The publishers of the banned In Dublin magazine told the High Court yesterday they were prepared to publish a "sanitised version" of the fortnightly publication until the court determines the rights or wrongs of the prohibition order made by the Censorship of Publications Board.
The undertaking was given by Mr Joe Finnegan SC, counsel for KCD (Dublin) Ltd and a director of the firm, Mr Michael Hogan, of Grosvenor Road, Dublin.
Mr Finnegan told the court the In Dublin owner, Mr Mike Hogan, had no desire to wage an ongoing feud with the board over its banning of the magazine. But he accused the board of having refused to tell his publishing company where it was going wrong with regard to its ruling that part of the magazine's contents was indecent and obscene.
Mr Hogan's attitude was that if the board identified specifically where the company was breaching the law then it would comply with its views.
Mr Finnegan said Mr Hogan's company had been told in correspondence with the board that a complaint had been made about the contents of three particular magazines, but he was not told whether this complaint referred to editorial content, main-line advertisements such as a full-page promotion for the contraceptive, Durex, or with the small ads at the back of the magazine.
Mr Finnegan said when the complaint was first brought to his client's notice by the board the publishers had written back asking for details of the complaint.
On several occasions they had sought a meeting with members of the board at which they would have discussed specific problems and would have attempted to identify areas of change which would have been acceptable to the censors.
Details of the complaint had not been divulged until late in the day and only after the board had made its decision to prohibit publication of In Dublin for six months.
Mr Finnegan said In Dublin had been on the streets for more than 20 years, during which it had built up a goodwill reputation that now faced total destruction.
In asking the court to quash the board's prohibition until the whole question was determined at a full court hearing, he submitted that the action of the board was unconstitutional and breached fair procedures of natural and constitutional justice.
Mr Finnegan said the publishers had not been given an opportunity to make their submissions known to the board before its decision to prohibit publication.
Mr Diarmuid McGuinness SC, counsel for the board, referred to what he described as the absolute contempt with which the publishers had treated the court and the board's prohibition.
He said Mr Hogan had made his attitude clear by publishing the new magazine Dublin, which was In Dublin under another name, in order to circumvent the lawful order of the board.
In doing so he had also treated the High Court with contempt it did not deserve, which ought not to be tolerated.
An abuse of process had been manifestly made clear in his stated intentions that, notwithstanding what the court intended doing, he intended to continue publishing the new magazine Dublin.
Mr McGuinness said Dublin was not a new magazine but had been published with the intention of frustrating the order of the court.
It was an abuse of process to ask the court to adjudicate on the merits of the order of prohibition without furnishing an undertaking that as a precondition he would not produce a further issue of Dublin.
When Mr Justice O'Donovan asked if the board was prepared to accept the undertakings given by the publishers in return for lifting the prohibition, Mr McGuinness said the order could only be lifted by the Appeals Board. He said the board had exercised its function and could not, of itself, revoke, amend or alter its order.
Mr Finnegan told the court the nub of the complaint against In Dublin was the pages of advertisements for health clubs, escort agencies, adult shops, telephone chat lines and personal ads.
The board, at a meeting on May 15th, expressed concern about certain advertisements and said many of them might be taken to be for prostitution services.
Mr Finnegan said he had authority to inform the court that where anything was pointed out to him as an inappropriate advertisement his clients would not include them in future publications.
They were prepared not to carry any advertisements for health studios or escort agencies, but no one had specifically identified these as responsible for the prohibition.
He said such advertisements were carried in other national publications including the Examiner.
The company had published Dublin because it had a commitment to publish a magazine, and future publications of Dublin would be unrecognisable in terms of its advertisements. He said a magazine of 23 years' standing was facing destruction.
The publisher was accused of the lowest and most reprehensible of crimes and was prepared to give an undertaking not to water down its advertisements but to delete them completely and publish an acceptable sanitised version. Mr Justice O'Donovan said he would consider the evidence and make a ruling today.