Court hears newspapers' contempt appeal

AN APPEAL against a finding of contempt and the imposition of fines against three newspaper editors for publishing the existence of care orders in a childcare case has opened at the High Court.

Cian Ferriter SC, acting for Geraldine Kennedy, former editor of The Irish Times, Tim Vaughan, editor of the Irish Examiner and another editor, told the court the assumption that the “in camera rule” was “an impenetrable iron curtain” was not correct.

A reference to the “mere fact of the making of a care order”, without identifying the children involved or using any documentation or material before the court, was “not offensive to the in camera rule”, he said.

The in camera rule prohibits the reporting of certain sensitive cases, including applications by the Health Service Executive for orders taking children into care.

Last year, a District Court judge found the three editors had breached the rule after their newspapers reported that care orders were in place for particular children who had sustained serious injuries. He found the editors were in contempt of court and fined them €1,000 each.

Opening the appeal yesterday before Mr Justice George Birmingham, Mr Ferriter said papers had already reported on a Garda investigation in the case and the care orders were only referred to in that context. The children had not been named or identified in the articles.

“This was clearly a public interest story about awful injuries sustained by children in our State,” Mr Ferriter said.

Felix McEnroy SC, for the HSE, argued that the judge involved had no choice but to find the editors guilty of contempt. It was only possible to be aware of a care order “if you breach the door” during an in camera case and that amounted to contempt.

There was a “cheap and effective” mechanism for the media to publish information if they wished, Mr McEnroy added. They could apply to court and ask permission.

The case continues today.