Judgment reserved in editors' bid to overturn contempt ruling

AN ATTEMPT by three newspaper editors to overturn a finding of contempt against them after they published the existence of care orders in a childcare case was asking the court to sanction “a substantial change in the law”, the High Court heard yesterday.

Senior counsel Marjorie Farrelly, representing one of the parties opposing the newspapers’ application, said they had “put it up to the District Court judge” when they maintained they were correct in publishing the existence of the orders. But it was “settled law” that they were in contempt of court.

Last year, the District Court judge found that Geraldine Kennedy, former editor of The Irish Times, Tim Vaughan, editor of the Irish Examiner, and another editor had breached the “in camera rule” by reporting 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.

Yesterday, Mr Justice George Birmingham asked Ms Farrelly whether if you tell the public an “extremely alarming event” has taken place involving injury to children, would it not be in the public interest to say the authorities were addressing the matter and had taken the children into care.

Ms Farrelly responded that if the papers wished to do that, they should have asked the permission of the court first. “It is clearly conveyed in these stories that the children were taken into care from their natural parents,” she said.

“That was information intended to be protected by the in camera rule for all sorts of good reasons.”

Senior counsel Alice Fawsitt, acting for another respondent, said the newspapers’ actions were “an erosion” of the in camera rule. If, in the future, there was a variation or a vacation of the care order, would that go out into the public domain also, she asked.

Senior counsel for the three editors, Cian Ferriter, argued that a provision in the Childcare (Amendment) Act 2007 had allowed for the publication of the decision in such in camera proceedings.

The respondents said the provision was only for the purposes of publication in academic and other periodicals when written by persons such as barristers and solicitors. Mr Justice Birmingham said he would reserve judgment.