Ms Justice Laffoy has told parties in the unlawful custody of babies case it was unfortunate she did not announce in open court the terms of her order relating to publication of her judgment. "I was not asked by any of the parties and, unfortunately, it did not occur to me to adjourn the matter to an open hearing of the court to announce the terms of the order and the reasons for it in open court," she said.
She sat in the High Court yesterday to read a statement to rectify that omission, "albeit belatedly and after events have overtaken, and to create a record in open court of the reasons given for the making of the order". Ms Justice Laffoy said she made the order on August 26th restricting publication of information concerning the proceedings save in certain terms. It had been made at the end of an application which had been heard in camera.
She said the court had a discretion to hear minor matters otherwise than in public and, following the invariable practice of the court, the proceedings had been held in camera. Those intended to be protected by the in-camera hearing were the two babies, Baby A and Baby B, and it was clearly in their interest that anonymity should be preserved. That was the primary consideration.
"I stated that, subject to all necessary steps being taken to cloak their identities, there was no reason why the judgment in the matter should not be dealt with like any other judgment in a matter heard in camera," she said. On August 16th she had put an embargo on the circulation of the judgment because, in preparing it, she had not addressed the measures necessary to mask the babies' identities. She had given the parties leave to mention the matter on August 24th but on that date there had been no agreement between them as to the form in which it should be released.
On that date she told the parties she had considered the matter and had put the judgment in a form in which the anonymity of the babies and their natural parents would be protected. She said that in relation to the first and second named respondents (the principals of the crisis pregnancy counselling agency), the barrister and the doctor, she had indicated they were not entitled to anonymity. But she was concerned that if they were named in the judgment, there could be "slippage".
In relation to the agency this was the aspect which had given her most difficulty but she stressed that, while it was not entitled to anonymity, she had been concerned there could be "slippage" if its identity was disclosed. Ms Justice Laffoy said she had made an order in the following terms: "Subject to the exceptions hereafter mentioned, no information in relation to these proceedings or the evidence adduced therein and no information touching or concerning the care and welfare of Baby A or Baby B is to be published without leave of the court save in the terms of the approved judgment."
The applicant (the Eastern Health Board) would be at liberty, however, to furnish the affidavits and exhibits, the transcript and the orders made by the court to the Department of Health and any other health board in the State concerned with the welfare of Baby A or Baby B, but all such persons who learned of the contents of the said document or any of them were bound by the in-camera rule as to the confidentiality which was waived by the court only to the extent specified.
She had ruled that a copy of her order must be furnished with the documents.