The High Court refused Michael Murray’s application for an interlocutory injunction that would have restricted three newspaper publishers from publishing photographs identifying him or information about his address and whereabouts. The decision, delivered by Ms Justice Irvine on 18 June 2010, concerned interim relief only; the underlying proceedings remained for trial.
Murray’s plenary action seeks damages and permanent injunctive relief. He alleges that newspaper coverage after his release from prison interfered with his privacy, safety, housing and ability to work and continue rehabilitation. He also alleges that information he was required to provide under the Sex Offenders Act 2001 was unlawfully disclosed. The Garda Commissioner and other State defendants are parties to the main action, but Murray sought no interim order against the Commissioner.
The publishers argued that reporting his identity and whereabouts served the public interest, including public safety, and that freedom of expression outweighed the rights he relied on. They said they believed he posed a risk of reoffending. Those were their submissions, not a final finding on his future risk.
Justice Irvine held that Murray had raised a fair question for trial. But because the application sought to restrain publication, he needed proper evidence making a convincing case for interim restriction. The judge found the material before her did not establish a real risk to Murray’s life or show that he was likely to succeed at trial in preventing further publication of identifying photographs or address information.
The judge noted that Murray had presented no evidence of actual threats, attacks or abuse, and no independent evidence about his rehabilitation or risk of reoffending. She also found that the public had a legitimate interest in debate about released sex offenders, and that the requested restrictions were broad. Much of the identifying material had already been published.
The court did not decide whether the newspapers had unlawfully interfered with Murray’s privacy, whether the alleged Garda disclosure occurred, or whether he would obtain damages or a permanent injunction. It said those issues required fuller evidence at trial. The judge indicated that an early trial date might be available in October and said the parties would be heard on listing the case at the earliest opportunity.