The Supreme Court declined to hear the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeal against the dismissal of contempt proceedings against Independent Newspapers (Ireland) Limited and two other respondents, ruling that no appeal lay from the High Court decision.
The case arose after articles appeared in the Evening Herald on 2 December 2004, the day after Patrick O’Dwyer appeared before Ennis District Court charged with murdering his sister, Marguerite O’Dwyer. The DPP alleged the publications could interfere with the trial process, prejudice a fair trial and breach the sub judice rule. The DPP sought committal of the individual respondents and sequestration of assets.
The High Court heard the DPP’s application in May 2005. On 3 May, after the prosecution case, the judge dismissed the application and granted the respondents’ request for a non-suit, also described as a “direction”. The perfected order recorded that the court refused the relief sought.
The DPP lodged an appeal in June 2005. The respondents argued that no appeal was available, and the Supreme Court directed that this issue be considered first.
In a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Hardiman on 5 March 2008, the court concluded that contempt proceedings seeking committal or sequestration were criminal in nature. It reasoned that the High Court had exercised its inherent criminal jurisdiction and, under the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961, was therefore acting as the Central Criminal Court. The Criminal Procedure Act 1993 abolished appeals to the Supreme Court from decisions of that court.
The judgment acknowledged that ordinary usage would call the court the High Court, but said the statutory definition controlled. It also noted that the respondents had faced potential imprisonment or an unlimited fine and had been acquitted after the prosecution presented its evidence and arguments.
The court declined to entertain the purported appeal. It did not reconsider the underlying allegations or overturn the High Court’s dismissal. Justice Hardiman expressed concern that the same reasoning could prevent appeals in other contempt cases, including against convictions, and said the matter required urgent legislative attention. That concern was not an order in this case.