Defamation Act 2009

In an interview in this morning’s Irish Times, the EU Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders (pictured right) raised serious concerns about the operation of Ireland’s defamation laws:

Ireland’s defamation laws are being used to ‘pressure journalists’ – EU commissioner

Low bar for lawsuits in Ireland ‘raises concerns’ over freedom to expose corruption

Ireland’s defamation laws should be reviewed as they may suppress the ability of the media to expose corruption … Irish defamation laws are notoriously strict, providing a low bar for lawsuits against journalists and media organisations that are often used to put pressure on journalists.

He made the same points later this afternoon when he addressed the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Union Affairs. In his opening statement (draft here; pdf) he repeated that “Ireland’s defamation laws raise concerns as regards the ability of the press to expose corruption” (p6) and that “the frequent use and high costs of defamation cases raise concerns” (p7; update: reported Irish Examiner | Irish Independent | TheJournal.ie).

In questions from members of the Committee, Senator Michael McDowell commented that he had been the Minister for Justice who started the reform in the early 2000s (full disclosure, I was on the Group that advised him in this regard), and he agreed with the Commissioner that “Irish defamation law is a little bit suffocating of investigative journalism” and that there “is scope for further reform”.…

The truth, pure and simple, as a defence to defamation claims after Depp v NGN

3 November, 20208 November, 2020

| No Comments

| Defamation, Defamation, Defamation Act 2009

Johnny Depp, Amber Heard, Sun masthead, all pix via wikipedia The truth, as Oscar Wilde has Algernon Moncrieff remark to Jack Worthing in Act I of The Importance of Being Ernest, is rarely pure and never simple. Nowhere is this more evident than in a defamation courtroom. At common law, the defence of justification to a claim for defamation averred that the words complained of, in their natural and ordinary meaning, were true in substance and in fact. For example, in Irving v Penguin Books Ltd [2000] EWHC QB 115 (11 April 2000), American historian Deborah Lipstadt estabished that holocaust-denier David Irving had deliberately distorted evidence relating to the Holocaust, and thus successfully relied on the defence of justification to defeat Irving’s claim of defamation. In Ireland, the common law has been replaced by section 16(1) of the Defamation Act 2009 (also here), which provides that the defence of truth is made out where the defendant proves “that the statement in respect of which the action was brought is true in all material respects”. In England, the equivalent statutory provision is much more straightforward: section 2(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 provides that it “is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true”.…

Is the Press Council system working?

13 April, 20117 November, 2012

| 1 Comment

| Defamation Act 2009, Defamation Bill 2006, Press Council

With the recent publication by the Press Council and the Office of the Press Ombudsman of their Annual Report 2010 (Report (pdf) | Press Release), it is an opportune time to consider whether the system of press self-regulation by those two bodies is working. I think that, overall, the answer must be yes. Within the remit afforded to the Ombudsman and Press Council, they are working very well indeed. The Ombudsman and Council are energetic in spreading the word about the speedy form of redress which they operate; the growing numbers of member-periodicals show that the industry has embraced the system; and the numbers of complaints show that an increasingly-aware public are taking advantage of it. Apart from the figures, 2010 saw two very important developments: the recogition of the Ombudsman and Council pursuant to the Defamation Act, 2009 (also here); and the extension of their remit to purely online publications.

As the Council’s new Chairman, Dáithí O’Ceallaigh, notes in his Introduction to the Report, the year covered by the Report began with the coming into force of the Defamation Act, 2009, section 44 and Schedule 2 of which allowed for the formal recognition of the Press Council, which duly followed in April:

This has been no mere formality, but a significant and public recognition of the degree to which these new structures, since their institution in 2007, have met the exacting requirements laid down for recognition in the Act, and have contributed to the climate of enhanced accountability and public service within which our press industry operates.

…

Prior restraint and permanent injunctions in defamation cases – updated

23 February, 201114 September, 2018

| 5 Comments

| Defamation, Defamation Act 2009, Freedom of Expression, prior restraint

In Watters v Independent Star [2010] IECC 1 (03 November 2010), the first reported judgment on the Defamation Act, 2009 (also here), Matthews J granted the plaintiff a declaratory order pursuant to section 28 of the Act (also here) that an article published by the defendant was defamatory, and he made a further order pursuant to section 33 of the Act (also here) prohibiting the newspaper from re-publishing the defamation.

In an earlier post (also here), I have already looked at some issues arising from this decision. Another critical aspect of Matthew J’s judgment was that, although the plaintiff was a convicted criminal, he nevertheless possessed a residual reputation which was damaged by the newspaper’s allegations. Of course, evidence of a plaintiff’s general bad reputation is admissible in evidence in mitigation of damages (see section 31(4)(g) and section 31(6)(a) of the Act (also here); see also Hill v Cork Examiner Publications [2001] 4 IR 219, [2001] IESC 95 (14 November 2001) and the recent decision of Tugendhat J in Hunt v Evening Standard [2011] EWHC 272 (QB) (18 February 2011)). However, this is a long way from saying that such a general bad reputation renders a plaintiff libel-proof.…

Prior restraint and temporary injunctions in defamation cases

15 February, 201123 September, 2016

| 7 Comments

| Defamation, Defamation Act 2009, Freedom of Expression, prior restraint

Some orders have been made on foot of the Defamation Act, 2009 (also here) – see, for example, Lowry v Smyth (background here and here; coverage of the order here), Mellon v Associated Newspapers (coverage here), and Meegan v Associated Newspapers (coverage here) – but Watters v Independent Star [2010] IECC 1 (03 November 2010) remains the only reported judgment on provisions of the Act. In that case, the newspaper had published an article headlined Larry’s Secret Shower Buddy, purporting to expose a a “seedy”, “weird”, “bizarre” and “secretive” homosexual relationship in prison between the plaintiff Barry Watters and Larry Murphy, a notorious criminal who had been convicted of rape and attempted murder. Matthews J held that the plaintiff had a residual reputation which was damaged by the newspaper’s allegations. He therefore granted the plaintiff a declaratory order pursuant to section 28 of the 2009 Act (also here) that the article was defamatory, and he made a further order pursuant to section 33 of the 2009 Act (also here) prohibiting the newspaper from re-publishing the defamation. Nevertheless, the newspaper repeated the defamation: in an article alongside a photograph of Watters the newspaper had stated:

We may have to apologise to this revolting pervert but will we mean it?

…

Judgment reserved in Lowry v Smyth

17 December, 201018 December, 2010

| 2 Comments

| Defamation, Defamation Act 2009

In Watters v Independent Star [2010] IECC 1 (3 November 2010) Matthews J in the Circuit Court handed down the first reserved decision under the Defamation Act, 2009 (also here). We will soon have the second. The politician Michael Lowry TD (pictured left) has taken a defamation action against journalist Sam Smyth over comments Smyth made in an article in the Irish Independent newspaper last May and on TV3 last June. I’ve already blogged about an earlier procedural skirmish in the case. The full action was heard today. According to the RTÉ news website (with links added by me to the relevant sections of the 2009 Act):

Mr Lowry says that Mr Smyth’s assertions portrayed him as corrupt, dishonest and untrustworthy and both unfit and unsuitable to be a minister or a TD. He said that other people had taken this same meaning from Mr Smyth’s comments. Mr Lowry says the comments were false and as such were deeply offensive and defamatory.

Mr Lowry is seeking that the court make a number of orders including that Mr Smyth apologise, publish a correction and refrain from making such public comments in the future. However, Mr Smyth is arguing that the comments made by him were true and represented his honest opinion.

…

Reshaping the Law for the Digital Economy – II – the liability of intermediaries

24 November, 20106 November, 2012

| 2 Comments

| Conferences, Lectures, Papers and Workshops, Copyright, Cyberlaw, Defamation, Defamation Act 2009, Digital Rights, Fair use

As I said my first post yesterday, last Friday morning I attended a seminar on Promoting innovation – Reshaping the Law for the Digital Economy, hosted by Google Ireland, co-sponsored by the Institute for International and European Affairs (IIEA), and chaired by TJ McIntyre. In that post, I summarized the presentations by Johnny Ryan (the internet has created a hinge in history when information is plastic and copyright law is a block upon total commerce) and Niall O’Riordan (for Google, a fair use doctrine in Ireland and Europe is an idea whose time has come). In this post, I’ll look at last Friday’s other presentations; and in tomorrow’s post, I’ll add a few comments of my own on some of the issues raised by the seminar.

Kate O’Sullivan (Director of Regulation and Public Policy, UPC Ireland) pointed out that intermediaries (such as Google, Facebook, and ISPs) are caught in the middle between content producers seeking to enforce their rights as against users, and it is not appropriate that ISPs should be judge and jury in such a cause. Section 40(3) of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 (also here) provides that the mere provision of facilities by an ISP, for example, which enable the making available to the public of copies of a work “shall not of itself constitute an act of making available to the public of copies of the work” and therefore shall not for that reason amount to a copyright infringement.…

Sleepwalking into an obscene damages award

17 November, 20103 February, 2013

| 8 Comments

| Defamation, Defamation Act 2009, Freedom of Expression, Irish cases, Irish Law

Obscene. Once I had caught my breath, and collected my composure, this was my immediate reaction to learning that a high court jury had awarded 10 million euro in libel damages, made up of €9m in compensatory damages and €1m in aggravated damages. According to RTÉ:

A Co Louth businessman who took a libel action against his former employers after an incident in which he sleep walked naked has been awarded €10m in damages.

The jury agreed that a press release sent out by mining company Kenmare Resources in July 2007 insinuated that Donal Kinsella had made inappropriate sexual advances to company secretary Deirdre Corcoran on a business trip in Mozambique in May that year.

The award is the highest award of damages for defamation in the history of the State. … Lawyers for Kenmare Resources were granted a stay on the award pending an appeal to the Supreme Court. … Kenmare Resources issued a statement saying it was ‘shocked’ at the verdict and it will ‘immediately and vigorously appeal the decision’.

The Irish Times added: “Outside court, Mr Kinsella (67) said he was ‘exhilarated and vindicated’ by the jury’s verdict”. I do not in any way begrudge him the vindication of his reputation, but does this really require 10 million euro?…

cearta.ie

Category: Defamation Act 2009

Irish defamation reform: SLAPPs, false dawns, and silver linings

Ireland’s defamation laws are being used to ‘pressure journalists’ – EU commissioner

The truth, pure and simple, as a defence to defamation claims after Depp v NGN

Is the Press Council system working?

Prior restraint and permanent injunctions in defamation cases – updated

Prior restraint and temporary injunctions in defamation cases

Judgment reserved in Lowry v Smyth

Reshaping the Law for the Digital Economy – II – the liability of intermediaries

Sleepwalking into an obscene damages award