CONVICTED RAPIST Michael Murray has been ordered to pay the costs of his unsuccessful High Court bid for an order restraining some newspapers publishing his address and pictures of him.
Last week, Ms Justice Mary Irvine refused Mr Murray the injunction restraining publication of his whereabouts which he had sought pending the outcome of his full court action against the newspapers over alleged breach of his privacy.
She ruled he had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claim that his personal rights outweighed those of the newspapers’ rights to freedom of expression and refused the order on that and other grounds.
The court heard yesterday that the full action may not be ready to go ahead next October as his lawyers may need more time to get reports and other evidence ready.
Ms Justice Irvine adjourned the matter for mention only to October 5th.
Mr Murray (50), who was released last year after serving 13 years for raping four women over a six-day period in 1995, claims he has been unable to have a permanent home since then because the papers keep publishing his address and pictures of him. He also said he had lost a job because of the newspapers’ actions.
The proceedings arose from publicity in the Evening Herald, the Irish Daily Star,the Star on Sunday, the News of the Worldand the Sun.
Eoin McCullough SC, for the newspapers, asked that costs be awarded against Mr Murray as the judge had found there was inadequate evidence to support a restriction on the newspapers’ rights. The issues at the main trial would be different from those at the injunction stage, he said.
Counsel for the Garda Commissioner also applied for costs against Murray.
Paul O’Higgins SC, for Mr Murray, said it was possible at the full hearing for a court to decide if the case was brought in the public interest, which would have a bearing on the costs. In those circumstances, he asked that the question of costs should be decided by the trial judge.
Mr Justice Irvine said costs at the injunction stage should be dealt with by the judge who heard the injunction application.