Former Taoiseach Mr Charles Haughey has failed in his application to have his trial for allegedly obstructing the McCracken tribunal postponed until the Moriarty tribunal has ended.
Judge Kevin Haugh at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court said Mr Haughey's constitutional right to a fair trial had not been interfered with, because juries could be relied upon to ignore media comment.
The judge severely criticised a number of "irresponsible" newspaper articles which he said were almost designed to ensure that Mr Haughey did not get a fair trial.
He also lifted a ban on media reporting of exhibits in the case. The hearing of the motion to have the trial postponed lasted five days and was held in Green Street Courthouse.
The former Taoiseach and Fianna Fail leader had made the application to adjourn his trial on the grounds of adverse media comment surrounding the Moriarty tribunal.
Mr Haughey now looks set to go on trial on March 21st next on two counts of obstructing the McCracken tribunal, although his legal team is considering a possible High Court challenge.
Judge Haugh, summing up the case, said Mr Haughey's reputation had been exposed to "hatred, ridicule and contempt" in the media.
He referred to an excerpt from E television programme, the Late Late Show, which Mr Haughey's legal team played to the court and in which Pat Kenny discussed Mr Haughey's reputation with a number of journalists.
Judge Haugh noted a caller had phoned in to say that "Charlie is all right" or words to that effect and was greeted with a "deafening and chilling" silence by the studio audience.
He said the studio audience might well be considered representative of a pool from which Mr Haughey's jury panel would be chosen.
Judge Haugh suggested the allegations discussed on that programme were "far more serious and damaging than an allegation that Mr Haughey had obstructed the McCracken tribunal". The audience reaction was therefore not necessarily indicative of what one might expect of jurors at his trial.
Using the analogy of a high jump contest, Judge Haugh said the prosecution had "set the crossbar high" for themselves. The obstruction charges required a higher onus of proof than would be required if a perjury charge had been taken against Mr Haughey. The prosecution would have to prove all elements of its case, even if it was to rely mostly on documentary evidence.
Judge Haugh rejected the prosecution's claim that Mr Haughey was responsible for his own reputation by failing to take reasonable steps to protect his good character. Mr Haughey's earlier application to have the Moriarty tribunal postponed or held in private until after his trial was as much as could be expected.
The judge said he was not satisfied that Mr Haughey's "concentration, energy and resources" would be stretched to an "oppressive or unfair" level if the Moriarty tribunal ran at the same time as his trial.
He noted, however, that should Mr Haughey be called to the Moriarty tribunal in or about the same time as his trial, he would be exposed to "unreasonable pressure, disadvantage or hardship". If such a case arose, a further application to adjourn the trial would be sympathetically considered.
Judge Haugh said he was not satisfied there was a "real or serious risk" that Mr Haughey would receive an unfair trial. The court was of the opinion that juries took their oaths seriously and reached verdicts based on the charge given to them by the trial judge.
He considered it appropriate that, in Mr Haughey's case, further consideration should be given to what additional safeguards should be adopted "over and above the norm" of what was expected in the jury selection process.
Considering possible bias on the part of jurors as a result of media comment, Judge Haugh said there were two schools of thought on the matter.
At one extreme, there were those who believed juries should be relied upon to ignore outside comment no matter what the circumstances. The other school of thought was summed up by the words of Mr Justice Jackson in Krulewitch v United States in which he said it was an "unmitigated fiction" that jurors would not be influenced by adverse comment about an accused person.
Referring to articles written by Gene Kerrigan for the Sunday Independent, he said that comments such as Mr Haughey's trial being "a foregone conclusion" and "an open and shut case" were improper and should not have been made.
It appeared that such views were almost designed to prevent a fair trial. These comments were best left unsaid when the preferment of charges could be anticipated or where a trial was pending.