High Court finds Independent News and Media guilty of contempt for prejudicially identifying a criminal defendant after charges were filed.
Irlanda (IE)
Sintesi Legislator
Generato dall'IAThe High Court granted the Director of Public Prosecutions' application for orders of attachment, committal, and sequestration against Independent News and Media PLC, Claire Grady, and Stephen Rae. The court determined that the respondents committed contempt by publishing material that gratuitously identified the accused and associated them with specific behaviors relevant to the pending jury trial. Although the defendants argued that the time lapse between publication and trial negated any risk to fairness, the court held that the relevant date is the date of charge, not publication, and intent is not required for this offense.
Regesto Legislator
Generato dall'IAOrder 44 of the Rules of the Superior Courts 1986; Contempt of court is established where publication after charge gratuitously identifies an accused and associates them with relevant behavior, regardless of time lapse or lack of intent.
Parole chiave
Generato dall'IADisposizioni normative citate
Generato dall'IATesto completo
Neutral Citation [2015] IEHC 336
THE HIGH COURT
[Record No. 2014/385 MCA]
IN THE MATTER OF A CONTEMPT OF COURT AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO ORDER 44 OF THE RULES
OF THE SUPERIOR COURTS 1986
BETWEEN
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
APPLICANT
AND
INDEPENDENT NEWS AND MEDIA PLC, CLAIRE GRADY AND STEPHEN RAE
RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Iseult O’Malley delivered the 24th day of April 2015.
Note: Only the “Summary and conclusion” of this judgment may be published until further order.
Summary and conclusions
In order to avoid the creation of any fresh prejudice to the pending criminal trial, the body of this judgment may not be reported upon
in any detail until further order, which will occur after the trial. This section of the judgment may be reported and will be placed upon
the Courts Service website, on the basis that the court has dealt with the trial of a criminal charge in open court and will be
pronouncing its verdict in open court.
In this application the Director of Public Prosecutions seeks orders of attachment, committal and sequestration as against the
respondents. The basis for the application is the publication of certain material relating to an individual who is currently awaiting trial
by jury in the criminal courts.
Having considered the evidence, submissions and relevant authorities I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents
have committed the offence of contempt of court. I reach this conclusion because I am satisfied that the publication, which was
made after the accused had been charged and returned for trial, gratuitously identified and associated the accused person with
particular types of behaviour relevant to the charges to be considered by the jury.
I have not accepted the argument put forward by the defendants that the lapse of time between publication and trial means that
there is no risk to the fairness of the trial. The authorities on this issue are clear – such lapse of time may be relevant where an
accused seeks to prohibit a trial on the basis of prejudicial publicity, but has no bearing on the question of contempt. The relevant
date here is the date of charge, and the publication here undoubtedly occurred after the charges were brought.
I have also not accepted the case made that other persons have published material relevant to the criminal charges without action
being taken by the Director. This is primarily because it is no defence to a criminal charge to say that other persons have committed
similar offences and have not been charged, unless there is evidence of mala fides on the part of the prosecutor.
I have accepted that there is no evidence of intention on the part of the respondents to interfere with the course of justice.
However, on the law as it stands there is no requirement to prove intent for this offence.