Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024: Committee Stage (Resumed)
Seanad Éireann — 2025-11-12
============================================================

Sharon Keogan (IND), Industrial and Commercial Panel

I move amendment No. 11:
In page 14, to delete lines 6 to 22 and substitute the following:
" 'abusive court proceedings against public participation' means defamation proceedings or part thereof that pursue unfounded claims and that are not brought to genuinely assert or exercise a right, and have the effect of preventing, restricting or penalising public participation, frequently exploiting an imbalance of power between the parties, including but not limited to—
(a) where a claim is of a disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable nature,
(b) the existence of multiple proceedings initiated by the plaintiff or associated parties in relation to similar matters,
(c) intimidation, harassment or threats on the part of the plaintiff or his or her representatives, or
(d) the use in bad faith of procedural tactics;".
All the amendments in the group deal with the section of the Bill meant to tackle strategic lawsuits against public participation, SLAPPs. I want to be very clear from the outset that I welcome the fact that the Government has finally acknowledged the need to address SLAPPs, but what we have been given here is a half-hearted attempt. It is a framework that looks good on paper but lacks the teeth to protect people who speak out in the public interest. The amendments I have tabled are not just my idea. They are based on the recommendations of the Ireland Anti-SLAPPs Network, a coalition of organisations that include journalists, NGOs, legal experts and civil society groups that have been raising the alarm on these issues for years. They know what is happening on the ground and have seen the chilling effects of lawsuits on whistleblowers, campaigners and ordinary citizens.
Let me give a hypothetical example. Imagine a resident in County Meath, County Clare or County Donegal raises concerns about illegal dumping by a very powerful company and posts those concerns online, speaks out to the local newspapers and attends a local council meeting. Next thing, she or he could be hit with a defamation suit. The company is not interested in winning. It just wants to shut that person up, drain her bank account, wear her down and send a message to anyone else that they should stay quiet or they will be next. That is a SLAPP. Under the Government's current wording, such a person might be dragged through the courts for months or years before a judge even considers whether the case is abusive. That is just not good enough. Amendment No. 11 strengthens the definition of what counts as abusive court proceedings. Right now, the Bill focuses on the purpose of the lawsuit, namely, what the plaintiff intends, but that is not hard to prove. My amendment shifts the focus to the effect of the lawsuit. If it has the effect of silencing public participation, that should be enough. Intent can be hidden; impact cannot.
Amendment No. 14 ensures that when someone applies to have a SLAPP struck out, the court will deal with it quickly. Justice delayed is justice denied. If somebody is being silenced by a bogus lawsuit, he or she should not have to wait a year for a hearing. The court should act as expeditiously as possible. That is not merely common sense; it is basic protection. The amendment would remove the manifestly unfounded barrier for the defendant, which is near unanimously criticised as a threshold so high that it nullifies the whole point of the anti-SLAPP protection.
Amendment No. 15 removes a subsection that could allow unnecessary delays and procedural games. It is a clean-up amendment but an important one. We need clarification and more speed in these cases.
Amendment No. 16 introduces an automatic stay on the proceedings once a SLAPP application is made. This means the plaintiff cannot keep pushing the case forward while the court is still deciding whether it is abusive. It also stops the plaintiff from sneakily changing proceedings to get around a dismissal.
Again, this is about stopping the abuse of process.
Amendment No. 17 puts part of the burden where it belongs - on claimants. If they want to continue with their case, they should have to prove two things, first, that they are likely to win at trial and, second, that the harm they have suffered is serious enough to outweigh the public interest in free expression. That is a fair test. It is balanced and is already used in other countries.
The Government's version of these provisions is weak and vague. It leaves too much discretion to the courts without giving them the tools they need. It is like giving someone a map with no compass. We need clear definitions, fair procedures and real consequences for those who abuse the courts to silence others. If we are serious about protecting democracy, we need to protect the people who speak up: journalists, activists, community leaders and even just regular citizens. They are the lifeblood of public discourse. They should not have to choose between telling the truth and keeping their home. I urge the Minister to take these amendments seriously. They are not radical. They are reasonable, are grounded in expert advice and would make this Bill stronger, fairer and more effective.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2025-11-12/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:54:18+00:00
Sitting date: 2025-11-12