Re Hibernia National Review Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judgment Date: 14 July 1976
• Date: 14 July 1976
• Docket Number: [S.C. No. 121 of

Supreme Court

[S.C. No. 121 of 1976]

In re Hibernia National Review

In the Matter of Hibernia National Review Limited, John Mulcahy and Simon O'Donohoe

Practice - Contempt - Attachment - Criminal contempt of court - Company - Sequestration - Rules of the Superior Courts, 1962 (S.I. No. 72), Or. 44.

Appeal from the High Court.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed to the Supreme Court from the refusal of the High Court (Finlay P.) to grant his ex parte application for conditional orders of attachment and sequestration. The circumstances appear in the judgment of the Supreme Court, infra.

The appeal was heard and determined by the Supreme Court (O'Higgins C.J., Kenny and Parke JJ.) on the 14th July, 1976.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed to the Supreme Court from the refusal of the High Court to grant his ex parte application for conditional orders of attachment and sequestration. His application was based upon the contents of two letters written to and published by a newspaper. The letters referred to a recent criminal trial, which was described as a "trial" without evidence, and the letters alleged that the members of the Special Criminal Court had conducted a travesty of a trial, that they had not given the benefit of the doubt to the accused, and that they had been involved in an effort by the Government and the Police to procure a false verdict of guilty.

Held by the Supreme Court (O'Higgins C.J., Kenny and Parke JJ.), in allowing the appeal, 1, that there was evidence of the imputation of improper and base motives and bias to the judges of the Special Criminal Court, and of serious misrepresentations of the proceedings in that court.

2. That a conditional order of attachment should be directed to the editor of the newspaper and that a conditional order of sequestration should be directed to the company which published the newspaper calling upon the editor and the publisher respectively to show cause why the respective conditional orders should not be made absolute.

Ambard v. Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobago [1936] A.C. 322 andR. v. Evening Standard Co. Ltd.[1954] 1 Q.B. 578 considered.

Kenny J. 14th July, 1976

This is an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against the refusal of the President of the High Court to issue a conditional order of attachment against Hibernia National Review Ltd. ("the company") which publishes a fortnightly review called "Hibernia" and against its editor John Mulcahy and the writer of one of two letters to it which were published in the issue of the paper on Friday, the 2nd July, 1976. In that issue, letters from Mr. O'Donohoe and Mr. Henry were published dealing with the trial and conviction of Mr. and Mrs. Murray by the Special Criminal Court on a charge of capital murder.

As Mr. and Mrs. Murray have appealed to the Court of...