Non jury libel trial in Ireland

padser

In england if the courts deem a subject matter to complicated libel trials can take place without a jury. (Eg Gallaway and McLibel).

Does anyone know if similar situation can occur here?

dermot_sheehan

Libel trials take place without a jury if both sides agree in England and Ireland. This can be done to save costs since trials are normally quicker in front of a judge alone. Also libel cases in Ireland where the plaintiff takes the case in the Circuit Court (with a maximum damages jurisdiction of €38,000) are always heard by a judge alone.

UrbanFox

gabhain7 wrote:

Libel trials take place without a jury if both sides agree in England and Ireland. This can be done to save costs since trials are normally quicker in front of a judge alone. Also libel cases in Ireland where the plaintiff takes the case in the Circuit Court (with a maximum damages jurisdiction of €38,000) are always heard by a judge alone.

This raises an interesting point about which I have wondered. Suppose a plaintiff in a defamation case in the High Court wanted the case tried before a judge alone and the defendants wanted a jury what would happen ?

BTW I appreciate that the reverse situation is more likely but you might have a case where it could suit the plaintiff for tactical purposes e.g he is a well known odious git who would not get a kind shake from a jury.....:)

johnnyskeleton

UrbanFox wrote:

This raises an interesting point about which I have wondered. Suppose a plaintiff in a defamation case in the High Court wanted the case tried before a judge alone and the defendants wanted a jury what would happen ?

BTW I appreciate that the reverse situation is more likely but you might have a case where it could suit the plaintiff for tactical purposes e.g he is a well known odious git who would not get a kind shake from a jury.....:)

Whoever sets it down for trial will serve a notice of trial. If the Plaintiff served a Notice stating that it was in front of a judge sitting alone, and I think the defendant (i.e. the party served with the notice) has 14 days to state his preference for a jury trial. If one of the parties to a defamation trial want a jury, then it will be a jury trial. Also, the time limit is, as always, not without exception.

I think you're right about the Plaintiff wanting a judge alone trial - juries might be more likely to award nominal damages than judges sitting alone.

johnnyskeleton

In relation to the OP, Order 36 Rule 7 of the RSC allows a judge sitting alone to dispose of an issue, but the wording is not very clear in regards to your query. There was a case on that rule, Duffy v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1994] 1 I.L.R.M. 364 , but I think there is a preference for jury trials so where the parties do not agree to trial by judge sitting alone, I would think that it wouldn't fly.

UrbanFox

Are all High Court cases remitted to the Cicuit Court then tried with unlimited jurisdiction ?

If so, could you issue a HC writ then apply for the case to be remitted to the CC and thus ensure a non-jury trial with HC jurisdiction ?

johnnyskeleton

UrbanFox wrote:

Are all High Court cases remitted to the Cicuit Court then tried with unlimited jurisdiction ?

If so, could you issue a HC writ then apply for the case to be remitted to the CC and thus ensure a non-jury trial with HC jurisdiction ?

The logical reason to remit a matter to the circuit court is because it is no longer likely to get high court damages.

As I understand it, a case in the circuit court can only have unlimited jurisdiction if both parties agree to it. Otherwise the plaintiff/counterclaimant must limit their claim to the jurisdiction of the circuit court(with a few exceptions such as alternative claims in landlord and tenant issues and possibly family law).

I think there needs to be a reason to remit the matter to the circuit court, and if that reason is in any way contentious or sneaky it is not really going to happen. If one party wanted a jury trial, I would imagine that they would strongly contest it being remitted to the circuit with unlimited jurisdiction.