Judge declines to jail journalist who refused to name informant

A JUDGE has ruled that it was unnecessary to jail a Daily Star journalist, Mr Barry O'Kelly, for refusing to disclose his source…

A JUDGE has ruled that it was unnecessary to jail a Daily Star journalist, Mr Barry O'Kelly, for refusing to disclose his source of information to a court. Mr O'Kelly had faced imprisonment for refusing to disclose the informant for an article which led to a breach of contract claim against the Garda Representative Association.

In the Circuit Civil Court yesterday Judge James Carroll said he had been able to determine the GRA case without having to order Mr O'Kelly to divulge his source.

He had reached his conclusion on the basis of two English legal authorities, where it had been held that a court has a discretion on the imprisonment of a witness for refusing to disclose confidential information if it determined that the evidence was not necessary and not relevant.

"If I had found myself unable to come to a conclusion in these proceedings without his having answered the question put to him, then I certainly would have had to order Mr O'Kelly to prison", Judge Carroll said.

READ MORE

Mr O'Kelly had refused to identify the person who had "leaked" to him the terms of a confidential settlement agreement between the GRA and an employee who had sued the association over alleged unfair dismissal and alleged sexual harassment.

Ms Nicola Gallagher, formerly of Templeogue, Dublin, told her counsel, Mr Barry White SC, that she could not find a job in Ireland after Mr O'Kelly's article was published and had since had to find employment in London. She had sued the GRA for breach of contract in releasing the terms of the settlement to Mr O'Kelly.

Judge Carroll held that, on the balance of probabilities, the "leak" had come from a member of the GRA's executive committee who had been told of the term's by the GRA's secretary, Mr John Ferry.

Mr Ferry denied passing information to Mr O'Kelly.

The judge said that neither Ms Gallagher nor any member of her family would have had anything to gain by divulging the terms of a settlement for unfair dismissal or alleged sexual harassment, which would have painted her, in the eyes of future potential employers, as a person of a litigious nature.

He awarded Ms Gallagher £10,000 damages, with costs, but granted the GRA's counsel, Mr Seamus Woulfe, a stay in the event of an appeal.

Judge Carroll told Mr O'Kelly there was no such thing as journalistic privilege. It did not exist in law, as had been clearly laid down by the Court of Appeal in the case of the late RTE journalist, Mr Kevin O'Kelly, in 1973.

"While a journalist, like any other witness, is bound to answer any question put to him which is relevant and necessary, it is clear the judge has a discretion. I have been able to decide the case without Mr O'Kelly's assistance and the question now is should I order him, nevertheless, to answer the question."

The judge said he felt this would be pointless, since the law did not take unnecessary steps solely and simply to punish a person for impudence or insolence. Apart from his refusal to answer the question, there had not been anything in the nature of impudence or insolence on Mr O'Kelly's part.