The High Court yesterday refused an application by the DPP to imprison Mr Vincent Doyle, editor of the Irish Independent, and to sequester the assets of Independent Newspapers Ireland Ltd for alleged criminal contempt over publication of an article in the Irish Independent.
The article concerned a man charged with child abuse and was published late last year. The man's trial stands adjourned pending the outcome of High Court judicial review proceedings which he has initiated seeking to prohibit the trial. Those judicial review proceedings have also yet to be heard.
Mr Justice Kearns has ruled the man is not to be identified and was to be described as a "middle-aged man who was in a position of trust". While accepting there was no intention by the respondents to interfere with the administration of justice, the DPP had complained the article constituted criminal contempt and that the journalist concerned should have made efforts to find out when the man's judicial review proceedings were likely to be heard.
For all the journalist was aware, the proceedings could have been heard soon after publication, Mr Maurice Gaffney SC, for the DPP, said.
However, Mr Shane Murphy SC, for the respondents, submitted there was no contempt and that the article was written in good faith and related to a matter of public interest. There was no intention to interfere with the administration of justice and the DPP had failed to show there was a real risk, beyond reasonable doubt, that publication would lead to an unfair trial.
While dismissing the application, Mr Justice Kearns said he was "far from saying" the DPP was wrong to initiate the contempt proceedings and added it was "reassuring" to know the DPP monitored media reports to ensure the integrity of the criminal process. The judge noted the man featured in the article was charged in September 1999 with a number of offences of buggery and indecent assault and in October 1999 he was charged with further offences. He had been convicted years earlier of similar offences.
In 2000, the man initiated judicial review proceedings to stop his trial on the September and October 1999 charges on grounds of delay and his trial remained stayed pending the outcome of those proceedings. The article complained of was published last year.
Mr Justice Kearns ruled there was insufficient evidence in this case to justify a finding of criminal contempt. In reaching that conclusion, he took into account there was no question of any trial date being set until the judicial review hearing was disposed of and a date for the latter had yet to be fixed. It could be some time before the proceedings were dealt with. This was therefore not a case of publication on the eve of trial, he said. If the publication was close to the trial, it might be found that the article, given its graphic nature, could affect the trial.
There was also no mischievous intent on the part of the journalist who wrote the article, the judge added.
She had said it related to an area of public concern and it was clear the whole question of abuse of children was of widespread public concern.
The judge held the possibility of the article influencing a potential jury was quite remote and a major consideration in that regard was the length of time between publication and the date of trial. In all the circumstances, he would dismiss the application.
He refused an application on behalf of Independent Newspapers for costs against the DPP and said the justice of the situation would be met by making no order for costs.
