In the first blasphemy case to be heard in this country in almost a century and a half, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is impossible to say what the offence of blasphemy is, despite its prohibition in the Constitution.
The court yesterday handed down judgment in the first blasphemy case since 1855. In its landmark judgment the Court dismissed an appeal from Mr John Corway, a carpenter from Harold's Cross, Dublin, against a 1996 High Court judgment which had rejected his attempt to pursue a criminal prosecution for blasphemy against the Sunday Independent.
While acknowledging the crime of blasphemy exists in the Constitution, the Court pointed out it is not defined there, and that there is no legislation defining it on the statute books. The judgment also stated: "The State is not placed in the position of an arbiter of religious truth".
Mr Corway had brought the action against the Sunday Independent for a cartoon it had published in November 1995. This showed a priest in full vestments holding a chalice and host, pursuing Mr John Bruton, Mr Ruairi Quinn and Mr Proinsias De Rossa, who had led the campaign of the then coalition government in favour of the divorce amendment.
The caption read, "Hello progress - goodbye Father?" in what seemed to be a reference to one of the campaign slogans, "Hello divorce - goodbye, Daddy".
The Supreme Court awarded costs against Mr Corway, despite submissions from his counsel, Mr Gerard Brady. Mr John MacMenamin SC, for the Sunday Independent, said that Mr Corway had come before the court, having lost in the High Court, in full knowledge of the implications if he lost. Costs may total tens of thousands of pounds.
At the time of the High Court action Mr Corway was also pursuing blasphemy prosecutions against The Irish Times and Hot Press for a cartoon and an article respectively. It was not clear last night what the status of these prosecutions is now following the Supreme Court ruling.