LAWYERS for three foreigners on trial in a Cork court on charges relating to the seizure of cocaine worth £47 million told the High Court yesterday their clients did not object to the lifting of reporting restrictions on the trials.
The court is reviewing an order of Judge Anthony Murphy to ban day to day coverage of the trials of four accused persons at Cork Circuit Criminal Court.
Last week the court gave permission to RTE, The Irish Times Ltd, Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Ltd, Examiner Publications Ltd and News Group Newspapers Ltd to seek a judicial review of Judge Murphy's order.
Mr John Gordon SC, for The Irish Times Ltd, said the trials had started on February 4th and were expected to go on for some weeks. Judge Murphy, on his own initiative, had imposed a ban on reporting of the trials by the media in general.
Mr Gordon said that initially a complete ban had been imposed. He (Mr Gordon) did not come to court in any spirit of criticism of the trial judge, who gave reasons why the case should not be reported on a daily basis. The complaint was that, in his anxiety to have a fair trial, Judge Murphy had fallen into error.
On February 6th, counsel for the various media had made an application to Judge Murphy requesting that he vacate his order. The judge refused and gave a very limited entitlement to report, including reporting the fact that the trial was proceeding, the names of the accused persons and other such details.
Mr Gordon said the reasons why the trial judge made the order related apparently to some prior experience last autumn, when he (Mr Gordon) thought a trial had to be aborted following reports on a local radio station.
In addition, Judge Murphy was affected by radio reports on February 4th that a jury was about to be sworn in to try the case of the four accused persons, when this was not so.
He was also affected by an Evening Echo report on February 6th which appeared on the streets at 2.30 p.m. indicating an application was being made to have Judge Murphy's order vacated at a time when the application had not been made and was going to be made at 4 p.m.
Another concern of Judge Murphy was that the four accused persons were from outside the jurisdiction and if the trials were aborted the four would probably remain in continuing custody pending a retrial.
Mr Gordon said it was wrongly reported that a filth person Gordon Richards, had pleaded guilty to the charge of importation when in fact he had only pleaded guilty to possession. That mistake should not have happened, said Mr Gordon.
In the ordinary way, the media were entitled to report as proceedings which were conducted in public in court. There were certain statutory exceptions where there was concern about the welfare of minors and people affected by sexual crime.
In the ordinary way, members of the press were entitled to report fairly, accurately and contemporaneously court proceedings and enjoy the benefit of absolute privilege of the Defamation Act.
Mr Gordon said when it came to balancing of constitutional rights - the balancing between the rights of the accused to a fair trial and the right of the media to report that trial - the scales were weighed in favour of the media.
The court was not entitled to proceed on the basis that the media might fall short of its responsibilities, which might result in the trial being aborted. If that was to be the basis which could inform the trial judge's approach, it would effectively mean that almost any trial judge at any time could ban reporting of the trial. That, said Mr Gordon, was something that must never happen.
Judge Murphy's apprehensions were understood but misplaced, Mr Gordon added. It was the media's intention to report the trial in accordance with their obligations.
Mr Paul O'Higgins SC, for RTE said the trial judge went to some pains to emphasise the trial - was not being heard otherwise than in public because, he said, the doors of the court were open to those who wanted to go in.
But, said Mr O'Higgins, the true construction of the words "administered in public" (contained in Article 34 of the Constitution) must include an entitlement on the part of the press as representatives of the public to act as the eyes and ears of the public in court for the purposes of Article 34.
Mr O'Higgins said the judge could have warned those reporting the trial that they would be punished severely if they were found to be in breach of the law of contempt.
Mr Jerry Healy SC, for the Examiner, said in his view the question which Judge Murphy had asked himself was whether he had jurisdiction to preclude any contemporaneous reporting of the trial because there was a risk of inaccurate reporting.
Mr Healy said he believed there was no such jurisdiction where the judge merely apprehended there was a risk of inaccurate reporting.
Mr Frank Clarke SC, for Independent Newspapers and New Groups Newspapers Ltd, said the accused were not objecting to the application by the media. That must be a material consideration.
Mr Clarke said in so far as any jurisdiction existed to restrict reporting it was a jurisdiction which could only exist where some of the parties to the proceedings sought to invoke it.
Ms Adrienne Egan, counsel for the DPP, said an accused person had a right to a fair trial and if a trial judge perceived that the accused's constitutional right to a fair trial was being infringed then he had jurisdiction to make such an order.
Mr John O'Donnell, counsel for one of the accused, Ms Therese Bernadette da Silva Roy (19) of Puerto de la Cruz, Venezuela, said his client did not object to the application being made by the media. His client neither asked for the order nor was she asked did she want the order.
Ms Deirdre Byrne, counsel for Mr James Noel, of St Lucia, West Indies, said her client was supporting the application on behalf of the media. Mr Noel's lawyers at the Cork trial had asked specifically for the case to be reported.
Counsel for Mr Roman Smollen, St Lucia, said they were not objecting to the applications being made by the media and would abide by Mr Justice Morris's ruling.
The court adjourned the hearing until today.