The amendment simply says that the ordinary rule as to costs following the event subject to the certain exceptions, which are set out in section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015, will "apply in relation to the costs of any application for an identification order." I do not accept the proposition that X should ever be entitled to its costs. If somebody comes to court and goes through all the hoops of saying, "I have been defamed. The Defamation Act will probably succeed. I do not know and cannot find ou…

I have to express my disappointment in relation to the Minister's continued opposition to normalising the provisions of the proposed identification order procedure in respect of costs and I do make the point, who is facilitating anonymous defamation? Who actually is doing it? I mean I cannot defame somebody that easily, anonymously, except through an Internet service provider. They are the people who are profiting from and disseminating the defamation against me. As I said on the last occasion, it is not like An Po…

I move amendment No. 20: In page 22, after line 42, to insert the following: “(6) Where an identification order has been made under this section, a court may at any time thereafter vary any condition to which the order may have been made in accordance with subsections (4) and (6).”.

The amendment simply provides that where a condition has been attached to the making of an identification order, the court will retain the right to vary any condition thereafter. What I am saying is, supposing the Circuit Court says that the identification order will be used solely for the purpose of a defamation case and not for any other purpose. There may well be circumstances in which there are very good reasons somebody who is in possession of an identification order may want to use that information in a colla…

In relation to the second of the two amendments we are discussing, the Minister has resolutely taken the position that where an identification order is made, the fact that it has been made and has identified a particular person cannot be used by the victim of the defamation as evidence that the person identified was the poster online of the defamation. It cannot be used directly as evidence because it is hearsay. The Minister, for some reason, is digging his heels in to stop the use of an identification order as ev…

Is it admissible?

All I am saying is that it should be admissible, subject to contradiction or denial. It should at least be enough that the plaintiff in the defamation proceedings says they got an identification order naming Joe Bloggs as the poster. That should be enough for the court to be going on with, unless Joe Bloggs is named as the defendant. If Joe Bloggs is then in the situation that he wants to come in and contradict it, under our amendment, he is fully free to do so under our amendment. At least he cannot have a smart-a…

I move amendment No. 21: In page 22, after line 42, to insert the following: “(6) Where an identification order has been made in accordance with this section, and where an anonymous publisher has been identified thereunder by an intermediary service provider, the said identification as relevant information shall, subject to the right of any party to contradict or disprove that he or she is or was the anonymous publisher, be admissible in evidence in any defamation proceeding where the court hearing such proceeding …

In response to what Senator Gallagher said, I found on one occasion that someone was posting stuff in my name. The funny thing was that they could do so with impunity and when I tried to get it taken down, the Minister should have seen the obstacles that were put in my way, including having to get copies of my passport, sworn declarations and all sorts of things. It is not really to do with defamation, but it should be an offence to impersonate someone else. I fully accept what Senator Gallagher said about the cons…

I just want to say a couple of things to the Minister. I welcome his openness to further amendments to the Bill. However, in relation to section 22, whereas I take a good deal of what he says on board, I think he should consider that, from the point of view of the Davids facing the Goliath, this is a fairly frightening thing for an individual who is defamed anonymously. I ask the Minister to consider this very carefully. This individual does not know who has defamed him, by definition. He does not know whether the …

It is one year, and it can possibly be extended to two.

I move amendment No. 21: In page 22, line 11, after “is” where it firstly occurs to insert “seriously”.

I move amendment No. 22: In page 22, line 17, to delete “provider, and” and substitute “provider.”.

I move amendment No. 23: In page 22, to delete lines 18 and 19.

I move amendment No. 24: In page 22, line 20, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.

I move amendment No. 25: In page 22, to delete lines 32 to 37.

I move amendment No. 26: In page 22, to delete lines 38 to 42 and substitute the following: “(5) The court may order that the relevant internet service provider pay any or all of the applicant’s costs where it appears that the service provider failed or refused unreasonably to provide the applicant with relevant information when requested so to do or where the applicant succeeds in obtaining an identification order.”.

I move amendment No. 27: In page 24, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following: “(7) In any defamation proceeding, relevant information supplied by a relevant service provider shall be admissible without further proof where the court so orders, if it is supplied to an applicant upon request or on foot of an identification order.”.”.

On the last occasion, I moved a number of things and the Minister was to reply to some of them.

Does the Minister want to answer?