A hearing on whether an article in The Irish Times about Dublin criminal Eamon Kelly constitutes a contempt of court will come before the High Court next month. The article was published after he was convicted on drugs charges seven years ago but prior to his sentence.
The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Morris, yesterday fixed June 26th for the hearing. The date was sought by Mr Michael O'Higgins, for Kelly, and consented to by Mr David Phelan, solicitor, representing Mr Conor Brady, Editor of The Irish Times, and Mr Paul O'Neill, a journalist with the newspaper.
Eamon Kelly (50), of Furry Park Road, Dublin, was convicted on May 15th, 1993, of having £500,000 worth of cocaine for supply in September 1992. On May 27th, 1993, he was jailed for 14 years. A similar sentence was imposed after a retrial and Kelly remains in prison.
The article complained of was published in The Irish Times on May 17th, 1993, two days after Kelly was convicted but before sentencing. It was headlined: "Gardai believe Kelly was involved in other major crimes".
Kelly described the article as containing "malicious and pernicious lies" and took contempt proceedings. A Circuit Criminal Court judge found the article was a contempt and fined Mr Brady and Mr O'Neill £5,000.
They appealed the decision to the High Court, which referred two questions to the Supreme Court. These asked: "(1) Can it be a contempt of court to publish an article in the terms complained of after a criminal trial has passed from the seisin of the jury and where the remainder of the hearing will take place before a judge sitting alone?" and
"(2) Given the constitutional right to freedom of the press, could the publication of the article complained of ever constitute a contempt of court when published after conviction and before sentencing?"
In a unanimous decision in December, the Supreme Court answered Yes to both questions and returned the matter to the High Court to determine whether the article constituted contempt.
The Supreme Court said legislation to clarify the offence of contempt of court was required, and Mr Justice Keane said the law could not proceed on the basis that judges were incapable of being prejudiced by material damaging to a particular litigant to which they had been unnecessarily exposed.