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 64 of 84.
“I thank Deputy Gogarty and members of the Independent Technical Group for tabling this motion on antisocial behaviour. I am very aware of the impact that antisocial behaviour - many times it is criminal behaviour - has on individuals living in local communities. Regrettably, it appears to be the case that significant numbers of people who are engaged in antisocial behaviour, or the criminal behaviour I was talking about, are under the age of 18, which we refer to as children in our law. Notwithstanding that, the effects of antisocial behaviour are significant and the effects of criminal activity by children can be very specific and significant.”
“That is a matter of concern to me and I know it is a matter of concern to everybody in this House. The response to that is difficult because predominantly it is coming from youths who are under 18 years of age. We need to think we have an education obligation in respect of it. It is a societal response. We need to recognise and emphasise to people that in a republic, it is abhorrent that we would seek to criticise or discriminate against somebody because of their inherent characteristics, such as race. It has been a good debate.”
“Very few applicants are made for international protection in Dublin Airport at present. Most of the applications are made directly at the IPO office. It is a real challenge to us in terms of the asylum sphere. We are hugely impacted by what happens in the UK. We have done migration pretty well in Ireland. Anybody who goes to sports matches they will see young kids playing. We can see the diversity of groups of people who are playing sports as youngsters now. We see it throughout our community. We have done it well. Sometimes we need to give ourselves a bit of credit for it. Notwithstanding that, one of the messages that has hit me from this debate is that there is a general recognition by TDs, and this regrettably is something I have come to the view of as well, that there is a rise in racist, abusive people in Ireland.”
“People will say that we are damaging the education sector by reducing numbers. Every action has a reaction, but we are in an unusual position. We have handled migration pretty well in Ireland. We are only used to it for 27 or 28 years. When I was growing up, people were emigrating. I wish to pick Deputy Carthy up on one point. He said emigration from Ireland was due to the policies of Irish Governments. From 1841 onwards when the population started to declining, I think the British Government has a bit of responsibility for that as well, certainly prior to independence. On the numbers coming in, there is a significant number with international protection. The predominant route is that people are coming from the UK into Northern Ireland and claiming their asylum this way. Deputy O'Flynn referred to people arriving at the airport.”
“However, it is worth emphasising that the people who come here predominantly are coming here on work visas. They are wanted in the multinational sector to work. They are wanted in our hospitals. They are wanted in our construction sector. It is creating challenges because of the rise in the population. As I said at the outset, the population is increasing seven times faster than the EU average. The population increased by approximately 100,000 last year. As Deputy Fitzmaurice said, it is obviously putting pressures on the system, but if we are going to reduce the numbers, there are ways I can do it. I was interested that Deputy Carthy said we should reduce student numbers. That is something I will look at with regard to students coming in. However, there will be consequences to that.”
“We need to have an agreed position and co-operation between ourselves and other European Union countries. If we do not, we are going to find ourselves in the same way that Britain finds itself in at present. It finds itself in a situation where it thought that by leaving the European Union it was going to be able to resolve the issue it had in respect of migration. In fact, the issues that were a concern to it have got considerably worse since it left the European Union. It has no mechanism to engage with other European Union countries in trying to ensure that there are arrangements in place to deal with people. It is regrettable that I am spending time on the issue of international protection because it is a small part of our migration.”
“The way they do that is by bringing in legislation to amend the International Protection Act 2015 that is already in place. A number of Deputies also criticised the European migration pact and said it is an interference with Irish sovereignty. When it comes to refugees, we have signed up to the 1951 Refugee Convention. It will not come as a surprise, but that is under pressure internationally. Ireland has complied with it and continues to comply with it. We comply with our international obligations when it comes to refugee applications. However, when looking at trying to deal with the movement of people internationally, it is apparent that the majority of people coming to Ireland to claim asylum are coming through other European countries, and indeed, ultimately, the vast majority are coming through the UK.”
“If we do not have rules, it is going to be arbitrary. People will be coming to me saying: "Will you let this person in? This is a fine person; could you allow them to have asylum?" That is not a system that is going to operate effectively. I think I am, and Ireland is, a compassionate country. If we look in comparison to how some other European Union countries treat asylum applicants, we are very compassionate. The word has to get out that in Ireland we have a system, it is based on rules and as Minister I am going to apply those rules. If Members of this House, and they are entitled to, want to change the rules, reduce the rules or make them more amenable to people getting around them, there is a method of doing that.”
“The vast majority of people coming here are on visas, to work and as students. It is also lawful for a person to come here to claim asylum. As Deputy Gibney referenced, people do not have a right to asylum, but they do have a right to claim asylum. I am conscious that when I opened this debate, one thing I wanted to emphasise is that the system I want to see applied is a rules-based system. I want to re-echo that message. Members of the Social Democrats were critical and thought I did not display a compassionate enough response in dealing with persons who were seeking asylum. I do not purport to claim that I have more compassion or less compassion than anyone else in the House. When it comes to applying an international protection system, or indeed a migration system, we have to have rules.”
“I will be before Deputy Carthy's committee next week when it comes to discussing IPAS in more detail, but it is important that we have a context as to the reason for contracts being entered into. I am conscious that Deputy O'Gorman must have had a challenging job when in office between 2022 and 2024 in trying to provide accommodation. It is certainly the case, and I will not elaborate on them now, that I introduced changes to system that will ensure that we are going to get better value for money. A number of individuals spoke about the issue of international protection and asylum applicants. As I said at the outset, it is important to recognise that the number of people coming here seeking asylum, although it has grown significantly in the past three years, is a smallish percentage of the number of people coming to Ireland as migrants.”
“Deputy Carthy mentioned and emphasised the issue about the IPAS centres, and indeed, many Sinn Féin Members in their speeches referred to "profiteering" and too much money being spent on IPAS centres. As Deputy Dolan said, I am extremely concerned about that is being spent on IPAS centres, but I ask Members to reflect on the fact that we were dealing with a crisis situation in 2022, 2023 and 2024. In those years, 45,000 people arrived seeking asylum, but on top of that 100,000 people arrived from Ukraine who were granted temporary protection. That is a figure of around 145,000 people who came in and we had to accommodate. Necessarily, that put huge pressure on the system.”
“One of the aspects of the debate that is agreed across the House is that racism is unacceptable. We saw it in the attacks that were perpetrated on members of the Indian community. As I said to the Indian community, I do not think they were targeted because they are members of the Indian community; regrettably they were targeted in many instances simply because they were migrants. Everyone in this House condemns those attacks. It is worthwhile that the message goes out to the public at large that we stand together in our condemnation of them. It is also apparent in listening to the various contributions that people come to this debate about migration with different political viewpoints. Many Members raised a number of issues that I will deal with briefly.”
“I thought that was a very worthwhile debate. I stayed for the whole debate and I listened to the 21 TDs who contributed. I took notes of what everyone said. In the limited time, I will not be able to go through what each Deputy said, but I listened very carefully. It is apparent that there are a couple of things that everyone in this House agrees on. It is worth emphasising that. There is a benefit in having this debate. If this Chamber does not debate contentious and divisive issues such as migration, then the word will go out that they will not even talk about it in the Dáil. I welcome the fact that we had a respectful debate here this afternoon. Everyone felt they were able to contribute and I listened carefully to the views that were expressed here.”
“The Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, will speak in detail about that issue of accommodation. There is a policy in the Department at present to try to reduce the costs of international protection accommodation. The main way of doing this, and we cannot sugar-coat it any other way, is through the numbers of people arriving into Ireland claiming asylum. We need to get those numbers down. I say this in the knowledge that of the people who arrived in 2025 and claimed asylum over 80% have been rejected in the first instance. We need to recognise that fact.”
“I will give some of the statistics because it is important for the context of this debate. In 2019, a total of 4,700 people arrived seeking international protection in Ireland. Obviously, during the Covid years of 2020 and 2021, the numbers were small at 1,500 and 2,600 but then in 2022 and 2023 we had 13,500 people applying for international protection in each of those years. Last year 18,500 people applied. The numbers have reduced this year but the consequence of high numbers of people coming in seeking international protection is that there is an obligation on the State, as there is on other EU countries, to provide accommodation for persons who are coming in here. That has been a politically contentious issue and has given rise to concern in communities.”
“We have seen that since the war in Ukraine, approximately 114,000 beneficiaries of temporary protection have arrived in Ireland. They have been granted temporary protection here. The number has declined noticeably since those people arrived and at present 80,000 PPS numbers remain active for beneficiaries of temporary protection as of March 2025. That is one type of migration into Ireland, which is temporary protection. Then there are international protection applications. That is probably the type of migration that gets most of the coverage even though accounts only for a not small but limited percentage of the numbers of people arriving in Ireland. It is true that in recent years the number of people applying for international protection has increased significantly.”
“However, those people need to recognise that there is a process in place. It is a rules-based system and those rules need to be applied. Therefore, the main type of migration into Ireland is visa-granted migration and I have provided the statistics. There are two other types of migration into Ireland which have got significant attention in recent times. The first is temporary protection. As Deputies will be aware, for the first time, when Russia invaded Ukraine back in 2022, the European Union triggered the temporary protection directive. The effect of that was that individuals who left Ukraine after the date of that war and went to another EU country could apply for temporary protection. If they received temporary protection it would entitle them to apply for access to accommodation and give them access to the work force as well.”
“Of those 201,000 applications, 150,000 visas were granted. Many of those visas are short-term visas - some are nine-month visas - but there is also a significant number which are student visas. Approximately 61,000 student permissions, as I call them, were issued in 2024. To date, in 2025, there are more applications that are coming in for visa-sought migration. The Department of justice has got much more efficient in considering and processing visa applications and I am pleased to say it is much faster than it was. Nonetheless, each visa application has to be considered carefully. I know sometimes this can create annoyance in the House and Deputies frequently come to me asking me to speed up a visa application. I have no objection to people doing that, by the way, as it is part of my function.”
“Of those, 34,700 were Irish citizens; 27,000 were EU citizens; 5,400 were UK citizens; and 21,500 were citizens from other countries. It is important we get that demographic context out there for the purpose of discussing migration. As I say, it is a positive news story that in Ireland we have changed the narrative from people leaving the country and having to go elsewhere to get their successful life to people who now want to come in to Ireland. The reason they want to come in is because we are a very successful country and a very successful economy. The majority of the people who come into Ireland come in on the basis of visas that have been granted by my Department. In 2024, there were approximately 201,000 applications of all types that were received by the Department of justice.”
“That is very significant population growth and it derives from the following. We had a birth rate of 54,200 and a death rate of 34,800 in the year up to the end of April 2024. We also had immigration into Ireland of 149,000 people. I will break down that figure as it is important we have the context in terms of the demographics for the discussion we are having this afternoon. Some 30,000 of the 149,000 people who immigrated into Ireland were Irish citizens who were returning; 27,000 were EU citizens; 5,400 were UK citizens; and 86,800 people were from other countries. Those are the 149,000 people who immigrated into Ireland in the year ending April 2024. Similarly, we also had 69,000 people who left the country during that 12-month period.”
“We also have a tendency sometimes to reflect on a certain element when it comes to immigration, ignoring the fact that most migration into Ireland derives from those who have been granted a visa to come here lawfully. At the outset, I will give some statistics in respect of where we are at present with Ireland's population. As I said, our population has recovered significantly and has been growing since 1960. Notwithstanding that, this is giving rise to challenges because in the last number of years our population has been growing at an extremely fast rate. In fact, our population at present is growing at seven times the EU average, which is very significant. The effect of it is that in the year up to April 2024 the population of Ireland increased by approximately 98,700 people in a period of 12 months.”
“If people comply with those rules, they gain entry. If they do not comply with the rules, they have to leave. Once we have those rules in place it is much easier to defend the system and the public are very concerned to know that the Government and the Ministers, namely myself and the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, are in charge and have a recognition that the system is being applied effectively. As I mentioned at the outset, the challenges derive to a large extent from population. The numbers immigrating into Ireland are small in the context of, say, a country such as Germany or France but we are a small country which has a population of approximately 5.4 million at present.”
“It is extremely important, therefore, that we have a system of rules in place in Ireland that indicates when a person is entitled to come into Ireland, how long they are entitled to stay and what the consequences are if they overstay their welcome. I am not aware of any country in the world which does not have a rules-based system that needs to be applied when it comes to migration. It is also extremely important that we let the word get out that we have a rules-based system. As people in this House will know - nobody knows this better than constituency TDs - there are people in this country who want to exploit the position of immigration for their own political purposes. We need to stand up to that. My own view is that the best way to stand up to it is through facts and by being able to state we have a rules-based system.”
“For that reason, it is important to emphasise that the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and myself are currently working on a national migration and integration strategy. It will set out how this Government intends to meet the opportunities and demands facing our society and economy over the next decade. It is important to point out that this is the first time such a strategy has been undertaken and we are determined that our approach to migration is rules based, planned and coherent. I emphasise the reason it is so important that we have and apply a rules-based system. If you do not have a rules-based system, you have a discretionary system that is based upon ministerial viewpoint or executive decision and that will necessarily end up being a system that the public cannot properly understand, supervise and see how it operates.”
“In terms of the contribution that migrants have made to Irish society, it is important to emphasise that people who are here lawfully make an extremely strong contribution and they are welcome by the vast majority of Irish people. Obviously, migration can give rise to challenges as well. One of the big challenges that a government, political leaders and all of us in the House face is to try to ensure that migrants who come in to the country are fully and adequately integrated. Regrettably, we have seen in other countries what happens when migrants who come into the country are not integrated and feel as though they are a separate group within the country. That is not good for society or for migrants and it would not be good for the Irish population as a whole.”
“If we look at our construction sector, statistics produced in 2023 showed that in that year, there were 27,500 migrant workers in Ireland’s construction sector and that is a significant increase on what it was a number of years before this. On many occasions, I am in this House answering questions about when prisons, Garda stations or houses are going to be constructed. We cannot construct that level of infrastructure unless we have workers here and that is why it is important to acknowledge that many of the workers involved in the construction business in Ireland are migrants who have come here to work. Of course, that leaves aside the many people who have come here from other countries to work in our booming technology sector and in the multinational sector that is so happily based here throughout the country.”
“I reflect on the fact that approximately 15% of all nurses and midwives working in Irish hospitals at present come from India. We have a very significant number of people working in our health service who play a significant role. It is worth pointing out that in 2023 more than 23% of all nurses and midwives directly employed by the HSE were migrants, with nearly 15% of them coming from India. In 2023, nearly four in every ten doctors registered with the Irish Medical Council were trained outside Ireland, and one in four were trained outside the UK and the EU. These numbers illustrate that the health service is very much dependent on the excellent work provided by migrants who have come to Ireland to work. It is not just our health system, however, that is dependent on migrants who have come here to work.”
“I emphasised to them that, in my assessment, the Irish people are very welcoming of the people who have come into this country. Along with the Minister of State, I want to emphasise that migrants who are in this country lawfully are extremely welcome in this country. It is very important that message gets out there. Similarly, another important message both of us want to communicate, however, is that when it comes to immigration we have a rules-based system. In order to come into Ireland, people have to comply with the rules and if they comply with the rules, they are extremely welcome here. However, if they do not comply with the rules, we will just have to enforce the rules to ensure we keep control over our migration system.”
“We need to recognise that the drop in our population was a reflection of very negative times in Ireland and the rise in our population is, to a large extent, a reflection of the success of Ireland. Part of the reason the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and I wanted this topic to be on the agenda for the first week of the Dáil's return was because both the Minister of State and I were very concerned and appalled at a number of incidents during the summer months when members of our migrant community were attacked. I had the opportunity, as did the Minister of State, to meet representatives of the Indian community and it is fair to say they were very shook by the incidents that occurred. They were very offended by it and when they met me they wondered what they or any migrant had done to merit such a criminal and appalling attack.”
“Tragically, we went through the seminal event in Irish history in the 1840s with the Irish Famine, and in the aftermath of the Famine more than 1 million people had died and many millions and future generations had emigrated from Ireland and gone abroad. That resulted in our population still being in decline in the 1960s. The population of Ireland back in 1960 was 2.8 million. When Northern Ireland, which was partitioned a number of years earlier, is included, the population was 4.3 million. Even today the population of the Republic is approximately 5.4 million and when Northern Ireland is included the population is up to approximately 7.3 million. Today, when so many people want to come to the country and are in the country, Ireland, as an island, is still not as populated as it was back in 1841. That is something we need to reflect on.”
“The fact that now has been transformed, and more people want to come into Ireland than leave it, is a reflection of the success of Ireland as a country. The reason people want to come here is that there are opportunities for them in Ireland and it is recognised as a safe, peaceful and successful country with a very strong economy. I will also reflect that when we are talking about migration we need to put it in context. The context has to be the demographic context of our population. As I said a few moments ago, if we were back in Ireland in 1841 and filled out the census, we would find out after filling it in that the population of the island of Ireland back then was 8.2 million people.”
“If it was the case that we were here 60 years ago and the topic of migration was on the agenda of Dáil Éireann, I suspect we would have been talking about the terrible emigration that took place in Ireland for many years. Today, we are also talking about emigration as statistics for last year reveal that approximately 70,000 people emigrated - left Ireland - last year. The more predominant type of migration now is immigration. Last year, approximately 150,000 people immigrated into Ireland. That is an indication of the transformation in the success of Ireland as a country. For far too many years, we lived on an island where people were forced to leave because of economic circumstances in order to get a sustainable life.”
“The Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and I very much welcome that we will have statements on migration this afternoon. With the permission of the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach, the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, will jointly open this debate with me. It is particularly welcome that we are discussing in this House the issue of migration. It is an extremely important national and international issue that requires policy decisions and the expression of values by political leaders such as ourselves in this House. When we are discussing migration it is important to note that we are not simply discussing emigration or immigration; we are talking about both.”
“Senator McDowell said that this will have a detrimental effect because individuals will be identified as untruthful or unreliable and that will hang over their heads for eternity. That is one of the consequences of civil actions in the High Court. Judges write judgments stating: "I disbelieve the evidence of Mr. O'Callaghan. I prefer the evidence of Mr. McDowell".”
“However, I would have thought it is an advantage that the public is able to find out why it was that a plaintiff in a particular action lost his or her defamation action or why he or she was awarded €100,000 or €200,000. At present, we do not get that information because all that happens is that the jury comes back with the issue paper and answers "Yes"to the question of whether the plaintiff was defamed, there are a couple of other questions and then damages are assessed. The judge just reads out "Yes, €100,000" and then enters the judgment so we do not get any explanation as to why the jury reached a determination that the plaintiff was defamed and that €100,000 was the appropriate amount of damages so it is to the benefit of the public and in the public interest that we find that out.”
“Everyone who has a civil action before the High Court that is not heard by a jury has his or her rights vindicated so the idea that simply because there is no jury, that is a diminution of one's rights is not correct. We also need to recognise that the vast majority of civil actions are dealt with by judges hearing cases and justice is being administered so we cannot say that just because someone does not have a jury in a civil action, he or she is not getting justice. People's access to justice is provided. Senator McDowell said that it will be a necessity to give reasons if it involves a judge sitting on his or her own. That is correct.”
“I am conscious that we will not get to a vote but I will try to respond to the issues raised. Senator Stephenson asked me why I am proceeding with this diminution of rights. We have to be careful about the use of the term "right". There is a statutory provision under the Courts of Justice Act 1924 and the Defamation Act 2009 that states someone is entitled to a jury in the High Court so we are entitled to change the law. It is not like a right that comes from the Constitution or the ECHR. It is simply a statutory provision so we are entitled to change it. Simply because we are changing or removing juries from the High Court does not mean it is an interference with a right. People who go to the Circuit Court still have their rights vindicated.”
“If people wanted juries to remain in the High Court, there needs to be a system where there is a simple, straightforward test. The current test is unfair because the plaintiff gets the option to determine whether there is a jury. If the plaintiff in the High Court action does not want a jury, I think a defendant can seek a jury. It is still at the ultimate discretion and control of the plaintiff. It is a bit of unfairness in litigation that one party can determine whether a jury is used and another has no real say in whether it goes before a jury. It is on that basis that I will not accept amendment No. 1.”
“1, which provides for jury by default, operates on the presumption that a defamation action would be determined by a judge, unless the public interest and interest of justice otherwise requires. Even if I were sympathetic to some level of retention of a jury in a High Court, I do not think this would be the way to do it. It would make it a much more complex process. At present, if a person is defamed, a person could go to the Circuit Court if they want to claim less than €75,000. There is no jury in the Circuit Court, but there is in the High Court. It is up for the plaintiff to decide. There is no reason for the court to get involved in trying to navigate and assess whether a case is suitable for a jury trial. That type of legislative complexity will simply add to cost and increase delay.”
“No one ever suggested that the jury should be determining the length of a sentence in the context of a criminal trial in Ireland. It would be unusual if a judge were given the function of a jury, which is to assess damages. I cannot accept amendment No. 1. The amendment would delete the current wording of section 4 and replace it with a provision that allows a party to apply for a non-jury trial and enables a court to grant such application where the case is considered unsuitable for jury trial, either because it was protracted or because of a special reason. It is also important to point out that amendment No. 1, if accepted, would divide the roles of judge and jury in cases that may involve substantial damages. Amendment No.”
“The second paragraph must mean something different. I would appreciate being told what type of unsuitability we are talking about. The second aspect of the Senators' amendment concerns what I refer to as the "hybrid rule", that part of the issues would be dealt with by a jury, such as questions of fact, to determine whether a person had been defamed. The case would then be handed over to the judge to determine how much money should be awarded by way of damages or what remedy should be granted to the claimant. I agree with what Senator McDowell said. That would be an unnatural division. I know the jury determines the guilty or innocence of the accused in criminal cases and the judge then decides the sentence. However, this is something different.”
“I welcome amendments that come forward, but I am putting myself in the position of the judge who has to decide whether to grant a jury based on this being the law. On what basis could a judge say that this is an unsuitable case to be tried with a jury? We have already ruled it out on the basis of complexity, so it has to be something else. What will happen is that a whole body of common law will be developed by the Judiciary who is looking at this and does not know what the Oireachtas means. It will have to come up with its own reasoning as to why it would be unsuitable for a jury to hear an action in a civil defamation claim in the High Court. I cannot think of a reason a High Court judge would state that a case is unsuitable to be heard by a jury. The first paragraph is too complex, lengthy and protracted.”
“If that becomes the law, we will have very lengthy interlocutory hearings in advance of the hearing of a defamation action to try to determine whether the case will involve protracted examination of documents or accounts. Affidavits will have to be sworn by solicitors and experts stating the evidence they intend to give. Then the court will have to assess whether "technical, scientific or local investigation" is required that cannot be made by a jury. We will create a whole body of complexity in trying to identify during an interlocutory hearing whether we should have a jury or not. The second provision in the amendment provides "for any special reason" it would be "unsuitable to be tried with a jury".”
“The advantage of the current system is that there is a clear mechanism for people to be aware as to when they get a jury or when they do not. The plaintiff, or the person taking the claim, decides it. Under this proposed amendment, a whole series of tests would be determined by the court in order to assess whether a jury shall be allowed. As has been indicated, the presumptive position in amendment No. 1 is that there shall be a jury in a defamation action, except if the court, on an application of either party, believes that such a trial "will require any protracted examination of documents or accounts or any technical, scientific or local investigation which cannot conveniently be made with a jury".”
“If a defamation action is brought in the High Court and the defendant newspaper does not want a jury, but the plaintiff or claimant wants a jury, the plaintiff gets his or her way. The plaintiff always can determine whether there is a jury to hear the case. If the defendant newspaper does not want a jury, the response is that it is at the prerogative and discretion of the plaintiff. That is the general view and operation of juries in civil actions in the High Court at present. It is important to emphasise that a small number of cases are dealt with by juries in civil actions. They are declining. It is different in the United States. I will return to the specific amendment put forward by Senators Ryan and Stephenson. This is very relevant to their amendment.”
“As Senator McDowell said, unfortunately one of the most common types of civil cases heard by a jury in the High Court is assault cases. Many of them are assault cases against members of An Garda Síochána, which are contested. An Garda Síochána succeeds in many of them. There is a limited number of civil cases in the High Court that are heard by juries. It is the exception. People can bring a defamation action in the Circuit Court. The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is up to €75,000. People can take their case there, have their rights vindicated and they do not have the right to a jury there. In accordance with how the jury system operates in those small numbers of cases where juries determine civil actions in the High Court, what they reveal is that a basis upon which to get a jury trial is at the discretion of the plaintiff.”
“That is not correct; negligence actions will continue to be determined without a jury and have been heard without juries for many years. It is easier, in fact, to look to see what type of civil actions have juries in the High Court. The cases are defamation actions, assault actions, false imprisonment actions and actions that are regarded as a breach of the trespass to the person or a constitutional interference with the rights of the individual. Senator McDowell is correct. It means assault-type cases and imprisonment cases. They are the limited number of cases that are tried in the High Court by a jury in civil actions at present. It is a pretty small amount of them. Senators are correct. We are not proposing to get rid of the jury from assault cases or false imprisonment cases.”
“Insurance companies thought, "Let us get juries out of this in order that we can have judges on their own who can determine these cases." It certainly improves the speed at which a case is heard; it has not decreased the amount of awards. I do not know if I have heard it in this House before, but when it comes to the quantification of awards, juries probably award lower amounts in general than judges. That is something that may not have been significantly taken into account, but it is another matter. In the civil sphere, at present, the vast majority of civil actions in the High Court are determined without a jury, including personal injury actions and breach of contract actions. We spoke about tort earlier on. I think Senator Ryan referred to how it will be highly unusual that this will be the one tort that will not be heard by a jury.”
“In Ireland, at present, very few civil actions are heard by juries. We spoke earlier about personal injuries. Prior to 1988, personal injuries actions were heard by juries. I was not around at that time but I suspect there was some controversy in the Oireachtas when the proposal was put forward that for personal injuries actions there would not be trial by jury. The effect of that, and part of the reason for that, however, was to make the system more efficient. When there is a jury it takes time to swear in the jury and it lengthens the time it takes for the trial to be determined. Senator McDowell is probably correct that at the time those who advocated the removal of juries from personal injuries actions probably thought it would be in their interests.”
“That is what the law on juries is when we look at the criminal sphere, and no one is talking about interfering with that constitutional right to a trial by jury. It is worth noting, however, that most European countries do not have juries in the same way as we have them here for criminal offences. If people are prosecuted and convicted in France, they are convicted by a group of three or five judges, members of the judiciary. We have seen that with some of the famous cases that have come from France. In Ireland, there is a constitutional right to have criminal cases tried on indictment heard by a jury, save in the circumstances of the Special Criminal Court. Civil law is different. In America, for instance, a huge number of civil trials are dealt with before juries. We see them and the juries award the very large amounts of damages.”