The Government has approved the drafting of a Bill abolishing the distinction between libel and slander and empowering judges rather than juries to assess damages in defamation cases.
Work will now begin on drafting the Bill, which will incorporate some proposals made by both the Law Reform Commission and the Commission on the Newspaper Industry. However, the time-scale means the Bill has no chance of becoming law before the general election due in the middle of 2002.
According to the Minister for Justice, Mr O'Donoghue, the new Defamation Bill will give a clear statement of the law to "facilitate careful publishers in avoiding defamatory statements, and will provide guidance as to the limits of the various defences which are open to such publishers".
It will also give plaintiffs "a better sense of their rights under the law". It will give new forms of remedy to those seeking speedy redress when they have been defamed.
Under the Bill the current distinction between libel and slander is to be abolished. The Bill also makes clear that an offer of an apology by a publication alleged to have defamed someone is not to be construed as an admission of liability. This would end the current situation where an apology can compromise a publication's defence.
At present, the fact that an apology can be seen as incriminating the publication is often seen as impeding a speedy apology which, in some cases, could result in a decision not to go ahead with court action.
The Bill will also allow for court lodgments to be made by defendants in defamation procedures. This practice, widely used in other civil actions where damages are sought, puts plaintiffs at the risk of receiving nothing and having to pay hefty costs if their ultimate award is lower than the amount lodged in court.
The courts would also be allowed give new remedies, declaratory and correction orders, in addition to damages.
The defences available in defamation proceedings are also rationalised and clarified. The defence of qualified privilege is to be enshrined in law for the first time.
The Bill is also intended to detail a range of factors intended to guide the court in making an award of general damages. Juries will be retained for High Court defamation proceedings, but the assessment of damages will now be a matter for a judge alone, according to the Bill.
Finally, a limitation period of three years will apply in relation to defamation proceedings. Currently the limitation period in relation to slander is three years, but that relating to libel is six.
In a statement last night Mr O'Donoghue said he believed the proposed text maintained an appropriate balance between the right to a good name and the right to freedom of expression.
"I am satisfied that the changes proposed are needed and will have a beneficial effect," he said. He was aware the newspaper industry had been developing proposals for an independent complaints mechanism "and I would hope that those proposals will lead to tangible results in the near future".
Mr O'Donoghue announced his intention to seek Government approval for a Defamation Bill in October. He put the decision in the context of the Commission on the Newspaper Industry report of 1996 which, he said, had recommended the appointment and funding of an independent ombudsman by the newspaper industry.
He said: "Such a system has the potential to address grievances with comparative speed and, for many complainants, the speedy resolution of a grievance is crucial."