Gerard P. Craughwell criticises defamation bill as pro-lawyer
Gerard P. Craughwell spoke in the House and criticised the defamation bill, delivering objections he said were raised on behalf of ISME and a number of civil society groups. He argued the bill weakens protections, enables frivolous litigation, removes promised safeguards and disproportionately benefits the legal industry.
The speaker set out several central objections: the so-called no harm test allows claims where reputation has not been damaged; there is no cap on general damages; transient retail defamation protections were removed and replaced with a qualified privilege; anti-SLAPP protections are inadequate; and promised improvements to Section 26 protecting fair and reasonable publication have been dropped.
He warned that uncapped damages and the no harm test will chill free expression and encourage legal threats rather than genuine redress. The absence of protection for comedic or satiric content and no moral hazard for plaintiffs were highlighted as additional risks to open debate.
The speech flagged that replacing transient retail defamation tests with qualified privilege will increase legal fees for retailers without meaningful protection. He noted insurers have ‘subjugated rights’ and argued it is unfair to expect businesses to fight costly cases given the current appeals and costs regime.
Craughwell accused the bill of being a 'sop to the legal industry' and said defamation generates substantial fees for a small group of lawyers. He cited figures from the speech that claims fell to 289 cases in 2024, compared with 250 cases in England, and that defamation actions generate an estimated £30 to £50 million in fees each year.
He warned the bill does not meet the EU anti-SLAPP directive standards and risks reputational damage and enforcement action. He expressed support for jury trials in defamation and welcomed separate social media legislation to tackle abusive anonymous or identifying online conduct. He concluded that if the bill cannot be amended it should be opposed, reflecting the view he attributed to ISME.
Main criticisms of the bill
The speaker set out several central objections: the so-called no harm test allows claims where reputation has not been damaged; there is no cap on general damages; transient retail defamation protections were removed and replaced with a qualified privilege; anti-SLAPP protections are inadequate; and promised improvements to Section 26 protecting fair and reasonable publication have been dropped.
Concerns about free speech and chilling effects
He warned that uncapped damages and the no harm test will chill free expression and encourage legal threats rather than genuine redress. The absence of protection for comedic or satiric content and no moral hazard for plaintiffs were highlighted as additional risks to open debate.
Retailers, insurers and legal costs
The speech flagged that replacing transient retail defamation tests with qualified privilege will increase legal fees for retailers without meaningful protection. He noted insurers have ‘subjugated rights’ and argued it is unfair to expect businesses to fight costly cases given the current appeals and costs regime.
Allegations of industry benefit and litigation figures
Craughwell accused the bill of being a 'sop to the legal industry' and said defamation generates substantial fees for a small group of lawyers. He cited figures from the speech that claims fell to 289 cases in 2024, compared with 250 cases in England, and that defamation actions generate an estimated £30 to £50 million in fees each year.
EU standards, jury trials and social media measures
He warned the bill does not meet the EU anti-SLAPP directive standards and risks reputational damage and enforcement action. He expressed support for jury trials in defamation and welcomed separate social media legislation to tackle abusive anonymous or identifying online conduct. He concluded that if the bill cannot be amended it should be opposed, reflecting the view he attributed to ISME.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Other speeches
Tego samego dnia All speeches from this day →
Michael Fitzmaurice
Michael Fitzmaurice: Calls for urgent action on Western Rail Corridor
Danny Healy-Rae
Danny Healy-Rae urges action on tractor safety and media
Shay Brennan
Shay Brennan Probes Legal Risks of Trade Ban in Bill
Danny Healy-Rae
Danny Healy-Rae urges trains, dining car and automated crossing
Mattie McGrath
Mattie McGrath urges urgent investment in Waterford-Limerick rail
Michael Fitzmaurice
Michael Fitzmaurice demands answers on farmers' mental health
Transcript
Minister, welcome to the House. This is the first time I have addressed you since your elevation and I want to congratulate you and I think you are doing a fine job where you are. Today I rise on behalf of ISME. My lovely speech has been ruined because several people have already adverted to the ISME critique of the bill, but nonetheless I feel obliged to put their concerns on the record. The first thing they raise with me is the no harm test. This means individuals who have not actually suffered any damage to their reputation can still sue for damages. This opens the door to frivolous and costly litigation, undermining the very purpose of the defamation law. Secondly, they point out there is no cap on general damages. Without limits, the risk of exorbitant awards will only serve to chill free speech and encourage legal threats rather than genuine redress. Third, the promise of transient retail defamation tests has been removed and replaced with a qualified privilege. This change will increase legal fees for retailers without offering them any meaningful protection. Furthermore, the bill's anti-slap protections are woefully inadequate and do not meet the standards set by the EU anti-slap directive, which Ireland must implement by May 2026. As a result, victims of sexual assault and rape may still be threatened by perpetrators with defamation actions silencing their voices. The bill also removes the promised improvements to Section 26, which would have protected fair and reasonable publication. There is no protection for comedic or satiric content and no moral hazard for plaintiffs, meaning there is little to deter vexatious claims. It is unfair for the Minister to suggest that businesses should fight retail defamation actions when insurers have subjugated rights and our courts permit appeals without any constraints or payments of defendant's costs. Let's be clear, the bill is a sop to the legal industry. This is Ismay speaking, not me, I have to say. The legal industry, which benefits from maintaining Ireland's astronomical levels of defamation litigation. Even as claims fell to 289 cases in 2024, this remains higher than 250 cases in England, as has already been pointed out. There is no judicial justification for this disparity. The court service's annual report only scratches the surface. Defamation actions generate an estimated £30 to £50 million in fees each year for a small group of lawyers. By the way, I do not object to people making a living, but I am representing the views of Ismay here. There is not justice in this bad law. The bill is opposed to a wide circle of civil society groups, journalists, media and legal academics. It fails to meet the threshold of reform required by the European Court of Human Rights, risking reputational damage to Ireland and possible enforcement proceedings by EU Commission. It is never too late to do the right thing. If the bill cannot be amended, it should be opposed. That is the view of Ismay. A number of civil society groups have also emailed over the last couple of days on this bill. I have represented their views to you, Minister. From a personal point of view, I fully support my colleague, Senator MacDool, with respect to jury cases. I would rather be judged by 12 of my peers than by a judge who is forced to make a decision as to whether he or she believes that he or she believes that it should be opposed. I would rather be judged by 12 of my peers than by a judge who is forced to make a decision as to whether he or she believes that it should be opposed. As to whether he or she believes that I or a particular plaintiff or defendant in the case has lied. I think it is asking a lot of one individual. Finally, I have got to say to you, I am delighted that you are bringing forward legislation in the area of social media. It is time we tackled the keyboard warriors and those who feel they can say anything they want about anybody they want and get away with it. In some cases they feel in some way safe by not naming an individual but they say enough to identify the individual. I am delighted that you brought that forward and I hope to see that bill pass on that basis. So I will leave it at that Minister and I thank you for your time today.