SUNDAY WORLDcrime editor Paul Williams was among a number of journalists, newspaper editors and media organisations who were yesterday fined a total of €60,000, plus legal costs, by a High Court judge.
The publisher of Mr Williams's latest book, Crime Wars, which has been withdrawn from sale, was fined €5,000.
The fines were imposed by Mr Justice Brian McGovern for criminal contempt of court orders restricting reporting of proceedings brought by the Criminal Assets Bureau (Cab) arising from its investigation into the assets of a Dublin criminal.
The contempt findings are against two newspaper editors – Colin McGinty, Sunday Worldeditor, and Des Gibson, editor of the Star on Sunday; two journalists, Mr Williams, and Ken Foy of the Star on Sunday; two newspaper publishers – Independent Star Ltd, publisher of the Star on Sunday, and Sunday News Ltd, publisher of the Sunday World; and Merlin Books Ltd, publishers of Mr Williams's book, Crime Wars.
The judge imposed a €30,000 fine on the Star group defendants and a similar fine on the Sunday World group defendants. Merlin was fined the lesser sum of €5,000 after the judge heard the company had taken several steps to withdraw the book from sale and to recall copies already distributed following his December 19th finding that some material in the book was also in criminal contempt.
The judge, who had warned there would be consequences if the book remained on sale, said he would impose a reduced fine on Merlin given the steps taken.
He stressed the contempt finding in Merlin’s case was “extremely serious” because of the content of certain material published in the book which had caused great anxiety to the persons affected.
The judge also noted he had already raised questions as to how Mr Williams got the information complained of.
Noting arguments by Eoin McCullough SC that the media respondents were unaware of the reporting restrictions and intended no contempt, the judge said the respondents should have known of the reporting restrictions set out in the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 and had a duty to inform themselves of the general provisions of that Act.
While noting all the respondents had apologised and stated they had never intended to commit contempt, the judge said what they had done remained a serious interference with the court process.
As well as imposing the fines, the judge also directed the respondents to pay the costs of the two persons who had sought the contempt orders.
But he refused an application by Paul Burns SC, for Cab, for the respondents to pay Cab’s costs.
While Cab had not brought the contempt proceedings, Mr Burns argued it was “of grave concern” to the bureau that information about its operations which should have been private had been put into the public domain.
The contempt orders were sought by John O’Donnell SC for two of four persons against whom proceedings have been brought by Cab arising from its investigation into the assets and activities of a Dublin criminal.
The court has made orders preventing publication of any material which would identify the persons in the proceedings.
The two applicants claimed that after the Cab proceedings were brought, articles had appeared in the Sunday Worldand the Star on Sundaywhich identified them, causing them worry and distress. They also claimed the Sunday Worldarticle was based on extracts from Crime Wars, published in October 2008.
Mr Justice McGovern said perhaps the most serious matter complained of was a certain reference in the Crime Wars book which was not just a breach of the in camera rule but also “raised worrying questions” as to how the material came into the hands of Mr Williams.
With the exception of Merlin, he was satisfied the other respondents would be familiar with the role of Cab and its procedures. Merlin also had a duty to inform itself of the law when publishing material such as was found in Crime Wars.
He ruled all the respondents must be deemed to have knowledge of the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act and was satisfied they either knew the Cab matters on which they reported were held in camera, or were reckless in not establishing the correct position.
In submissions yesterday, Mr McCullough, for the respondents, argued the contempt complained of was “technical” and unintended and represented only a small portion of the book and newspaper articles complained of.
