There is no reason to believe that a jury empanelled to try Zoe Developments on charges of alleged safety breaches would not accord the company a fair trial, the High Court heard yesterday.
Mr Frank Clarke SC, for the National Authority for Occupational Safety and Health, said the authority denied it had set out to prejudice Zoe's prospects of a fair trial or was indifferent to the possibility of such prejudice.
He was speaking on the final day of an application by Zoe, of Fleet Street, Dublin, to prevent its trial for alleged breaches of safety on a site at South Earl Street, Dublin, from proceeding.
Zoe claims the authority's issuing of a press release on November 6th, 1997 - which said the company had 12 previous convictions and there were two potential indictable offences pending - and the extensive publicity which followed that and later court proceedings, had prejudiced its chance of a fair trial.
Mr Clarke referred to Supreme Court decisions where efforts were made to prevent a trial on the grounds of adverse publicity. He also referred to the Supreme Court decision last year upholding an appeal by The Irish Times and other media organisations against an attempt to restrict reporting of a major Cork drugs trial.
He said the Supreme Court had stated that any person seeking to prevent their trial on the grounds of adverse publicity was required to establish there was a real and serious risk of an unfair trial which could not be avoided by appropriate rulings and directions from the trial judge.
He said it was more than 12 months since the press release was issued and no trial of Zoe could take place for some time. Any risk of unfairness was dissipated. There was also no reason to believe a jury would deviate from its oath to try the company on the court evidence.
Mr Diarmaid McGuinness SC, for the DPP, said Zoe could have drawn the High Court's attention to its impending trial when it was before that court in November 1997, over an application by the authority to close down its Charlotte Quay site in Dublin.