Language matters in court reporting, where even a minor error can have serious consequences for a criminal trial. But accuracy is just one part of the equation that journalists need to work with.
Historically, court reports used to routinely contain detailed descriptions of sexual offending, but increasing concern for complainants and the effects such reports can have on the general public means court reporters are paring back. So how much is too much when it comes to explicit evidence?
Press Ombudsman Susan McKay recently said she is “uneasy” about the inclusion of “graphic” detail in some media reports concerning domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. These comments highlight an issue that court reporters have been attuned to for years.
Last year, Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan signalled plans to remove from legislation the term “child pornography”, which is outdated and inappropriate. But long before this, court reporters were taking matters into their own hands. Wherever possible, we made the decision to use the term “child sexual abuse material” to more accurately reflect the reality of the crime before the court.
READ MORE
While helpful, this approach has limits. Court reporters don’t have carte blanche to pick and choose more appropriate language as we see fit – we are bound by the charges as set out in law. So every court report pertaining to “child pornography” must include this term at least once when outlining the charge against the defendant. This continues to be the case until the law changes. Our hands are tied, no matter how many “fix that headline” alerts we get from the public.
[ When family law becomes ‘lawfare’: One woman’s costly journey through the courtsOpens in new window ]
This is just one of many issues that court reporters weigh up on a case-by-case basis – the obligation to report court proceedings faithfully and accurately.
Sexual abuse cases are held in camera for good reason. Both defendant and complainant are entitled to anonymity during trial, and members of the public are excluded from the entire proceedings right up to and including sentencing. The onus then is on the court reporter to be the oft-quoted “eyes and ears of the public”. Justice must be seen to be done. But how do we draw the line between accurately describing the alleged offence in cases that are inevitably distressing and traumatic, without veering into gratuitous territory?
What the public reads and hears in the news from a day in court is just the tip of the iceberg. During a trial, we listen to hours and hours of highly explicit evidence and can only report a fraction of what we hear. The court report we produce must be an accurate account of what the jury heard, it must be balanced between the defence and the prosecution, and it must adhere to the law. How graphic it should be is a whole other consideration – and not one that comes with guidelines.
For cases of prolonged abuse, we turn what may have been 30 minutes of graphic evidence in court to a single sentence: ‘The abuse started with inappropriate touching and escalated to rape’
This is particularly important in cases involving child complainants. In a 2021 Central Criminal Court case, a judge ruled that the details of the abuse suffered by the child complainants should not be reported – an unusual step that reflected the extreme sensitivity of the trial.
But reporting restrictions are not the answer for most cases, and would only stifle what is a vital public service. Instead, experienced court reporters rely on our own professional judgment to decide which details to report.
One rule of thumb is whether the detail is crucial to the judge or jury. During the Conor McGregor civil rape trial, the evidence that Nikita Hand was wearing a tampon was widely reported. It made for difficult reading, but it was a critical point for the jury when deciding its case. It therefore needed to be included in court reports, prurient as it may have seemed.
Likewise, when Jonathan Moran was sentenced in 2024 for raping a young woman, Blathnaid Raleigh, in a shed, the fact that he did so with a bottle had to be front and centre of the report – distressing as it was – because it highlighted the sheer brutality of the crime and how that was reflected in the judge’s sentence.
When the exact details of how a sexual offence occurred are not at stake, court reporters can and should be more circumspect. Very often, reports don’t need to go beyond what the charges entail. Rape, oral rape, anal rape – these charges are explicit enough in and of themselves, without further embellishment.
For cases of prolonged abuse, we turn what may have been 30 minutes of graphic evidence in court to a single sentence: “The abuse started with inappropriate touching and escalated to rape.”
It is still imperative to paint a proper picture of the crime, but we can do so using other details – the age of the complainant, where and how often the abuse occurred (in bed as they slept, in a public place as they socialised), how they came to disclose the abuse and, at sentence, the impact it had on them.
A victim impact statement is often the complainant’s first chance to have their voices heard, and we make sure it is given the prominence it deserves.
Reporting on these difficult court cases that would otherwise be held in secret is a daily exercise in judgment for court reporters. We must weigh up not only what the public needs to know, but – crucially – what it does not.
Isabel Hayes is a criminal court reporter and director with CCC.Nuacht court reporting agency
