High Court finds newspaper articles questioning an accused's remorse and comparing cases constitute contempt of court.

[Neutral Citation No: 2005 IEHC 353]

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Record No.2004 31 MCA

BETWEEN

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

APPLICANT

INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPERS (IRELAND) LIMITED, ISOBEL HURLEY, BRIAN McDONALD AND VINCENT DOYLE

RESPONDENTS

AND

C.D.

NOTICE PARTY

AND

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

RECORD No.2004 32 MCA

BETWEEN

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

APPLICANT

AND

SUNDAY NEWSPAPERS LIMITED, NIAMH O’CONNOR AND COLIN MacGINTY

RESPONDENTS

AND

C.D.

NOTICE PARTY

Judgment of Ms.Justice Dunne delivered on the 21st day of July, 2005

1. 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.

2. 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.

Background

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.”

6. She then went on to exhibit relevant transcripts of the proceedings dated 28th April, 2003, 9th May, 2003 and 20th June, 2003.

7. 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.”

8. 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:-

“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’.”

9. 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…”

10. 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 paras.6, 7, 8 and 9 to passages from the article complained of including reference to an interview with the notice party.At para.10

she deposed as follows:-

“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 am advised that 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 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.”

11. She then went on to indicate that the applicant had considered the article and was of the view that it amounted to an

interference with the integrity of the trial process then in being between the applicant and notice party and set out the following

matters in that regard:-

“1. Stated that the notice party’s ‘self pity reveals with textbook accuracy, the utter lack of remorse and conscience

which a paedophile displays.’

2. Refers to the notice party’s refusal to try and understand his crimes.

3. Refers to the notice party’s resentment of the fact that his daughters involved the Gardaí, attributing to the notice

party the words ‘they should have kept it in the family.’

4. 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 transcript of the proceedings herein above referred to.

5. Referred to prejudicial material concerning circumstances that resulted in the notice party being returned to the

jurisdiction, in circumstances where there was no reference to same in the transcript of the proceedings herein above

referred to.

6. 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 assaulted a police officer.

7. Referred to the above matters in a sensationalist manner calculated to prejudice the mind of the sentencing judge.

8. Prejudiced the notice party by claiming that he ‘boasted that he was safe and could not be touched by Irish law

because no formal extradition treaty existed’.

9. Prejudiced the notice party by stating that ‘somewhere in his thinking, he seems to think his daughters should have

been grateful to him for their existence’, and that ‘even when it comes to confessing his crimes he cuts himself enough

slack to let himself off the hook in his own mind’.

10. Improperly sought to influence the sentencing judge by comparing the notice party’s offences with those of Joseph

McColgan.” The said Roseann Seale then referred to the manner in which the case was referred to the applicant herein in

similar terms to those referred to in the Independent Newspapers proceedings.Again the reference was made to the fact

that the within proceedings were not commenced until after the conclusion of the notice party’s appeal to the Court of

Criminal Proceedings.

12. A short replying affidavit was furnished in respect of the Independent Newspapers proceedings.That affidavit was an affidavit of

Paula Mullooly, solicitor on behalf of the respondents and the purpose of the affidavit was stated to be the placing before the court of

a newspaper report published in the Connaught Tribune on July 5th, 2002, relating to the remand of the notice party.That newspaper

report was exhibited in the affidavit.

13. In the Sunday Newspapers proceedings a lengthy affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents, sworn by Colin MacGinty, the

editor of the Sunday World Newspaper.At para.4 of his affidavit he sets out his explanation in relation to the publication of the article

concerned.He states as follows:-

“The events of 28th April, 2004, had occurred in open court, and the case was therefore a legitimate subject of report

and comment.As editor, I viewed the case as being one of considerable public importance given the savagery and extent

of the crimes committed by the notice party, the fact that they had been committed by a father in respect of four

daughters over a 20 year period and the fact that they had occurred in what appeared to be a quiet country village.I

believe that it is in the public interest that there should be open discussion, both in the press and elsewhere, about the

facts of such cases and the issues thereby raised.Any explanation that might be offered by the person who carried out

these acts would clearly be an important part of this picture, and was something that I felt would contribute to any

article to be written about the case.In the particular circumstances, it seemed to be both relevant and important to

interview the notice party himself if he was willing to be interviewed, with a view to obtaining his explanation and

understanding his attitude.It was against this background that Ms.O’Connor went to interview the notice party.”

14. In para.5 of his affidavit he goes on to explain the interview that took place between Ms.O’Connor and the notice party as

follows:-

“Ms.O’Connor therefore went and talked to the notice party.I have spoken to her, and the following contents of this

paragraph are based upon what she had told me.The notice party was aware of Ms.O’Connor’s identity and was clearly

aware that his comments were being sought with a view to the same being the subject matter of an article in the

immediate future.The interview was not off the record although later in the day the notice party’s solicitors telephoned

Ms.O’Connor and suggested that it had been.There is no inaccuracy in Ms.O’Connor’s reporting of what said by the notice

party.In particular, Ms.O’Connor accurately reported what the notice party told her about his reasons for leaving the

country and what had been said in ‘the papers’ about those reasons.”

15. He then identifies the passages in the article complained of to which it appears the applicant takes most offence, namely:-

(a) that the notice party said that he had left the jurisdiction to attempt to effect a reconciliation with his daughter,

(b) that the papers had said that his true reason for going abroad was to escape,

(c) that in fact “the court” had been informed that he had boasted he could not be touched because of the absence of

an extradition treaty between Ireland and the country to which he had been gone,

and

(d) that there was a significant element of self pity in the remorse that he expressed in respect of his crimes.

16. Mr.MacGinty then went on to deal with the particular matters referred to above.Insofar as (a) and (b) are concerned he argued

that exception could not reasonably be taken to the publication of that material which was an accurate repetition of what was said

by an accused person awaiting sentence when his comments were made in the knowledge that the same would be published.He says

that there was no intention of prejudicing the accused or the sentencing hearing.In relation to the item at (c) he deposed to the fact

that Ms.O’Connor was not certain where she obtained that information but believed it had been read by her in the Irish Independent

of 29th April, 2003.He deposes that the material was in the public domain and was believed to be accurate and correct.He goes on to

say there was no intention of repeating anything not before the court.Notwithstanding this he said that the publication of this

material was inconsequential having regard to the nature of the counts to which the notice party admitted.He repeated that there

was no intention of prejudicing the accused.Finally in relation to the material complained of at (d) his explanation is that Ms.O’Connor

was of the view that the remorse expressed by the notice party seemed to contain a strong element of self pity.He makes the point

again that the notice party was aware that his comments were to be reported and that that being so he should have expected the

comments made by him to be the subject themselves of comment.He expressed the view that a comment upon the nature of the

remorse expressed by a person in the position of the notice party is legitimate and reasonable and could not prejudice the

administration of justice and again argues that it was not intended to prejudice the administration of justice.He went on then to deal

with what are in effect legal submissions and I don’t propose to refer to those and finally he complains of the delay in bringing the

application.

17. Mr.Feichin McDonagh, S.C.for the applicant, referred to the hearing before the Central Criminal Court on 28th April, 2003.The

hearing consisted of the entry of guilty pleas in respect of 12 counts on the indictment involving four victims.The notice party was

certified as a sex offender and the matter was then adjourned for sentence on 20th June, 2003, and victim impact reports were

ordered.

18. The following day, Independent Newspapers published the articles referred to, of which there were two.One referred to matters

that the trial judge “will have to consider” when he delivered sentence, namely, “the deadly cunning”, “fleeing the country”, and his

reaction when confronted by police in that country that “a nasty physical confrontation.A police officer had to use mace gas to

contain him…”.Mr.McDonagh submitted that these were not matters appropriate to be led at the hearing before the sentencing

judge.He further submitted that the assertion that those matters were matters which the trial judge would have to consider

amounted to and was calculated to interfere with the administration of justice.

19. Insofar as Sunday Newspapers are concerned he referred to the fact that a journalist interviewed the accused and then

proceeded to suggest that remorse was absent.He pointed out that at this stage the sentencing judge had yet to consider a

sentencing plea.A plea in mitigation would have been likely to be made and indeed remorse was referred to in the course of the plea in

mitigation.Mr.McDonagh argued that the publication in question was entirely inappropriate.Sunday Newspapers also referred to the

notice party having left the jurisdiction, the circumstances surrounding his return to the jurisdiction, the incident involving the use of

mace gas and finally it is argued that the reference to a similar case was an attempt to influence the sentencing judge by comparing

the two cases and he made the same argument in respect of these matters as he had in the case Independent Newspapers.

20. Mr.McDonagh also referred to the replying affidavits filed in respect of both matters and also referred to affidavits of John Rowan

sworn in each case dealing with the issue of delay.I should say at this point that having considered the affidavit of Colin MacGinty

and the affidavit of John Rowan that I am satisfied that no issue arises by reason of any delay in commencing these proceedings.It

was quite proper for the applicant to await the appeal process before instituting these proceedings.

21. Mr.McDonagh having referred to the affidavit of Colin MacGinty referred to the legal principles applicable in this case.He relied on

the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelly v.O’Neill and Brady [2000] 1 I.R.354, Supreme Court.That was a case stated

in circumstances where the applicant was convicted in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court of two drug related offences.The applicant

(Mr.Kelly) sought the attachment of the respondents for contempt of court arising out of an article written after the applicant was

convicted but before sentencing.The trial judge held that the article in question constituted contempt of court and imposed a

fine.The respondents appealed to the High Court which stated a consultative case for the opinion of the Supreme Court as to

whether it could be a contempt of court to publish an article in the terms of that complained of after a criminal trial has passed from

the seisin of the jury and where the remainder of the hearing will take place before a trial judge sitting alone and whether the

publication of the article complained of could ever constitute a contempt of court when published after conviction and before

sentence, given the constitutional right of freedom of expression.Mr.McDonagh referred to the judgment of Denham J.at p.368 thereof

where it was stated “the issue is not whether or not the trial judge was affected.He held, and it was accepted, that he had not been

affected.Thus, the interference with the administration of justice submitted was not related to the judicial decision maker.” In dealing

with cases relating to pre-trial publicity where it was alleged that there had been an interference with the due administration of

justice she stated at p.367 of the judgment as follows:

“The test for the court is as to whether there was a real risk that an accused would not receive a fair trial.”

22. Mr.McDonagh also relied on the judgment of Keane J.(as he then was) at p.374 of his judgment he stated:

“contempt of court is committed, however, when a person publishes material which is calculated to interfere with the

course of justice: it is not a necessary ingredient of the offence that it results in such an interference.”

23. At p.376 he stated:

“there are special considerations, however, arising where the sentencing of convicted persons are concerned, which must

at least be borne in mind.In such cases, depending on the nature of the publication, the inference may be drawn that a

court responded to a popular demand for an exemplary sentence and such an inference, however, unjustifiable, might on

one view, be regarded as damaging to the administration of justice.”

24. Mr.McDonagh pointed out in relation to the present case that in sentencing the notice party herein, an exemplary sentence was

imposed.

25. Mr.McDonagh then referred at length to the conclusions of Keane J.in relation to the circumstances of that case and

Mr.McDonagh pointed out that Kelly v O’Neill has a particular resonance in the context of the present case.The dangers to the

administration of justice referred to by the Supreme Court in that case arise in the present case.He acknowledged the importance of

the need to balance the constitutional right of freedom of expression to the right of an accused to a fair trial.Finally he submitted

that a prima facie case for the attachment and committal of the respondents herein had been made.

26. Mr.Shane Murphy S.C.appeared on behalf of the Independent Newspapers.He referred to the fact that in effect two points were

made in the proceedings against Independent Newspapers, namely that there had been a breach of the sub judice rule and an

interference with the administration of justice.He referred to para.9 of the affidavit of Roseann Seale and pointed out that there was

no reference therein to the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal in the case between the applicant and the notice party.In the

course of the hearing before the Court of Criminal Appeal he said that the D.P.P.sought to stand over the sentences imposed in that

case.

27. He referred to the fact that the application in the present case is a rare type of application and he argued that judges are able to

deal with the type of situation that arose herein in a manner that is robust.He referred also to the judgment of the Supreme Court in

the case of Kelly v O’Neill and pointed out the nature of the article complained of in that particular piece had identified the accused

as having been a person involved with drugs and a person who had previous convictions.He referred also to the comments of Keane

J.at p.374 of that judgment and I quote:

“there can also be no doubt that, in the area with which this case is concerned, i.e.the sub judice rule, and that of

‘scandalising’ the court, to give it the traditional, archaic description, the contempt of court jurisdiction should not be

likely invoked by the courts: the freedom of expression guaranteed by the constitution should not be curtailed save to the

extent necessitated in protecting the administration of justice.”

28. He then referred to a number of other passages from the judgment of Keane J.at p.380 of the judgment:

“First, the circumstances of the case, particularly the applicant’s previous record, indicated that the likelihood of the

publication being seen to influence a sentence, let alone actually influence it, was clearly of a low order.Secondly, no

notice to cross-examine the second respondent on his affidavit appears to have been served and, if that remains the

position, the trial judge would be entitled to conclude that the article had been published in good faith on a matter of

public interest without any intention of influencing the court…on any view, the circumstances of this case would clearly

have called for the imposition of no more than a modest penalty and for the reason I have suggested, the respondents

might have been found innocent of any contempt.

The questions the court had been asked in this case are not, however, whether, in the light of the circumstances to

which I have referred, the High Court would have been entitled to acquit the respondents of the charge of criminal

contempt or whether the factors to which I have referred could be taken into account by the court in imposing a

penalty.”

29. He referred again to the grounding affidavit in this case and argued that the fact that something is published which is not in the

transcript does not of itself mean that the published material is a breach of the sub judice rule.

30. Mr.Murphy then referred to two Canadian decisions namely Depoe and Lamport 66 DNR (2D) 46, a judgment of Donohue J.That

case involved a group of people who had conducted a demonstration which involved sitting down on a roadway and refusing to make

way for pedestrians and vehicles.The police were called, a struggle ensued and a number of people were taken into custody and

charged with creating a disturbance in a public street.A city controller interviewed by a newspaper reporter said he would urge the

court to impose a certain penalty.Subsequently an application was made to have the city controller and the publisher of the

newspaper committed for contempt.In the course of the judgment it was stated as follows:

“In my view, Mr.Lamport had the right and in view of his office, perhaps the duty to reprobate the behaviour of the

obstructers.I must still consider however, whether by saying that he would urge the court to bind the accused over to

remain away from the area for a year, he said something that was intended or calculated to prejudice the right of the

accused to a fair trial.

The statements taken at their worst imply an assumption of the guilt of the accused and an attempt on the part of

Mr.Lamport to prescribe a certain punishment for the offence.

It is to be remembered that the alleged offences would be tried not by juries but necessarily by a magistrate.The

magistrates are professional judges and I cannot conceive that any of them would be affected by Mr.Lamport’s opinion as

to the guilt of the accused.Likewise, in the matter of the punishment for the offence it is inconceivable that Mr.Lamport’s

views would exert the slightest influence.”

31. He also referred to the decision in the case of Bellitti v.Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 44 DLR (3D) 407.Mr.Murphy described

that case as being similar to the present one and referred to the judgment of Zuber J.where it was stated as follows:

“In Attorney General v.Times Newspapers Limited [1973] 3 All ER 54 at p.65, Lord Reid said ‘…It is scarcely possible to

imagine a case where comment could influence judges in the court of appeal…’ and Lord Simons stated at p.83 ‘..any

comment on pending appellate proceedings could only rarely be intrinsically an interference with the due course of law’.”

32. Accordingly Mr.Murphy argues that it would be a rare case in which there would be a serious risk that an article such as that

complained of herein would have a serious risk of interfering with the administration of justice.He also referred to the decision in the

case of Cullen v.Toibin 1984 ILRM 577 and in particular to the judgment of O’Higgins J.at p.581 where it was stated:

“the basis for the application for the injunction which Mr.Cullen has been granted is that the publication of the article

would be prejudicial to the conduct of the appeal in that in one way or another the judges hearing the appeal would be

biased in regard to the consideration of that appeal.I can see no basis for this suggestion.The Court of Criminal Appeal will

be asked to consider pure questions of law relative to the appeal.It cannot be suggested that in considering such

questions, publication of this or any number of articles in any number of periodicals would have the slightest effect on the

objective consideration of legal arguments.It seems to me that such an argument is unsustainable.”

33. He also referred to a similar passage in the judgment of McCarthy J.in the same case at p.582.Having regard to the passages

referred to he argued that it would only be in the most exceptional cases that the evidence in an application to attach and commit

for contempt of court would be sufficient to satisfy the threshold namely that a professional judge would be affected by the

publication.

34. He then went on to examine para.9 of the affidavit grounding the application in detail and suggested that an examination of the

transcript of the sentence hearing at p.15 of the transcript demonstrated clearly that the comment made about the cunning of the

notice party was a fair comment (although as Mr McDonagh in reply pointed out the hearing took place after the publication).He said

that the article complained of was not sensationalist.He pointed out that the proceedings between the applicant and the notice party

involved a very unusual case having regard to the gravity of the matters involved.He then argued that in this particular case there

was nothing to suggest that there was a real or serious risk to the trial process because the appeal did not raise the issue of the

publication.Equally there was nothing to suggest that the notice party did not receive a fair trial.

35. He then went on to say that these submissions were made in the light of the standard of proof, namely beyond a reasonable

doubt.He argued that there must be a real doubt in this case as the sentence was upheld.Therefore, a fair trial was found to have

taken place.He made an application for a direction on that basis and finally argued that the article in question was not sensationalist,

did not deal with matters which were not in the public domain and did not urge a particular sentence.He said that the fundamental

point was that the jurisdiction referred to by the applicant herein was one rarely appropriate and rarely applied.The court in order to

convict of contempt of court had to be satisfied that the articles in question raised a real and serious risk as to the interference with

the administration of justice.

36. Mr.Eoin McCullough, S.C., appeared on behalf of Sunday Newspapers.He referred to the facts of the case alleged against him.In

that regard, he said there was no suggestion of an intention to interfere or prejudice the accused in respect of his trial.The

considerable bulk of the material published had been furnished by the notice party to the journalist in question.He pointed out that

the evidence given by the solicitor for the notice party and which was given in the course of the sentence hearing as to whether or

not the comments made by the notice party were on or off the record was not evidence in this matter.He referred to the ten

separate points raised in the affidavit of Roseann Seale grounding the application in relation to the matters alleged to be prejudicial to

the accused.He then dealt with the decision in Kelly v.O’Neill referred to above which establishes the general principles applicable.He

accepted that that case allows for the possibility of contempt arising between the entry of a plea and sentence being

imposed.However, he pointed out that that will not necessarily arise in every case in which material is published.He then referred to

the judgment of Denham J.and the passage referred to previously at p.367 thereof and to the judgment of Keane J.and the passage

already referred to at p.380 of his judgment.His argument was that it will be an unusual and rare circumstance that a publication will

amount to contempt.He went on to argue that it is clear from a number of authorities referred to that such a situation would be

highly unlikely.He then referred to Miller on Contempt of Court and to para.7.99 at p.336 :

“It is singularly unlikely that a finding of contempt would be based on there being a substantial risk of prejudicing a judge

of Crown Court – whether a High Court Judge, Circuit Judge, or a recorder.It now seems to be generally accepted that

their professional experience enables them to discount that which might affect a jury, although this still leaves room for

an argument based on the danger to public perceptions which may be caused by, for example, an orchestrated media

campaign.The decisions in point are mainly concerned either with civil proceedings or criminal proceedings pending on

appeal…”

37. He also referred to a lengthy passage at para.7.107 on p.340 as follows:-

“In Duffy, ex parte Nash, the second of the two English cases directly in point, a different approach was adopted by a

strong divisional court.Here an article had been published in the Daily Sketch the day after one Nash had been convicted

on charges of causing grievous bodily harm.It contained the following passage:

A CID Officer pointed a finger in an East End pub and said ‘that man will end up in the dock on a charge of violence’.That

was a year ago and the finger pointed to a vicious looking man who was sipping a grapefruit and was surrounded by

admiring young tearaways and adoring street girls.Jimmy Nash was his name – the 28 year old muscleman jailed for five

years yesterday for causing grievous bodily harm to a Soho club manager, Selwyn Keith Cooney… this, then, is the villain

of the piece.A man who, until he stepped into the Penn Club just after midnight on February 6th, was just an obscure

thug.

Nash later applied for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence and instituted contempt proceedings against those

responsible for the publication.Delivering the judgment of the divisional court dismissing the proceedings, Lord Parker

E.J.emphasised that liability for contempt required an intention to prejudice, or a real risk of prejudicing, a fair hearing.It

was not sufficient, as the Delbert Evans case appeared to suggest, that a judge had been ‘embarrassed’ by the material,

in the sense that it had imposed on him ‘quite unnecessarily the task of dismissing the offending matter from his

mind’.Applying the more stringent test, Lord Parker concluded that:

Even if a judge who eventually sat on the appeal and seen the article in question and had remembered its contents,

it is inconceivable that he would be influenced consciously or unconsciously by it.A judge is in a very different

position to a jury man.Though in no sense superhuman, he has by his training no difficulty in putting out of his mind

matters which are not evidence in the case.This indeed happens daily to judges on assize.

This seems entirely realistic even if one can overcome the difficulty of imagining senior appellate judges reading the

Daily Sketch or its modern tabloid equivalent, it is singularly unlikely that they would be influenced, consciously or

otherwise by its contents.”

38. He referred again to the standard of proof in this particular case, namely reasonable doubt and submitted that Mr.McDonagh in his

application had not shown that there was a real and serious risk that the notice party would not receive a fair trial.He argued that

the test in question is that there is a real and serious risk not a remote or mere possibility of a risk of prejudice.

39. Mr.McCullough then referred to the crimes committed by the notice party and described them as having been of the utmost

gravity.He pointed out that a long sentence was bound to follow.He argued that a question of fact arises in this case, namely, is

there a real risk of prejudice.He argued that it is necessary to look at all the circumstances.According to Mr.McCullough the parts of

the article which are allegedly contempt are minimal.At least some of the material was in the public domain, indeed it had already

been published by Independent Newspapers.He stated that the article in question was careful and moderate in tone and was in its

nature a reflective piece.He also pointed out that the Court of Criminal Appeal did not interfere with the sentence but as he

accepted, that is not in fact the test to be applied.He did, however, argue that that helps to establish that the article did not in fact

have a serious risk of interfering with the administration of justice or of prejudicing the accused.He also referred to the comments

made by Mr.Justice Carney in the course of dealing with sentence in the proceedings.Mr.McCullough stated that the comments of

Mr.Justice Carney do not establish a contempt.In any event he stated that that comment made by Mr.Justice Carney does not form

part of the evidence in the application before this court for contempt.

40. He made the point that insofar as contempt is argued, contempt is designed to protect the right of an accused to a fair trial.In

this particular case much of the material that is at issue was furnished by the notice party himself.He contended that a person who

could make an application to attach for committal in the circumstances of this case is the notice party himself but as that was the

person who was interviewed and furnished the information contained in much of the article he was not in a position to complain.In

those circumstances he posed the question that if the notice party could not have succeeded in bringing an application surely the

applicant herein, i.e.how could the D.P.P., do so.

41. Finally he referred to the judgment in the case of Desmond v.Glackin [1992] ILRM 490 and to the role of the European Convention

on Human Rights as dealt with in that decision.The articles complained of herein were written prior to the coming into direct effect of

the European Convention and accordingly decisions made under the European Convention can only be of persuasive authority.In this

regard he argued that the right to freedom of expression contained in Article 10(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights,

insofar as it may be restricted, can only be restricted to the extent justified by reference to a pressing social need and proportionate

to the legitimate aim pursued.See para.7.156 of Miller (referred to above).He argued therefore that to find Sunday Newspapers in

contempt as a result of the publication in this case would not be proportionate to the aim of Article 10 and would in effect amount to

a breach of Article 10.

42. By way of reply Mr.McDonagh referred to the article exhibited on behalf of Independent Newspapers and which was exhibited in

the affidavit of Paula Mullooly.He said that that article was quite innocuous and made the point that there would be no issue in

relation to this case if the matters complained of had appeared in evidence before the trial judge.The point in issue was that the

various matters which appeared in the newspaper articles were not before the court and consequently the question to be considered

is whether the material published interfered with the administration of justice.Mr.McDonagh referred again to 370 of the judgment of

Denham J.in the case of Kelly v.O’Neill referred to above and pointed out that in the passage quoted above from p.367 of her

judgment that Denham J.was there dealing with the circumstances as to when a trial should be stopped.At p.370 of her judgment she

had referred to the risk of prejudicing the administration of justice as a whole or the perception of the administration of justice.The

final point he made was that the overarching complaint being made in relation to the publications in this particular case was in relation

to the public perception of the administration of justice in the circumstances which had occurred.

43. It is clear having regard to the submissions made in this case and referred to at length above that there is no challenge to the

proposition that contempt of court may occur in relation to the publication of material in respect of an accused person who has

pleaded guilty but who has not at the time of publication been sentenced.Kelly v.O’Neill is a clear authority to that effect.I think it is

also fair to say that the question to be considered is whether the material published -

(a) Was calculated to interfere with the administration of justice,

Or

(b) created a perception that the administration of justice in a particular case has been interfered with.

44. I think it is also clear that in considering these issues it is necessary for the applicant to satisfy this court that the articles

complained of have had that effect, beyond reasonable doubt.

45. It is not unusual following a serious criminal trial for there to be extensive media coverage in relation to that trial.I think it is fair

to say that the media perform a valuable and useful service in informing the public as a whole as to the nature of such offences and

indeed, the day to day business of the courts.Further, following a sentencing hearing on pleas of guilty in a notorious case such as is

involved here, there is a tendency to have widespread coverage detailing not just the matters outlined in the court proceedings but

also much by way of background material which would not have been before a criminal court which had then proceeded to sentence

an accused.Material can be provided to journalists by Garda sources, victims, their families and more unusually, perhaps, the accused

themselves.This is something that occurs not just in cases involving the type of offences that occurred here but in many other cases

involving serious crime.

46. What is unusual in the circumstances of this particular case is that such detailed coverage in the respondents newspapers

appeared before the sentence hearing.Indeed no evidence had been heard at the point in time when the articles complained of were

published.Counsel on behalf of Independent Newspapers referred to the fact that the jurisdiction being invoked by the applicant

herein is one rarely invoked, and rarely appropriate and rarely applied.That rarity may be explained by the fact that it is rare for

newspapers to publish the type of material that was published here prior to a party being sentenced.

47. The article complained of and which appeared in the Irish Independent referred to a number of specific matters of which complaint

has been made; the accused’s alleged deadly cunning; the arrangements he made to avoid the serious charges involved by fleeing the

country and going to a country he had boasted he was safe and in which he could not be touched by Irish law as no extradition

treaty existed between Ireland and that country; the physical confrontation alleged to have occurred between the notice party and

the police in that country.I have no doubt that those matters were highly prejudicial matters in respect of the notice party.It is

possible that those matters could have been ventilated before the trial judge at the sentencing hearing.However, they were not then

or subsequently before the sentencing judge in evidence.Those matters were reiterated in the Sunday Newspapers article.That article

also called into question the notice party’s remorse for the offences to which he had pleaded guilty.The question of remorse was one

which might be expected to be aired in mitigation on behalf of the notice party at the sentencing hearing.Insofar as Sunday

Newspapers were concerned it was sought to justify the publication of matters relating to the notice party’s departure abroad and

the manner in which he was apprehended there on the basis that that had already been ventilated in the Irish Independent article.I

cannot see how that would justify the publication if in fact the article amounts to contempt of court.

48. As already referred to above it is clear that the decision in Kelly v.O’Neill sets out the principles to be considered in respect of the

facts of this case.One significant difference between that case and the present case is that in the case of Kelly v.O’Neill the trial

judge had held that he was not influenced by the article complained of.That contrasts with the present case in which the trial judge

had found as a fact that he was prejudiced by the offending material and that he was leaving it to the Court of Criminal Appeal to

decide if his professionalism had successfully overcome that prejudice.However, it was pointed out at p.368 of her judgment by

Denham J.that:-

“The issue is not whether or not the trial judge was affected.He held, and it was accepted, that he had not been

affected.Thus, the interference with the administration of justice submitted was not related to the judicial decision

maker.”

49. (There was a contention that the views of the trial judge as expressed in the transcript did not form part of the evidence before

me but the Affidavit of Roseann Seale deals with this issue and the averments in her Affidavit in that regard have not been

challenged.)

50. I think it is clear from the statement in the judgment of Denham J.referred to above that the crucial issue in a case such as this is

not whether the trial judge has been affected or not, the question is has there been and interference with the administration of

justice.It is worth noting the comments made by Denham J.at p.368 of her judgment under the heading ‘Time’:

“In analysing contempt of court the time of the publication in question is of great importance.The time immediately prior

to the jury trial is very sensitive.The time after conviction and pre-sentence is not so vulnerable because the decision

becomes one for the judge.However, as the administration of justice is still continuing, the trial is not concluded, it is still

a critical time.After sentence, the trial becomes less sensitive though it may once again become critical later on prior to

and at any, appeal or rehearing.Care must be taken to keep articles which are proximate to key proceedings appropriate

to the time.The article in question was written at a sensitive time, pre-sentence.It contained material which would be

inadmissible to the court and which was negative to the applicant.”

51. She went on to say at p.369 as follows:

“A balance is required to support the dignity of the court (not the judges personally) and the authority of the court.An

article such as that in issue published pre-sentence has elements which prejudice the minds of the public against the

applicant, excites feelings of hostility, reveals a past criminal record and questionable activities.It is, in fact, an article

predisposing the reader to a negative view of the applicant during the course of the administration of justice.”

52. In the same case Keane J.at p.376 of his judgment made the following comment:-

“There are special considerations, however, arising where the sentencing of convicted persons are concerned, which must

at least be borne in mind.In such cases, depending on the nature of the publication, the inference may be drawn that a

court responded to a popular demand for an exemplary sentence and such an inference, however unjustifiable, might, on

one view, be regarded as damaging to the administration of justice.”

53. I am satisfied that had the articles complained of herein been published after the conclusion of the sentencing hearing in this

matter that no issue could be taken with their contents.However, in this case, I note that the trial judge stated as a fact that he had

been prejudiced by the publication of the offending articles and although I do not think that that alone is determinative of the issue it

seems to me that the articles in question contained highly prejudicial material.The Independent Newspapers article did not urge a

particular sentence on the sentencing judge but referred to matters the judge would have to consider when delivering his

sentence.This to my mind is inappropriate, especially as the matters concerned were not in evidence before the trial court.In the

case of Sunday Newspapers, apart from the matters which were apparently repeated as a result of having appeared in the

Independent Newspapers article, the article complained of in that newspaper commented extensively on the question of the notice

party’s remorse or, to be more accurate his alleged lack of remorse.I cannot conclude otherwise than that questioning the remorse of

the notice party was highly prejudicial at that point in time.There was also a complaint made that the article sought to influence the

sentencing judge by comparing the notice parties offences with those of Joseph McColgan.This perhaps was the least serious aspect

of the matters complained of.Nonetheless I am satisfied that by making a comparison with the facts of that particular case there is no

doubt that the inference to be drawn was that a commensurate sentence, at the least, should be imposed on the notice party.

54. I have referred above to the important role of the media in bringing to the public information about cases coming before the

Courts.That important task is one which must be conducted with great care.If such care is not exercised, it may lead to the type of

problem that has arisen in this case.The timing of the publication was critical in that there was a relatively short period of time

between the entry of pleas and the sentence hearing.In that period of time, it is difficult to see how the media could publish adverse

material in respect of an accused, question the nature of any plea in mitigation that might be made on behalf of an accused, urge on

the sentencing court matters to be taken into consideration in sentencing an accused and perhaps, most dangerous of all in the

context of prejudice, publish an interview with an accused, together with criticism of the accused based on the interview without

running the risk of interfering with the trial process.Such a risk is not likely to arise post sentence.

55. Having considered carefully the principles enunciated in the case of Kelly v.O’Neill, it is clear that the publication of material

adverse to an accused in advance of or in the course of a trial, or post conviction or guilty plea but before sentence may create a

real or serious risk that an accused does not have a fair trial.Such a publication may interfere with the administration of justice.In

some cases, it is possible to adjourn proceedings to allow a “fade factor” come in to effect.That may not always be practical.In some

cases, the material published may be of little significance such that it does not constitute a real or serious risk but in this case I have

come to the conclusion that the articles complained of in this case in respect of the respondents are a contempt of court in that they

were highly prejudicial to the notice party thus interfering in the administration of justice.

56. I will hear further submissions from the parties as to the appropriate penalty.

57. Finally, the name of the notice party should not be revealed to protect the victims of his crimes.