Media ban at Guernsey hearing to be challenged

The High Court has given permission to The Irish Times and a number of other media organisations to challenge Mr Justice Flood…

The High Court has given permission to The Irish Times and a number of other media organisations to challenge Mr Justice Flood's ruling that the public and the media cannot attend the taking of evidence from Mr Joseph Murphy snr in Guernsey next week.

The judicial review will be heard in the High Court on Monday. Mr Murphy is due to give evidence on Tuesday.

Following his ruling The Irish Times, RTE, the Irish Independent and the Examiner went to the High Court to seek leave to have it set aside by way of judicial review.

The applicants are seeking a declaration that the order of Mr Justice Flood precluding them from attending the Guernsey hearings is ultra vires Section 2 (a) of the 1921 Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act.

READ MORE

This section requires the sole member of the tribunal to allow the public to be present at any of the proceedings of the tribunal unless, in his opinion, it is, in the public interest, expedient to refuse to allow such attendance for reasons connected with the subject matter of the inquiry or the nature of the evidence to be given.

They are also seeking a declaration that Mr Justice Flood is not entitled to refuse to allow the public to be present at the Guernsey proceedings.

Mr Richard Nesbitt SC said it was never said at any stage that Mr Murphy snr would refuse to attend the hearing if the public was present, journalists or otherwise. He was appearing for The Irish Times, Ms Christine Newman, described as a member of the public and as a reporter for The Irish Times, and for the Examiner.

Mr Justice O'Higgins asked him what accommodation existed for the hearing. Mr Nesbitt said he was told it was a large function room in a hotel.

The judge asked if the public was entitled to be there if evidence was being taken at home by someone's sick-bed. Mr Nesbitt replied that it was not a question of whether the public was entitled to be there, but whether the tribunal had a right to exclude them. If evidence was being taken in a hospital room, for example, the public might be unable to enter because there was no room, but here the tribunal had made an order.

Mr Bill Shipsey SC, for RTE, and Mr Shane Murphy, for Independent Newspapers, associated themselves with Mr Nesbitt's remarks.