A Closer Look at the 2024 Defamation Reform Bill

Abolishing Juries; The Support and The Criticism

The most drastic reform under the 2024 Defamation Reform Bill is the abolition of jury trials in High Court defamation actions. The Bill (Section 4) proposes that all defamation actions in the High Court, and any issue of fact arising from them, be tried without a jury if they are instituted after the law’s commencement. It also explicitly amends or removes references to jury trials across the current 2009 Act^[1], signalling a complete procedural shift toward judge-only adjudication.

Under current Irish law, defamation is the only area of civil law where jury trials are still the default. Going back to 19th-century legal practice, juries have made the decisions as to whether a statement is defamatory, whether defences such as truth or malice apply, and what number of damages should be awarded. A change as radical as this took a lot of political momentum which reflects growing concern about the spiralling costs and delays of defamation litigation in Ireland.

The Law Reform Commission^[2], have argued that juries often lack the expertise needed to navigate complex defamation principles and therefore damage awards can be imprecise, inconsistent and sometimes excessive. These critics cite cases such as Leech v Independent Newspapers^[3], where the Supreme Court overturned a jury award of €1.87 million, characterising it as disproportionate. Furthermore, the European Court of Human Rights has echoed this concern, noting that unpredictably large damages’ awards in Irish defamation cases are considered capable of having a chilling effect on freedom of expression and therefore require the most careful scrutiny.^[4]

Furthermore, concerns arise from a core feature of the jury system: the anonymity of jury deliberations. While this preserves the independence of juries, the absence of reasoned verdicts makes appellate review more difficult and can lead to inconsistency. Critics argue that this opacity has undermined the principled development of Irish defamation law.

Proponents of the Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024 also often cite the prohibitive cost of jury trials as a key reason to remove juries from defamation proceedings. According to the Index on Censorship, a typical High Court defamation trial can cost each party between €100,000 and €500,000.^[5] Factors such as voir dire, prolonged pre-trial preparation, and multi-day jury trials undeniably contribute to inflated legal fees and pressure parties toward late-stage settlements, sometimes irrespective of a claim’s actual merits.

However, the assumption that abolishing juries will significantly reduce litigation costs is highly contestable. Rising legal costs are not unique to defamation trials but represent a systemic trend across Irish civil litigation. From personal injuries and commercial disputes to family law cases, expenses have continued to escalate even though these matters are already tried without juries. The presence of a jury, therefore, is not the primary driver of unaffordability. Indeed, this trend runs in parallel with broader government efforts to curb liability and compensation levels.^[6] A clear example is the Judicial Council’s Personal Injuries Guidelines (2021), which substantially reduced damages in personal injuries cases, yet legal costs in that field remain high. This suggests that reducing awards and removing juries may do little to alleviate the financial burdens on litigants. Instead, such measures may simply diminish access to justice without delivering meaningful cost savings.

Therefore, looking at the jury reform in Defamation cases within the trend of reducing damages and rising legal fees across civil litigation raises important questions about access to justice. While the more modest judge-decided awards may serve the State’s interest in deterring vexatious litigation, they also risk failing to recognise the full impact on genuine claimants. This tension is particularly acute in defamation, where harm often extends beyond the financial and strikes at a person’s dignity, identity, and public standing.

Beyond issues with damages, critics, including former High Court judge Bernard Barton, have labelled the change “inherently undemocratic,” arguing that the public should play a role in judging reputational harm, as it is something inherently linked to societal values.^[7] Therefore, there is genuine concern that the move may erode public trust in the fairness of defamation law. If judges alone decide what counts as reputational harm, and how much it’s worth, there may be a perceived (or real) loss of neutrality, especially in politically sensitive or media-driven cases.

Importantly, the 2024 defamation refom Bill also introduces formal alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms, encouraging pre-litigation resolution of claims outside of the courtroom, including via mediation. This echoes developments across European jurisdictions where defamation is increasingly treated as a rights-balancing issue rather than a vehicle for punitive damage. While ADR can promote efficiency and avoid adversarial courtroom battles, it also raises a deeper question: Should a person who is publicly defamed be diverted into a system designed for compromise, rather than vindication?

The Gerry Adams Case: A Timely Example of the debate

The recent High Court defamation case involving Gerry Adams highlights the issues the Bill aims to address. Adams was awarded €250,000 in legal costs and €50,000 in damages after a jury found a national broadcaster had defamed him.^[8] However, this was later subject to criticism and review, with many seeing these awards as excessive.

Critics of the current system argue that such outcomes reflect the unpredictability and volatility of jury awards, which can vary widely even in similar cases and contend that judge-led assessments would offer greater consistency, transparency, and proportionality, leading to less controversy.

However, others point out that this case, like many defamation actions, spanned multiple years, with extensive pre-trial preparation and courtroom time. Legal fees in such drawn-out cases can easily eclipse the high damages awarded, meaning that even a claimant who “wins” may do so at significant cost. From this perspective, the problem lies not with the jury, but with the structure and economics of modern litigation.

If the Bill is enacted, high-profile cases like Adams’s would no longer be subject to headline-grabbing jury awards, but instead to more modest and judicially reasoned assessments. While this may enhance predictability, it raises questions about whether such streamlined justice comes at the cost of public participation and the symbolic weight juries carry in vindicating a person’s reputation.

The Adams case underscores both sides of the reform debate: the need for greater procedural control and cost management on the one hand, and the risk of diluting the expressive, democratic function of defamation law on the other.

Other Provisions, introduced by the Bill; SLAPP Protection and Corporate Defamation Claims

While much of the discussion surrounding the bill has surrounded the reform of the jury trial, the Bill also introduces key reforms aimed at protecting public participation and reducing abuse of legal process through Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs). These are legal threats or actions designed not to vindicate reputation but to intimidate critics, particularly journalists, NGOs, and whistleblowers.

The Bill adopts provisions from the EU’s anti-SLAPP Directive (EU 2024/1069), allowing courts to strike out clearly unfounded claims early and declare them SLAPPs where bad-faith tactics are evident, such as harassment, delay, or disproportionate claims. Further amendments are also expected as the Bill progresses to ensure full transposition of the directive, including the potential to provide for damages in favour of SLAPP targets, where they have suffered personal, reputational or financial harm due to vexatious litigation tactics.^[9]

In addition, the Bill introduces a “serious harm” test for corporate defamation claims, requiring companies to show not just reputational damage but the likelihood of serious financial loss. This test aims to act as an early filtering mechanism, preventing large commercial entities from using defamation law to suppress scrutiny or debate, particularly in cases involving journalists, consumer advocates, or campaigners.

In line with a broader emphasis on reducing adversarial litigation, the Bill introduces a measure to support alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Specifically, it provides that any time spent pursuing ADR will now be disregarded for the purpose of limitation periods under the Bill. This ensures that parties who opt for ADR are not penalised by delay in filing formal defamation actions.

Finally, the Bill addresses the increasing prevalence of online defamation and anonymity, particularly on social media platforms and comment sections. A new Section 45 of the Defamation Act will empower the Circuit Court (only) to grant identification orders, enabling the unmasking of anonymous online users where necessary.

However, the provision also contains procedural safeguards to ensure that the right to anonymity is not undermined lightly. Courts must be satisfied that the applicant has a prima facie defamation case and that the disclosure is necessary and proportionate, in line with rights under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

^[1]The Defamation Act 2009

^[2] Law Reform Commission’s 1991 Report on the Civil Law of Defamation (LRC 38-1991) Ch 11.

^[3] Leech v Independent Newspapers [2015] IESC 79

^[4] Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd v Ireland App no 28199/15 (ECtHR, 15 June 2017) para 85.

^[5] New report: Juries in defamation cases in Ireland – Index on Censorship

^[6] https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/insurance-report-shows-legal-costs-rising-even-as-awards-fall/a1794424793.html

^[7] https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41165959.html

^[8] BBC must pay €50,000 damages and €250,000 legal costs to Gerry Adams pending appeal in defamation case – The Irish Times

^[9] See Minister for Justice Helen McEntee TD  Defamation (Amendment) Bill 2024: Committee Stage – Dáil Éireann (34th Dáil) – Wednesday, 30 Apr 2025 – Houses of the Oireachtas