Retailers who ask customers if they have receipt to be protected under Defamation Act

Speaking on Thursday, Justice Minister Helen McEntee said that a reformed Defamation Act, which received Cabinet approval on Wednesday, would contain reasonable defences for retailers.

The reform aims to tackle what the Government has called "transient retail defamation" which it says has seen a "sharp recent increase in claims that a person is defamed just by being asked to show a receipt for goods in their possession when they are leaving a shop".

Ms McEntee said that the area of retail would now have what was called a "serious harm test" and would give security staff some level of defence when asking for proof of purchase.

"In the retail space it had been requested that we would have a serious harm test. What we have provided for is a new defence of qualified privilege. If a person makes a statement that is honest, done in good faith, for example, asking an individual if they have paid for or intend to pay for the goods that they have while they're walking out of the shop, and don't do so in a manner that is to cause upset or to cause embarrassment or to shame a person, then that is a fair defence.

"And I think it's really important that that is there."

The serious harm test in retail is not included across the board, however, something media organisations have asked the government to reconsider. Media has, however, broadly welcomed the reforms which will do away with juries in defamation cases.

The bill will also see the introduction of protections against so-called frivolous Slapp (strategic lawsuit against public participation) proceedings — actions perceived as allowing the wealthy to avoid scrutiny by the lodgement of punitive court actions.

Speaking on Thursday, both Ms McEntee and Tánaiste Micheál Martin said the bill would pass the Oireachtas as soon as the Dáil reconvenes in September.

“The intention is that this will come into the houses as soon as we return. Obviously, there's been a huge amount of work done on this legislation over the last number of years," Ms McEntee said.

“The final pieces have been more complex, and that's why they're not being produced in this part of the bill, but I have every confidence that they'll be worked on over the summer, and that they will be ready for the committee stages,” she added.

The bill will further seek to strengthen the defence of broadcasters against liability for defamatory statements made live on air by contributors.

'Balance'

It will also attempt to lower the costs associated with compelling social media companies to reveal the identity of anonymous posters by diverting those actions, known as 'Norwich Pharmacal orders', from the High Court to the less costly Circuit Court.

Mr Martin said that the new law "tips the favour" back to the media and responsible reporting. "We can’t guarantee anything in terms of human behaviour, or tactics or strategy that people may engage in, but certainly this tips the balance, I would argue in terms of the SLAPP dimension, this tips the balance back in favour of the media,” he said.

Ms McEntee said that the bill "strikes the balance" between the right to a good name and the right to report. "We must protect responsible investigative journalism from abuse of litigation by companies, by organisations, by individuals, and by political parties who try to create a chilling effect by silencing the media," she said.