A DUBLIN man Rattigan has lost his Supreme Court bid to prevent his trial for the murder of another man outside a fast-food outlet on grounds including prosecutorial delay and "lurid" pre-trial media publicity.
However, the court made clear that prejudicial reporting and/or gross delay and/or failure to record Garda interviews with suspects may in other circumstances lead to court orders preventing trials. Mr Justice Hugh Geoghegan, giving the unanimous judgment of the five-judge court, urged the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to take a "more pro-active role" in pursuing the media for contempt of court in pre-trial reporting of criminal trials.
In a separate judgment, Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman warned that he would, were it not for the existence of dramatic and important evidence in the case, have stopped the trial of Brian Rattigan on grounds of the gross cumulative delay of some 34 months by the DPP leading to prejudicial events and the "lurid and grossly prejudicial publicity" involved.
Failure by gardaí to record interviews would be taken most seriously and he would regard "with horror" any drift back to non-recording of interviews.
This case, despite its aggravated nature, was treated with an "absolute lack of urgency" by the DPP although it was processed with admirable speed by gardaí and the State Solicitors' office, he said. The DPP had excused the delay as due to "systemic failures", but that was "a meaningless bureaucratic phrase" and "almost an insult".
There was a need for serious research into whether pre-trial publicity on jurors has an effect on the outcome of the trials, and a need for serious consideration by everyone of the obligation to protect the right of all citizens to a fair trial, he urged.
The judges were rejecting the appeal by Mr Rattigan (27), of Cooley Road, Drimnagh, against the High Court's refusal to stop his trial on a charge of murdering Declan Gavin (20), of Mourne Road, Drimnagh, on August 25th, 2001, at the entrance to a fast-food outlet in Crumlin.
Mr Rattigan, who denies the charge, had claimed his right to a fair trial was prejudiced by a delay in prosecuting him, by adverse publicity and failure by gardaí to record interviews.
He complained further prejudicial articles were published after his court action in the Sunday World, Sunday Tribune and Irish Daily Mail and the Supreme Court considered those articles in determining the appeal. Contempt proceedings relating to some articles have been brought by Mr Rattigan and are pending.
Mr Justice Geoghegan said the prohibiting of a trial by a court cannot be adopted simply to punish the media, as the contempt of court laws were more than adequate and were the appropriate vehicle to use for that purpose.
He expressed surprise that the DPP, who clearly has an interest in the fair administration of justice in a criminal trial, had not taken any contempt of court proceedings but left Mr Rattigan to do so himself.
The DPP should adopt a more pro-active role in the area of contempt of court proceedings where adverse pre-trial publicity is concerned, he said.
Mr Justice Geoghegan said Mr Rattigan was first arrested on September 4th, 2001 on suspicion of murder and released the next day without charge.
