Can anything said in the Dail be used in evidence?

coylemj

Say a TD holds a press conference and makes specific allegations about unnamed (but clearly identifiable) people. The following week he stands up in the Dail and in the context of the same issue and the same event (and obviously under parliamentary privilege), he repeats the same allegations but this time he names the individuals.

Could those individuals sue for defamation based on the original press conference and use the fact that they were named in the Dail as evidence that they were the people against whom the original allegations were directed?

hullaballoo

They wouldn't need to rely on the Dáil utterances as if they are identifiable from the presser, they are capable of bringing a defamation action on the basis that there was sufficient innuendo to allow them to be identified.

Peregrinus

Hullaballoo is correct.

But, for what it is worth, I think the answer to the OP is "yes". There is no rule of law excluding evidence of things said in the Oireachtas. The usual hearsay rules would apply - simply because something is said in Dail Eireann does not make it true - so you can't submit evidence of a statement made in Dail Eireann as proof of the the truth of what was said. But you can certainly submit evidence to prove that it was indeed said.

Change the facts in the OP slightly. Deputy A makes a statement outside the Oireachtas which makes damaging allegations against a person who is not named but whose identity is hinted at in various ways. Later Deputy B makes a statement in the Oireachtas to the effect that "Deputy A was clearly referring to Coylemj". You could point to Deputy B's statement as evidence of the fact that Coylemj was identifiable from Deputy A's hints, and in fact was identified from them by Deputy B.

coylemj

Peregrinus wrote: »

Deputy A makes a statement outside the Oireachtas which makes damaging allegations against a person who is not named but whose identity is hinted at in various ways. Later Deputy B makes a statement in the Oireachtas to the effect that "Deputy A was clearly referring to Coylemj". You could point to Deputy B's statement as evidence of the fact that Coylemj was identifiable from Deputy A's hints, and in fact was identified from them by Deputy B.

But the statement from deputy B (whether made inside or outside Leinster House) would surely have no probative value in a defamation case against deputy A?

Peregrinus

Not much probative value, but some. If your case against Deputy A is that "I, Coylemj, was clearly identifiable as the subject of Deputy's A's scurrilous allegations, even though he did not name me", the fact that it's a matter of public record that Deputy B did identify you from the details given by Deputy A is obviously helpful to your case. If Deputy B can identify you, then so can others.