A criminal trial involving Zoe Developments Ltd, which was scheduled for next Monday, was halted yesterday after a High Court judge was told about "lurid" publicity surrounding the case. Mr Justice Geoghegan agreed to halt the trial, subject to judicial review proceedings. The trial was to have taken place in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court. The judge added that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the National Authority for Occupational Safety and Health had a right to apply to have the stay on next Monday's court proceedings lifted.
In court yesterday, the judge was told Zoe wanted to have the trial for alleged safety breaches either abandoned or delayed because the company had been the subject of much adverse publicity since November 6th last. Mr Adrian Hardiman SC, with Mr Denis Vaughan Buckley SC, for the company, said it was of great significance that the publicity began with a press release sent to all media organisations stating that Zoe had 12 previous convictions for similar alleged health and safety breaches.
The release, issued by the authority on November 6th, also referred to two further prosecutions which were pending, counsel said. The authority had also given radio and newspaper interviews referring to Zoe's "appalling record" and there was publicity "in the most lurid terms".
Mr Hardiman said he was also seeking liberty to apply for judicial review proceedings with the intention of preventing the authority from circulating more adverse material about his client.
The application was unusual, counsel said. It was not just a matter of prejudicial pre-trial publicity, but also involved deliberately bringing into the public domain information about his client's previous convictions. "That is a classic mode of prejudicing a trial."
Mr Hardiman said the "barrage of publicity" had continued from November 6th until last Sunday. His immediate objective was to postpone the trial set for Monday, but he would be arguing there was a case for it to be completely abandoned.
The press release issued by the authority had also referred to a person being killed on a site managed by his client, said Mr Hardiman. Two names were given at the foot of the press release inviting the media to contact them for further information.
Mr Justice Geoghegan said he would like to know what would happen if the Director of Public Prosecutions issued a statement to the effect that a person had 12 previous convictions for rape if they were before the court on a similar offence. He added that this was not quite an anomaly. Mr Hardiman said it was inconceivable that the DPP would do such a thing. But, at the very least, there would be grounds for an adjournment and, if it was done maliciously, there would be grounds for the case being abandoned.
Mr Hardiman said that between November 6th and 26th there were 17 references in the national media to his client's previous convictions. These had appeared in all the main newspapers including The Irish Times, the Irish Independent, the Examiner, the Star, the Evening Herald and on RTE. It was most unlikely there was now anybody in the State who had not heard about it. Mr Hardiman said the references in the media had become more pointed "and I use the word advisedly, more hysterical". He cited as examples a headline "Unsafe as Houses" and a reference to "the man who built on blood". There had been three phases to the publicity, one around the time the press release was issued, the second following High Court proceedings before Mr Justice Kelly and another more recent phase, counsel said.
A curious aspect of the publicity was that, in a story in the Sunday Tribune of November 29th, it was reported that there had been an inspection of the Zoe site before the fatality but the authority had refused to make any further comment on this on the basis that there was a prosecution pending. Granting the company leave to apply for judicial review, Mr Justice Geoghegan said this would act as a stay on the forthcoming court proceedings. He said the State should have an opportunity to be heard on the matter and the DPP and the authority could bring an application to have the stay lifted if they so wished.
Mr Justice Geoghegan also commented that, while the Supreme Court had recently expressed disapproval of trials being aborted because of pre-trial publicity, this case was different. The Supreme Court judges had pointed out that it was up to a trial judge to advise the jury not to be affected by media reports. But in this case the allegation was that the authority which was directly involved had furnished prejudicial material to the media. He said it was "a sacred rule" that a jury trying a criminal case would not be informed about the defendant's previous convictions.
The judge said he believed it would be wrong for the trial involving Zoe to proceed too quickly in the light of recent events. There was a strong prima facie case for an adjournment until the newspaper readers' memories faded.