Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation Bill 2026: Second Stage
Dail Éireann — 2026-09-29
============================================================

Alan Kelly (LAB), Tipperary North

This is the second time in seven months the Oireachtas has been asked to legislate against SLAPPs in defamation cases. The Defamation Act 2026 was signed into law on 19 February. Part 7 of that Act inserted anti-SLAPP provisions for defamation cases. On 25 February the Minister signed an order bringing most of the Act into force from 1 March. He did not bring Part 7 into force. The Department said Part 7 would be commenced to align with a separate SLAPP Bill. The general scheme of that separate Bill was published on 11 February 2026, which was eight days before the defamation Act was signed into law. The Government asked the Oireachtas to pass anti-SLAPP legislation it already knew it was going to replace very soon. There are questions there about timing. Is this a good use of the Department’s resources? These provisions have never been enforced and this Bill will repeal them. Section 15 in Part 3 inserts a new and longer version of Part 4A in their place. The Minister of State might explain why the Defamation Bill was not simply amended in its final Stages, rather than asking the Houses to legislate twice on the same subject. She should give the House a clear, ideally published, comparison of what the new Part 4A changes versus the version the Oireachtas passed in February.
The Bill is also late. The deadline for transposing the directive was 7 May 2026. We are not very good at transposing directives on time. In fairness, there are a lot of directives that are justice-orientated but it was not presented until 1 July of this year.
We do not have a good track record and the Minister of State should tell the House when she expects the Act to be brought into force.
The Bill promises a bit more than it delivers. The language in the Bill is very strong to be fair and is practical in its effect in most instances but there are issues regarding early dismissal. How Irish courts can already strike out a claim that discloses no reasonable cause of action is an abuse of the court process or is bound to fail. The Bill's definition of a manifestly unfounded claim largely lists those same existing grounds. The defendant's application must be made in accordance with law, which means under the existing rules of court. There is actually no new procedure in place in this Bill so how is it different? Regarding speed, the Bill directs the courts to act as expeditiously as possible consistent with the administration of justice. The final words of that phrase do all the work. The courts already control their own list. Delay in our court is caused by the number of judges we have and the resources available to the Courts Service and nothing in this Bill will change that.
The burden is on the plaintiff. The Bill says that it shall be for the plaintiff to substantiate his or her claims, which sounds significant, but in any application to strike out the claim, the plaintiff already has to show that there is a real case to answer so the practical change is minute, if at all.
On costs, where a court finds proceedings to be abusive, it may take that finding into account when awarding costs insofar as it considers appropriate and may if it thinks fit award costs on a higher basis. That is a discretion that is qualified twice over. The courts already have a discretion under section 169 of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 to reflect the party's misconduct in the costs they award. A SLAPP harms its target through cost and delay not usually by winning at trial and this point is being lost. A Bill that does little about cost and delay actually does little about SLAPPs. That is the key point I want to get across here. Delay and cost are the tactics and if they are not addressed, the fundamentals of the Bill are not at the level we require.
What it could do, but does not, is bring in a way of pausing the main proceedings, so when a defendant applies to have a SLAPP struck out, the rest of the case keeps running and keeps costing money, exchange of pleadings, discovery of documents, other motions, etc. The Bill should pause the main proceedings while the anti-SLAPP application is decided.
Regarding full costs as a starting point, once a court has found the proceedings are abusive, the person targeted should recover his or her full legal costs as the default position unless the court decides otherwise for good reason. As regards paying for defence, while we are not saying that it should be paid for and are not arguing in favour of for-profit funding of litigation, has the Government considered a narrow statutory exception allowing the defence of a SLAPP to be funded in certain circumstances because it may be necessary?
On threatening letters, much of the damage is done before any case is even started by solicitors' letters threatening proceedings that may never be issued and are unlikely to be issued. Every prosecution in this Bill begins only once proceedings are started. The Minister of State should say what the Government proposes for the threat stage - not the initiation stage. For example, working with the Law Society on standards of professional conduct for such letters would be a good start.
Regarding judgments and publishing findings, judgments finding proceedings to be abusive are to be published on the court's website where practical and as soon as is so practical. It is genuinely hard to see when publishing a finding of abuse would ever be impractical. I cannot see how it could be, so why is the conditionality there? That should be taken out. The Minister of State might look at an amendment with regard to that. I will submit an amendment but it would be good if she could come forward with one as well.
Defamation is the most common vehicle for SLAPPs yet under this Bill people sued for defamation get narrower protection than people sued in any other civil case. Both sets of protections depend on whether the speech concerned a matter of public interest and the Bill gives examples of what that includes. For ordinary civil cases, the examples include activities aimed at protecting the values set out in Article 2 of the Treaty of the European Union, namely, democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, including protecting democratic processes against disinformation. In the defamation provisions, that example applies only to cases within the scope of EU directives, which, in practice, means cross-border cases.
A journalist sued for defamation in an Irish court over reporting on disinformation seems to get less statutory recognition that a campaigner sued for anything other than defamation under what we are debating today. A similar restriction applies to allegations of administrative offences. The Minister of State should explain the policy reason for giving defamation defendants a narrower definition. If there is no good reason, the two definitions should be the same in our opinion.
What is the situation regarding people who are being sued right now as this legislation is being brought forward? What happens to pending cases? The February Act contained a transitional provision - section 20 - that stated the anti-SLAPP provisions would apply only to proceedings started after those provisions came into force. This Bill repeals that section and puts nothing in its place either for the defamation provisions or for the new general scheme, so the Bill is silent on the question that matters most to anyone being sued today, namely, whether this law will help them. The Minister of State might address that in her reply. Where are we as regards current cases and will the Bill help people who are being sued at the moment? Without an express provision, the courts will have to decide that question themselves applying general law presumptions provision by provision. Procedural protections such as direction to deal with applications quickly would probably apply to cases already under way.
On the new liability to pay damages for bringing abusive proceedings, perhaps it would not if the law presumes that new liabilities are not attached to things done before the law was passed. Security for costs and enhanced costs orders may perhaps fall somewhere in between. The uncertainty will be resolved by litigation at the expense of the people this Bill is meant to protect. We need absolute clarity on this issue and I presume the Minister of State's discussions with her officials there involve trying to get such clarity because certainly as regards the provisions of the Bill as currently constituted, we do not have that clarity.
It is welcome that the Irish courts will refuse to enforce abusive judgments obtained outside the European Union - that is universally welcome - and that people living in Ireland who are sued abusively abroad can seek a declaration and compensation here. However, the Bill does not say who has to prove the foreign proceedings would have been abusive had they been brought in Ireland or on what evidence. The Minister of State should clarify that. Compensation under these provisions would be ordered against a plaintiff based outside the European Union who will often have no assets here. This is obviously a very important point. The Minister of State should explain how the Government expects such orders to be enforced in practice. If the plaintiff has no assets or ties, how is it going to be enforced?
The Bill preserves agreements between the State and a third country concluded before 6 May 2024. Many agreements on recognising court judgments from non-EU countries are made by the European Union rather than by Ireland. The Minister of State should clarify how these provisions interact with those agreements.
Regarding constitutional balance, strong protections against SLAPPs are needed but the Constitution also protects every citizen's good name and every citizen's right of access to the courts. Anyone who has genuinely been defamed must be able to vindicate his or her reputation. Anti-SLAPP law must never become a shield for falsehood either. The Government may say that this Bill goes as far as the Constitution allows but it does not. This Bill goes as far as existing court powers allow. This is a much lower bar than the Constitution sets. None of the additional measures we are proposing decides any case against any plaintiff. On pausing the main proceedings while an anti-SLAPP application is heard, making full costs the starting point once a court is found abuse, allowing defence of a SLAPP to be funded and addressing threatening letters before proceedings are issued, none of those proposals denies anyone access to the courts or weakens the protection of anyone's good name. All are within the power of the Oireachtas and all of us to regulate court procedure.
There is, however, a genuine constitutional limit. Some other countries allow a court at an early stage to dismiss the claim that has some merit because the public interest in the speech outweighs the harm to the plaintiff. That would sit uneasily with our constitutional protection of a person's good name and the right of access to the courts and is not what is being proposed here but this Bill sits way below that line.
I have some questions for the Minister of State. Why did the Government ask the Oireachtas to pass anti-SLAPP provisions in February that it always intended to replace? What does the new Part 4A of the Defamation Act 2009 change compared with the version passed in February?
Will the Minister publish a comparison for us all to look at? Has the European Commission raised the missed transposition deadline of 7 May this year with the State? What did we say to it? When will the Act be brought into force? Will the defamation provisions and the general provisions come into force on the same day? Was the removal of the transitional provision in section 20 of the February Act deliberate? Will people who are already being sued benefit from this Bill? That is very confusing. Why do people who sue for defamation get a narrower definition of “matter of public interest” than people sued on any other basis? I cannot see why there is a difference. Which set of rules applies where a defamation claim is combined with another kind of claim? That is totally confusing.
Will the Government accept an amendment pausing the main proceedings while an anti-SLAPP application is decided? Will the Government accept an amendment making full costs the starting point once the court has found proceedings to be abusive? That would be a welcome amendment if the Minister would consider it. Will the Government consider a narrow exception to the rules against third-party funding so the defence of a SLAPP can be funded? What does the Government propose to address threatening solicitors’ letters sent before any proceedings are issued? It is an area that is completely left out at the moment and needs to be addressed.
The February Act allows a court to penalise with costs a party who unreasonably refuses to use the Press Council’s complaints process or the broadcasting right of reply. Will the Minister of State confirm in reply that a defendant will not be penalised for refusing on the grounds that the claim is a SLAPP where the court later finds that it was? How does the Government expect compensation orders against plaintiffs based outside the European Union to be enforced? It seems to be silent on that.
We will have a lot of amendments on Committee Stage, depending on how the Minister of State responds. I suggest there are a number of areas, which we have put a lot of thought into, that the Minister of State might consider. Certainly, we will be putting forward amendments should she not.
This legislation is critical in the grand scheme of things concerning what we talked about previously in relation to Garda whistleblowers. It is beyond my comprehension how the Government thinks that by putting its head in the sand, this is going to go away. This is not going to go away. Many of those who are brave enough to stick their heads above the parapet are on social welfare. Imagine being put through that after all the years of service they have given. It is ironic and something this House probably needs to look at. If they were charged with serious criminal offences, they would be suspended on full pay. These people have pointed out serious wrongdoing, yet they are on social welfare. It is a genuine comment that we need to look at that. I see the Minister of State nodding. It is a fair point to make.
I know these people. Some of them are in the Houses at the moment. What they are saying needs to be dealt with by the Government. This does not have to be a “gotcha” moment. These are real issues in relation to how whistleblowing was dealt with by An Garda Síochána and how it continues to be dealt with by An Garda Síochána. I do not think it is reasonable for us to accept that the people who point this out are being penalised to the level that they are on social welfare, while other people who may have committed serious offences are on full pay while suspended. It is a reasonable point that the Minister of State should reflect on, outside of the issue we are talking about. I also believe that, separately, all of the ongoing protected disclosures that have been made within An Garda Síochána for the last number of years need to be independently audited. No matter where this issue goes, they need to be independently audited. We also need a check on documentation to make sure it is preserved.
Whatever happens, one thing that is central in relation to how protected disclosures are dealt with in An Garda Síochána needs to be dealt with. There is no possible way that future protected disclosures and the process by which protected disclosures are made in An Garda Síochána can be under a directorate, a Commissioner or a deputy commissioner within that organisation. It has to be independent and separate, not answerable to a Commissioner or deputy commissioner for access, funding, legal advice or anything else. That has never been the case and the changes An Garda Síochána has now made, and the directions it has given out, mean it is still not the case. We will never ever get to a position of confidence in that process until it is independent. As has been said in the media, a Commissioner or deputy commissioner should not be in a position or have any capacity to know about what is going on in relation to that unit and the work it does. They should have no capacity to decide whether funding is given to that unit or not. They should have no capacity to decide whether legal advice is taken. They should have no capacity to even know what experts are brought in to give advice to that unit. They should have no capacity to decide whether people are allowed into the Phoenix Park or wherever the unit is based. It must be totally independent. It is the only way.
I have made three important points in relation to this separate from what I have said on it previously. First, these people deserve respect. They deserve not to be penalised. I am asking the Government to address that now. As I said, if they committed an offence or were on a serious charge, they would not be on social welfare but on full pay. Second, there is a need to preserve documentation and ensure there is an independent audit. Third, please, once and for all, make sure that this unit is independent from the other roles of An Garda Síochána.

---

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted.

Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/2026-09-29/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-10-05T01:00:59+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-09-29