Defamation Bill to go before Seanad againin autumn

The Defamation Bill, which failed to complete its passage through the Oireachtas during the lifetime of the last government, is to be re-entered on the order paper of the new Seanad, the Department of Justice has confirmed.

It is expected changes will be made to the original Bill published by former minister for justice Michael McDowell, with his successor, Brian Lenihan, adopting a more minimalist approach to libel reform.

It is not clear at this stage whether Mr Lenihan plans to revive earlier proposals to bring in new laws protecting the privacy of citizens.

Legislative reform is seen as an essential complement to the setting up of a press council by the newspaper industry earlier this year and its appointment of a Press Ombudsman, Prof John Horgan, this week.

The chairman of the press council, former TCD provost Tom Mitchell, and Prof Horgan have both called for the re-introduction of the Bill to facilitate their work in dealing with press complaints.

The new Bill is likely to provide explicit recognition of the Press Ombudsman and the press council, which comprises seven independent members and six industry representatives.

Prof Horgan said it was important that any legislation passed gave qualified privilege to the decisions made by the ombudsman and press council.

He said it should no longer be an admission of liability, which could be used against a publication in a later court action, for a newspaper to publish an apology.

Prof Horgan will adjudicate on complaints by individuals about the media and he may require newspapers to publish his decisions.

The original Bill also allowed the media new defences against being sued, notably "fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public importance".

It made it harder for individuals to sue without having good reason and abolished the distinct torts (civil wrongs) of libel and slander, replacing them with defamation. Both the plaintiff and the defendants would have to swear affidavits, on which they can then be cross-examined, verifying their claims and assertions.

Under the proposed new system, a sum of money could be lodged in court by a defendant without admitting liability. Instead of damages, a plaintiff who successfully sued could seek an order forcing the publication of a correction or a statement that the information published originally was not true and was defamatory.

Plans for a press council stalled last year after the government published a proposed privacy law which met with strong opposition from media interests.