Juries in High Court defamation actions are set to be abolished after the Dáil voted by 86 to 64 for their removal.
Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan had opposed the move as a Government backbencher, when the Defamation (Amendment) Bill was introduced last year.
At the time he described the measure as “short-sighted” and “not fully thought out”. But the Minister told TDs that being in a political party “requires compromise”.
He said there has been a general election since he made those remarks, the legislation is part of the programme for government and he is bound by that as a member of Cabinet.
Joe Canning: Red card for Darragh McCarthy raises questions about Tipperary’s mindset
Ireland is ‘out of step’ with United States on Israel, US ambassador nominee is told
Leaving Cert textbook author resigns from curriculum reform group amid ‘dumbing down’ concerns
Could Shedeur Sanders ever really be another Tom Brady after phone faux pas and NFL draft snub?
The Dáil was debating the legislation, which aims to reform the State’s defamation laws, including relating to online trolling, and to reduce legal costs for parties involved.
The Bill also introduces protection against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (Slapps), which are seen as a threat to press freedom and are usually taken against individual journalists.
Independent TD Catherine Connolly had called on the Minister to show “moral courage and leadership” by opposing the abolition of juries.
“I wouldn’t like to be sitting in your position and having to eat my words. I don’t think you should eat your words. I think you should be proud of them,” she said.
There has been a belief among media defendants that without juries, monetary award values will reduce and defamation cases would not last as long. Previously, Mr O’Callaghan’s assessment was that this would not be the case, she said.
She quoted his remarks: “If we abolish juries, I can guarantee [to] the House that we will develop a whole body of jurisprudence that will result in cases being repeatedly appealed to the Court of Appeal and probably the Supreme Court.” It is seldom the case that jury decisions are appealed, he had added.
Ms Connolly said to abolish juries “is nothing less than a bowing to vested interests”.
Sinn Féin justice spokesman Matt Carthy said his party opposes the abolition of juries as a matter of principle and would oppose the entire Bill on this basis. He added that “it would leave Ireland as a complete outlier in common law jurisdictions globally”.
The Law Society and Bar Council have pointed to the importance of members of the public determining issues relating to damage to reputation and freedom of expression, and he sees this as “eminently sensible”.
Social Democrats justice spokesman Gary Gannon said juries play an important role to ensure fairness, particularly when “powerful entities” are involved. He added that there is no evidence jury actions are more costly.
Labour TD Marie Sherlock said the legislation is now out of date. She said legal fees in defamation cases are higher than in any other civil action and the legislation should change that practice.
She proposed an amendment that would mean juries have a role in determining questions of fact but no role in the assessment of damages.
Mr O’Callaghan said it would be inappropriate and would divide functions between the jury and the judge. The amendment was rejected by 86 to 64 votes.
The Minister said one of the consequences of being in a political party “is the need and necessity for compromise”.
There had been a general election, and Fianna Fáil put forward a manifesto that he supported, which included the passage of the Defamation Bill.
Mr O’Callaghan added it was “not a question of morality but a recognition of the compromise that is required if one becomes a minister in government and if one signs up to a programme for government that contains a principle that was in conflict with what I had said previously”.
