories sometimes referred to in the debate here or elsewhere such as X is a child abuser. That does not happen in media in Ireland.”
“I do not think there is any downside to hearing feedback from practitioners. I am well aware, as is everyone else in this House, that when you get a communication or representation from an entity - as Members of the Oireachtas, we all get a lot of them - they all come with their own agenda. I am fully aware that newspapers have an agenda and it is to ensure they can have greater flexibility to publish and they want greater defences when it comes to defamation claims. Just because they have an agenda does not mean I cannot agree with part of it. I have to try to balance the right to protect one's good name and the right to freedom of expression. I will not allow myself to be planted into one group exclusively or the other.”
“He is one of the finest defamation solicitors we have in the country. I also recognise what he said in respect of stakeholders. It is a term I use and it is probably one of these words you find yourself having to use when you become Minister. When it comes to any legislation, however, the real stakeholders are the citizens of Ireland, whose representatives are in this House and the Lower House. The primary stakeholders and the people who determine law are the elected representatives. It is nonetheless the case, however, that many individuals will have an involvement in particular aspects of legislation. It is unquestionably the case that newspapers, the NUJ and lawyers, in their capacity as representatives of litigants, will have an ongoing interest and involvement in this matter.”
“Yes. I will go back and reflect on it. I like the idea of having a provision that is just reflective of section 26(1). Section 26(2) makes it a complicated and difficult statutory defence to operate. I hear what the Senator said in respect of section 26(3). My assessment in that regard is that it will not mean that if someone does not reply, it is an inference that they are happy with it. That is not the case. If the Senator looks at the provision that will be inserted in section 26, it states that where “such enquiries and checks as it was reasonable to expect of the defendant.” That means something. Reasonable inquiries and checks must be made by the defendant seeking to verify the truth of the story. I agree with the Senator in respect of his comments about Mr. Robert Dore.”
“Senator McDowell recommended the removal of section 26(1)(c) of the Defamation Act 2009. I know he is just putting this forward as a recommendation and I will consider it. Section 26(1)(c) imposes the requirement on the publication that, “in all the circumstances of the case, it was fair and reasonable to publish the statement.” I wish the Senator to note, however, if that is removed, my understanding is that all of section 26(2) would be removed because it states: “For the purposes of this section, the court shall, in determining whether it was fair and reasonable to publish the statement concerned, take into account such matters as the court considers relevant including any or all of the following------”
“They are entitled to put forward opinions that other people disagree with. Senator Mullen mentioned the case of Fr. Kevin Reynolds. That is an example of someone who was the subject of a significant, damaging and defamatory story, who did not have much wealth or influence, but was able to vindicate his good name because of the defamation laws. That will not change under the current legislation. Senator McDowell came in and he started by mentioning a third form of canine that has been mentioned today, although I will not get into that. He probably makes a valid point in stating that, with juries gone, section 26 will probably become more navigable. The judge hearing the case will be able to apply and operate the difficult statutory scheme in a more navigable way than would be the case with a jury.”
“Senator Mullen also mentioned “watchdoggery”, and he referred to “selective watchdoggery”. It is unquestionably the case that newspapers in Ireland do not have to be impartial or objective. There is no requirement on any newspaper to be impartial or objective. They can be as completely biased as they want to be. That obviously applies to online publications as well. The only time the State imposes an obligation on a publisher or broadcaster to be impartial and objective is when it is providing them with a licence. The Broadcasting Act imposes obligations on broadcasters to ensure impartiality and fairness in the treatment and broadcast of current affairs. We have to recognise that newspaper can have a political agenda that suits them. They do not have to be fair or unbiased.”
“What we are seeking to do here is to say that they do not have to identify which one of the disputing Ministers or officers in the statutory body is correct. It does not have to be checked whether the publisher is making efforts to figure out the truth of it. The story and the fact that there is this dispute is in itself in the public interest. It should be reported without the necessity, as is generally the case, of verifying the truth of the imputation conveyed by it. Obviously, the truth of the imputation by the Minister in my example is that the other Minister had been involved in wrongdoing by seeking to meet this other person whom the other Minister denies meeting. The purpose behind the drafting of this provision can, therefore, be seen. It is designed to deal with disputes that clearly have to be in the public interest.”
“Indeed, Senator McDowell asked what we are talking about with this subsection. We are trying to provide some form of statutory protection to the reporting of a circumstance such as the following example. I will use the example of a dispute in the Government between two Ministers, where one Minister says he believes the other Minister met a specific individual while fulfilling a part of his ministerial functions, while the other Minister denies this. There is a significant dispute between these two Ministers in respect of this matter. From a newspaper’s point of view, it is in the public interest that it be able to report the fact that there is an ongoing dispute between two Ministers. It could alternatively be between two senior officials in a statutory body. The newspaper’s ability to report on the matter is in the public interest.”
“The purpose behind this, however, is to provide some broader protection where the substance of the story is true but one part of it is wrong in circumstances where the publisher has gone to significant lengths to ensure the story is properly inquired into and investigated. Senator Mullen also spoke about section 26(3) and expressed concern about the fact that, “the court shall, in determining whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe that publishing the statement was in the public interest, disregard any omission of the defendant to take steps to verify the truth of the imputation conveyed by it.” This is in respect of defamation action brought where there was an accurate and impartial account of a dispute. In the first instance, it has to be an accurate and impartial account of a dispute.”
“For example, by looking at the performance of functions of a statutory agency, a newspaper or broadcaster might have been able to establish there were deficiencies in what a statutory agency was doing, it was not fulfilling its statutory role and that was having a significant negative impact on the public. Clearly, that is a story that is in the public interest. However, within the story, they may have stated something that was not correct in respect of, say, an official at senior management level within the statutory agency or someone on the board of the statutory agency. That may be troubling for that individual who could say they were not responsible for any of that.”
“As I said at the outset, it is there to ensure that some level of protection is given to articles published in the public interest in respect of which the publisher has gone to lengths to ensure they have checked their sources and verified the story. Senator Mullen asked me to provide an example of where this section would apply. As Senator McDowell mentioned, section 26 was invoked unsuccessfully in the case involving Mr. Gerry Adams. You could certainly think of situations where a broadcaster or a newspaper has carried out a thorough investigation into something that is clearly in the public interest.”
“This is part of the reason we have removed the section regarding publication being of public benefit also. I will now deal with what Senator Mullen stated in his contribution. Senator Mullen spoke about section 26 operating in a preventative way and that he wished to ensure it continues to operate in that preventative way. That is not the intention of the section, however. It is not there to prevent stories being published. There are other aspects of defamation law to deal with that. We have the provision dealing with a defamatory statement where something is said that lowers a person’s reputation and the right of reasonable members of society. The rest of the Act sets out the protections for the right to one’s good name. Section 26 is not supposed to be there to prevent people publishing stories.”
“Obviously, if somebody does not issue a defamation claim but decides to go down the route of the Press Council, the Press Council can require the publisher to issue a right of reply. There is also a provision in the Defamation Act that is not affected by this Bill, which refers to the right to make amends, whereby a defendant can say they have made amends to the person who was defamed. Senator Ruane asked about the public interest and how the legislation discusses whether something is for the public benefit or in the public interest. The new provision simply limits this to the public interest. We are better off not having different types of standards such as public benefit and public interest. I am trying to simplify the section 26 defence.”
“A man who was a prisoner in Cork Prison with a conviction for serious assault was identified in a newspaper as being in a section of the prison that accommodated persons who were guilty of sexual assault. He took an action in defamation and he succeeded and was awarded significant damages. It is certainly the case in my opinion and my experience that people who have convictions and people who were or are prisoners are just as entitled to take defamation claims as anyone else. Obviously, their reputation is damaged as result of getting a criminal conviction but this does not mean they have lost their reputation completely. There are different gradations in terms of damage to reputation. Senator Ruane also asked about the right of reply.”
“If an employer knows in fact that the employee was involved in bullying or harassment but decides in order to get them off the books to give them a good reference, the only liability that arises there is that the new employer may have an action in negligence against the old employer who gave what was an inaccurate and dishonest reference. Senator Ruane also asked about more vulnerable people. My experience is that very many people who fit within the description of vulnerable people have taken defamation actions and have succeeded in them. Certainly I am aware of very many people with criminal convictions who have taken defamation claims and have succeeded in those defamation claims. There is also a reported judgment, to which I am entitled to refer as a result of this, in Hill v . Cork Examiner Publications Limited.”