The High Court upheld the District Court’s legal conclusions in a case stated concerning three newspaper editors convicted of contempt for reporting the outcome of child care proceedings. Mr Justice Birmingham answered all four questions referred by the District Court judge in the affirmative, including that the fines imposed were lawful.
The proceedings concerned reports about interim care orders made for twin boys after the Health Service Executive applied to the District Court under the Child Care Act 1991. The judgment said the reports by the Irish Examiner, the Irish Times and the Evening Echo did not name the children or identify their precise location. But they included details such as their ages, the hospitals where they were treated, their parents’ ages and the area where the family lived.
The District Court judge had found that the editors’ reports tended to disclose the result of child care proceedings held in camera. He found that the editors had shown cause against contempt allegations relating to material tending to identify the children, but not against allegations relating to disclosure of the proceedings’ outcome. He convicted the three editors and fined each €1,000, allowing three months to pay and setting five days’ imprisonment in default.
The High Court held that proof of an intention to breach the in camera rule, or recklessness about breaching it, was not required for this form of contempt. It also rejected the argument that the fact of an order could be published where children were not named. The judgment said the reports’ combined background details could allow people familiar with the children to identify them and connect them with the care proceedings.
On the European Convention on Human Rights, the High Court said it did not require the editors to be allowed to publish the reports. The judgment noted that the District Court could have been asked to authorise disclosure, possibly subject to conditions, but the editors had published without seeking the court’s permission.
The High Court was hearing a case stated, rather than determining the underlying child care proceedings or making new findings about the children. It concluded that the District Court judge was correct on the law, the publication issue and the Convention question, and that the sentences were lawful in the circumstances.