A High Court judge yesterday said he supported the view that the law on contempt here is uncertain in many respects and in need of clarification by the legislature.
Mr Justice Kelly said that the "powers-that-be" must be aware of the problems because they received a report from the Law Reform Commission (LRC) eight years ago and were also aware of the views then of Mr Justice Ronan Keane, now the Chief Justice, expressed in 1999.
He was adding his voice in support of the need for legislative intervention in hope rather than expectation, the judge added.
He ruled that publication of prejudicial material where charges are "imminent" does not constitute a contempt of court in this State.
The adoption of such a formula would give rise to "huge uncertainty" and could lead to possible undue cramping of the media in their coverage of public affairs and newsworthy events, thus improperly interfering with the freedom of the press.
He held that publication by four newspapers of material relating to a road accident last January which claimed the lives of a taxi-driver and a youth was not punishable as a contempt of court if it was published before two youths appeared in the District Court on charges related to the accident.
The judge had earlier this year fined the four papers a total of €45,0000 for committing a contempt of court because they published other material in their reports which stated that the arrested youths were already before the courts prior to the fatal crash and awaiting trial on other charges.
The newspapers involved were Sunday Newspapers Ltd, publishers of the Sunday World (fined €20,000), and Independent Newspapers (fined a total of €15,000 - €10,000 for a report in the Evening Herald and €5,000 in relation to an Irish Independent report). A fine of €10,000 was imposed on the Irish Daily Star newspaper.
Giving his reasons for his findings yesterday, Mr Justice Kelly said while he had concluded that the reports by the newspapers concerning the fatal crash before the two youths appeared in court on charges related to the accident was not at law a contempt of court punishable summarily, he was not to be taken as giving the slightest support, still less approval, to the publications which took place in this case.