Defamation Law in Ireland

Kila

Hi all,

I'm just wondering if someone could clarify one or two points with regard to defamation law in Ireland. For the record, this is not in relation to any ongoing case that I, or anyone I know, am any part of, I'm simply not sure of the interpretation of the law and I want to make sure that what I'm thinking is accurate.

It is my understanding that in order for there to be an "actionable" defamation case, the item in question (newspaper article, blog, etc) must be published, must refer to the complainant, and must be false - am I right in thinking that?

Leaving aside the rules for Fair Comment for a while (which seem a little confusing to me), what if the comments which are published are negative, but accurate/true?

I understand that the burden is on the defendant to prove that what has been said/written is true (rather than false and libellous?) - are there any cases of note where a defendant has been accused of libel, and successfully defended the case by proving that what they said, while unflattering, was true?

ronnie3585

Kila wrote: »

Hi all,
Leaving aside the rules for Fair Comment for a while (which seem a little confusing to me), what if the comments which are published are negative, but accurate/true?

I understand that the burden is on the defendant to prove that what has been said/written is true (rather than false and libellous?) - are there any cases of note where a defendant has been accused of libel, and successfully defended the case by proving that what they said, while unflattering, was true?

What you are referring to is the defence of Justification. The burden of proof rests on the defendant to prove that the statement made was true. If he can prove that on the balance of probabilities that it was true then it will act as a full defence. There have been several defendants that have successfully invoked the defence but I can't remember them off the top of my head. No doubt someone else will.

Spike440

The Beverly Cooper-Flynn case springs to mind.

Kila

That's great, thanks. I'll look that one up and give it a read.

Spike440

I don't know if it's reported. I didn't realise you were looking for a case to read. Try Murphy v. Times Newspapers [2000] 1 IR 522 for a discussion of the defence. The defence wasn't upheld in that case but AFAIK this and Murphy v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [1996] 1 I.R. 169 are the two leading Irish decisions on it.

EDIT: Cooper-Flynn v. RTE & Ors. [2004] IESC 27 - it's on courts.ie

dermot_sheehan

Interestingly truth is not of itself a defence to Criminal Defamation proceedings, the statement must be shown to be of public benefit.

See section 6 of the Defamation Act 1961 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0040/sec0006.html#zza40y1961s6

Whether that would be constitutional in these days, especially after the decision in Conroy v. Independent Newspapers is another matter.

Kila

gabhain7 wrote: »

Interestingly truth is not of itself a defence to Criminal Defamation proceedings, the statement must be shown to be of public benefit.

See section 6 of the Defamation Act 1961 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0040/sec0006.html#zza40y1961s6

Whether that would be constitutional in these days, especially after the decision in Conroy v. Independent Newspapers is another matter.

So, in theory, a published complaint about a business/service would have to be warning the public against using them? Or a published complaint about a person would have to be warning the public about dealing with them?

Excuse my complete ignorance in this field, but what is significant about the Conroy case that would challenge that particular bit of the statute?

Spike440

gabhain7 wrote: »

Whether that would be constitutional in these days, especially after the decision in Conroy v. Independent Newspapers is another matter.

Do you mean Corway?