Judge says defamation law to have little impact

THE NEW Defamation Act will have little impact on the practice of journalism or the conduct of defamation actions, a conference has heard.

Mr Justice Peter Kelly of the High Court said he believed the Act would not make much difference to the conduct of defamation proceedings.

People would still be prepared to take the risks involved in such actions and the broader public would still be interested in following what happened.

High Court defamation actions would continue to be decided by a jury of 12 people chosen at random, who have no expertise in the area and who are given detailed legal instructions by the judge, he pointed out.

Juries were not a representative cross-section of society because so many people were exempted or excluded from service.

David Phelan, a partner in Hayes solicitors, which organised the conference, said the 2009 Act did not materially change the position in relation to defamation proceedings.

The balance between the right to one’s good name and the rights of a free press remained essentially the same as before.

The presumption of falsity remained, with the onus remaining on the defendant to prove the article written was true.

There was a new definition of defamation to replace the terms of libel and slander but this was not a material change.

However, there were important changes to the options open to a defendant, who previously had to either fully defend or full concede a case, but under the new Act had scope to be tactical.

Irish Timeseditor Geraldine Kennedy said it would be wrong to think the Act would usher in a new era for journalism.

Very little would change in that stories would still have to be prepared, sources found and the truth ascertained before publication. However, the new law would change the way defamation actions were handled and fought.

Ms Kennedy said the excesses of the media, mainly of the tabloid press, sometimes gave people in power the excuse to limit its powers, particularly in the area of privacy, and it was understandable that the Government came close to introducing a privacy Bill.