The Court of Appeal would allow an appeal by Independent News and Media plc, newspaper editors Claire Grady and Stephen Rae, and website operator Internet Interactions Limited against findings and penalties for contempt of court, according to a redacted judgment delivered by Mr Justice Gerard Hogan on 21 December 2017.
The Director of Public Prosecutions had sought attachment and committal orders over Irish Independent articles and related website material published in 2014 about an individual awaiting jury trial. The judgment says the person had been charged in December 2013 and that a trial date was set for January 2016. The material’s publication date and further details are redacted.
The High Court found the respondents in contempt in April 2015, concluding that the publications associated the accused with the offences charged. In June 2015, it fined each corporate respondent €50,000 and imposed a nominal €100 fine on Rae. The penalties were stayed pending appeal. The respondents appealed both the contempt finding and the penalties.
The DPP argued that the material created a risk of prejudice by portraying people in an unflattering light and associating the accused with objectionable conduct. The respondents said the articles were protected expression about matters of public importance and denied intending to prejudice a trial. Those were the parties’ submissions, not findings by the Court of Appeal.
Hogan J. assessed whether the publications created a real risk to the fairness of the pending trial, weighing the timing, content and broader context. He noted that the trial was still about 18 months away when the articles appeared; the publication did not directly allege criminal conduct or say the accused was guilty; and the events had already been widely discussed in books, articles and broadcasts.
He concluded that the articles added little to the existing coverage and that the real-risk test was not met. In his view, the publications were protected by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression. He would allow the appeal.
The judgment does not state a final order by the Court of Appeal. Hogan J. said he differed from his colleagues only with hesitation, and the source ends with his conclusion that he would allow the appeal. It also says the full judgment remains under embargo pending the completion of certain criminal trials, to avoid possible prejudice; the redacted version may be reported in full.