'Statement from the Dock'?

Trick of the Tail

I wonder if the 'Statement from the Dock' procedure exists in Ireland?

i.e. a person under oath in court may make a statement without fear of falling foul of libel or defamation laws.

Just wondering, academically.

A.

ResearchWill

All contained in section 17 Defamation Act 2009

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0031/sec0017.html#sec17

Important parts

17.— (1) It shall be a defence to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that the statement in respect of which the action was brought would, if it had been made immediately before the commencement of this section, have been considered under the law in force immediately before such commencement as having been made on an occasion of absolute privilege.

(2) Subject to section 11(2) of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act 1997 , and without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), it shall be a defence to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that the statement in respect of which the action was brought was—


(g) made by a party, witness, legal representative or juror in the course of proceedings presided over by a judge, or other person, performing a judicial function,

Peregrinus

alinton wrote: »

I wonder if the 'Statement from the Dock' procedure exists in Ireland?

i.e. a person under oath in court may make a statement without fear of falling foul of libel or defamation laws.

Just to pick nits . . .

A statement from the dock is not under oath, and the defendant cannot be cross-examined on it. It's only possible in criminal trials. It's rare nowadays.

If the defendant chooses to give evidence, rather than make a statement from the dock, that's under oath, and the defendant can be cross-examined. A defendant who gives evidence cannot subsequently make a statement from the dock.

In both cases, whatever is said benefits from absolute privilege, so far as defamation is concerned.

Avatargh

Peregrinus wrote: »

Just to pick nits . . .

A statement from the dock is not under oath, and the defendant cannot be cross-examined on it. It's only possible in criminal trials. It's rare nowadays.

If the defendant chooses to give evidence, rather than make a statement from the dock, that's under oath, and the defendant can be cross-examined. A defendant who gives evidence cannot subsequently make a statement from the dock.

In both cases, whatever is said benefits from absolute privilege, so far as defamation is concerned.

There are no docks. Save in Green Street, and I'm not sure if that is even used now.

Condatis

Many years ago I was the Respondent in a case where the principal witness (since deceased) for the Applicant was an extremely obnoxious piece of work.

In the course of our business relationship he had manipulated my financial difficulties to his personal advantage.

While making my case to the Court I alluded to his conduct in one short sentence. The lawyers for his side erupted. They wanted a retraction saying that my comments could devastate his career and his personal life.

The Judge said that if I wanted my comment to stand I should explain it. The other side objected strenuously. The Judge overruled them and I had my say.

My tormentor was asked by the Judge if he wanted to comment but he declined to do so. He was livid and had to restrained by his lawyers when he spoke to me from his seat. There was bedlam.

ResearchWill

Avatargh wrote: »

There are no docks. Save in Green Street, and I'm not sure if that is even used now.

There are still docks in court 1 and 2 in Cork Circuit Court, both of which are used and both lead down to the cells.