The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Melton Enterprises Limited and affirmed the High Court’s judgment and order. It held that the Censorship of Publications Board Ireland was not required to disclose the identities of people who complained about issues of The Weekend Sport, provided its non-disclosure policy had policy grounds and was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.
The dispute concerned complaints that the periodical should be prohibited. Melton Enterprises argued that, if the relevant provisions of the Censorship of Publications Act were constitutionally valid, the Board had to identify the complainants. Its counsel submitted that knowing their identities was necessary to assess whether they were acting in good faith or had ulterior motives, and that natural and constitutional justice required a person facing a serious complaint to know who made it. The company also argued that the Board could not apply an inflexible policy of withholding identities.
The respondents submitted that the publisher had received the complaint material, apart from the complainants’ identities, and had been invited to make representations before the Board reached a decision. They said the Board’s role was to form its own view on whether the publication was indecent or obscene, or devoted an unduly large proportion of space to crime-related material. The Board’s stated policy was intended to encourage members of the public to complain; it could seek a complainant’s consent to disclosure, as it had done in this case.
Delivering judgment on 4 November 2003, Chief Justice Keane distinguished the Board’s assessment from proceedings where a tribunal determines objective facts that affect legal rights, or where allegations could result in criminal conviction. In this case, the Board had to form a subjective opinion about the publication. Complainants triggered the process; the Board could not simply adopt their views in place of its own.
The court said fairness and openness required publishers to receive the complaint material and the Board to consider whether to invite representations. No other procedural fairness issue arose in this appeal. The court concluded that disclosing identities was not required where the Board considered there were policy reasons for withholding them and the policy met the stated standard. It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court order.