Defamation legislation passed in the Dáil last week falls short of what is required to address adequately serious free-speech concerns, a coalition of media, journalism and free speech organisations has said.
Thirty organisations including the National Union of Journalists, RTÉ and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties signed a statement calling on members of the Seanad to amend the Bill to include provisions to counter the use of so-called Slapps in areas such as copyright, data protection and privacy in addition to defamation, which is currently addressed.
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (Slapps) are legal actions taken, often by large corporate entities or wealthy individuals, to intimidate critics, often journalists or activists.
The intention is often to shut down public debate or criticism by bringing an action the other party does not have the resources to fight. These have been widely criticised as a threat to free speech, transparency and the media.
READ MORE
The Ireland Anti-Slapp Network, which includes prominent lawyers and academics, described the present wording of the Bill as “a missed opportunity to protect the freedom of expression that is the lifeblood of our democracy”.
It said it had engaged with Government throughout a consultation process and suggested a number of targeted amendments it believed would “significantly strengthen” the legislation, but these were not incorporated.
“While the Bill brings in provisions that give effect to aspects of the EU Anti-Slapp Directive, it falls short of transposing the directive’s full set of minimum standards and protections, which Ireland is legally required to implement in full by May 2026″ the group says.
Jessica Ní Mhainín, head of policy and campaigns at Index on Censorship said it was important that the Defamation (Amendment) Bill was changed.
“Its complex and flawed provisions risk becoming tools only accessible to those with significant legal resources – not the individuals most often targeted with SLAPPs,” she said.
“We need the senators to take action now to stop this inadequate Bill from being passed into law.”
During a debate on the Bill in the Seanad on Wednesday, Fine Gael Senator Linda Nelson Murray said Ireland had the same number of defamation cases with 5.3 million people as the entire UK, which has a population of 68 million.
The State “continues to record the highest per capita rate of defamation litigation in the common-law world”, she said.
Ms Nelson Murray called for the introduction of a statutory harm test in defamation legislation to mirror the one in the UK “where a statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant”.
Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan said the biggest issue with current defamation law “is the extent to which people are defamed online by anonymous, unknown individuals”.
The proposed legislation includes a provision for someone to go to the Circuit Court and get an order for the service provider to identify the person who has been defaming them.
It provides protection for “fair and reasonable publication” and safeguards against Slapps in a bid to “prevent the misuse of defamation laws to stifle public-interest reporting”, he said.
The Bill aimed to reduce legal costs and delays, support easier access to justice and provide “enhanced protection for responsible public-interest journalism”.
Mr O’Callaghan said abolishing juries “will and should reduce the incidence of excessive or disproportionate awards”.
Independent Senator Michael McDowell warned that if defamation cases “can only be decided by a judge sitting alone” this would not be “a happy change in our law”. In five or 10 years’ time “people in the media who want to get rid of all juries in all defamation actions” will question a judge who rules a number of times against media organisations and disbelieve “particular kinds of witnesses”, he said.
Sinn Féin Senator Nicole Ryan said that by removing juries the Government would “take a sledgehammer to a core principle of our legal system”.
