1. A defence, to be known as "the defence of reasonable publication" should be provided for, which would be available where a defendant could show that the publication in question was made in the course of, or for the purposes of the discussion of some subject of public interest, the public discussion of which was for the public benefit.
2. Juries should continue to have a role in assessing damages in the High Court. However, the parties to the proceedings should be able to make submissions to the court, and address the jury, concerning damages. Furthermore, the judge in such proceedings would be required to give directions to the jury on this point.
3. The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in defamation cases should be set at €50,000.
4. There should be a clear statutory statement to the effect that, in a defamation appeal from the High Court, the Supreme Court could substitute its own assessment of damages for that awarded in the lower court.
5. There should be no substantive change in the
law concerning the presumption of falsity. However, all plaintiffs in defamation proceedings should, in future, have to file, within a specific period of time, an affidavit which would verify
the particulars of their claim. Failure to file such an affidavit could, in certain circumstances, result in the claim being struck out.
6. A press council should be established, on a statutory basis, which would have a number of functions, including the preparation of a press code of conduct and the investigation of complaints in respect of alleged breaches of that code.
7. Any proposed legislation should only apply to causes of action which accrue after it comes into operation.
8. The changes already proposed which would see defendants in defamation actions being able to make lodgements in court regardless of whether liability is admitted or denied should be accompanied by an additional provision which would permit a plaintiff, should they so wish, to inform the court that they have accepted a lodgement and also to inform the court of the consequences for them of the resolution of the defamation proceedings.
9. The tort of malicious falsehood should be retained but should be restated in a clearer and more simplified manner.
10. A new fast-track procedure should be introduced so that, in an appropriate case, it would be possible for either of the parties to apply to the court to have a defamation action disposed of in a summary manner by a judge sitting alone. The remedies encompassed by a procedure of this kind should not include damages.
11. The circumstances in which aggravated damages may be awarded in defamation proceedings should be clarified.
12. The defence of fair comment should be renamed the defence of honest opinion and its scope clarified.
13. The ability to make an offer of amends in cases of unintentional defamation (now provided for in section 21 of the Defamation Act, 1961) should be retained but in a more modern form.
14. A new defence, to be known as "the defence of innocent publication" should be provided for. This would replace the common law defence of innocent dissemination and should not be confined to distributors only but should embrace a broader category of person, for example, printers and broadcasters. Specific provision should be made to deal with Internet service providers.
15. The defence of consent should be put on a statutory footing.
16. The implementation in statutory form of a rule whereby, in defamation proceedings, only a single cause of action would lie in respect of a multiple publication, should deal explicitly with publication by electronic means.
17. The limitation period in respect of defamation proceedings should be one year. However, the court should have a measure of discretion to disapply this limitation period subject to a general proviso that no defamation proceedings could be brought after the expiry of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.
18. A statutory rule should be introduced which would make it clear that a cause of action in defamation accrues from the date on which the matter complained of was first published and, in the case of an electronic publication, from the date on which the matter complained of was first made available - in effect a "single publication" rule should be introduced for defamation proceedings.
19. Provision should be made to enable a court to determine, as a preliminary issue, whether or not the allegedly defamatory material is capable of bearing the meaning that is contended for by a plaintiff.
20. The common law offences of blasphemous libel, obscene libel and seditious libel should be abolished.
21. The offence of criminal libel should be abolished and replaced by a narrower offence to be known as the offence of publication of gravely harmful statements.
22. Various other recommendations of the Law Reform Commission concerning, for example, the making of an apology and the rationalisation of the defences of absolute and qualified privilege, should be enshrined in legislative form.
23. As a consequence of the above recommendations, the Defamation Act, 1961 should be repealed in its entirety.