“The Defamation (Amendment) Bill, which proposes the scrapping of juries from High Court defamation lawsuits in order to reduce exorbitant payouts, legal expenses, and appeals, has faced strong opposition in the Dáil. Critics, including some TDs, argue that it would achieve the inverse of its intended effect.
When tabling the legislation in the Dáil, Minister of State for Justice, James Browne, said the bill seeks to strike a balance between the freedom of speech, the safeguarding of a person’s good name and reputation, and the right to access justice.
However, Jim O’Callaghan, a Fianna Fáil TD, government backbencher, and senior counsel, criticised the planned abolition of juries as “short-sighted” and “not thoroughly considered”. He also attributed a “significant” rise in defamation suits launched by Sinn Féin politicians partially to the enactment of safeguards against Slapp (strategic lawsuit against public participation) suits.
Such suits are described by the Minister as malicious legal actions taken against someone due to their “involvement in a public interest debate, investigation, or discussion that causes discomfort to the claimant”. According to Mr Browne, Slapp suits aim not to authentically uphold rights, but to amplify legal costs, cause delays and stress to bully and silence the targeted individual. This Bill will integrate the EU anti-Slapp directive into national law.
Mr O’Callaghan expressed his belief that the public’s negative perception of defamation was partly caused by “the extent to which some politicians use defamation laws to tackle and react to media criticism”.
He stated, “We must acknowledge that defamation suits should not be filed merely to dispute or challenge media criticism. If done frequently, it will appear as a tactic,” suggesting this was one of the reasons for introducing Slapp provisions in the Dáil.
The bill also provides protection to retailers facing defamation claims if customers are questioned about payment for items before leaving the store. There’s also a new defence for broadcasters if a defamatory remark is made during a live broadcast, as long as they “exercised reasonable and careful precautions before and during the broadcast to prevent this”.
Mr Browne upheld the decision as “the correct path to follow”. Juries have already been removed from almost all other forms of civil trials and High Court defamation cases since 2009, with no negative repercussions.”
The proposed reform is anticipated to significantly decrease over the top damage awards, high legal fees, delays, and unpredictability of outcomes, as well as the necessity of high-priced appeals, as explained. However, Pa Daly, Sinn Féin’s justice spokesperson, expressed disappointment that the government is going ahead with the elimination of juries despite multiple requests for their preservation, including an appeal from ex-judge Mr Justice Bernard Barton. He recalled insurance firms promising yesteryears that policy premiums would go down if juries were eliminated, a development that’s yet to happen.
Additionally, Daly accused the Department of Justice of regarding juries dismissively in its informational note, claiming they were incompetent in dealing with substantial financial sums and, therefore, prone to creating exaggerated awards. He questioned the logic, asking why individuals trusted with murder cases couldn’t be trusted with defamation cases.
Brendan Howlin, the Labour justice spokesman, also showed disapproval towards the elimination of juries. He made a point that a judge doesn’t necessarily represent the common populace. He argued that a jury, understood the worth of an individual’s reputation in local settings like pubs and clubs, and that their value judgments are more real than any judge who doesn’t come from diverse public spheres.