There is much to welcome in the legislation as proposed. While we support many of the anti-SLAPP measures that are included, like others, we in the Social Democrats recoil at the absence of juries within the courts system. Juries provide the judgment of a person's peers. Juries have a sense of public confidence and democratic principles built into them by their very nature. Juries reflect public values and real-world experience. They enhance trust in the justice system and represent a core element of democratic justice - the people's justice. We do not agree with removing juries and simply having the judgment of members of the Judiciary. While judges play an absolutely vital role, in many instances they are not reflective of society as a whole when it comes to their demographic profile. That is certainly some thing we would like to see changed and enhanced but it is not the case at the moment. Juries provide protection against judicial overreach and ensure fair and balanced decisions, especially in high-stakes cases. Consideration should be given to alternatives to abolishing juries. We could address court delays by hiring more judges. Ireland has the lowest number of judges per capita in Europe. We could also consider hybrid models such as those that exist in New Zealand and British Columbia, where jury trials can be requested and approved by a judge. The Bill removes the long-standing right to a jury trial in defamation cases. This right dates back to the Magna Carta, which is more than 800 years old. It cuts ordinary citizens out of the judicial process and undermines democratic participation in legal decision-making. This is of major importance and should be protected when it comes to jury trials. Juries ensure fairness and reduce bias. The fact that a cross-section of society is making a determination on the standing of a person is important, especially in cases involving powerful entities. Juries offer a check on the erosion of civil rights and support citizens' involvement in justice, just like their involvement in politics when them to go out and vote. Jury trials apply in other civil rights cases involving questions of liberty, free speech, reputation and property and singling out defamation creates inconsistency and unfairness within legal practice. Jury trials for defamation are still allowed in the US, UK, Canada, New Zealand and much of Australia. Abolishing them would make Ireland an outlier. One of the Government's justifications is the unpredictability of awards. On the surface, this might seem like a fair enough argument but it does not stand up to scrutiny. For example, very few jury awards have been overturned on appeal. We also have the Supreme Court case which has offered very clear guidelines in this area. Speeding up trials is another justification but there are no examples of this. In Britain, when similar legislation was introduced in 1998 in personal injuries cases, the opposite was true. There is no evidence that jury trials are more costly. Judge-only trials have also been lengthy and jury verdicts are harder to appeal, often resulting in faster resolutions. Jury trials have long protected civil rights. The recent Supreme Court changes have addressed many of the Government's concerns. No compelling reasons to eliminate jury trials in defamation cases have been presented and backed up by evidence. It is better to let recent reforms take effect and monitor outcomes before removing that fundamental right. Preserving jury trials safeguards the democratic process. It is important in any democracy to build public trust in the judicial system.

Sentiment score: 0.29

I thank the Minister for being forthright in his explanation of how his views have not so much evolved but probably remained the exact same. I took from his contribution that this is not something he believes in good conscience. He said he was bound by the principles of compromise. If I am to understand this, Fine Gael got 20.8% of the first preference vote in the last general election. I do not see the Lowry group here to defend the Minister or his Fine Gael colleagues. If we are to believe that this House is in any way the result of the will of the people, does it not worry us that one in five of the elected Members of this House are determining a very significant change in our court system to remove juries? We are removing the majority of a jury and justifying that by the principle of compromise. In and of itself, that is outlandish. Do we not have within this Chamber the principle of conscience, which should come before the principle of compromise? Otherwise, what are we doing here?

Sentiment score: 0.16

Similarly, the Social Democrats will oppose this section. Again, this is about the principle of having trials by jury and the word "defending". I have listened for the past hour and a half. We have read the research in the Oireachtas reports and by the various experts. Nobody has yet laid out any evidence to show why this would make the system better. I heard how it would make it cheaper, but that certainly does not mean it would be a better system. I would like to register my opposition.

Sentiment score: 0.23

I move amendment No. 2: In page 12, to delete all words from and including “but” in lines 13 down to and including “participation” in 14 and substitute the following: “have the effect of preventing, restricting or penalising public participation”. I thank Deputy Carthy and others. The Bill says lawsuits must have the main purpose of stopping public participation to be considered abusive. My proposed change is that if the lawsuit "has the effect" of stopping or punishing public participation, even if that was not the original intent, it is considered abusive.

Sentiment score: -0.40

I move amendment No. 3: In page 14, to delete lines 6 to 14 and substitute the following: “34E. (1)Where a defendant in defamation proceedings relating to his or her engagement in public participation makes an application to the court, in accordance with law, to strike out the claim as being an abusive lawsuit against public participation.”.

Sentiment score: -0.28

I move amendment No. 4: In page 14, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following: “Stay of proceedings 34EA. (1) Upon an application made under section 34E by a defendant to a proceeding, no further step may be taken in the proceeding by any party until the application, including any appeal against the application, has been finally disposed of. (2) Unless a judge orders otherwise, the claimant is not permitted to amend his or her pleadings in the proceeding— (a) in order to prevent an order under this Act dismissing the proceeding, or (b) if the proceeding is dismissed under the Act, in order to continue the proceeding.”.

Sentiment score: -0.04

I move amendment No. 5: In page 15, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following: “34FA. Where an application for declaration has been made before or during a trial of action and costs, a judge must not strike out a claim and appeal under section 34E if the claimant satisfies the judge that— (a) the claim is likely to prevail at trial, and (b) the harm suffered or likely to be suffered by the claimant as a result of the defendant’s expression is sufficiently serious that the public interest in permitting the proceeding to continue outweighs the public interest in dismissing the case before trial.”.

Sentiment score: -0.18