The High Court found that media respondents had committed criminal contempt by publishing information from Criminal Assets Bureau proceedings held in camera. The court did not find them in contempt for breaching a publication ban: they had no notice of the order imposing it. The judge reserved the question of sanction and said he would hear further submissions about Independent News and Media plc.
The motion arose from CAB proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996 concerning properties and a motor vehicle. In December 2007, the court had prohibited publication of information that could identify two respondents in those proceedings, referred to in the judgment as J.M. and E.H. The contempt motion concerned newspaper reports and extracts from Paul Williams’s book “Crime Wars”, published in 2008.
The material identified a house in Scribblestown Park as the place where Martin “Marlo” Hyland was killed and linked the property and a vehicle to his family. The judgment said the house was registered in J.M.’s sole name, although the book and newspaper extract described it as E.H.’s. It also reproduced passages presented as information from an interview between E.H. and CAB detectives. E.H. swore that one passage repeated verbatim an interview, and the respondents did not dispute that evidence. She also said a caller described as an associate of her late uncle had threatened her after the Sunday World article.
The respondents said they had not been notified of the December 2007 publication order and were unaware of reporting restrictions. They also argued that information about the properties had already entered the public domain, citing an RTÉ broadcast from July 2007. The judge accepted that the respondents had no actual or constructive notice of the publication order, so he would not attach or commit them for breaching it.
However, the judge considered whether the publications breached the in-camera rule. He said the reports referred to CAB proceedings that had been heard in camera, and the book included material from E.H.’s CAB interview. He was satisfied that the respondents knew the CAB matters had been heard in camera or were reckless in failing to establish that. He therefore found them guilty of criminal contempt on that basis.
The judgment did not impose a penalty. The judge said he would hear counsel about Independent News and Media plc’s position and give counsel an opportunity to address him before deciding what sanction to impose.