A legal restriction preventing publication of the identity of a Church of Ireland clergyman charged with possession of child pornography ended yesterday following a successful challenge to the publication ban by four media organisations, including The Irish Times.
In the High Court on Wednesday, Mr Justice Frank Clarke ruled that a District Judge's order restraining publication of the name of the man was unconstitutional.
However, the judge continued an earlier order restraining publication of the man's identity until 2pm yesterday to allow his lawyers an opportunity to consider whether to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The order ended yesterday with no appeal against Mr Justice Clarke's decision being lodged with the Supreme Court.
Independent Newspapers, Examiner Publications, RTÉ and The Irish Times had challenged an order of July 2003 made by District Judge David Anderson prohibiting the naming of the Rev Joseph Condell after he appeared on charges of possession of images of child pornography.
The case arose after Judge Anderson, sitting at the District Court in Portlaoise, ruled that Mr Condell could not be named, nor could any information tending to identify him be published by the media. Mr Condell, St Cronan's Rectory, Roscrea, Co Tipperary, was charged in July 2003 with possessing child pornography images contrary to the Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998. He was remanded on continuing bail. In October 2003, Judge Anderson said his ruling restraining publication of the man's identity was final and could not be varied.
The four media groups then went to the High Court seeking an order quashing the orders made by Judge Anderson and claimed that they breached Article 34.1 of the Constitution which states that justice shall be administered in public.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Frank Clarke said that Article 34.1 applies in equal measure to civil and criminal proceedings and the requirement that justice be administered in public applied equally to any occasion when justice is being administered in the courts.
Mr Justice Clarke said the District Judge was incorrect in each of the reasons given by him in October 2003 for refusing to change the restrictions.
While there were undoubtedly a number of statutory restrictions on the reporting of the identity of accused persons (none of which applied to the Condell case), it seemed clear all such restrictions were designed to protect the identity of the victims rather than to ensure a fair trial.
Mr Justice Clarke said he was satisfied there was insufficient evidence before the District Judge which would have entitled him to take the view that permitting the identity of the person charged to be published would lead to a real risk of an unfair trial such as could not be remedied by appropriate action taken by the trial judge.