The Supreme Court yesterday reserved judgment on an appeal by a number of media organisations, including The Irish Times Ltd, against the High Court's refusal to quash a Circuit Court judge's order banning contemporaneous reporting of a major drugs trial in Cork.
The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, who presided over the five-judge court, said the court needed some time to consider the issues.
The Irish Times Ltd, Independent Newspapers, Examiner Publications (Cork) Ltd, News Group newspapers and RTE are challenging the original ban on contemporaneous reporting of a February trial which arose out of the seizure of £47 million of cocaine in Cork Harbour.
Four foreigners were accused of drug-related offences. One pleaded guilty to a lesser charge before the trial and the other three were acquitted.
Soon after the opening of the trial, Judge Anthony Murphy ordered that there should be no contemporaneous media reporting other than the fact that the trial was proceeding in open court; the names and addresses of the accused; and the nature of the charges.
Refusing a High Court appeal by the media organisations against Judge Murphy's order, Mr Justice Morris held that Judge Murphy had jurisdiction to make the order and, in balancing the right of the accused to a fair trial against the right of the media to contemporaneous reporting, had correctly found the accused's right was paramount.
In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the media groups have contended that Judge Murphy had no jurisdiction to make the order and, if there was ever to be any jurisdiction to make such an order, it must only occur very rarely.
They claim that where a conflict of constitutional rights arose, every effort must be made to harmonise these. When this was not possible, the right deemed paramount should not exclude the other.
In court yesterday, counsel for the media organisations made brief closing responses to submissions made by Ms Mary Finlay SC, for Judge Murphy and the Attorney General.
Mr John Gordon SC, for The Irish Times Ltd, said there was a conflict between the position of Judge Murphy and the Attorney General. It was submitted the judge had the jurisdiction to make the order but the AG was not contending for a general or wide jurisdiction.
It was his case that there was no jurisdiction under which Judge Murphy could have made his order. Even if there was, there was no evidence before him entitling him to make such an order.
Mr Frank Clarke SC, for Independent Newspapers and News Group, said Article 34.1 of the Constitution states that justice shall be administered in public except in special and limited circumstances prescribed by law. He submitted that Article 34.1 cannot be impinged upon. This prohibited Judge Murphy from making his order banning contemporaneous reporting.
He said he disagreed with Ms Finlay in her assertion that Article 34.1 had nothing to do with publication and mainly dealt with the right of the public to attend court. If this were correct, there could be a complete ban of all media reporting of what happens in court.
Mr Paul O'Higgins SC, for RTE, said there must be a meaningful construction of Article 34.1 and the concept of holding a trial in public. It was not practical today to suggest that people living in Cos Donegal or Kerry or even Dublin could attend courts. The manner of access was via the media. Public means public "in the fullest sense".
Mr Denis McCullough SC, for Examiner Publications, said he was adopting the submissions made by the other media organisations.