The main points of a defamation Bill will be ready by this autumn, according to Minister for Justice Michael McDowell, who also promised a press council that would be a "poodle" of neither media nor Government.
It would be a "middle way" between a voluntary and statutory body, he said. This would mean "recognition of an independent voluntary body which comes up to certain criteria of independence and effectiveness, and the creation of statutory consequences for such a body once it comes into existence".
But Fine Gael's justice spokesman Jim O'Keeffe suspected "reform of the libel laws will fall within the cracks in the coalition" because the Government was not "united" on this issue.
Mr O'Keeffe also questioned whether the Minister "honestly" expected to introduce privacy legislation. If he did it would be a "departure from his original and apparently current view that no such legislation is necessary". Mr McDowell replied "watch this space".
During justice questions, the Minister told the Dáil that he hoped by September or October to be "in a position to publish the heads of the defamation Bill, which will then be at a fairly advanced stage of drafting". He also plans to bring proposals to Government for a privacy law.
Mr McDowell confirmed that the defamation Bill would contain provisions for a press council, a press ombudsman and a press code of standards. The legal advisory group on defamation had suggested a State-appointed press council but "that particular model did not attract me", he said.
He favoured statutory recognition through an Oireachtas resolution, of an independent organisation which would be recognised as the press council of Ireland for the purposes of the legislation.
It would have immunity from legal action through its decisions, judgments and directions. The council would also have a code of standards "supported by and subscribed to by print media organisations with operations in the State." This code of standards would provide an "additional protection for citizens' privacy from media intrusion and harassment" and a press ombudsman would be set up by the press council to deal with complaints from those affected by breaches.
A major issue for the council would be who would select the independent members, so that it would be truly independent "because it cannot be a poodle of the media, no more than it can be a poodle of the Government".
He said that in the area of privacy "there is a view that the developing jurisprudence in this area, as well as the capacity of our courts to develop the principles of law on a case by case basis, could have been sufficient to protect the privacy of persons".
It was a "very complicated issue" and Mr McDowell suggested that "one could claim the intrusions into Leas Cross nursing home was a breach of patient privacy whereas, at another level, it could be claimed it was in the public interest that the information be published".
He referred to English cases "concerning supermodels being photographed in gyms, and a case involving Princess Caroline of Monaco and the German press, which hounded her and published photographs of her day-to-day existence".
This showed that "drawing an exact line between what is and is not permissible is difficult", but the Government believed "we should not shy away from the issue just because it is difficult if we can come up with a law which is a help and protects privacy".
