A High Court judge has warned newspapers that coverage of criminal trials could be affected by a recent Supreme Court judgment. Mr Justice Carney said yesterday he did not believe the press as a whole had "come to grips" with the implications of the judgment.
The judge said his interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment was that there had been "a shift of emphasis" towards the dangers of prejudicial coverage between conviction and sentence and even before the disposal of final appeal. He was commenting after a tabloid newspaper expressed its regret at a headline used during a recent murder trial.
Mr Brian O'Moore SC told Mr Justice Carney that the Irish Mir- ror and its editor, Mr John Kierans, regretted any offence caused to the judge or any difficulty caused to the conduct of the trial of Larry Callaghan. The judge had criticised the newspaper's use of the word "brute" in a headline to describe Callaghan on the second day of the trial and he ordered the paper before him yesterday to explain its action.
Callaghan (34), St Mary's Road, Crumlin, Dublin, was convicted on Thursday of the manslaughter of Ms Janet Mooney (29), between September 17th and 19th, 1996, at their flat at Harrington Street, Dublin. He admitted during his trial at the Central Criminal Court that he kicked Ms Mooney in the head after they argued. The judge warned the jury on the second day of the five-day trial that a person on trial was presumed innocent until the case was dealt with and that under a recent Supreme Court judgment, that person was entitled to perceive the fair administration of justice in their case.
Mr O'Moore expressed his client's regret at any offence caused to the judge or any difficulty the newspaper headline might have caused to the judge in conducting the trial. Mr Justice Carney said the issue was about the "name-calling" of a person standing trial during the proceedings.
He said the recent Supreme Court judgment in the case of Eamonn Kelly versus Conor Brady and Paul O'Neill, given on December 2nd, was less concerned with the effects of newspaper coverage on judges than on the perception of an accused that he was getting the fair administration of justice. He said tabloid newspapers might have taken the view that they were free of restraint from the moment of conviction, but restraint might apply even between sentence and the disposal of final appeal.
He had sympathy for the newspapers but he felt they had not fully considered the implications of the judgment.