Section 44 (also here) of the Defamation Act, 2009 (also here) provides that the Minister for Justice may by recognise a body as the “Press Council” , and Schedule 2 (also here) to the Act sets out the minimum requirements such a body must meet to be so recognised. The Irish media established a Press Council of Ireland and the Office of the Press Ombudsman with effect from 1 January 2009, and the Minister announced yesterday that this would be recognised as the Press Council for the purposes of the Act (here’s the press release, with added links):

Ahern to seek Oireachtas approval for formal recognition of the Press Council

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr. Dermot Ahern, T.D., announced today that he is asking the Dáil and Séanad to approve an Order by him declaring the formal recognition of the Press Council of Ireland as the “Press Council”.

Minister Ahern said that the application from the Press Council of Ireland under section 44 of the Defamation Act 2009 has been examined with reference to the requirements in Schedule 2 of the Act and that he was satisfied that the application met those requirements.

These requirements involve the objectives of the Press Council, its composition, its independence, the appointment of independent directors, financial arrangements, the role and operation of the Office of Press Ombudsman and a code of standards.

Formal recognition will confer certain benefits on the Press Council. A significant benefit is that qualified privilege will attach to its reports and decisions as well as those of the Press Ombudsman. Subscription to the Press Council and adherence to the Code of Practice for Newspapers and Periodicals will strengthen the entitlement to avail of the new defence of reasonable publication in any court action [see section 26(2)(f) of the Act (also here)]. Non-members of the Press Council will be required to have in place an equivalent fairness regime or to operate an equivalent and publicised code of standards to avail of that defence.

There is more coverage here and here from the Irish Times. At a time when other countries are looking with favour on the Irish model, it heartening to see the final pieces of the Defamation Act jigsaw slotting into place.

If you like this post, please click on this link to pass it on. Thanks!

Hide Sites

Image: One astronaut to another, as they look at a monolith on a bleak lunar landscape.
Caption: Well, I’ll be darned, it does have the Apple logo on it!




Bonus link: Oxford Dictionary’s; Waitor required, fluent in English; and Ladie’s powder room; blooper photos via Turner Ink.

If you like this post, please click on this link to pass it on. Thanks!

Hide Sites

Further to my earlier post about last week’s Current Legal Problem lecture on

Spies Like Us? Frank Snepp and George Blake: Freedom of Speech and Restitutionary Remedies

the paper is now available here, via Scrib’d. It’s a good remedy for insomnia. All comments gratefully received.

If you like this post, please click on this link to pass it on. Thanks!

Hide Sites

It all began innocently enough: just before Christmas, Sunday Times journalist John Burns wrote a piece lamenting the shortcomings of blogging in Ireland. Leading bloggers naturally begged to differ. A month later, the spat was picked up by Trevor Butterworth writing on Forbes.com, who noted that “it’s hard to think of a free country more suited to blogging than Ireland”. By the same token, it’s at least as hard to think of a country more given to litigation; and the point was illustrated by a story retailed almost en passant in Butterworth’s piece:

As one journalist told me, Ireland’s media is currently abuzz over a “confidential” legal settlement against a blogger, who allegedly had to pay almost $140,000 in damages for a libelous post, seen by few, swiftly purged from the site, and readily apologized for.

This was intriguing. By the end of the week, John Burns in the Sunday Times had the full story:

A blogger has agreed a €100,000 settlement after libelling Niall Ó Donnchú, a senior civil servant, and his girlfriend Laura Barnes. It is the first time in Ireland that defamatory material on a blog has resulted in a pay-out. … In December 1, 2006, a blogger who styles himself as Ardmayle posted a comment about the couple … Following a legal complaint, he took down the blog and in February 2007 he posted an apology which had been supplied by Ó Donnchú’s and Barnes’ lawyer … However, the pair subsequently issued separate proceedings. It is understood that the €100,000 settlement was agreed shortly before the case was due before the High Court.

Indeed, there had been quite a detailed report at the time in the Sunday Independent; and in the last week, many blogs have pored over the story.

There’s nothing new in online defamation; the same basic legal principles apply online as they do offline; the medium may change, but the legal consequences of the message remain the same. But the story does raise some interesting legal issues. Mark Coughlan on TheStory.ie pointed out that, before the storm blew up this week, Ardmayle had been “little known, to say the least”, and he quite rightly queried the actual damage the blog had done to the plaintiff’s reputations. UCD law lecturer TJ McIntyre picked up that point:

The level of damages in defamation reflects the extent of publication – i.e. the extent to which the defamatory material was actually read. This is not (despite the best efforts of plaintiffs’ lawyers) the same as the extent to which it might have been read. Consequently (leaving aside other factors such as the gravity of the allegations) damages should be greatly reduced where the audience can be shown to be negligible. Potential readability worldwide notwithstanding.

For him, therefore, the case highlights the importance of keeping good server logs to counter the all-too-easy assumption that “availability online automatically equals a mass audience”.

Ireland’s libel laws have recently been overhauled by the Defamation Act, 2009, which came into force on 1 January this year. Section 31(4) provides that the court in a defamation action shall have regard to a range of factors in making an award of general damages, including:

(b) the means of publication of the defamatory statement including the enduring nature of those means,
(c) the extent to which the defamatory statement was circulated, … [and]
(f) the importance to the plaintiff of his or her reputation in the eyes of particular or all recipients of the defamatory statement …

These considerations tend to reinforce TJ’s point about the importance of keeping good server logs. It is hard to tell from the reports whether any of the Act’s defences might have availed the blogger, though the new defence of fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public interest, whilst hobbled, may have done.

The Act is a welcome, but incomplete, reform – incomplete not least because it takes little account of the increasing trend towards online communication. In particular, it does not attempt to achieve inter-operability between its restatement of the traditional defence of innocent publication and the defence provided to intermediary service providers by the implementation of the E-Commerce Directive.

Finally, there are questions of the compatibility of this kind of outcome with the free speech provisions of the Irish Constitution and of the European Convention on Human Rights. There are, in particular, emerging arguments that various European Courts have clearly moved to grant traditional press freedoms not only to traditional media but also to online actors such as bloggers engaged in “the creation of forums for public debate”. This might not have protected Ardmayle’s obscure blog, but if – contrary to the views John Burns expressed in the article at this beginning of this post – the Blog O’Sphere continues to develop as a vibrant forums for public debate, then future bloggers in Ardmayle’s shoes may be able to rely on the Constitution and the Convention. Until then, we will all have to tread softly.

Reposted from Index on Censorship.

If you like this post, please click on this link to pass it on. Thanks!

Hide Sites

Over sixty years ago, the Faculty of Laws at University College London established the Current Legal Problems lecture series and accompanying annual volume as a major reference point for a broad range of legal scholarship opinion, theory, methodology, and subject matter, with an emphasis upon contemporary developments of law. The lectures are held at the Faculty of Law, Bentham House, Endsleigh Gardens, London WC1 from 6-7pm; they are open to the public and free of charge. This week’s current legal issue is:

Spies Like Us? Frank Snepp and George Blake: Freedom of Speech and Restitutionary Remedies

“Espionage is a serious business” sang a moderately famous Irish pop singer of the 1980s. And so it is. It can be even more of a business when former spies seek to publish their memoirs, and things can get very serious indeed if they fail to seek the clearance of their former spymasters in advance. The decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in Snepp v US 444 US 507 (1980) and of the House of Lords in AG v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268; [2000] UKHL 45 (27 July 2000) make a fascinating pair of cases in which former spies (unsuccessfully) argued that a restitutionary remedy against uncleared publication of their memoirs infringed their speech rights.

The paper will seek to do three things. First, it will present a thorough analysis of the stories behind the decisions. How the opinion for the Court in Snepp evolved is a fascinating tale in its own right; so too are many elements of the Blake saga, not least the question of where the Snepp-like remedy in that case actually came from. So, the paper will begin with these stories, tales and sagas.

Second, it will look at the legitimacy of the restitutionary remedies in the cases in their own terms, and to suggest in particular that whilst there may be some legitimacy to the remedy announced in Blake, there is none for that announced in Snepp. Working out quite why this was so will help to clarify two difficult areas in the law of restitution: how, if at all, the law of restitution can justify awarding restitutionary damages for breach of contract, and proprietary remedies generally.

Third, it will measure the remedies awarded in Blake and Snepp against applicable speech standards (the First Amendment to the US Constitution and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, respectively), and to suggest in particular that the speech analyses in both cases were sadly lacking. Working out quite why this was so will help to clarify a difficult area of free speech law: how, if at all, common law and equitable doctrines and remedies can be made subject to constitutional speech standards.

If you like this post, please click on this link to pass it on. Thanks!

Hide Sites

Last week, Peter Sutherland gave a speech about the Irish university sector. It generated quite a lot of controversy at the time, and an edited version appears in yesterday’s Sunday Times. Unfortunately, the speech has rather overshadowed the occasion; this is a pity, since it was the launch of the Undergraduate Awards of Ireland and Northern Ireland 2010. This is the second year of the initiative; the IUA website has information about the last year’s winners as well as about this year’s competition. Submissions from undergraduates in the form of essays or projects can be entered into one of 26 categories. The first round is especially for final and penultimate year students together with part-time students who have secured at least 1/3 of credits necessary to graduate, and their deadline is 12 March 2010, so it’s approaching rather quickly. According to the criteria on the website, “your submission should represent the highest standard of intellectual and scholarly achievement in your chosen field … [and it] should embody a piece of independent and original work together with a clear identification of its aims and objectives”. So, no pressure then.

If you like this post, please click on this link to pass it on. Thanks!

Hide Sites

In today’s Irish Times (with added links):

Defamation Act a welcome but imperfect reform for libel cases

The Defamation Act [2009] which came into effect this month, is a significant improvement on the old law, but serious problems remain … [It] modernises the law. It provides statutory support for the Press Council and it makes it easier both to take and to defend libel cases. For these reasons, as the Act came into effect earlier this month, Andrew O’Rorke quite rightly afforded it a very warm welcome … However, it ducks some important reforms and bungles others, while some of its most significant provisions raise constitutional problems.

For example, it fails to account for internet service providers (ISPs) or to rebalance the burden of proof from the defendant to the plaintiff. The centrepiece defence of fair and reasonable publication is unworkably narrow. Those issues, along with the ease with which companies can take defamation actions under the Act, might even prove unconstitutional. …

The Defamation Act 2009 is a hugely significant piece of legislation, which has gone a very long way towards restoring fairness and stability to a notorious area of the law. However, in some important respects, the Act raises as many questions as it has answered and its deserved welcome must therefore be a qualified one.

Bonus links: (i) a long-running high-profile defamation case in New Zealand has just settled; (ii) in honour of the recent snow falls, a cartoon about defaming a snowman.

If you like this post, please click on this link to pass it on. Thanks!

Hide Sites