The Court of Appeal reduced fines imposed on Independent News and Media plc and Internet Interactions Limited for contempt of court, setting a fine of €25,000 for each company. The court left their contempt convictions in place; the appeal concerned only the size of their fines.
The case arose from Irish Independent articles published on 17 July 2014 about recordings of conversations between former Anglo Irish Bank chief executive David Drumm and bank executive John Bowe. Bowe had been charged with conspiracy to defraud and false accounting and was awaiting trial. The High Court found that the articles associated him with dishonest and deceitful conduct similar to the allegations he faced, creating a real risk to his fair trial.
In April 2015, the High Court found the appellants in contempt by publication and issued an injunction against three of the four appellants. In June that year, it fined Independent News and Media and Internet Interactions €50,000 each. It also fined Claire Grady €100, but no issue was taken with her fine in this appeal. The Court of Appeal had already upheld the contempt convictions in December 2017. Its July 2018 judgment addressed the two companies’ appeals against their fines.
The publishers argued that the High Court gave too much weight to deterrence and insufficient weight to mitigation, including the absence of an intention to interfere with justice, the public interest they said they saw in the reporting, the time before the trial, and the lack of actual disruption. They also relied on the material being removed after the contempt proceedings began, an undertaking not to republish it, an apology and an offer to pay the DPP’s costs. The DPP argued that the publications were serious and sensationalist, and that a meaningful penalty was needed to deter future contempt.
The appeal court said ordinary sentencing principles apply to criminal contempt by publication, including proportionality to the gravity of the conduct and the circumstances of the offender. It considered the contempt to be of moderate gravity: the publications created a potentially serious risk, but the risk was addressed before it disrupted the trial, which later proceeded and resulted in Bowe’s conviction. The court also considered the lack of intent to interfere with the process and the companies’ lack of previous convictions for similar offences. It said the publishers had acted unwisely and could reasonably be regarded as reckless, though not as intending to interfere with the proceedings.
The Court of Appeal quashed the original fines and resentenced the two companies. It set an aggregate headline penalty of €60,000, then applied a €10,000 reduction for mitigation, resulting in fines of €25,000 each. The appeal did not alter the convictions or the separate €100 fine imposed on Grady.