Papers fined over coverage of Murphy trial

The Star on Sunday newspaper was fined €20,000 yesterday for contempt of court arising out of its coverage of the Brian Murphy…

The Star on Sunday newspaper was fined €20,000 yesterday for contempt of court arising out of its coverage of the Brian Murphy manslaughter trial. The Examiner and a student newspaper, the College Tribune, were fined €1,000 and €250 respectively.

Judge Michael White delivered his reserved judgment in Dublin Circuit Court yesterday, following proceedings brought by the DPP for criminal contempt against the three newspapers.

The Examiner and the College Tribune had reported on arguments that took place in the absence of the jury. The Star on Sunday had published an article during the trial detailing and commenting on the fact that two of the four defendants were on free legal aid.

Judge White said that he accepted the position of the Examiner that its publication of the arguments made in the absence of the jury was unintentional and a genuine mistake, though it was a criminal contempt. He noted the unreserved apology made on behalf of the newspaper, and fined it €1,000. Referring to the College Tribune, he said if the article had been published in a national newspaper he might have had to consider abandoning the trial.

READ MORE

However, he accepted this had happened inadvertently, and was due to inexperience. He accepted the unreserved apology made by the student newspaper, and imposed a fine of €250.

Referring to the article in the Star on Sunday on January 25th, he said that the background was important in that on the previous Thursday the article in the Examiner had been brought to his attention. Counsel for one of the accused, Mr Patrick Gageby SC, had said a public atmosphere was being generated where the jury would feel pressure to convict, and it appeared this was what the media was desirous of.

Judge White said he then sought advice from the DPP regarding restrictions on the media, and on the Friday issued an order re-emphasising the responsibilities of the media under the sub judice rule. Transcripts of Friday's proceedings were delivered to solicitors, McAleese and Co, for forwarding to the relevant media. This was the context in which the article was published.

"The article itself had an implication that Mr Mackey and Mr Laide were unusual in making an application for legal aid based on their own circumstances. It is their constitutional right. There is nothing wrong with applying for legal aid and being granted legal aid," he said.

"I fully accept the right to publish as a matter of public interest. But the decision of the editor of the Star to publish at the time he did, following the issuing of the transcripts, when there could be no doubt this was a very sensitive trial, was a serious contempt of court. The public interest did not warrant publication at this time. The article could have been published after the jury brought in its verdict."

He said he accepted the apology on behalf of the editor, but added that he had a concern that "some sections of the media are trying to run right up against the sub judice rule". He imposed a fine of €20,000.