Defamation Claims in Ireland

What is defamation in Ireland?

For defamation claims in Ireland, defamation is generally accepted as being the publication or broadcast of a false statement which subjects the targeted person to hatred, ridicule or contempt.

This is widely interpreted by courts all over the world as meaning a (false) statement which tends to lower the reputation of the relevant person in the eyes of ‘right-thinking’ people. The ‘right-thinking’ person is basically the ‘average’ law-abiding man or women of ‘normal’ opinion and moral standards. The ‘right-thinking person’ is a form of ‘legal fiction’ that allow the courts to ignore the opinions of, for example, violent criminals who may feel that an accusation of an assault or murder is not defamatory but beneficial for their street reputation.

Truth

Every client should remember that in order for any defamation claim in Ireland to be valid the statement made must be untrue. If there is even an element of truth in what has been said or published a claim for defamation will, in all likelihood, fail. No matter how unpleasant or insulting the accusation or statement the law will not hold it to be defamatory unless it is false.

An assertion that someone is a ‘junkie’ for example may not be defamatory if it can be proved that that person has abused drugs at any stage in the past. Likewise, if you have a previous conviction for shoplifting, it may not be defamatory to call you a ‘thief’.

Slander and Libel

Defamation claims in Ireland are divided into two forms: libel and slander. Traditionally, libel was the written form of defamation (e.g. published in a book, magazine or newspaper), while a verbal defamation of a person was known as slander.

Due to the invention of sound recording, radio, television, Internet etc, the historical definitions of libel and slander have become rather archaic. While a defamatory statement made in a radio or TV broadcast may well be spoken, it is, in the modern world, regarded by the courts as libel rather than slander due to the fact that such a broadcast can be recorded and replayed. It can be ‘preserved’ and is therefore very much like a defamatory statement that has been committed to print.

Some differences between libel and slander do, however, remain. Firstly there will be the question of proof. In a libel action the evidence of that the perceived defamatory statement has been made is, quite simply, the published article or recorded broadcast in question. That the statement has even been made (never mind whether or not the court considers it to be defamatory) may be in issue in a case involving slander as the defendant may simply deny that he or she ever made the statement in question. In such circumstances witnesses may be called to confirm what was or was not said.

Moreover, in a slander action the plaintiff must prove that the words caused him or her actual ‘damage’ i.e. financial, reputation or otherwise. In a libel action the damage does not have to be proved, the court simply has to be content that such a statement is likely to lower the standing of the plaintiff in the eyes of ‘right-thinking’ people.

Some slanderous statements are, however, excepted from this rule. A suggestion that a person has a criminal record, a contagious disease, is inadequate or dishonest in his profession or calling or that a woman has been unchaste require no proof of actual damage. The court will regard such statements to be, by their very nature, defamatory (providing, of course, that said claims are untrue).

Exceptions for Defamation Claims in Ireland

In certain circumstances (namely in a court of law, the Dáil or the Seanad) even if a statement is untrue and is damaging to a person’s reputation, the speaker cannot be sued for slander because the statement is privileged.

In a trial the law recognises that it is in the best interests of justice that witnesses be allowed to speak freely without fear of being sued for defamation. It would be an intolerable situation if, for example, a rape victim faced the threat of being sued by the defendant for defamation if the prosecution failed to secure a conviction. In the same manner a judge cannot be sued for words said during a trial, and a barrister may speak as he pleases without fear of an action for defamation.

It is also recognised by the law that it is in the best interests of democracy that elected representatives should be allowed to speak freely in government without fear of an action for defamation. Therefore no matter how outrageous the allegation or questionable the motive for making it, a TD may not be sued for the statement in question.

The same principles exist in other jurisdictions a good example being the former Democratic Unionist Party leader Ian Paisley’s use of “Parliamentary Privilege” in the British House of Commons in 1999 when he wrongly accused Mr. Eugene Reavey of having been a leading republican responsible for a notorious IRA sectarian attack in County Armagh in 1976.

An investigation has subsequently cleared Mr Reavey and his family of any wrongdoing. Northern Ireland Justice Minister David Ford has also repeated in the Stormont Assembly that the Reavey family was entirely innocent. As Mr. Paisley’s statement was made in the House of Commons and is therefore privileged, however, no remedy for the tort of defamation is available for Mr. Reavey.

Other Exceptions: Shoplifting

To be falsely accused of shoplifting and having your bags searched by a store detective or shop assistant can be both a distressing and insulting experience, particularly if same is done in full view of other shoppers. The law in Ireland has however been recently clarified and it has been confirmed that such an incident does not constitute a defamation of the wrongly accused shopper. The law recognises that the shop has a right to protect their goods and that errors such as these (within reason) will inevitably occur from time to time.

Damages and Costs

Damages in a defamation case are known to be disproportionately high as the ‘damage’ to ones character may often attract compensation that match or even eclipse compensation figures for serious personal injuries that leave the victim with a permanent physical disability. Often the settlement figures awarded (legal costs notwithstanding) may be high enough to put a media organisation out of business. Due to the complex and rather specialist nature of a defamation action, both defendant and plaintiff may be obliged to brief barristers (both Junior and Senior Counsel) to work on the case.

Given the high costs involved and the risks posed to both parties by the unpredictable nature of juries, the majority of libel cases are, however, settled out of court and your solicitor will be able to advise you generally on the likelihood of the action being successfully settled in your favour.

It is also important to realise that taking a defamation action can be expensive so you need to be sure that the person or organisation who defamed you have the means to pay the damages you are awarded, otherwise it could end up being a hollow victory.

If you feel that you have been defamed and believe that you have a claim for compensation, you are advised to discuss all of the points raised in the above article with a solicitor at the earliest opportunity.

About the Author
Eoin P. Campbell is an honours law graduate (LL.B) and qualified solicitor whose primary professional experience is the area of litigation and in particular personal injury claims. Eoin P. Campbell is currently lecturing in law at two universities in Lyon, France.