The Special Criminal Court yesterday ruled that the media should not report evidence from a "trial within a trial" of Colm Murphy, the man accused of plotting the Omagh bomb.
Mr Justice Robert Bar, presiding, said: "It would be patently unjust for information to be furnished to the public at large by the media which ultimately may transpire to be inadmissible or quite wrong. It would be unjust that that should happen."
The three judges made the order after a submission by Mr Murphy's counsel, Mr Michael O'Higgins SC. On Monday the court embarked on an oral hearing to decide on legal issues within the trial.
It was the third day of the trial of Colm Murphy(49), a father of four, building contractor and publican, who is a native of Co Armagh with an address at Jordan's Corner, Ravensdale, Co Louth. He has pleaded not guilty to conspiring in Dundalk with another person not before the court to cause an explosion in the State or elsewhere between August 13th and 16th, 1998.
The prosecution are alleging that Mr Murphy "lent aid" to the people who planted the Omagh bomb. Mr Murphy's defence is challenging the admissibility of evidence relating to the Omagh bomb.
The defence is also objecting to the admissibility of evidence concerning a search warrant and the arrest, detention and interviewing of the accused by garda∅ in February, 1999.
Mr Justice Bar said the court had a dual function - that of judges and jury. At the moment it was exercising its judicial function in deciding on the validity of evidence.
He said it was long established practice in the Central Criminal Court and the Circuit Criminal Court that evidence given in the absence of a jury was not reported by the press.
It was in the interests of justice to make the order because evidence could be admissible in the narrow field to determine the validity of a suspicion that a police officer might have to justify the arrest of an accused might not be admissible in the trial of the arrested person.
He said that was the distinction the court must draw.
"It would be wrong if any such evidence given should be published at large where it would be regarded as being indicative of guilt or otherwise," he said.
Counsel for the DPP, Mr Peter Charleton SC, said his instructions were that he should not seek such an order and he did not have any function in relation to the order.
Mr O'Higgins applied for the order "in the interests of fairness".
The "trial within a trial" resumes today.