The High Court refused Patrick Kelly leave to pursue contempt proceedings against journalists and editorial officers at the Irish Times and Irish Independent over articles about his case, finding no risk that the reports could prejudice the administration of justice.
Mr Justice Hedigan delivered the judgment on 30 March 2012. The contempt application arose from Kelly’s appeal concerning a Circuit Court refusal to order discovery of documents he considered necessary to his case against National University of Ireland. The High Court had referred five questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union, which answered them on 21 July 2011.
Articles published the following day in the Irish Times and Irish Independent said, in their headlines and text, that Kelly had lost his case. The judgment says the Irish Times later published a correction and clarification, which Kelly considered inadequate. The Independent had apparently offered to publish a correction, but it did not appear adequate to him and did not appear to have been published. Complaints to the Press Ombudsman, and appeals concerning its decisions, were ongoing.
Kelly argued that the articles misrepresented what had happened in the European court and that their publication during the discovery appeal amounted to criminal contempt. The judge said contempt law was aimed at preventing interference with the administration of justice, not protecting a litigant’s private rights. He concluded that press reports could not affect the judgment of a judge sitting alone, who would consult the European court’s decision itself and hear argument if its meaning were unclear. Leave was refused. The court ordered costs in favour of the newspapers and the defendant.
The judgment also dealt with three further motions. Kelly sought to set aside a 2008 ruling by Mr Justice McKechnie that the requested documents were confidential and sensitive. Mr Justice Hedigan said that ruling was based on Professor Suzanne Quin’s evidence and found no factual basis for Kelly’s claim that it was not evidence-based. He did not consider the legal issues raised because that factual basis was absent.
A motion concerning the availability of witnesses was struck out with no order as to costs after counsel for the defendant said they would be made available if needed in the High Court and would be available in the Circuit Court appeal.
On the fourth motion, the judge said Kelly had complied with a 26 November 2009 order, but that information remained online after others downloaded it. The court dismissed the application as “utterly devoid of merit” and ordered costs in favour of the defendant.