Regional Newspaper Association of Ireland (RNAI) address delivered by Johnny
O¹Hanlon, President RNAI
Johnny O'Hanlon is President of the Regional Newspaper Association of Ireland (formerly
Provincial Newspaper Association of Ireland). Past President Irish Masters Printers
Association and is Managing Editor of The Anglo-Celt, Cavan.
Minister, Distinguished guests, Ladies and Gentlemen
I would like to introduce my remarks with two quotations which I feel are central to what we
are here to discuss today;
Quotation I; "The plaintiff in a defamation action perceives himself to be a victim of an attack
upon his reputation and wishes to assert his constitutional rights to protect his good name;
The defendant who has made the statement is appealing to a countervailing constitutional
guarantee of free speech. We believe that current Irish defamation law fails to serve each of
these interests satisfactorily in many areas."
Quotation 2;" There is an element of Russian roulette to the law of libel. No other industry in
Ireland operates on the basis that a tiny fraction of it's activity can destroy it. Any industry in
that position due a danger to a consumer, or injury to a worker, can insure against it. No
newspaper can effectively insure against its own abolition if a jury gets going on it in the High
Court."
"If America had our libel laws and American lawyers were able to do to American news
papers what our lawyers are able to do to Irish Newspapers, there would be no newspapers
in America."
I am delighted to be here today and to be involved in, what I hope will be, an important day in
the reform of our draconian defamation laws. I am pleased to see Minister McDowell here and
doubly pleased that we have a minister who is not only an eminent lawyer, but a man who
has a deep understanding of the constraints currently faced by the print media sector in
relation to our punitive libel laws.
The Regional Newspapers Association of Ireland is an employers body set up almost 90
years ago to look after the interests of it's members. The membership is made up of 38
companies representing 53 weekly paid for titles throughout Ireland. Regional Newspapers
(previously referred to as Provincial) have served the communities they circulate in for nearly
two centuries by keeping them informed of Local issues and are renowned for their high
readership and the special role they play in their everyday lives.
Members of the RNAI take their responsibility in a professional and conscious manner, in the
reporting/exposing of important issues but have felt restricted due to the present
Libel/Defamation Laws.
The Regional Newspapers Association of Ireland has been campaigning for more than two
decades for changes in the law on defamation, making numerous submissions to a range of
different ministers in various governments.
Until the current proposals were brought forward it seemed as if all the time and effort spent
on the issue by so many members had been wasted as promise after promise was followed
by inaction.
The fact that clear proposals and the Heads of a Bill have now been published is, in the
opinion of the RNAI, a major advance and something that has to be welcomed.
The current defamation laws are a source of deep concern to the RNAI members, particularly
in view of the fact that journalism at a local level is of a different character. That character
dictates a different approach and greater attention to detail. This obviously means that the
potential for error is magnified when compared to other media. And because the costs
associated with a libel action are the same regardless of the size or scale of the publisher, the
threat of a libel action can be very serious for some small circulation newspapers, with the
potential to inflict much more serious financial damage, pro rata, than would be the case for a
national publication.
The area of costs associated with libel actions and the complicated procedures involved in
these cases is of great concern to the RNAI and any proposals which would speed up the
process and reduce the burden of legal costs is welcomed by RNAI.
The recommendations currently brought forward by the review group contain many of the
recommendation previously submitted to various review bodies by the RNAI over the past
twenty years. Therefore, it is fair to say that RNAI broadly welcomes the proposals as
contained in the Report of the Legal Advisory Group on Defamation.
However, within the recommendations there are a number of issues with which the RNAI has
a strong disagreement.
The proposal to establish a statutory Press Council is a major stumbling block to the bona
fides of the proposed Defamation-Libel legislation. The appointments would be made by the
government and this negates the concept of independence, integrity and justice. It serves
neither the interests of the public nor of the media.
Those of us who have worked in the roles of regional newspaper editors and managers know
only too well the importance of the cultivation of balance in giving a voice to Irish community
life and of pinpointing criminal and other developments. Just as the concept of the right to
know has been enshrined in our approach since our newspapers were established, so, too,
must the concept of justice being done and be seen to be done be part of this legal package.
A statutory Press Council would negate that most desirable objective.
The Regional Newspapers Association played its part in supporting the Law Reform
Commission to produce an exemplary set of legal proposals, untainted by any suspect
government interference.
In general the proposals put forward by the Legal Advisory Group on Defamation follow the
approach of the Law Reform Commission, with the notable exception of the suggestion to
appoint a statutory Press Council.
It would be a tragedy if the years of injustice, despite all the evidence of the need for new
Defamation legislation, were to be followed by defective new legislation.
At a time when the country is spending millions on tribunals of inquiry into corruption, sleeze,
drug racketeering etc. it is essential that those years of preventing the media from revealing
the truth and playing an essential role in society are ended and that there be no breathing
space for suspicions of leaving the door open for more governmental mechanisms which
could curtail freedom of expression and of the revelation of harmful developments in our
society.
Both the media and those responsible for ensuring freedom of information, namely the State,
must be seen to act responsibly and leave no room for suspicions of having a hand in controls
which could be perceived to be defective and not visibly and completely independent.
The introduction of a Statutory Press Council is also unacceptable if the bona fides towards
establishing what so many other democratic countries recognise - the importance of a free
press- are to be copperfastened. The many years of dithering and the ongoing support (by
way of inaction) of faulty and unjustly penalising libel laws leaves that suspicion a live issue .
If we are all to serve the public as they should be served in any true democracy the idea of a
Statutory Press Council should not be part of the new legislation.
We accept that there should be a mechanism, with the final say of someone with the ability
and independence of an Ombudsman and that he/she should have statute powers of
enforcement to deal with the issues which will arise in dealing with the need for adjudication.
We also accept that the Ombudsman should be backed by a Press council comprised of
representatives of the media and relevant, independent, experienced and respected members
of the wider community.
As I said our members broadly welcome the group's recommendations, with some
exceptions;
The RNAI welcomes the proposal for a new defence of reasonable publication and in broad
terms supports the proposals to increase the circuit court's jurisdiction to € 50,000 in respect
of libel cases. In terms of having regard to all matters when making a libel award the RNAI
believes that a stronger weight should be afforded to circumstances in which a defendant
offered an adequate, sufficient and timely apology, correction or retraction, particularly in
cases where the defamation complained of was the result of innocent error on the part of the
journalist or of production staff.
(Summary of Recommendations III)
The jurisdiction of the Circuit Court in defamation cases should be set at € 50,OOO.
(Summary of Recommendations XVII)
The RNAI supports the recommendation that the limitation period in respect of defamation
proceedings should be one year. It believes however, that the court should have a measure of
discretion to delay this limitation period subject to a general proviso that no defamation
proceedings could be brought after the expiry of two years from the date on which the cause
of action occurred.
(Summary of Recommendations XVII)
The RNAI does not believe that a cause of action in defamation should survive the death of
the alleged victim after publication. (Main Report Paragraph 62.) The RNAI strongly believes
that such a provision could seriousl y erode the ability of defendants to properly defend such
an action in court. Apart from the general defence of such an action, the question of properly
assessing damages in such cases would be difficult if not impossible.
The RNAI strongly disagrees with the proposal that the publisher of defamatory matter
concerning a group or class of persons should be liable in defamation to an individual
member of that group or class in certain circumstances. (Main Report Paragraph 62.) Such a
proposal could have the effect of seriously curtailing the freedom of the press.
The RNAI is also opposed to the recommendation that there should be a statutory provision
that corporate bodies have a cause of action in defamation irrespective of whether financial
loss is consequent, or likely to be consequent, upon the publication. The RNAI believes that
such a provision could seriously hinder newspapers in their efforts to report on a wide variety
of issues affecting local communities. This provision could particularly impact adversely on
the local press who could face intimidation from the might of major corporations in their efforts
to reflect community concerns. There is already evidence that this has been happening in
some cases. (Main Report Paragraph 62).
The RNAI is in agreement with the NNI, the NUJ, the Periodical Publishers Association of
Ireland and the UK publishers for the need for an independent system and our association will
be mandating 2 members to join an advisory committee comprised of the above to further our
aims in this matter.
I will now revert to the two quotations I mentioned at the outset.
Quotation I; "The plaintiff in a defamation action perceives himself to a victim of an attack
upon his reputation and wishes to assert his constitutional rights to protect his good name;
The defendant who has made the statement is appealing to a countervailing constitutional
guarantee of free speech. We believe that current Irish defamation law fails to serve each of
these interests satisfactorily in many areas".
That quotation comes from the official record of the Law reform Commission in it's report on
Defamation legislation, issued in March 1991. That commission was headed by Mr. Justice
Ronan Keane.
Quotation 2; "There is an element of Russian roulette to the law of libel. No other industry in
Ireland operates on the basis that a tiny fraction of it's activity can destroy it. Any industry in
that position due a danger to a consumer or injury to a worker can insure against it. No
newspaper can effectively insure against its own abolition if a jury gets going on it in the High
Court."
"If America had our libel laws and American lawyers were able to do to American news
papers what our lawyers are able to do to Irish Newspapers, there would be no newspapers
in America".
That quotation is taken from the official record of the Dail Select committee on legislation
which met on May 10th, 1996 to consider the Defamation law in Ireland. The man who made
the comment was Mr. Michael McDowell, the present Minister for Justice.
I, and my colleagues, commend both the Law Reform Commission and Mr. McDowell for their
honesty and integrity in voicing exactly what we reiterate today in our submission, no more no
less.
The obvious remedy is in the hands of the Government.
Thank you.