Eoin – Page 159 – cearta.ie

I concluded yesterday’s post by wondering what the impact of the Defamation Bill, 2006 might be upon the decision of Charlton J in Leech v Independent Newspapers (High Court, unreported, 28 June 2007). After that decision was handed down, the Department of Justice confirmed that the Bill, which failed to complete its passage through the Oireachtas during the lifetime of the last government, is to be re-entered on the order paper of the new Seanad in the Autumn (see Irish Times (sub req’d)). Though it is a flawed Bill, it is much better than the existing position; so this would be good news, were it not for the fact that the Irish Times predicts the Bill will be altered to reflect a more minimalist approach to libel reform.

Whatever else is excised, it is certain that the provisions relating to the Press Council and Press Ombudsman will be retained, not least because the membership of the Council was announced early in the Summer, and the Ombudsman has recently been appointed …

Defamation, privilege, and a public interest defence, in the Irish High Court

1 October, 200731 July, 2016

| 16 Comments

| Defamation, Freedom of Expression

At the end of June, communications consultant Monica Leech lost a high-profile libel action against the Irish Independent; in essence, the jury found that the article in question by Frank Kahn did not bear the defamatory meanings which she had sought to attribute to it. Given the profile of the case, there was much media (Breaking News | Irish Independent | Irish Times (sub req’d) | Irish Times (sub req’d) | RTÉ) and online (Blurred Keys | JC Skinner | Of Laws and Men | Our Man in Gdansk) reaction.

However, there is more to the case than the newsworthiness of a high profile libel loss. In fact, Mr Justice Charleton (pictured above left) made an important ruling during the course of the trial, which as Mary Carolan pointed out in the Irish Times the following Saturday gives more leeway to media on libel defence (sub req’d). The Best of Both Worlds described it as a slight gain for free speech. I think it is rather more than that. I think that it is an important affirmation of the acceptance into Irish law of a defence (which the judge called a “public interest” defence) which has been developing and strengthening elsewhere in the common law world.…

Who says practising lawyers don’t get Web2.0?

31 July, 200727 August, 2007

| 3 Comments

| Irish Law

Via a story by John Kennedy in Silicon Republic, I learn that Irish practising lawyers will soon be able to meet their continuing professional development requirements by downloading lectures onto their mp3 players. It’s all a far cry from the apocryphal English judge in the 1960s posing the famous question: “Who are the Beatles?” (and equally silly enquiries or admissions). Now, it seems that Ireland’s barristers and solicitors will be able to listen to learned lectures on recent legal developments and then segue straight into Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (Beatles‘ site | wikipedia) or Justin or Rihanna or Wolfgang or Ludwig.

In Ireland, both solicitors and barristers have continuing professional development obligations, to maintain, develop, improve, and broaden their professional and personal knowledge, skills and abilities. It basically boils down to attending conferences to keep up to date. Now, according to Silicon Republic, a joint venture between Irish e-learning firm Prime Learning and legal publishers First Law means that, since 23 July last, relevant courseware is accessible and audio downloads are available at FirstCPD. From FirstCPD’s “About Us” page:

FirstCPD is Irelandâ€™s first dedicated website for the delivery of leading-edge, online education for professionals in various disciplines.

…

How long should the copyright term be?

31 July, 200720 August, 2007

| 3 Comments

| Copyright

At present, at Irish law, the basic copyright term is the life of the author plus seventy years (see section 24 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 (see also here)).

We have come a long way from the eighteenth century’s 14 year term (renewable once). Or have we? Peter Black points to the following story in Ars Technica in which an economist is now arguing that 14 years is the optimal level for copyright protection [with additional links]:

Researcher: Optimal copyright term is 14 years

By Nate Anderson | Published: July 12, 2007 – 01:36PM CT

It’s easy enough to find out how long copyrights last, but much harder to decide how long they should lastâ€”but that didn’t stop Cambridge University [link] PhD candidate [link] Rufus Pollock [link] from using economics formulas to answer the question. In a newly-released paper, Pollock pegs the “optimal level for copyright” at only 14 years.

…

You don’t know what you’ve lost till it’s gone? Privacy in a world gone Web2.0

29 July, 200724 February, 2009

| 10 Comments

| data retention, Media and Communications, Privacy

Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you’ve got
Till it’s gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot

Joni Mitchell, Big Yellow Taxi

I’ve had this Joni Mitchell song going round in my head since I read Damien Mulley’s apocalyptic post Privacy in a world of lifestreaming on Friday (and the song is relevant to my point even though Joni has sold out to Starbucks – say it ain’t so, Joni, say it ain’t so – she has signed a 2-album deal with Starbucks’ “Hear Music” label, and the first album, released in September, will contain a new version of Big Yellow Taxi).

Anyway, prompted in part by a story that UK police will soon have cameras in their helmets, Damien raises important questions about a world where our privacy is invaded – not so much by state surveillance or corporate cctv, which we all now recognise, tolerate, even accept (so the helmet cams are little more than portable cctv) – as by each other, as others post photos of us to flickr (or other photo sharing sites), or videos of us to YouTube (or other video sharing sites), or all this and much much more on bebo (or other social networking sites), to say nothing of what we reveal about others in the blogosphere.…

Justice shall be administered in public

28 July, 200720 March, 2013

| 9 Comments

| Irish Society, Media and Communications, Open Justice

Article 34.1 of the Constitution provides that

Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in the manner provided by this Constitution, and, save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law, shall be administered in public.

Giving judgment in the Supreme Court yesterday in a very sad case, Hardiman J began by saying:

On the hearing of this appeal the Court was requested on both sides of the case to take such steps as were possible to prevent the publication of the applicant’s name or at of any detail which might identify him. This was requested on the basis that he was, undisputedly, a person under a disability.

The Court did not consider that it had, in these proceedings, any power to make an order in that regard. However the Court agreed to, and did, request any representatives of the media who might be present not to publish his name and said that it would not itself do so. The Court now repeats this request to any person who may wish to report this case either for the ordinary media or for the purposes of law reporting.

…

Simpsons’ Law

27 July, 200724 September, 2008

| No Comments

| Cinema, television and theatre, Copyright, Privacy

Having had the pleasure of seeing The Simpsons Movie (imdb | wikipedia | and see here for a legal dispute about the domain name), I’m going to leave the reviews to the movie professionals (not perfect, but … the funniest animated film in years, writes Donald Clarke in The Ticket supplement to today’s Irish Times), and make only three quick comments from the perspectives of legal issues often raised on this blog. Warning, there are mild movie plot spoilers here.

First, copyright. When the movie reaches the tv series credit sequence, this remade sequence has Bart write on the chalkboard “I will not illegally download this movie”.

Second, privacy. There is a wonderful sequence where Marge and Lisa chat on a train and the scene cuts to an ominously huge government listening operation, where the operative listening in on their conversation celebrates wildly on having found the only useful piece of information (ever?).

Third, legal research. Last week’s “Friday Fillip” on Slaw meditated on the linkages between The Simpsons and Legal Research; and there’s more in the same vein here.

As I have often seen online: share and enjoy.…

Wigs and Gowns on Judges and Barristers – Silly Anachronism or Necessary Solemnity?

25 July, 200723 October, 2011

| 6 Comments

| Court dress, judges, Law

A few weeks ago, Pupilblogger wrote, of the barrister’s wig and gown:

I wore a wig and my gown in combat for the first time today. And the bloody tunic shirt with detachable collars, the wing collar and the bands.

Did I look and feel silly? You bet. I looked no sillier than any other barristers in court, of course, but they are at least used to it by now. …

Next year’s pupilbloggers won’t have to look quite so silly any more. I learn (via ContractsProf Blog and Concurring Opinions) that in England and Wales, the wearing of wigs, wing collars and bands by judges and advocates in civil and family courts, but not in criminal courts, is to be abolished from 1 January 2008, and that judicial gowns are to be radically simplified from the same date. Following a public consultation paper on court working dress, prepared in 2003 (html | pdf) but only released in June of this year, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (BBC | wikipedia) took the decision to make life easier for pupilbloggers everywhere. He explained (from the press release):

At present High Court judges have no less than five different sets of working dress, depending on the jurisdiction in which they are sitting and the season of the year.

…