Applications by a number of newspapers for an adjournment of High Court contempt proceedings brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions were rejected today.
The DPP initiated the action against the newspapers and also the broadcaster RTE after some newspapers published the names, previous convictions and others published photographs and information concerning two youths involved in a road crash in Dublin earlier this month which claimed the lives of a taxi driver and a youth. The DPP believes this to be gravely prejudicial.
The proceedings, which are being heard by Mr Justice Peter Kelly, are against Independent Newspapers Ltd and its managing editor, Mr Michael Roche over articles in the Evening Herald and Irish Independent of January 13th; Sunday Newspapers Ltd and Sunday World editor, Mr Colm McGinty over an article published on January 12th; and Independent Star Ltd and Irish Daily Star editor, Mr Gerard Colleran over articles on January 13th.
The media organisations involved are being asked to explain why their assets should not be seized and senior executives must show cause why they should not be jailed for contempt of court over their coverage of the incident.
The DPP has also applied for an injunction restraining further interference with the prosecution of two youths on charges related to the accident.
The DPP has also brought proceedings against RTE and Ms Alice O'Sullivan, producer of RTE's Gerry Ryan Show over an interview between Mr Ryan and RTE crime correspondent, Paul Reynolds which was broadcast on January 13th.
Mr Kevin Feeney SC, applying for adjournment for the Irish Star and its editor, said this was, in effect, an application by the DPP to clarify the legal position in relation to contempt involving the media.
Mr Eoin McCullough SC for Sunday Newspapers and its editor said his clients did not believe they committed contempt.
Mr Paul McDermott SC for RTE and its producer, said they regretted what was broadcast and undertook not to do so in future. Whether what was broadcast was contempt was a matter of law.
The newspapers asserted they could not be in contempt as they had "gone to press" prior to the two youths being charged.