The High Court found Independent News and Media plc and other respondents in contempt of court over 2014 newspaper and website coverage of Anglo Irish Bank phone recordings. The court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the material, published after an accused executive had been charged and returned for trial, associated him with behaviour relevant to the charges.
The decision was delivered by Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley on 24 April 2015 in an application brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions under Order 44 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. The judgment’s opening note restricted reporting: only its “Summary and conclusion” could be published until further order. The summary says the court considered the evidence, submissions and authorities before reaching its contempt finding.
The application concerned articles published in The Irish Independent on 17 July 2014 and five videos posted to the newspaper’s website that day and the following day. They featured excerpts from recorded conversations between former Anglo Irish chief executive David Drumm and John Bowe, a former bank executive who was awaiting a jury trial. The coverage included the phrase “Ladybird version” and discussion of proposed bond purchases. The summary does not identify the accused person by name.
The DPP had sought attachment, committal and sequestration orders against the respondents. The published summary records the finding of contempt but does not state that any of those orders was made. It also says the court rejected the argument that the interval between publication and trial removed the risk: for the contempt question, the relevant date was when the material appeared in relation to the charges.
The court accepted that there was no evidence the respondents intended to interfere with the course of justice, but said intent was not required for the offence under the law as it stood. It also rejected the argument that other publications about the same events, against which the DPP had not acted, answered the charge, absent evidence of bad faith by the prosecutor.
The judgment said its full body could not be reported in detail until after the pending criminal trial, to avoid creating fresh prejudice. The source does not record a later order lifting that restriction.