The current defamation law is hampering the press’ capacity to probe and reveal socio-political misdeeds and requires modernisation, says Susan McKay, the Press Ombudsman. This statement was released in recognition of World Press Freedom Day on Friday. Her strong appeal to the Government is to heed the urgent requests from the Press Council members to include the vital defamation Bill in the present legislative agenda.
The present economic strain on Press Council members and the unchecked power of social media platforms puts them at risk even of being threatened with a defamation lawsuit, which could lead to enough expenses to possibly shut down a publication, McKay asserts. She concurs that this is detrimental both to press freedom and democracy itself.
Meanwhile, a united front of national and local newspaper and website editors has penned a letter to the Taoiseach and the Justice Minister to urge that the publication and activation of the defamation Bill be made a priority.
The group points out that the expeditious implementation of these reforms – now being prioritised by the Government – is vital, given the likely restricted legislative time frame of the current Dáil.
The draft of the Bill proposes to end jury trials in defamation cases – a key alteration proposed by industry groups Newsbrands Ireland and Local Ireland. These entities argue that jury trials are erratic, lengthy and expensive. They believe that jury awards that far exceed damages in severe personal injury cases can damage the reputation of the legal system. They argue that a judge’s reasoned decision would introduce predictability and resonate with the call for heightened transparency and openness in public life.
The proposed Bill also includes ‘serious harm test’ suggestions, intended for cases involving businesses, public bodies and retail outlets. However, these industry associations want this test applied universally, arguing its deterrent effect on frivolous complaints and its ability to mitigate Ireland’s ‘libel tourism’ risks.
The industry groups contend, “All complainants have the opportunity to have their cases examined by the Office of the Press Ombudsman, including those who fail to meet the serious harm test.”
Meanwhile, Ms. McKay highlighted her concerns saying, “It is imperative to observe that press freedom cannot exist when violence is used as a threat towards journalists. Lately, harassment and threats have been an unfortunate reality for reporters in this country while they carry out their professional responsibilities.”