Sharon Keogan: Defamation Bill is a Retreat from Rights
Sharon Keogan addressed senators while scrutinising the Defamation Amendment Bill 2024, saying the bill is not reform but a retreat from fairness, transparency and the rights of ordinary people. She argued the bill fails key safeguards, including caps on damages, a serious harm threshold and protections against speculative claims.
Main criticism of the bill
Keogan told the chamber the Defamation Amendment Bill 2024 is a retreat rather than a reform. She said it fails to cap damages, fails to introduce a serious harm threshold and will not protect retailers, hoteliers and shopkeepers from speculative claims, which she warned will entrench litigation abuse rather than curb it.
SLAPPs and the hypothetical survivor example
She raised concerns about SLAPPs - strategic lawsuits against public participation - saying they are used to silence journalists, whistleblowers and survivors. Keogan gave a hypothetical example of a woman assaulted who later speaks online and is sued despite not naming her attacker, arguing the bill’s weak "manifestly unfounded" test would still leave her vulnerable to being dragged through the courts.
Business and civil society warnings
Keogan cited warnings from ISMI, retailers and the Ireland Anti-SLAPS Network that the bill does not go far enough. She also referenced objections from the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, the Law Society and retired High Court Judge Bernard Barton to proposals that would remove juries from defamation trials, calling juries a vital safeguard.
Allegations of conflict and chamber exchanges
She questioned whether a conflict of interest sits at the heart of the bill, saying the minister and the Attorney General had earned substantial sums from defamation litigation and asking whether that shaped the legislation. Keogan recounted an exchange in which the minister demanded she withdraw the inference, described her comment as scurrilous and sought proof, and parliamentary colleagues intervened in the dispute.
Free speech and wider legal concerns
Keogan tied the defamation debate to broader free speech issues, saying the Government has hesitated on hate speech laws and floated a so-called kneecap provision in anti-terror legislation with vague language that could be misused. She warned the bill also fails to protect satire, survivors and the public’s right to speak, and argued this outcome is not the Ireland she wants to live in.
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.
Thank you for coming in so many times to listen to us senators while we scrutinise this legislation. I rise today to express my deep concern about the direction this Government has taken with the Defamation Amendment Bill 2024. This is not a reform bill, it is a retreat. A retreat from fairness, from transparency and from the rights of ordinary people. Let's begin with the business community. ISMI, which represents small and medium enterprises across the country, has called this bill bad law. They have warned that it fails to cap damages, fails to introduce a serious harm threshold and fails to protect retailers from speculative claims. They are not alone. Retailers, hoteliers and shopkeepers are all saying the same thing. This bill will not reduce litigation abuse, it will entrench it. Now let's talk about SLAPS, strategic lawsuits against public participation. These are lawsuits designed not to win but to silence, to punish people for speaking out and they are happening here in Ireland. We have seen journalists dragged through the courts for reporting on corruption. We have seen whistleblowers threatened for exposing wrongdoing and we have seen survivors of sexual abuse warned that if they speak publicly they could be sued. This is not justice, this is intimidation. This bill introduces a weak test manifesting unprofounded and it doesn't go far enough. It doesn't reverse the burden of proof, it doesn't stay proceedings to prevent legal costs from piling up and it doesn't empower courts to penalise abusive plaintiffs. The Ireland Anti-SLAPS Network and ISMI have both called for stronger protections. Why are we ignoring them? Let me give you a hypothetical but an all too real example. A woman is assaulted by a powerful man. She doesn't go to the Gardaí, she's afraid, ashamed and unsure she'll be believed. Years later she speaks out online. She doesn't name him but he sues her anyhow. Under this bill, unless she can prove the case is manifestly unfounded, she's dragged to the courts. She faces legal bills, public scrutiny and the very real possibility of financial ruin. That is the reality this bill fails to confront. And what of the jury? The Irish Council of Civil Liberties and Law Society and retired High Court Judge Bernard Barton have all warned against removing juries from defamation trials. Juries are not a relic. They are a safeguard. They are the people's voice in the courtroom. Removing them is not reform, it is regression. Now I must raise a question that many are thinking but few are willing to say out loud. Is there a conflict of interest at the heart of this bill? Minister O'Callaghan, you and Attorney General Ross O'Fanning have both earned substantial sums from defamation litigation. Mr O'Callaghan, a senior counsel, has represented high profile clients in major defamation cases. Mr O'Callaghan, I don't think that's appropriate. I'm sorry, but it is. Mr O'Callaghan, before becoming Attorney General, was one of the country's most sought-after barristers. I would ask you to be mindful of your language. Mr O'Callaghan, thank you very much for pointing that out. Before becoming Attorney General, was one of the country's most sought-after barristers in commercial and defamation law. Now, while it is of course very normal for legislators to follow careers in law before entering politics, we must question the systemic problems that arises. Do we really believe that this bill, one that preserves high-value litigation while weakening public protections, was crafted with cool, disinterested objectivity by those who have profited most from the current system? Mr O'Callaghan, I would ask you to withdraw that. You have absolutely no proof of what you are stating there. That is a scurrilous comment. I will ask you to withdraw it, unless you have proof. Mr O'Callaghan, what comment would you like to do? Mr O'Callaghan, you can withdraw it, unless you have proof. Mr O'Callaghan, proof in relation to what comment? Mr O'Callaghan, in relation to the people, the architects of the bill. Mr O'Callaghan, point of order, Chair, I think there is a clear inference there of a conflict of interest. I think it is unfair and I do not think it behoves this House to introduce that type of argument or narrative here. Mr O'Callaghan, there are a lot of members in this House that will come from the legal background. Many would have vested interest in this piece of legislation. Mr O'Callaghan, I am going to ask you to withdraw that. Mr O'Callaghan, thank you. I have considered that withdrawal. Finally, I want to speak on a broader concern, the erosion of free speech in this country. We have seen the government hesitate on hate speech laws, failing to provide clarity on what will or will be criminalised. We have seen proposals to include a so-called kneecap provision in anti-terror legislation, a clause mirroring the very same one being used to persecute Irish artists in the UK. With language so vague it could be used to target half the country for their views. And now we see a defamation bill that fails to protect statire, fails to protect survivors and fails to protect the public's right to speak. Mr O'Callaghan, you are over time and you have gone on to different legislation. Mr O'Callaghan, we are dealing with defamation. I will let one of your colleagues come in. Mr O'Callaghan, you have gone on to the hate speech bill. Mr O'Callaghan, no, I am actually talking about this particular bill. Mr O'Callaghan, you are out of time. Mr O'Callaghan, you interrupted me, Chair. Surely that time should be allocated back to me. Mr O'Callaghan, I am nearly finished. Mr O'Callaghan, I did afford additional time and now it is your colleague Senator Conway's term. This is not the Ireland I want to live in. Mr O'Callaghan, I am sorry, there are other senators in the House. Mr O'Callaghan, can we clarify whether their comments were withdrawn? Mr O'Callaghan, can we clarify? Mr O'Callaghan, you are out of time. I have indulged you long enough. I have given you plenty of time. Mr O'Callaghan, thank you.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
