A HIGH Court judgment which upheld a ban on day-to-day reporting of a major drugs trial in the Circuit Court in Cork is to be appealed by newspapers and RTE to the Supreme Court. The case involved a reporting ban imposed by Judge Anthony Murphy in the Circuit Criminal Court in a case involving £47 million worth of cocaine.
The ban was challenged by The Irish Times Ltd, Examiner Publications, Independent Newspapers, News Group Newspapers and RTE.
Last night the editor of The Irish Times, Mr Conor Brady, said it was the intention of The Irish Times to appeal the case to the "Supreme Court and beyond if necessary".
The chief executive of the Examiner, Mr Alan Crosbie, said he wanted to study the judgment in full before commenting.
A spokesman for the Irish Independent said it would be appealing the judgment to the Supreme Court. The Director of News Services at RTE, Mr Joe Mulholland, said RTE was still studying the judgment, but would "in all probability" appeal the case. Whatever the reason for yesterday's judgment this was a dangerous precedent. "RTE has enough limitation on its reporting without suffering further restrictions," he said.
The Irish Secretary of the National Union of Journalists, Mr Eoin Ronayne, said the judgment would appear to be a radical interpretation of the powers of the judge in restricting reporting. There were major implications for the media and democracy.
Judges are seemingly allowed to limit access and so the public cannot, through the media, witness justice being done.
Court reporters should be allowed to report court cases so that justice is seen to be done, except in those cases defined by law.
"Are judges saying juries cannot access facts for themselves, cannot make fair and balanced judgments? It seems to be a lack of faith in juries, condescending and undermining of the system of open courts with juries,"
said Mr Ronayne.
Other organisations, including the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, acknowledged the importance of the case, but said they wished to study the judgment before commenting.
In the High Court, Mr Justice Morris held that Judge Murphy was empowered to make an order banning day-to-day coverage of the trial.
However, he did not accept that, with such a ban in place, the trial was still taking place in public in accordance with the Constitution simply because the public was allowed in Court.
The trial judge was justified in concluding - there existed a "real risk of an unfair trial".
Judge Murphy had balanced the right of the accused to a fair trial against the media right of freedom of expression under Article 40. In doing so, the trial judge had found that the accused's right to a fair trial was paramount and ranked higher in the hierarchy of rights than the rights of the media to contemporaneous reporting, Mr Justice Morris said.