Section 4 relates to the role of the jury in High Court defamation actions. I am not sure if they were made in order of priority, but recommendation 1 states, “The Committee recommends that the proposal under Head 3 to abolish juries in High Court defamation actions should be removed.” Recommendation 2 states, “The Committee recommends that juries should be maintained in High Court defamation actions in order to make findings of fact” and continues in relation to the quantum of damages.
If one takes a defamation case to the Circuit Court, there is no issue because one is not entitled to a jury in a Circuit Court defamation action. I also happen to think it is potentially dangerous to remove the voice of juries in significant defamation cases where it is, ultimately, a jury of peers who should be making the decision as to whether the very high threshold of defamation has actually been met.
Key terms by TF-IDF across 8,843 words from 8 speakers. The summary quotes the highest-scoring sentences verbatim — nothing is paraphrased.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Marie Sherlock and Duncan Smith; Níl, Deputies Mary Butler and Emer Currie.
| Question | Result | Tá–Níl |
|---|---|---|
| Amendment put: | Carried | 85–68 |
| Amendment put: | Carried | 85–68 |
| Amendment put: | Lost | 67–86 |
| Question put: "That the motion be agreed to." | Carried | 103–49 |
| Question put: | Carried | 87–66 |
| Question put: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill." | Carried | 86–64 |
Party shown is the one each member held on 2025-04-30, frozen by a dated join — not their party today. The Oireachtas API publishes no date of birth and returns an empty gender field for every member in this period, so no age or gender breakdown is shown.