The High Court has restricted publication of identifying details in proceedings brought by M.M. against A University, citing the privacy and reputational interests of the plaintiff, another student and a wider cohort of students. It declined to direct that all future hearings be held in camera, but left open the possibility that parts of the evidence or submissions could be heard privately as the case progresses.
The order was made on 12 November 2024 by Mr Justice Tony O’Connor. The judgment says the plaintiff disclosed an allegation of wrongdoing by an unidentified student only during the process at issue in the proceedings. The student had not been informed of it. The court said publication could affect that student and other students who might otherwise face unnecessary implication or speculation about a serious criminal offence.
The plaintiff’s issue paper raised matters which, if determined, could affect the university’s current and future academic regulations, particularly those of the relevant faculty. The defendant had not yet commented on those issues, the judgment says. The court also said it was not aware of a demand for release of the factual details, but could not anticipate what might emerge in the proceedings.
The court said a blanket order requiring all future hearings to be held in camera would conflict with the constitutional principle of public justice and was not justified at this stage. It reserved the possibility of holding parts of the evidence or submissions in camera as the case progresses.
By consent, the proceedings were adjourned for mention only to 19 November 2024 to consider the plaintiff’s recent request to seek mediation by motion. Costs of applications to date and the motion before the court were reserved to that date. The judgment does not decide the underlying dispute or the merits of the allegation.
The order restricts publication on courts.ie, the web and public media forums from identifying the plaintiff’s specific faculty, year or university; publishing the redacted allegation, except as an allegation of assault by an unidentified student with consequences for the plaintiff’s studies and exams; stating that the plaintiff used medical services for the redacted purpose, except to say medical services were used following the alleged assault; or identifying lecturers, examiners or administrators at the defendant university who will be referred to in the proceedings. Any party may apply to vary the order on the stated notice procedure, and the trial judge may vary it on their own initiative or on a party’s application.