A High Court judge has decided to take no further action against the Sunday Independent columnist Eamon Dunphy or Radio Ireland for contempt of court in a programme broadcast by the station. Mr Justice Carney said yesterday he would make no further order in the matter after Mr Dunphy and the radio station expressed their "deepest regret" through their counsel, Mr Richard Nesbitt, SC
"I hope you will accept that if there has been a contempt of the proceedings of this court it was a contempt that was absolutely unintentional on the part of my clients," Mr Nesbitt said.
He said the programme was meant to be an honest attempt to debate a matter of public interest of the day.
Mr Justice Carney said he accepted that.
Mr Nesbitt said the outcome of the libel proceedings - in which Mr De Rossa was held to be libelled and awarded £300,000 damages - was proof that the administration of justice had not been interfered with.
Mr Justice Carney said Eamon Dunphy was not just an ordinary witness in the case. He was the principal defence witness and the person whose column was being stood over by Independent Newspapers.
He had given evidence on oath before the jury and the jury was entitled to hear what he had to say on oath in their presence and under the court's direction.
"The Radio Ireland broadcast touched on matters raised before the jury. I cannot cross-examine jurors on what radio stations they listen to. If material goes out on a national radio station I must assume they heard it," he said.
Mr Justice Carney said the programme might have been unexceptional if it had not included Mr Dunphy's participation at that point.
"Restrictions on broadcasting or publishing are not imposed arbitrarily or capriciously but for some defined reason," he said.
"The media and their advisers should ask themselves is there a particular reason for any particular form of restriction at any particular time during the litigation process."
He said once the jury had rendered its verdict in a final manner - in other words not by disagreement - then all restrictions were, generally speaking, off.
Mr Justice Carney referred to a 1992 judgment he delivered on a contempt issue involving RTE coverage of a High Court action involving the national broadcasting station.
In that case, he said, there had been a serious contempt of court, it had not been intended or malicious, RTE had been totally co-operative and the damage had been fully repaired.
Referring to the news reporter concerned at the time the judge had, in his 1992 judgment, told him that because his reporting of one case had gone very wrong he should not on that account in the future become "defensive, bland or dull".
He told Mr Dunphy and Radio Ireland yesterday that in their case similar considerations applied and he made no further order.