Judge to rule today on application for contempt

Judge Patrick McCartan will give a preliminary ruling today on the status of an application for contempt of court brought by …

Judge Patrick McCartan will give a preliminary ruling today on the status of an application for contempt of court brought by a Tipperary solicitor against five newspapers, including The Irish Times.

The solicitor served an affidavit on the newspapers which named his client, whose sexual assault trial at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court ended with the discharge of the jury by Judge Dominic Lynch this month.

The jury was discharged after Mr Peter Charleton SC, defending, complained that the newspapers had been in breach of an order made by Judge McCartan when he empanelled the jury that the accused man should not be named outside the court.

Judge McCartan's decision to rule on the preliminary issue came after five hours of legal argument arising out of the applicant's affidavit.

READ MORE

Mr Kevin Feeney SC, for the Star, and Mr Paul McDermott SC, for the Irish Examiner, said at the outset that it was not clear from reading the applicant's affidavit what case their clients had to answer.

They argued that, before Mr Charleton outlined the applicant's case, he should tell them which form of contempt the court was being asked to deal with, because this could influence their approach.

Mr Charleton's reply that the issue of civil and criminal contempt in this instance was "indivisible" was rejected by Mr Feeney, who contended that an intermingling of civil and criminal contempt could not apply.

Mr McDermott also submitted that there were "vital areas" of the applicant's affidavit which contradicted the trial transcript. It was not clear if Judge Lynch was aware of any earlier order.

Judge McCartan ruled that Mr Charleton could proceed with his outline of the case.

Mr Charleton said that Judge McCartan's order when swearing in the jury - that "no person, including any member of the jury panel" could bring out information from the court which would identify the accused - had been breached.

He contended that the order had been made in the interests of a fair trial and to protect the alleged victims.

He said he conceded that, unlike in rape cases, there was no legislative bar on naming a person accused of sexual assault simpliciter except where it could serve to identify the victims. The articles published had a strong potential to identify the alleged victims.

Mr Eoin McCullough, for the Irish Independent, said if the newspapers had potentially identified the alleged victims it was up to the Director of Public Prosecutions to bring such a notice to them.

Ms Una Ni Raifeartaigh, for The Irish Times, said that the contempt complained of was a civil matter because the applicant had failed to prove knowledge of the original order prohibiting the publication of the accused man's name.

Mr Luan O Braonain, for the Irish Mirror, also said it was a case of civil contempt. It was reasonable to anticipate that the order, "if it was an order", would be made by Judge Lynch, as the trial judge, but this had not been done.