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 59 of 84.
“The specific issue identified by Deputy Murphy is the fact that, at present, the income threshold applied in order to gain access to civil legal aid is €18,000. A report I recently received from former Chief Justice Frank Clarke recommends it should be increased to €23,500 in disposable income. I agree with that recommendation and would like to see it implemented. However, there are a number of things I need to do before I can announce its implementation. In the first instance, I recognise that there has not been a change since 2006. There needs to be. Second, if I raise the threshold, which I hope to do, it will necessarily result in a larger cohort of people eligible to receive legal advice from the Legal Aid Board.”
“I thank the Deputy Murphy for this important question. As he has identified, some additional funding has been provided for legal aid in the budget announced this week. I was very pleased to secure an additional €8 million in funding for the Legal Aid Board. I also managed to secure a 50% increase in funding for free legal advice centres. As the Deputy will be aware, in order for the administration of justice to operate effectively, people must have access to the courts. In many areas, we do provide funding for access to the courts. Individuals who are prosecuted for criminal offences and who do not have means get representation under the criminal legal aid scheme. I am pleased to say I have managed to achieve the full restoration of the fees in that scheme next year, subject to agreeing a number of reforms in the area.”
“The technological advancements we are giving to the Garda such as body cameras, improvements to the fleet, helicopters and aircraft are all necessary for the people of Ireland to be kept safe by An Garda Síochána.”
“The Deputy will have seen the response from the Garda Commissioner and senior Garda management. They accept the recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is a very valuable constitutional office because those who are charged with spending public money must be aware that, if they mismanage the spending of that money, it will be exposed, discussed and debated in this House. I have emphasised to the Commissioner and senior management that they have to be extremely careful with moneys provided to them but the main portion of the money going into An Garda Síochána relates to pay, recruitment and numbers of persons within the force. That is money that is well spent.”
“When it comes to financial mismanagement in An Garda Síochána, my primary concern is highlighted by what is in the Comptroller and Auditor General's current report. I note the Deputy has referred to issues that took place back in 2016. They are of concern but my primary concern-----”
“The current Commissioner is very aware of the fact that any moneys he receives via Vote of the Oireachtas have to be spent very carefully and cautiously. However, we do need to provide resources to An Garda Síochána to improve technology. The Deputy has identified some instances where he says money has been wasted but there has also been expenditure on items that have been very beneficial to the Garda and to the public at large.”
“In respect of the issue the Deputy highlighted regarding his colleague Deputy Kenny's meeting later today, I am obviously not going to get involved in any individual investigations that may be initiated by An Garda Síochána. With regard to the other items the Deputy highlighted, I cannot shy away from the fact that there have been examples of unwise expenditure in the past. I have emphasised to the Commissioner and will emphasise again here publicly that, when Accounting Officers are spending public money, they have to ensure that it is spent carefully on behalf of the people of the country. It is essential that we do not have a situation whereby money, a valuable resource, is provided from the budget to an Accounting Officer who does not spend it carefully and cautiously.”
“It is absolutely essential that, when significant resources are provided to An Garda Síochána, those resources are used carefully. Money used to acquire resources is precious and we need to ensure the money we provide to An Garda Síochána is used for the purpose of protecting the public and keeping them safe. I was very disappointed at what I saw in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report but I am pleased that the Commissioner and An Garda Síochána have accepted all of the recommendations contained within it. I do not believe we will see such a waste of money again.”
“I have also emphasised that an area of reform I want to see is the greater use of technology by An Garda Síochána. I have secured considerable funding in the budget and in the national development plan to ensure that each member of An Garda Síochána will have access to body cameras. I want to see these rolled out rapidly next year. The Deputy focused on issues relating to Garda resources and what the Comptroller and Auditor General has correctly presented as a misuse of financial resources by An Garda Síochána. He highlighted how accommodation for the UEFA Europa League final last year was purchased at an excessive cost and that many of the rooms that were acquired at a total cost of up to €250,000 were not used. I have spoken to the Commissioner in respect of this matter.”
“I thank Deputy Kelly. I will come to the issue he focused on, which was financial concerns within An Garda Síochána, but his general question was about the reforms I am going to encourage the new Commissioner to operate or continue with. I have had many engagements with him. One of the priorities I have emphasised to him, which is a priority of my own and of Government, is that I want to see greater Garda visibility. That means having more members recruited into the force and ensuring that, when people are recruited as members of An Garda Síochána, they are out in our community and that people get to see them. It is absolutely essential for safety and the perception of safety that there is widespread Garda visibility in our towns and cities.”
“I am happy to look at the imposition of controls on persons convicted of a sexual offence who are subject to immediate release, but such a mechanism already exists in the Sex Offenders Act, which imposes very strict obligations on those convicted of sexual offences.”
“I will give consideration to the Bill but I do not want to progress legislation that is unnecessary. In circumstances where a person gets a life sentence for a very serious sexual offence such as rape, when it comes to that person's release many years later, conditions of release will be imposed upon that person. Those conditions can direct that the person shall not go anywhere near the victim or that he or she shall stay away from a town where the victim has resided. I would not like the message to go out that there is no mechanism by which the State can put in place conditions after a person has been released. As I have said, I am concerned that the legislation the Deputy is suggesting imposes an obligation that would probably not kick in until seven, ten or 12 years later.”
“The victim has to be informed when the person will be released. As well as this, we should ensure there are conditions placed on the individual from the date of release. I am concerned that imposing these restrictions at the time of conviction may not take into account the full circumstances that apply at the time of release.”
“I agree with Deputy Carthy when he says we need to empower victims. One issue I may have in respect of his legislation is that the proposal is that at the time of conviction the protection order would be placed on the individual. If we think about it, under the legislation Deputy Carthy proposes the protection order would be put in place at the same time that an individual is sentenced to ten to 15 years imprisonment for a very serious sexual offence, but it would only come into effect at the time the individual leaves prison, which could be ten, 11 or 12 years later. Conditional release and terms of release can probably be better set at the time the person is being released. Most victims would be satisfied when somebody gets a lengthy sentence and they know they will spend a lengthy period in prison.”
“I should also point out the Sex Offenders Act is in place and it provides for specific requirements regarding somebody who has been convicted of one of the offences set out in Deputy Carthy's legislation.”
“Under Part 5 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 there is capacity for an order to be granted by the court restraining an individual from approaching or coming within a certain distance of other individuals. This legislation was designed and passed as stalking legislation but it is a statutory mechanism that is in place. I should also point out we already have in our legal system protection orders in the context of domestic violence, which would cover sexual offences in many respects. Under section 10 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018 there is a provision for the granting of protection orders. Similar to the safety order, it restrains a person, meaning the respondent remains in the home but is ordered not to use violence, threats or molestations. It imposes protections on the victim.”
“I thank Deputy Carthy for his question. I did indeed have an opportunity to read the Victims of Sexual Violence Civil Protection Orders Bill he introduced to the House on 26 June. Deputy Carthy's Bill seeks to provide that at the same time as somebody is convicted of a serious sexual offence on indictment the court would impose an order restraining the person convicted of the offence from approaching the victim. It is legislation I will keep under consideration. Before I make a conclusive decision on it, I have to take into account the legislation that is there at present. I am sure he will agree there is no point in enacting legislation that simply repeats what is there in our statutory framework already.”
“I am also pleased that I have been able to provide increased funding for the Free Legal Advice Centres of 50% on last year.”
“We have also reduced the budget as a result of the good work that has been done by me and my colleagues in the Department to cut down the costs in respect of people fleeing the war in Ukraine. That budget allocation has been reduced by €170 million. I have already identified the funding that was provided in respect of Cuan. That is essential, ongoing work to ensure we combat gender-based violence. The community safety fund will have €4.75 million. That is money reinvested from the Criminal Assets Bureau back into communities. I hope shortly to be able to announce where that money will go. Also, with regard to the Courts Service, I have secured increased funding of €10.7 million. This will allow for the appointment of 20 additional judges.”
“My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Collins, will talk about youth justice and the significant amount of money that is being put into youth justice, as it is extremely important that we seek to divert young people from a pathway of criminality. A significant budget increase of over 11% for the Probation Service allows for 100 additional staff to increase supervision capacity and support the expansion of community-based sanctions as an alternative to prison. My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, will talk about the significant work that we are doing and the achievements we are making in the area of immigration. A budget of €7.5 million has been assigned to increase the number of people removed from the State through voluntary returns and enforced deportations.”
“I am pleased to say that investment of €160 million in Garda technology has been secured. This includes €19 million to begin the national roll-out of the digital evidence management system and body-worn cameras. Members will be aware that body-worn cameras are an extremely important part of the work being done by An Garda Síochána. I am pleased to say that we will be able to roll them out across the country next year. The budget will see the completion of the Bailieborough Garda station and the Drogheda property and exhibits management system, PEMS, store next year. We will see construction being advanced in other Garda stations, such as Newcastle West, Portlaoise, Macroom and Clonmel, and a new PEMS store in Tallaght.”
“Some €5 million will be provided in additional funding to support those victims. Prisons are a particularly challenging issue for me and my colleagues in the Department, and I am pleased to say we will have 250 additional staff for the prison and probation services next year. There is also an allocation of €123 million - up €27 million - to allow for full restoration of criminal legal aid fees in 2026 in conjunction with systemic reform of the criminal legal aid system. Specifically in respect of An Garda Síochána, there is €77 million in additional funding for up to 1,000 new gardaí and 200 new staff. There is also, as I said, a budget to recruit 300 new Garda reserves and also a budget of €169 million to provide the overtime I have outlined already. Garda technology is extremely important.”
“I am also pleased to announce we have secured funding to double the number of Garda reservists from 300 to 600. Recruitment in those areas is now ongoing. Garda overtime is a very important part of the budget and the reason this is so is that we need to ensure there are sufficient resources on the street with respect to visibility for An Garda Síochána. That is why I am pleased announce that 392,000 additional hours of Garda overtime will be available in 2026. I have also secured a significant capital budget of €390 million to deliver new Garda stations, courts, extra prison spaces and increased investment in cybersecurity. I am also pleased to say that €80 million will be available to support Cuan and services supporting victims and survivors of domestic violence.”
“I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. At the start, I am pleased to say that I and my colleagues, the Ministers of State, Deputies Brophy and Collins, have secured an allocation of €6.17 billion for the justice sector in this year's budget. This is a record allocation that involves a €330 million increase on last year and it will allow us to invest in a number of priority areas. One of the main areas within the justice budget is in respect of the Vote for An Garda Síochána. I am very pleased to be able to say that the funding we have secured will assist An Garda Síochána in doing the very valuable work it is required to do on behalf of the people of Ireland in order to keep them safe. Under the budget, we have secured sufficient funding for the recruitment of up to 1,000 new gardaí and 200 additional staff members.”
“I am aware that is not the intention of Senator McDowell's amendment, but taking into account what the statutory provision would allow, it would be possible, I suppose, for individuals who wanted to sue for defamation to put into their plenary summons a claim for damages for malicious falsehood. They would have to establish a basis for a malicious falsehood claim, but once they established that claim they would be able to bring a defamation action before a jury and that would be defeating the purpose of the main statutory enactment contained in this Part. Regrettably, for that reason I cannot accept the amendment. It probably would have the effect of defeating the purpose of the amendment that has already been agreed by this House.”
“All the evidence is heard, including the evidence, perhaps, in respect of the privacy action, but ultimately the judge will just determine the cause of action in respect of the privacy claim while the jury will determine it in respect of the defamation claim. As such, it is not a mischief that is unknown to the legal system and it is a mischief that is engaged and responded to by the legal system. I do not think it is necessary to bring forward this amendment and, consequently, I regret to say to Senator McDowell and his colleagues that I will be opposing it. I also have a concern that it could be used a statutory provision to ensure the intention of the Oireachtas is got around and that, in fact, for most defamation actions a plaintiff would be able to ensure trial by jury.”
“As the Senator said, he is thinking of circumstances where, for instance, somebody is assaulted, takes an action for assault, that assault action in the High Court is heard before a jury. They may also want to take a defamation action if a defamatory publication was made. Can we just assess how that would be dealt with if this amendment were not enacted? As I said earlier, we have had numerous examples of this operating where you have two different causes of action taken and only one permitting you to get a jury trial. At present, if you sue for damages for defamation and damages for breach of privacy, the latter does not give you an entitlement to a jury. What happens in general is that the plaintiff opts for a trial by jury for the defamation action.”
“I thank Senator McDowell and the other Senators for putting forward this amendment. The objective here is to try to deal with a situation which can arise when, if defamation is removed from a jury, it will still be permissible to be heard by a jury if other causes of action which are heard by juries are taken. Senator McDowell's example probably expresses it most clearly. He says if this legislation is enacted as it has been approved in the Houses up to now, the default position would be that you would not be entitled to a jury for a defamation action. However, under this amendment it is proposed that if another cause of action which gave rise to a right to a trial by jury was engaged, the defamation action could be heard by it.”
“It thought that because when you look at the context of what was going on at that time on social media, there were allegations about a prominent political figure in the House of Lords or the House of Commons being involved in child sexual abuse. With that being the background noise and a statement like that being made in the middle of everything, it does not sound as innocuous as it does now. Context is everything. When it comes to defamation, you have to identify the meaning of it. Just because it does not state that someone is a paedophile does not mean that it cannot convey that meaning quite subtly, as was done then. I am sorry to go on. I hope I have answered Senator McDowell's direct question. The answer is because the Oireachtas has designated itself. I still cannot accept the amendment.”
“If his action was to come about now, on what basis would he say that it is in the public interest for him to have a jury? Even for somebody who is not well-known, on what basis can he or she that it is in the public interest that his or her case be heard by a jury. We are not giving any guidance to the Judiciary in respect of it. Regarding what Senator Ruane said, the tweet sounds innocuous now. It stated, "Why is Lord McAlpine trending?" When it comes to a defamation statement, you look at what it means. The court at the time determined that meant that the individual was involved in child sexual abuse.”
“What is the public interest when it comes to determining whether one plaintiff gets a right to a trial by jury or not? I will mention a few historic cases. I do not like mentioning cases as Minister for justice, but they do provide an important example. There is the recent example of the former prominent politician. If he was to take his case now, on what basis would it be in the public interest for his case to be determined by a jury and why would it not be in the public interest or the interests of justice for someone else's case to be heard by a jury? There were well-known defamation cases in the past relating to a former Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas and a former Minister, namely Proinsias De Rossa. He took a case many years ago and succeeded after three jury trials.”
“As Senator McDowell knows, this is a reformulation of section 26, which I think at present is described as "Fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest". When a court is assessing that, it is looking at what the public interest is in the context of a publication that is regarded as being responsible journalism. There is no doubt as to what is the issue in terms of what is public interest when a court is considering a publication in a newspaper or a broadcast on television and they look to a story about alleged corruption in the property sector or alleged dishonesty in the legal sector. That is in the public interest because the public has a right to know about these issues. That is what public interest is when it comes to public interest journalism.”
“I am not advocating that we remove juries in criminal trials, but just because the British gave it to us does not mean it is the only example of how a case can be determined. In respect of the point about the Special Criminal Court, the point I was making was that in recent times judicial reviews have been brought of the decisions to bring a case to the Special Criminal Court. That has been determined by the courts in reserved judgments. Senator McDowell also mentioned that section 11 of the Bill has a new defence for publication on a matter of public interest. He said that public interest is not defined there and asked why we need a definition of public interest in the section subject to the amendment we are discussing now.”
“Sunday Newspapers Limited where there was a defamation action and a breach of privacy action. Both were heard together by a judge and the plaintiff succeeded extremely well in those proceedings. There was no suggestion that the plaintiff in that case was missing out. I disagree with Senator McDowell when he says he does not think judges have an open mind. Maybe I am being hard on him but that is the impression I got. Cases are decided based on the evidence that is given. We are placing too much emphasis as to who is the decision-maker when it comes to questions of fact. Of course, the right to trial by jury is fundamental in our criminal legal system. It is important to point out, however, that there are lots of parts of Europe where they do not have juries in criminal trials.”
“Either the jury hears the defamation action in the first instance, gives a judgment and then a judge deals with the privacy action. As the Senator knows, there is no right to a jury in the privacy action. The Senator will remember cases we did in terms of a right to privacy which was infringed. We did cases together where the plaintiff was vindicated. There was no jury in that case and the person who we represented got absolute legal satisfaction and justice and the breach of her privacy was recognised by the courts. The other way of dealing with it is that you just decide, as happened in other decisions that have been reported, that the defamation action is dealt with by the judge sitting alone. I do not want to mention cases, but we are allowed to refer to reported decisions. I refer the Senator to Nolan v.”
“I have not gone back and looked at the Dáil debate, but I suspect people were saying this was grossly unfair and that an unfortunate person from a disadvantaged area who was knocked down by somebody driving a Rolls Royce would have his or her case heard by judges. We have not seen the heavens fall in and people are still getting justice. We are overstating the significance of removing juries. Senator McDowell also spoke about how there will be actions where somebody is defamed at the same time as they were assaulted and that the action for assault will be heard by a jury but that the defamation action could not be heard by the jury. We have that already. There are many cases where people take actions for breach of privacy and defamation. The way it is dealt with is by one of two options.”
“In jury cases, the distinction is that there is another decision-maker when it comes to decision of fact. In the judge-alone cases, there is only a judge who will decide questions of fact and questions of law. I do not think it is illogical. The answer to the question is, "We have decided it." We, as elected representatives of the people of Ireland, who make the law in the country, are entitled to determine what types of cases should have a jury in a civil action and what types of cases should not. Back in 1988, as I said, the decision was made to get rid of juries in personal injuries actions.”
“It would apply in the same way that a woman who took a claim against her employer because she said she was sexually assaulted in the office space and she said that was a breach of her contract of employment would not have a jury for that claim. She would have a claim for damages against her employer for breach of contract in the workplace. She would not get a jury. She could also make a decision to go for an assault claim against the individual who assaulted her. However, if she was just suing her employer, the company, she would just have a claim without a jury. There are all sorts of examples of where we can show that for certain types of cases a judge will sit alone and others will have a jury. Ultimately, all cases will be decided upon the evidence that is presented.”
“I thank Senators McDowell and Ruane for their contributions. For anyone watching, it is important to point out that this is not just Senator McDowell's amendment. I do not want to give the impression that he is a lone voice here. This amendment has been put down by Senators McDowell, Boyhan, Clonan, Conway, McCarthy and Keogan. All those Senators want to retain juries in the High Court. It is important that this is publicised. Senator McDowell asked why, if somebody is assaulted by the gardaí, he or she gets a trial by jury, but if a journalist writes that the person was assaulted by the gardaí there is no trial by jury. The answer to that question is that the Oireachtas has decided that the former cause of action shall be dealt with by a jury and the latter cause shall not.”
“If we start going down that route, we are going to have a hierarchy of administration of justice in some respects such that when it comes to civil actions, a civil action with a jury is in some respects more sacrosanct or reliable than a civil action heard by a judge. They are both the High Court findings, and we need to preserve the integrity of that. With the greatest of respect to Senator McDowell, who I always listen to, I am not going to accept the amendment.”
“I do not know on what basis someone would look for a jury. That is why, historically, when we look at the other causes of action and the categorisation in the courts of justice, it is always just on the basis of what is in the schedule and the causes of action. Personal injuries are gone from juries. Breach of contract is dealt with by a judge sitting alone. Defamation is with the jury at present, and we are on the basis of this piece of legislation going to remove it into another category. Categorisation is the most appropriate way to deal with this rather than trying to do an abstract assessment as to whether it is in the interests of justice for a jury to hear a particular case.”
“In that instance, however, the basis upon which a court determines that, in fact, it is appropriate for the Special Criminal Court to hear it is that there will be both evidence and a submission from the DPP to the effect that there may be threats to the jury because of the nature of the criminal act or the involvement of the accused in certain activity that it merits there being a non-jury court. That is the evidence that is set out here in that context for a Special Criminal Court application. What is going to be the basis here for the application before the High Court to say legal representatives want a jury because their client is not popular or is popular, or do not want a jury because it is too complicated, or want a jury because it is too complicated and they think they will be able to present it in a more simple way to a jury?”
“Therefore, I do not think it is as consequential as Senator McDowell has indicated in his contribution. The motivation behind it was predominantly to speed it up and cut down on costs. My concern about Senator McDowell's amendment relates to the issues I have highlighted. How do we determine what is public interest? How do we know what is in the interests of justice when it comes to deciding whether we want a jury or not. The only other way we deal with this issue is when we use, in a criminal context, the Special criminal Court. Sometimes people challenge the fact that their claim has been dealt with by the Special Criminal Court, and they want what they regard as their constitutional right to a trial by jury in the criminal offence to operate.”
“However, we need to proceed with the Bill. It is not illogical to proceed with the removal of defamation cases from juries. It will still be the case that assault cases will be determined by juries. However, I would have thought that the most important cases that come before the High Court are constitutional actions. Constitutional actions are enormously important. A former Senator in this House, Senator Zappone, took a constitutional action; she lost. It was never suggested that she got treated unfairly or that she lost because she did not have a jury. Another former Member of this House, Senator Norris, took a very famous case here in Ireland and lost. It was never suggested that he lost because he did not have a jury. Had his case been heard before a jury, it is probably the case, regrettably, that the outcome would have been the same.”
“I do not think this is illogical, and I do not think it is going to result in unfair trials or people not getting justice. I am sure Senator McDowell will agree with me that no matter what the outcome here, if a person is a claimant taking an action in defamation before the superior courts, he or she will get justice if there is just a judge hearing it in the same way as today people get justice in the Circuit Court if they bring defamation actions. I have listened very carefully. In terms of malicious falsehood as a cause of action, people have to prove special damage. They have to actually sustain losses in respect of it. This is an issue. If I had been around when the Bill was being initiated, I probably would have put in a requirement that a cause of action and malicious falsehood would also lose the right to have a trial by jury.”
“If a person has a good defamation action, if his or her reputation has been damaged by a publication that is false, he or she will get a remedy from the courts. I generally avoid talking about myself or my past, but I was involved in defamation actions when I was a practising lawyer in front of judges sitting alone. From the point of view of the claimant, the outcome was very satisfactory. I am concerned that there is a view abroad that if judges are going to hear cases, plaintiffs will not get fairness in respect of it. That is not the case. Cases will still be heard fairly, and justice will be administered. Being blunt, the reason for this amendment, which was introduced, as I said, over a year ago when the defamation Bill was brought in to the Dáil, is for efficiency purposes and cost purposes.”
“If we go back and look at some of the recent examples, I will not mention them, but recent prominent defamation actions were heard by juries. There was one very prominent case a couple of months ago involving a retired Member of the Houses of the Oireachtas. My view is that had that case been heard by a judge sitting alone, the result would probably have been exactly the same. A judge, however, would probably award more damages. Juries, when they come to assess damages, are probably not as generous, in my assessment, as judges when it comes to the award of damages. Ultimately, cases are determined on their facts. They are not determined by whether a person got a jury for it or a judge sitting alone.”
“If a person is taking a defamation case and they believe their case is worth less than €75,000, they go to the Circuit Court. They do not get a jury in the Circuit Court. It could be a serious defamation, but because it is published to a small group of people, they may believe it is safer to go to the Circuit Court. Defamation cases are heard in the Circuit Court on a weekly basis. We cannot say that the people are not getting fair justice there. They are getting fair justice, and they are having justice administered by judges sitting alone. We need to be careful about emphasising the bias of judges. Everyone has their own prejudices. Everyone has their own personal biases, but when it comes to administering justice, every person who takes an oath has to administer and determine a case based on the facts produced before them.”
“They might be told they are better off going in front of a jury because overwhelmingly the jury is going to like and respect them. However, that gives a distortion to what the administration of justice is about. It is not the administration of popularity. Cases are not determined on the basis of who is more popular or who is less popular. Cases are determined and justice is administered on whether there has been a cause of action or a breach of a right that a claimant has and what is the remedy. We are reading too much into the presence of having a jury. No one suffers a miscarriage of justice in the civil sphere because they do not have a jury. I mentioned at the outset that we categorise causes of actions in our legislation in the Courts of Justice Act. We also categorise types of cases by thresholds.”
“Why is it in the public interest that somebody who is very unpopular generally with public should get a jury? Why is it in the public interest for somebody who is a well-known celebrity and enormously popular - I do not know who the most popular person in the country is; it might be Shane Lowry - let us say somebody who is an outstandingly popular person-----”