DPP v Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd and Others
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Dunne |
| Judgment Date | 21 July 2005 |
| Neutral Citation | [2005] IEHC 353 |
| Docket Number | [MCA Nos. 31 and 32 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 21 July 2005 |
[2005] IEHC 353
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
AND
BETWEEN
AND
AND
KELLY v O'NEILL & BRADY 2000 1 IR 354 2000 1 ILRM 507
DEPOE & LAMPORT 66 DNR (2D) 46
BELLITTI v CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION 44 DLR (3D) 407
CULLEN v TOIBIN & MAGILL PUBLICATIONS 1984 ILRM 577
DESMOND & DEDEIR v GLACKIN & ORS 1993 3 IR 1 1992 ILRM 490
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ART 10(1)
CRIMINAL LAW
Contempt of court
Sub judice - Timing of publication - Publication after conviction prior to sentencing - Publication relating to matters not in evidence before trial court - Trial judge stated he was prejudiced - Whether publication has tendency to interfere with due administration of justice - Whether articles contained highly prejudicial material - Attachment and committal of respondents ordered
Facts: the respondents published articles in their newspapers containing comments about the notice party, referring to his conviction for various crimes and in respect of which he was due to be sentenced by the trial judge shortly. The articles were highly prejudicial, containing material which was not before the trial court, and referred to what the authors thought would be an appropriate sentence. The applicant sought orders granting leave to serve an order of attachment and committal on the respondents to answer the contempt referred to in the articles.
Held by Dunne J in declaring that the articles were a contempt of court in that they were highly prejudicial to the notice party thus interfering in the administration of justice that the issue was not whether the trial judge had been affected or not but whether there had been an interference with the administration of justice or whether a perception had been created that the administration of justice had been interfered with. In that respect, the timing of the publication, before sentencing had been concluded, was of great importance. In deciding the issue, it was necessary for the applicant to satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt.
Reporter: P.C.
JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Dunne delivered on the 21st day of July, 2005
The above entitled proceedings arise out of publications by the respondents in the course of proceedings then in being between the applicant herein and the notice party herein. It is alleged on behalf of the applicant herein that the said publications constitute a contempt of court. As the publications in question arose out of the same proceedings, it was agreed among the parties that both matters should be heard together. As the issues that arise in both sets of proceedings are the same, I propose to deliver one judgment in respect of both matters.
At the outset of these proceedings, it was indicated that one of the respondents in the first set of proceedings, Isobel Hurley, had no hand, act or part in the matters complained of herein. I subsequently heard brief oral testimony from the said respondent to that effect and accordingly I was satisfied that she has no case to answer.
In each case the applicant herein seeks an order pursuant to order 44 of the Rules of the Superior Courts giving the applicant leave to serve an order of attachment and committal directed to the respondents for the purpose of their being brought before the court to answer the contempt referred to therein. The grounds upon which the applications were sought were in the case of the first named respondent (herein after referred to as Independent Newspapers) are that Independent Newspapers were responsible for the publication of an article (together with the accompanying images) which amount to a contempt of court being a breach of the sub judice rule and or amounting to an interference with the integrity of the trial process then in being between the applicant and the notice party. The article complained of was published in the Irish Independent newspaper on Tuesday 29th April, 2003, entitled "Farmer Admits to 150 Sex Attacks on His Four Daughters". The application was grounded upon an affidavit of Roseann Seale.
In the second set of proceedings, the same relief was sought on the basis that the respondents in those proceedings (herein after referred to as "Sunday Newspapers") in respect of the publication of an article which is alleged to amount to a contempt of court being a breach of the sub judice rule and/or amounting to an interference with the integrity of the trial process then in being between the applicant and the notice party being an article published in the Sunday World newspaper on 4th May, 2003, under the by-line of Niamh O'Connor. The application was also grounded upon an affidavit of Roseann Seale.
At para. 4 of her affidavit in each set of proceedings, the said Roseann Seale disposed as follows:-
"I say and am informed that the notice party pleaded guilty in the Central Criminal Court on 28th April to 12 counts in an indictment containing 153 counts in total. On 20th June, 2003, he was sentenced by Mr. Justice Paul Carney to ten life sentences for rape and five year sentences for sexual assault, with all sentences to run concurrently. The victims were four of the notice party's daughters."
She then went on to exhibit relevant transcripts of the proceedings dated 28th April, 2003, 9th May, 2003 and 20th June, 2003.
Thereafter in the Independent Newspaper proceedings Ms. Seale referred to an article which appeared in the Irish Independent newspaper on Tuesday 29th April, 2003, under the heading "Farmer Admits to 150 Sex Attacks on His Four Daughters" and she also referred to a further article entitled "All Scrubbed Up in His Sunday Best for Vilest Confession Imaginable". She then exhibited the articles. She then quoted extensively from the articles in paras. 6 and 7 of the affidavit. Having done so she disposed as follows in para.8:-
"It may be seen therefore that the article in question gave details of the notice party having left the jurisdiction in an attempt to avoid prosecution. I say and advised that was clearly prejudicial to the notice party, since there was no reference to that in the transcripts of the proceedings herein above referred to. In addition, I say and am advised the details as to how it came about that the notice party was returned to the jurisdiction also constitutes prejudicial material which should not, it is contended, have been published prior to sentencing."
In para. 9 of her affidavit she expanded on the view of the applicant that the article in question amounted to an interference with the integrity of the trial process and set out the basis for that view, namely, that the article:-
2 "1. Referred to prejudicial material about the notice party having left the jurisdiction in an attempt to avoid prosecution in circumstances where there was no reference to same in the transcripts of the proceedings herein above referred to.
2. Referred to prejudicial material concerning the circumstances that resulted in the notice party being returned to the jurisdiction, where there was no reference to same in the transcript of the proceedings herein above referred to.
3. Referred to specific and prejudicial material against the notice party concerning an alleged incident when the notice party was questioned by police abroad and allegedly "exploded and became involved in a nasty physical confrontation".
4. Referred to the above matters in a sensationalist manner, calculated to prejudice the mind of the sentencing judge.
5. Suggested to the sentencing judge that when considering the question of sentence he ought to take into account "the deadly cunning shown by the rapist" and that "[the notice party] sought to escape the inevitability of the hugely serious charges by fleeing the country"."
At para. 10 of her affidavit she deposed as follows:-
"I say and believe that by letter dated 24th June, 2003, Mr. Liam Convey, registrar to the Central Criminal Court, wrote to the applicant and stated that Mr. Justice Carney had directed him, in the light of the principles set out in Kelly v. O'Neill [2000] 1 I.R., p. 354, to refer to the applicant for prosecution for criminal contempt a number of journalists and newspapers. The letter enclosed two volumes of transcripts relating to hearings before Judge Carney on 9th May, 2003, and 20th June, 2003, as well as copies of the offending material. The letter concluded by pointing out that Judge Carney had found as a fact that he was prejudiced by the offending material and he was leaving it to the Court of Criminal Appeal to decide if his professionalism had successfully overcome that prejudice..."
She then exhibited the letter of Mr. Convey together with the enclosures therein. She went on in her affidavit to refer to the fact that the notice party applied to the Court of Criminal Appeal for leave to appeal the severity of his sentence. She explained that because of the appeal it was the view of the applicant that it was appropriate for him to await the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal before initiating these proceedings. She therefore prayed for the relief sought in the proceedings herein. The affidavit of Roseann Seale in the Sunday Newspaper proceedings followed a similar pattern. At para. 5 of that affidavit she referred to an article which appeared in the Sunday World Newspaper on Sunday 4th May, 2003, entitled "Rape Dad Glad to be Put Away". She then referred in...
To continue reading
Request your trial