Sir, – Kathy Sheridan's evocative piece ("Reporters have strong case in battle for court documents", Opinion & Analysis, April 15th) makes sad reading for anyone interested in openness, transparency and justice in the legal system. Some decades I beavered away (for The Irish Times) with mainly genial colleagues from other media as a High Court reporter.
It was hard work, enormous fun, with at least one good yarn every day. The adrenalin was flowing and, wonderful for a daily newspaper journalist, weekends were free. But there was a downside, and that was after we had dealt with many of the Four Courts’s pomposities.
For a minority of barristers, solicitors, judges and court registrars, reporters were an intrusion. Barristers would refer to paragraphs in legal documents but not outline the content (either to save their client’s blushes or to obstruct a full report); court documents would be refused, or if given would have to be returned quickly; two judges in particular were obstructive, one refusing to give an enormous judgment to the daily newspapers, because it “hadn’t been approved ”.
And then there would be esoteric discussions as to whether some court statement had to be “heard” in order for it to be “open”, even if an affidavit was “before the court”. This minority behaviour caused considerable stress to reporters aiming to please demanding newsdesks. Which is why sometimes particular practitioners did not find their names in the media as often as they and their income potential might have wished. Which is why I fondly remember the majority who believed in open courts and acted accordingly. – Yours, etc,
PAUL MURRAY,
Templeogue,
Dublin 6W.