Prosecutors' Conference: The Minister for Justice, Mr McDowell, has said proposals for the establishment of an independent Press Council would be brought before the Cabinet in the autumn.
The news came as the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr James Hamilton, said eight trials had to be postponed at the 11th hour in the last year because of the publication of prejudicial material.
Speaking at the annual prosecutors' conference in Dublin at the weekend, Mr Hamilton appealed to Mr McDowell to reform the contempt of court laws despite the existing heavy burden of legislative reform in his Department.He also said that the existence of sensationalist reporting which falls short of contempt showed the need for a Press Council.
He said the postponement of cases was usually not publicised for fear of causing further prejudice. "Fortunately we have not yet had a case where a court has permanently prohibited a trial because of pre-trial publicity. "Nevertheless, real damage is done where a case has to be postponed. The longer a trial is delayed, the less satisfactory the process is."
Mr McDowell said proposals for a Press Council would be put before Government in the autumn."It will not be a Government- appointed, control of the media device. It will be an independent body which will uphold standards in journalism, and which will have some teeth in so doing." He stressed, however, that it would not "just simply be a club established by the newspapers either".The Minister said it would not be possible to deal with reform of contempt laws in the short term because of the volume of legislation being dealt with by his office.
Mr Hamilton said there had been cases where the media had identified accused persons, including children, despite statutory prohibitions or court orders preventing them from doing so."In other cases certain publications have reported the content of argument and applications made in the absence of the jury while a trial was still taking place.
"Following the recent manslaughter trial before Judge Michael White, three publications were found guilty of contempt of court despite the fact that the judge had on a number of occasions during the trial given clear, specific and express warnings and instructions to the media." Mr Hamilton said the cases that had been prosecuted as contempts represented only the tip of the iceberg.
"There have been frequent examples of inaccurate, sometimes sensationalist and even lurid reporting where, however, it would be difficult to establish an intent to cause prejudice, and which were not, therefore, prosecuted as contempts." He said the law on contempt of court was unclear and in need of reform, which made the task of the prosecutor or judge more difficult when dealing with it. "In fairness to journalists, it does not make their job any easier either."
A particular problem existed where a prosecution was imminent, but had not yet commenced. He said that as long ago as 1994 the Law Reform Commission had put forward a proposal for statutory reform in this area, including a proposal to apply the law of contempt to this situation.
Referring to court delays, he said of the trials now fixed for 2004, over one-quarter of them related to cases which were sent forward for trial in 2001 or earlier. He appealed for more judges to hear criminal trials.