Law overhaul will remove juries from defamation trials

Defamation cases will be heard by judges alone under new plans to overhaul the country's defamation laws.

Defamation cases will be heard by judges alone under new plans to overhaul the country's defamation laws.

Justice Minister Helen McEntee has received Cabinet approval to publish a sweeping review of the Defamation Act 2009 and to prepare new legislation based on its recommendations.

The review makes a number of major recommendations, including:

• An end to juries in defamation cases;
• Easier access to justice for those who feel their reputation is unfairly attacked;
• Clearer protection for responsible public interest journalism;
• Reducing legal costs and delays;
• Measures to encourage prompt correction and apology, where mistakes are made, and new measures to combat abuse;
• Making it easier to grant orders directing online service providers to disclose the identity of an anonymous poster of defamatory material.

Ms McEntee said the new legislation must find the balance between the rights of people to their reputation and the right to free speech.

“We must ensure that our defamation law strikes the correct balance between rights which are protected both by our constitution and by the European Convention on Human Rights," said Ms McEntee.

We should vindicate both the individual’s right to their good name and privacy and the right of others to freedom of expression, taking account of the vital role played in our democracy by a free and independent media, and by other civil society actors, in providing information and debate on matters of public interest.

“The review is the culmination of very extensive work by my department, including a wide-ranging public consultation, and a stakeholder symposium that brought together the media, academics, the legal profession, social media companies, NGOs, and relevant State bodies."

The review raised concern at what it called the "very high levels of damages awarded" in some defamation cases which were seen as disproportionate to levels of awards for serious personal injuries and to defamation awards in other countries as well as the high level of costs and slow progress of defamation cases. 

It adds that there is a risk of these factors having a "chilling effect" on public interest reporting and investigative journalism and there is a need for quicker, more accessible, and more effective redress mechanisms, particularly in cases of online defamation. 

This will see complainants encouraged to use an alternative dispute resolution to ensure prompt, informal redress.

The review says that it aims to "avoid disproportionate awards, and support more consistent, proportionate and predictable redress in defamation cases".

Welcome for reforms

The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) said that an overhaul of the law would rid the industry of the "scourge" of people using the laws to silence journalists.

Ian McGuinness, NUJ general secretary, said the use of strategic lawsuits against public participation (Slapp) is on the rise and legislation to protect journalism is needed.

"The rise of so-called ‘lawfare’ to stymie investigative journalism and thwart reporting is of enormous concern to the NUJ and all those who care about media freedom," said Mr McGuinness. 

"In welcoming these proposed reforms, we would also emphasise the importance of maintaining the Press Council of Ireland on a sound, financial footing”.

NewsBrands Ireland, the representative body for Irish news media publishers, has also welcomed the publication of the review.

“The move to abolish juries from civil defamation trials is a correction of a long-standing anomaly in Irish law; defamation is virtually the only civil action that continues to be decided by juries," said Colm O’Reilly, chairman of NewsBrands Ireland.

"The use of juries can result in unpredictable levels of awards as well as considerably lengthening the duration of the trial, thus increasing legal costs.

“We also welcome the recommendation to introduce a new ‘anti-Slapp’ mechanism. The threat of being sued has a chilling effect on investigative journalism with high-profile individuals regularly using our current laws to suppress stories which are in the public interest.”