The High Court was asked yesterday to decide whether a jury should hear proceedings taken by the Democratic Left leader, Mr Proinsias De Rossa, alleging contempt against Independent Newspapers arising from articles in the Sunday Independent in late 1996.
A conditional order for the sequestration of the assets of Independent Newspapers was made by the High Court in November 1996 following complaints by Mr De Rossa, then minister for social welfare.
At the time, Mr De Rossa was involved in libel proceedings against the newspaper over an article by Eamon Dunphy published in the Sunday Independent on December 13th, 1992. The hearing of the action went on over a number of days in November 1996. The jury at the hearing was discharged on the ninth day after complaints from lawyers for Mr De Rossa about articles published in the newspaper on November 10th, 17th and 24th, 1996.
In court yesterday, Mr Paul O'Higgins SC, for Mr De Rossa, told Mr Justice Kinlen that the only matter now before the court was the issue of contempt in relation to the question of sequestration.
The defence sought to deal with the matter on two bases, counsel said. The defence submitted that it was not in contempt and, even if it was, it was entitled to trial by jury on the issue of whether there was contempt.
Mr O'Higgins submitted there was no entitlement to trial by jury in the circumstances of the case. What was involved was a question of law for a judge to deal with.
Mr Kevin Feeney SC, for Independent Newspapers, said that if the court decided that his clients were entitled to trial by a jury, the matter would have to proceed in the normal course. He thought it would be correct for the papers to be sent to the DPP. If it was decided that his side was not entitled to a trial by jury, he would want to take instructions and possibly consider taking the matter further.
In an affidavit, Ms Eimer McKenna, solicitor for Mr De Rossa, said the application arose out of the conduct of the defendant in and about the libel action taken by Mr De Rossa. The hearing proceeded before Mr Justice McCracken and a jury on November 5th, 1996.
She referred to the articles concerning the case in the Sunday In- dependent of November 10th, 17th and 24th, 1996. She said she was advised that the effect of these, in their specific terms and taken as a whole, was to attempt to prejudice Mr De Rossa's position as a litigant against the defendant. The hearing resumes next Tuesday.
