The Amendments of the Media and Defamation Act were enacted earlier this year, however, there were various reactions to the white paper earlier on.
One of the most controversial introductions of this act was the Media Register, which is regulated specifically by article 20 of the Media and Defamation Act. Article 19 sets the criteria that need to be submitted for both publishers and editors to be recognised by this Registry. According to these criteria, the editors are requested to submit details needed like name, surname, name and the nature of newspaper including the intervals at which it is proposed to be published.
Whilst, in case of publishers there are two categories of requirements which vary according to the applicant; an individual or a company. In the case of the former, personal details are required like the name, surname, and age of the person registering with his place of work/ residence. However, in case of companies, legal persons or association of persons, the name with the address and company/partnership registration number are requisites for registration. Apart from the title and nature of the newspaper, in this case, there is also the need to specify the name and address of where the printing is taking place.
Nonetheless, this registration is on voluntary basis and article 20 (3) offers the possibility to an editor or a publisher of a newspaper or of a broadcasting service to cancel his registration with the Media Registrar through writing.
This register is available to the public at all reasonable times during office hours.
In addition, there were some changes with regards to the libel damages as criminal libel was removed from this Act and instead moral damages were introduced, whereby;
‘the Court may order the defendant to pay a sum not exceeding eleven thousand, six hundred and forty euro (€11,640) by way of moral damages in addition to actual damages under any law for the time being in force: Provided that in actions for slander the maximum amount to be awarded by way of moral damages shall be five thousand euro (€5,000).’
These are awarded in cases of defamation, according to the gravity and extent of the defamation, the due diligence exercised by the defendant and whether a public apology or clarification was made.
Through the new amendments there was also the introduction of a new defence against an action for defamation; that of honest opinion. To be eligible for such, the person aggrieved needs to be a public figure and that the following conditions are met;
- the statement complained of was a statement of opinion;
- the statement complained of indicated, whether in general or specific terms, the basis of the opinion;
- that an honest person could have held the opinion on the basis of any fact which existed at the time the statement complained of was published, or anything asserted to be a fact in a privileged statement published before the statement complained of.
The legal protection of sources is established under article 22 of the same Act, whereby it specifies that;
No court or tribunal established by law shall require an editor, author, publisher or operator of a website to disclose the source of information contained in a newspaper or broadcast or website for which he is responsible unless it is established to the satisfaction of the court or tribunal that such disclosure is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, territorial integrity, public safety, or for the prevention of disorder or crime or for the protection of the interests of justice.
This article was previously only envisaged for newspapers, broadcasting services, and websites registered with the Media Registrar but it has been extended to anyone carrying out acts of journalism.
This shall not be construed to be as advice but shall merely serve as a brief description of the amendments done to the Media and Defamation Act. If you would like to discuss this further please do not hesitate to contact us on [email protected] .