The High Court refused a Director of Public Prosecutions application to commit or attach a newspaper company and two individuals for contempt over articles published while a murder case was pending. It also refused the requested restraint on further publication.
The application concerned Evening Herald articles published on 2 December 2004, the day after Patrick O’Dwyer appeared before Ennis District Court charged with murdering his sister, Marguerite O’Dwyer. He was remanded in custody. The judgment said the articles described the assault and death, the families and comments from local people, and included some account of the State Pathologist’s post-mortem examination.
The DPP alleged the reports implied O’Dwyer was responsible and prematurely published material relevant to the criminal trial. It argued that the publications risked prejudicing a fair trial and breached the sub judice rule. Those were allegations advanced in support of the application, not findings that contempt had occurred.
The respondents argued that the applicant had to prove criminal contempt beyond reasonable doubt and had not shown a real risk of interference with the trial. They pointed to the absence of a trial date when the application was argued. The judge said a precise trial date was not essential, but the time between publication and proceedings was a relevant factor in assessing risk.
Justice Dunne held that the criminal standard of proof applied. She said a publication’s tendency to interfere with justice was assessed objectively, and that premature publication of trial evidence could amount to contempt. The judgment noted that a trial date had been fixed after the arguments were heard.
The judge said the articles went further than desirable in their detail and described one account of the assault as distasteful, if not offensive. But she was not satisfied that the articles’ overall implication of guilt established a real risk, rather than a remote possibility, of prejudice. She also found the post-mortem details were limited and did not create a risk of prejudice. The application was therefore refused. The court made no contempt finding against the respondents.