Malcolm MacArthur

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Costello
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1983
• Neutral Citation: 1983 WJSC-HC 643
• Docket Number: No. 474 S.S./1982
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 January 1983

1983 WJSC-HC 643

THE HIGH COURT

No. 474 S.S./1982

In Re McARTHUR

(STATE SIDE)

IN THE MATTER OF A PROSECUTION PENDING IN THE DISTRICT COURT

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT FORCONTEMPT OF COURT AGAINST AN TAOISEACH, CHARLES J. HAUGHEY,ESQ., T.D.: THE OWNERS AND EDITOR OF THE IRISH PRESS AND THE OWNERS ANDEDITOR OF THE SUNDAY WORLD

MALCOLM EDWARD DANIEL MacARTHUR

Applicant

Subject Headings:

PRACTICE: attachment

1 JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice CostelloDelivered the 1st September 1982

2 In these proceedings it is alleged that criminal contempts have been committed on six different occasions and the Applicant seeks conditional orders in respect of each of these alleged offences against those whom he says are responsible for them. I will deal with each alleged offence separately. In doing so I will endeavour to avoid referring in detail to the words and comments complained of so as not to give any further currency to matters which are alleged to be of a prejudicialnature.

3 Firstly, it is alleged that the Taoiseach committed an offence on the 17th August by using certain words in relation to the accused at a press conference. I must assume, for the purpose of this application, that he used the words complained of by the Applicant. However, I note from the evidence filed in this Court that a statement was issued by the Government Information Service which asked journalists not to report the remark to which exception is now taken. The evidence further indicates that the remark complained of was said to have been a slip of the tongue and that the inadvertent comment had caused much concern. It has not been suggested that I should disbelieve these statements attributed to the Government Information Service. It is true that the test which the Court is to apply in anapplication of this sort is whether the words complained of are calculated to prejudice the due course of justice, (see Keegan .v. de Burea 1973 I.R. 223 at 227) and that the test is an objective test. (See R. .v. Evening Standard Company 1954 1 Q.B. 578).But if, as here, it is established that the words were spoken inadvertently in the course of a long press conference in which it was necessary to answer many questions, some of which touched on a pending criminal trial, and if it is shown, as it is shown here, that immediate steps were taken to avoid any possible prejudice that the words might give rise to and if it can be shown, as it can be shown here, that any possible prejudice can be obviated by the direction which the trial Judge can give to the jury, then it seems to me to be highly unlikely that the Court would exercise its extraordinary punitive powers and punish such a person for contempt in the circumstances which I have outlined. I do not think therefore that the Applicant has made out a prima facie case for a conditional order and I refuse this application in so far as it relates to the words which it is alleged were spoken by the Taoiseach on the 17th August.

4 Secondly it is alleged that the Taoiseach committed an offence on the 18th August by causing to be published in the national newspaperson the 19th August part of the contents of the letter which it was alleged was written to him by the Applicant. It is urged on the Applicant's behalf that portion of the alleged letter is capable of being construed in a way prejudicial to the Applicant and that accordingly it was wrong to have caused the publication and the wrong amounted to contempt of Court.

5 I must assume for the purposes of this application that the Taoiseach authorised the publication of the fact that he had received a letter from the accused, and I must also assume for the purposes of this application that he had authorised the publication of certain of its contents as appeared in the national press on the 19th August. It seems to me however that the publication of the fact that he had received...