Independent Newspapers has been fined €111,000 for contempt of court over the publication of an article which led to the collapse of a rape trial.
Ms Justice Miriam O'Regan found there was an egregious contempt by the Irish Independent article last November which was run among others focussing on the conduct of rape trials in Ireland.
The DPP brought an application before the High Court for contempt and sequestration of the publisher's assets. Independent Newspapers Ireland pleaded guilty and applications against editor-in-chief Fionnán Sheahan and journalist Nicola Anderson were withdrawn.
The editor and the paper had given an unreserved apology and had already paid, or agreed to pay, some €100,000 towards costs incurred as a result of the trial having to be aborted over the article, the court heard.
The judge said the article was published while a rape trial was ongoing, had no regard to the fact that a jury was considering it and this was “nothing short of appalling”.
It was no answer to the contempt, as the paper had argued, that it did not know the jury had already begun considering its verdict because it was abundantly clear to it the trial was ongoing, she said.
She also appreciated a legal advisor cleared the article for publication but was not satisfied any journalist could offload or go “hiding behind a lawyer” in relation to one of the central tenets on reporting restrictions surrounding such trials.
The paper sought a discount on the penalty on the basis that it had a checking system in place, took legal advice before publication, had no intention to interfere with the administration of justice, and it was a matter of public interest.
The judge accepted it was a matter of public interest and that there appeared to be no intention to interfere with the trial.
She said, however, the system in place was “wholly inadequate” and the purpose of the system was to ensure the name of the accused did not appear in the article whereas the reality is that there are reporting restrictions in relation to these offences. She said these were topical at the time because of differences were being considered between the Republic’s and the North’s system in this regard following a high profile trial in Belfast.
It was agreed between the parties the relevant jurisprudence governing this matter was a Court of Appeal decision from last year with the most serious contempt starting at €100,000 with no upper limit, she said.
This was a corporate body which published in and about a commercial activity and that was in the judge’s view significant.
The “headline figure” for this case was €175,000 and she would give a discount of 14 per cent, bringing the figure down to €150,000, in relation to the lack of intention to interfere with the trial and on the public interest argument.
She would give no discount for the pre-publication system and only a minimal discount in relation to the legal advice
The fact that in the aftermath, the article was taken down from the online edition very quickly and within a very short time a plea of guilty and offer of recompense and payment of certain costs was particularly favourable to the paper.
The expression of remorse and contrition and attendance of relevant personnel in court attracted another 16 per cent discount giving a final figure of €111,000, she said.
After Cian Ferriter SC, with Shane English BL, for the defendants, inquired about how much time there would be to pay the fine, and the judge gave 31 days.