Lex Ferenda

Subject to signal strength and my ability to type on minature keys, I’ll be blogging live from the Irish Blog Awards in this post. I’m seated near to the front and listening to the warm up music as the room fills up. It’s my first time at the awards. Seriously, where did all these people come from?

8.20 and we’re off!

Champagne and DVD for each category winner…

8.30 the first winner, bizzarely, awarded by Rick O’Shea to himself, pop culture. Well deserved though. And Shane Hegarty best blog by a journalist. Can’t do links right now, but will do so later.

Food and drink: Italian Foodies (alas not here).

Crafts: A Simple Yarn. Again not here. Rick threatens to raffle the trophy!

Arts: Sinead Gleeson. Who is here. Winning for the third time.

Political: Irish Election. Accepted by Suzy Byrne for Cian.

Group: Beaut.ie who are sitting right at the back of the room

Irish language: Gael gan naire. Conn from edgecast gives a lovely speech about blogging as gaeilge…

I should mention that George W Bush is announcing each category.

Technology: Robin Blantford. Accepted by his mother.

Raffle time! I had 81 orange. 81 white and 81 yellow both won. Not my night…

Best designed: Sabrina Dent.

Correction: February 19, 2008
An article in some editions on Monday about a New York City Transit employee’s deft use of the semicolon in a public service placard was less deft in its punctuation of the title of a book by Lynne Truss, who called the placard a “lovely example” of proper punctuation. The title of the book is “Eats, Shoots & Leaves” — not “Eats Shoots & Leaves.” (The subtitle of Ms. Truss’s book is “The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation.”)

Link, with thanks to Language Log.

I can’t believe they actually made a mistake like this. I laughed out loud (or LOLed; I don’t think I ROFLed because it’s covered with books). It must have been a very clever joke on the part of a creative sub-editor. Perhaps it was an odd tribute to Louis Menard, who infamously put the boot in in a New Yorker article. The article opened with these classic words:

The first punctuation mistake in “Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation”, by Lynne Truss, a British writer, appears in the dedication, where a nonrestrictive clause is not preceded by a comma. It is a wild ride downhill from there.

You can guess where it went from there.

While we’re talking about the New York Times, though, I just have to mention this. As you’ve probably heard or read or seen or divined, the New York Times ran a story about John McCain and a lobbyist and the connection between them. I was much more interested, though, in the response from The New Republic (TNR), which is a detailed slab of meta-media, an analysis of how and why the Times ran the article…published less than 24 hours after the article it is commenting on was uploaded to the Times’ website! Clearly, the magazine (TNR) has been following this for some time - but it’s still an illustration of something, I just haven’t figured out what. For what it’s worth, I found the piece in TNR (or ‘the TNR’ - shades of The The?) more interesting than the Times article itself. The TNR article also has a cameo from Bob Bennett, who has a life-as-a-lawyer book called In The Ring coming out. Must keep an eye out for that.

Last year, I wrote about a novel called Consolation (by Michael Redhill) which was longlisted for the Booker Prize; it never made it to the shortlist, although it did pick up some other awards including the Toronto Book Award. This month, here comes news on its selection as the ‘One Book‘ to read (we have a similar scheme in Dublin called One City One Book; the book for 2008 will be Gulliver’s Travels!), part of a bigger libraries-and-literacy programme called ‘Keep Toronto Reading‘ run by the Toronto Public Library, and the media coverage and tie-in by one of the city’s newspapers, the Toronto Star, is a very interesting example of how to draw links between books and other forms of media. (Read/see it here).

Now Consolation itself has a strong media sub-theme, as photography plays an important role in the storyline, and therefore it is already well placed for this sort of thing. The Star adds digital versions of some relevant photographs, has a wonderful video (including a book talk and more), and is encouraging readers to compile and submit their own photographs. The library presents a interactive map that again picks up on some of the century-hopping themes of the book in a nicely visual way. The whole thing is a true encapsulation of multi-media in a way that doesn’t seem forced or tokenistic - the cross-platform ideas flows from the text in many ways and, simply, it works.

So, the new Science Gallery (based on the Trinity College campus where I live and work) is now open. Its first festival/series of events is Lightwave, and the campus is all aglow with various tie-in lights (including the projected signage pictured, right; this one is the wall of the Koralek-designed 1960s Berkeley Library where the law library is located). We’ll pass over the impact of all the generators during Campus Green Week and hope that they run on recycled chip fat or something…

The Gallery itself is small in size, but big in ambition and scope. For example, this week’s festival includes a whole range of talks, walks, events and demos; most are related to light (you’ve just missed some stuff on rock concert visuals, would love to have seen that) but there’s more to come, and other things too in the general science-and-society vibe that is in my view one of the most important areas that the Gallery must work in. In that regard, I’m looking forward to this talk (tickets necessary, €5) on Thursday night, if I can make it :

What are the factors and conditions that contribute to innovation? How are important problems found and solved? How can insights from the arts, science and creative industries be leveraged by business to develop an innovation environment? The Science Gallery presents a unique opportunity to discuss the next generation of idea-environments with David Edwards, founder of Paris’s Le Laboratoire and Professor of Biomedical Engineering at Harvard University, Colm Long, Director of EMEA Online Sales & Operations at Google and leading Irish American venture capitalist Terry Maguire and facilitated by Irish Times technology columnist, Karlin Lillington. The talk coincides with the launch of David Edwards’ new book ‘ArtScience: Creativity and the post-Google Generation’ (Harvard University Press 2008). The talk will be followed by a book signing. (taken from a bit of the website that I can’t deeplink to, and link to book added by me)

Another outpost of Lightwave is further down the river at Grand Canal Dock (home to the Martha Schwartz-designed square at the original dock*, soon to be home to a theatre designed by Daniel Liebeskind and much more besides). The Schwartz square itself has a strong light theme (including bright red poles sticking up into the sky) and added to the mix for the week is The Hive (KMA), a sound and light installation (using a lot of Philip Glass or something that sounds like him!) that is pictured (cameraphone, with tweaking), left. It involved projection of beams on the ground and a lot of hyperactive children and a sensor…


Anyway, check it all out at sciencegallery.com and around Dublin 2 all this week.

PS First attempt at this post vanished. Anyone else having trouble with Safari of late? Keeps crashing for no particular reason.

PPS Then I couldn’t get into the blog to post the second version. Conspiracy, I tell you.

* which itself was the location for the legendary video for Gloria by U2, one of the first U2 singles videos, when the area looked very different to how it does today. Definitely scope for some sort of music-on-a-barge project to mark it…

I like fonts and typefaces (as regular readers know and know).

The Atlantic Monthly (a magazine I love and subscribe to, now available online without payment as half the blogs on the planet are reporting this week) has this feature on the development of typefaces. A video insert to match is also available. And Damien noted that Helvetica (the documentary) had made it onto Google Video (but alas, it’s gone). You can buy the DVD instead.

Happy days…

Ofcom in the UK has various responsibilities under the Communications Act, but one of them is dealing with broadcasting complaints (the equivalent under current Irish law is the Broadcasting Complaints Commission). Decisions are released in a regular Broadcast Bulletin; today is issue 101 and it includes a very interesting case - not just for what it’s about but also for some of the comments made by Ofcom.

Complaints were made against sumo.tv, “a website and TV channel to showcase the best in User Generated Content and to share the revenue earned from user submissions with the people who actually make the content”. It’s the TV bit that they’re dealing with of course.

In the first clip, a gentleman (who apparently looked young but was actually a grown-up (’adult’ seems a bit stretched!) “performed a rap, which included a steady stream of the strongest language and graphic sexual references and which lasted over three minutes” and the second “appeared to be a mobile phone video of an adult frightening a young child (approximately five years old)”.

Ofcom noted that the Broadcasting Code applies to all broadcast content without reference to origin. On the other hand, it was noted that:

Ofcom acknowledges and welcomes the fact that, to some extent, user-generated content provides opportunities for a more interactive experience for viewers and listeners, offering the ability to contribute more to programming than was previously possible

but reaffirms that it is the responsibility of the broadcaster to comply with the Code. They note that while there is a certain hands-offness when it comes to content submitted to the website, “when such material is subsequently considered for broadcast, the broadcaster needs to be mindful of the appropriate Rules”. The two clips mentioned are found to violate the Code - i.e. they shouldn’t have been broadcast.

It gets really interesting, though, towards the end, where Ofcom decides to take a look at the Sumo FAQs. They find that Sumo’s terms don’t satisfy them as to things such as consents, and take a particularly dim view of the outsourcing of compliance requirements:

The broadcaster appears to place the onus of ensuring any material broadcast is compliant with the Code on suppliers such as the general public. Sumo TV also appears to be unreasonably reliant on its terms and conditions, seemingly at the expense of appropriate compliance processes.

This is important; a general note is attached to the decision - a statement of the obvious, perhaps, but the fact that it was necessary is an indication of the divergence in views between the regulator and some parts of the industry. I’ve emphasised the key bits:

Ofcom is concerned that some channels broadcasting considerable amounts of user-generated content may attempt to place too much responsibility for ensuring compliance with the Code with the individual user, and not perform sufficient checks themselves. Responsibility for compliance with the Code always remains with the broadcaster. Proportionate but robust pre-broadcast checks may impose extra costs on the broadcaster, and limit the amount of user-generated content it can air. However, it is clearly important to ensure that people aged under eighteen are appropriately protected, and that individuals appearing in items are not unjustly or unfairly treated or have their privacy unwarrantably infringed. Ofcom therefore reminds licensees who broadcast user-generated content of their responsibilities to ensure full compliance with the Code, and in particular with the sections in respect of Protecting the Under Eighteens, Harm and Offence, and the Fairness and Privacy.
Broadcasters need to be aware that simply because material is available on the web, this does not mean that it is automatically suitable for broadcast on a licensed service which has to comply with the standards as set out in the Communications Act.

Special prize (consisting of respect and congratulations, terms and conditions apply, value may rise as well as fall) for the first person to integrate this video (on what various websites/online communities would be like if they were people at a house party) into the teaching of Internet studies. (Perhaps vaguely NSFW, depending on where you work…)

In particular, the dramatisation of Facebook’s news feed / updates is particularly funny.

This is the second and final part of a report on the Media Law & Regulation seminar hosted by the School of Law, Trinity College Dublin. For part one, see here. Three very different issues were addressed in this session - the protection of sources and two defamation topics, trial/pre-trial procedures and damages. Again, this is a report without links, they’ll be added later.

Luan Ó Braonáin SC, a barrister, spoke about the ‘Protection of Journalistic Sources’, comparing Gray v Minister for Justice (Quirke J, HC), where it was noted that a “questionable privilege” was asserted by the journalist, and Mahon v Keena (Divisional HC), where it was agreed that it was well established that there was a privilege against non-disclosure. Choosing deliberately to begin his analysis with Article 34 of the Constitution (explaining that judges and courts administer justice and not parties, witnesses or the media) and the role of the law of contempt of court, he summarised the accepted law on privilege as relating to legal professionals, religious (sacerdotal) situations and members of the Oireachtas (in respect of parliamentary utterances). Under Irish jurisprudence, he argued, journalists “don’t have a privilege not to answer questions in a court if directed to do so by the court”.

He reviewed the history; in 1991, a Law Reform Commission consultation paper expressed the view that the law (as it was) shouldn’t be amended; the law at the time was Re Kevin O’Kelly (a case where a journalist was jailed for three months for refusing to disclose a source). The language of the LRC was not the most positive towards the media and their role; they found pretty quickly that the media went crazy about this! When the report was published in 1994, criticism was noted and principles examined in more detail but a majority of the Commission agreed not to disturb O’Kelly; a minority favoured the British (statutory) approach, being section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Subsequently, the European Court of Human Rights found that the British protection of sources itself was inadequate, in Goodwin v UK.

What has happened in Irish jurisprudence since the LRC and Goodwin in relation to the protection of journalistic sources? Ó Braonáin turned to the recent decisions.

Turning first to Gray, where there was a claim for damages in relation to privacy (information was leaked by the Gardai to a journalist, who wrote a story about the Grays ‘harbouring a sex offender’; see a summary from Eoin O’Dell’s blog *here*), the question was what evidence could they (the Grays) produce that there had been a leak? The journalist testified saying that he had received an anonymous phone call from a woman, but refused to answer whether he had spoken to members of the Gardai as this would disclose the source of his information. Asked if the statement that Gardai are ‘not commenting’ in the article is true (yes), then asked if they ever did comment (no answer) - thus the plaintiffs established it to the satisfaction of the judge (no other conclusion possible). The judge took an approach which avoided disclosure (through nuanced, clever questioning without having to force), but also expressed scepticism about the existence of the privilege. This subtle approach is the “correct approach”, Ó Braonáin said, as this is not actual privilege, which journalists are not entitled to. But while this is not a privilege, there is nonetheless an interest on the part of a democratic society in allowing information to reach the media. Our Constitution makes provision for freedom of expression and that the people have an entitlement that is not to be interfered with unnecessarily.

In Mahon v Keena, the Court focused entirely on the Convention aspects, made “fairly swinging findings” that there was a principle of non-disclosure (although in the context that the parties did not dispute this which is very relevant). The problem with the O’Kelly approach was that it was in a context of judges trying to assert their authority by compelling witnesses to answer a question - but now, because of the constitutional and Convention contexts, judges are more willing to seek ways to avoid such a conflict (as in Gray). There’s little doubt that the High Court would have jailed Kennedy and Keena if they could have. He concluded by saying that we await litigation between a newspaper and a litigant where the latter doesn’t accept the Convention stance.

Karen Harty (McCann Fitzgerald) spoke next. Harty is a solicitor, she explained, who has specialised in media law since being an apprentice, but does a balance of plaintiff and defence work. Her comments related to procedural deficiencies in the libel law system, but she noted that she is ‘not a fan; of the Defamation Bill. If procedures not operating efficiently or effectively, the law can be irrelevant. She added that some aspects of the Bill seemed to be (as in the classic Father Ted episode) running the risk of destroying the car by trying to fix a dent with a hammer; the motor theme was continued by the metaphor of the High Court as the ‘engine’ that must work correctly if the system of defamation law is to stay on the road. The system from publication to decision was explained and criticised, noting problems with delay, information and more.

On the issues raised in earlier talks, it was wondered whether the drafters of section 24 have thought about the practical implications of what they drafted? It is clear in the Bill that the jury decides whether the defendant has complied with responsible-journalism requirements; in the UK, the practice has developed that in a jury case, the judge is the arbiter of fact in relations to Reynolds. Therefore the jury will have to be presented with a detailed list of questions to be answered. Also relevant is the fact that such defences will lead to detailed particulars being sought by the plaintiff (i.e. in pre-trial phases) of the responsible steps taken by the journalist.

Harty’s wishlist for reform included assigning judges to the jury list who could build up expertise, reforming the time and scheduling elements of the listing process, the introduction of case management and more. She hoped that academic members of the audience would come away with a better perspective on the realities of libel litigation for the people involved.

Paula Mullooly (McAleese & Co), also a solicitor with significant defamation law experience, spoke about damages in the law of defamation, discussing the role of aggravated and exemplary/punitive damages. Apologies for the lack of a report here (a technical error of my own making); Mullooly discussed in particular Crofter v Genport, the recent (non-libel) Shortt case (where significant punitive damages were awarded), the taking of the defendants’ means into account in Steel & Morris v UK (the famous “McLibel” case), the ‘unofficial’ cap on damages in the UK, and more. She also reviewed the amounts awarded by the Irish courts in various cases such as the libel actions brought by Denis O’Brien and Proinsias de Rossa, and also discussed the slander action (itself a rare beast in Irish law…) by Joseph Murphy Jnr (where €300,000 was awarded!)

The School of Law, Trinity College Dublin presented a seminar on ‘Media Law and Regulation’ this evening; directed at legal practitioners, I was lucky to be in attendance at what was a very interesting event. The focus of the seminar was certain new developments in Irish media law, in particular the reform of defamation law and the launch of the Press Council. Here is a report on part one - part two coming up later. This version doesn’t have links but the updated version will.

Dr. Neville Cox of TCD introduced the first Press Ombudsman of Ireland, Prof. John Horgan (DCU). Prof. Horgan is a remarkable figure in Irish media and academia, not to mention politics (he’s a former member of the Irish and European parliaments). Clarifying that he was not a lawyer, but bringing practical experience as a journalist and legislator, he gave a brief speech on his role and the role of the Press Council (which provides “quick, fair and free redress”), though noting that certain topics were being omitted for reasons of time and the avoidance of duplication. A “major factor undermining the credibility of the print media” was the absence of an intermediate option between libel and nothing. The new Code relates to defamation *and* grievances as well as public accountability more generally.

He highlighted the sections in the code of practice *not* related to defamation - i.e. those sections on privacy and harassment. The public interest has always been a necessary qualification of privacy rights. The definitions, though, have been that of journalists (and sometimes, courts, but rarely tested). This no longer rests solely with editor and journalists; this judgement now falls to be made by the Ombudsman or the full Press Council. The Code of Practice has a formal definition of what is “in the public interest”; the new institutions will flesh this out.

He outlined how the new system will work. A case officer handles conciliation process; Ombudsman decides on the merits of the case or refers to full Council for determination (understanding that these will be complex/important but no requirement/expectation as Ombudsman is completely independent). The newspaper can be required to publish a decision. The complainant retains the right to institute legal proceedings. Both sides can appeal a decision to the Council (generally stating reasonable grounds such as procedure or new information).

Horgan was at pains to clarify the relationship between the system and the courts; if legal proceedings have been instituted, issue will not be examined until these proceedings are completed or withdrawn (’common-sense approach’); but noting that the impact of Ombudsman/Council decisions on proceedings remains a grey area, especially in advance of the passage of the Defamation Bill. He concluded by encouraging the legal profession to ‘await and evaluate’ the work of the new system before reaching conclusions.

Dr. Eoin Carolan (TCD) discussed his paper, “Defamation and Privacy Laws After Press Regulation”; chair Neville Cox noted his forthcoming book on privacy law that he will co-author with TCD colleague Prof. Hilary Delany. He looked at recent European Court of Human Rights decisions on Article 8 (privacy) and the challenge this presents to press regulation in Ireland ; and speculated about the nature of the relationship between the Ombudsman and the courts. With regard to the former, Carolan suggested that the ‘parking’ of the Privacy Bill would provide a chance for the new system to develop, but cautioned that Ireland’s legal (positive) obligations under Article 8 of the Convention, particularly important given the past ‘liberalising’ influence of the Court on media law (and the weak constitutional protection of press freedom) in Ireland, were important and need to be understood. Introducing his summary of the relevant cases with a recap of Von Hannover (and clarifying that the decision only related to the more anoydne, non-official photographs in the controversial case), Carolan discussed Pfeifer v Austria. Pfeifer is important because it is the first time that reputation (”an aspect relating to personal identity”) is explicitly protected within Article 8 (as opposed to a factor against freedom of expression in Article 10); in the case, trenchant criticism of a Jewish magazine editor by a far-right Austrian magazine led to proceedings, the magazine won but the editor argued (successfully) that his right to his reputation had not been vindicated.

Carolan argued that the Court had moved away from a political-speech approach. He also described a particularly controversial passage (where the interpretation of a phrase was contested) and how this shows that the margin of appreciation and the latitude given to the press is becoming quite narrow. This contention was supported by the Stoll case - a conviction for publishing “official secret deliberations” (similar to disclosure of state secrets in our law) was challenged at the Court, and was unsuccessful; it was held that Article 10 did not protect this particular conduct, the sensationalist approach having taken them outside of its protection.

The concluding question was - what are the implications for Irish law of these cases and what account will the courts take of it and of the Press Council system? The answer?

1. In Stoll, the Swiss Press Council had found that the reporting had breached standards in the relevant code; this was an important factor.

2. Recognition of expertise/deference to editorial and media decisions may be diminished. The traditional approach of simply looking at the public interest and no more is on the wane; “fair and responsible journalism” becoming a factor in defamation proceedings (in line with Lord Nicholl’s ten tests from the Albert Reynolds case of the 1990s). Courts may be encouraged to engage in a more intensive review again, as there is now a set of guidelines both from Reynolds and the Code. He thinks that the Code will supplement the Nichols test, advising practitioners that they should detail in pleadings how the code of practice (and subsequent jurisprudence) has been dealt with by journalists and editors.

Dr. Neville Cox (who taught me defamation law seven years ago!) gave the final paper in the first session. His topic was the Defamation Bill, which he welcomed (in particular the certainty it could bring to the common law), but noted that it was not radical, and indeed that he could not be sure whether it would make Irish law compliant with the Convention. Noting certain changes (abolition of the libel/slander distinction, the end of the crime of libel (replaced), actions surviving the death of one part, increased protection of intermediaries (adding, in a sidenote very relevant to readers of this blog, that this will work alongside evolving European and Irish law on ISP liability)), he turned to a more detailed consideration of defences in the Bill. (Late in his talk, Dr. Cox also gave a quick summary of changes in the reliefs available, including damages (where he believes the Bill won’t make much difference in practice), injunctions (which are clarified), and new options (such as correction orders and declaratory relief).

Offer and Amends

On the books since 1961 but turned out to be particularly useless, only related to innocent publication); based on UK Defamation Act 1996 and gives new options to the parties. The carrot for making an apology is that the nature of the apology (i.e. what the defendant has done, how quick, how appropriate) will be taken into account (ie. proportionate reduction in potential damages). It also means that the judge (rather than a jury) sets the amount (quantum) of damages.

Fair and reasonable publication on a matter of public importance*

This part of the bill (section 24) has received the most attention (especially from the media!); it’s an attempt to capture the Reynolds defence (welcomed at the time as pro-free-speech and in the context of the (UK) Human Rights Act), which deals with a matter that is one of public importance and the publisher has acted in the public interest by fulfilling certain standards, i.e the ‘ten tests’ mentioned by Carolan, above. In the more recent Jameel case, two important points that were aimed at reactivating Reynolds were made - a publisher, while acting in accordance with ethics, journalists should be free to determine appropriate behaviour in certain circumstances, and the ‘ten test’ are not absolutely binding requiring individual fulfillment, but created a general spirit that a journalist was required to act in accordance with before using the defence. Cox argued trenchantly that despite recent jurisprudence, the Reynolds defence (whether part of Irish law or not, which it may after case Leech it is undoubtedly required by Convention jurisprudence.

Such a defence is not and should not be available to the media where they tell lies and have to hold their hands up; the media had found (in Ireland) that the defence of justification/truth was providing useless because the burden rested with the defendant, impossible to do when you have confidential sources. The media should be allowed to publish material even where by reason of existing defamation law they could not prove it to be true. Cox referred to the tribunals and past corruption in Irish society, and how the media could not publish material they were “well aware of” because of strict Irish defamation law. Thus the media could not fulfill the ‘bloodhound and watchdog’ role that the European Court of Human Rights argues it has. However, section 24 appears much less favourable than Reynolds as it has strict controls on its use. Journalists must abide by very strict criteria (definition of malice very different to common law, strong urgency, very strong efforts to get the other side). On the other hand, as this doesn’t replace existing common law, so if Reynolds has been brought into Irish law, it will operate in tandem with section 24 (Later, an interesting question was asked and discussed on whether the use of the Reynolds defence could be ousted by the Seanad in its consideration of the Bill - we wonder….) .

* ‘importance’ may become ‘interest’ after amendment

(Updated) A welcome development this week is the launch of Law Matters, a relaunch of the ‘law page’ in Monday’s Irish Times. Pre-relaunch, this was a (slightly edited) full judgement from a recent case - traditionally of some value as it may not have been otherwise reported, but of less value in the present day what with online judgements etc (more of that in a moment). While it’s of course much smaller in scope and size than something like the law pages (and matching website) in the Times (”The” Times, or the London Times as I sometimes hear in Dublin!), it may well grow into something resembling it. There isn’t a dedicated section on ireland.com (the website of the Irish Times) yet, but those who have subscriber-access can see the first bunch of case summaries here. The introductory article says:

(Law Matters) will contain synopses of the most important recent judgments from the Supreme Court, High Court and Court of Criminal Appeal. These will not be law reports in the traditional sense of the term, but summaries containing the key legal points in the judgments … In addition to summaries of judgments, we will, from time to time, publish commentary on and analysis of important legal developments. Law Matters will also contain news and information from the legal world.

It’s quite difficult to track down legal news in this jurisdiction. The monthly magazine-style publications of the professional bodies (the Bar Review and the Law Society Gazette) are useful; the Gazette is available in some newsagents in print form and is now available online as a PDF (thanks to Fiona de Londras for spotting this) and the Bar Review is available online for barristers only and can be found in some libraries. A number of the other, regular publications (such as the Irish Law Times) and academic journals (such as the Dublin University Law Journal) can be found in the Westlaw.ie database (expensive if you don’t have access through a library or law school) - and few are found in the international databases (Lexis and Westlaw). Legalperiodicals.org (a UCC project) does provide tables of contents for the legal periodicals (news and academic) and we’d be lost without it. Very few journals publish full-text online (the State-funded Judicial Studies Institute Journal and some of the student journals are honourable exceptions. Of course, the Irish Law Site (developed by Darius Whelan) contains news and events as well as links to useful information. Paid site firstlaw.ie also does current awareness and unreported judgements although I’m not too familiar with it.

Bailii (and the Irish outpost Irlii, again with UCC support) are open-access-to-law sites; this means that we can see court judgements soon after they are handed down - and the Courts Service itself now does the same at courts.ie (although it can be a bit hit-and-miss; one decision I’m waiting on was announced in March, published and read in court in November and still hasn’t appeared…)