The Supreme Court has declared The Irish Times, and other media organisations, were entitled to publish, in accordance with law, "true and accurate" reports of a major trial in Cork which arose out of the seizure of cocaine valued at £47 million in Cork Harbour.
The court made the declaration yesterday following its unanimous decision last April upholding a challenge by The Irish Times and the other media organisations to Judge Anthony G. Murphy's decision to ban contemporaneous reporting, apart from limited matters, of the trial before Cork Circuit Criminal Court.
Judge Murphy's order was in excess of his jurisdiction, the Supreme Court also formally stated.
In its judgment in the matter last April, the Supreme Court greatly clarified the role of the media in reporting the courts.
It found the constitutional requirement that justice should be administered in public, set out in Article 34.1, should be adhered to save in exceptional circumstances and that impeding media access to the courts was equivalent to limiting public access.
It also found that a ban on contemporaneous reporting should be issued only where there was a real risk of prejudicing the accused's right to a fair trial which could not be avoided by rulings or directions from the judge.
The proceedings against Judge Murphy's ban were initiated in February last year by The Irish Times Ltd, Independent Newspapers, Examiner Publications (Cork) Ltd, News Group newspapers and RTE.
In the Cork trial, four foreign nationals were accused of drug-related offences. One pleaded guilty to a lesser charge prior to the trial and the others were acquitted.
Soon after the opening of the trial Judge Murphy made an order that there should be no contemporaneous media reporting other than the fact that the trial was proceeding in open court, the names and addresses of the accused and the nature of the charges. The High Court rejected an appeal by the media organisations against the order but the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal. The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, said justice, in a democratic society, must not only be done but must be seen to be done. The public's right to be informed about what was taking place in the courts was not absolute but it was hard to envisage in any circumstances how fair and accurate reporting could interfere with the accused's right to a fair trial.
The court adjourned to yesterday the issue of costs and of what form of order it would make.
Mr John Gordon SC, for The Irish Times Ltd, said there had been discussions between the parties about the form of the order. The media organisations were seeking a declaration regarding their entitlement to publish, in accordance with law, true and accurate reports of the trial but the State was opposed to that declaration being made. The State was consenting to an order that Judge Murphy's ban was in excess of his jurisdiction.
Ms Mary Finlay SC, for the Attorney General, queried what the words "in accordance with law" meant in relation to the declaration being sought by the media. She submitted the court should confine its order to finding that Judge Murphy acted in excess of jurisdiction. After consideration, the Chief Justice said the court would grant the declaration and order sought by the media organisations.
Applying for costs, Mr Gordon said the media organisations had been victorious and costs should follow the event.
The Chief Justice said the court was aware of the deep interest of the media in the issues raised, and the public interest, but the court had decided what was a moot.
Mr Gordon said the court had indicated earlier that the fact the issue would be moot (in the context of the drugs trial being concluded before the proceedings were) would not be to the prejudice of the media. The matters raised were of considerable public importance, he said. The media organisations had won and should get their costs.
Mr Paul O'Higgins SC, for RTE, said the real substance of the case was that it dealt with the wider issues concerning the entitlement of the press to report court proceedings and the nature of what was a public hearing in court. The State had entered a cross-appeal in the Supreme Court, he noted.
After considering the matter, the Chief Justice said he would allow the High Court costs of the notice parties - three of the accused - against the Attorney General. The court would adjourn the substantive costs issue to October.
