The Director of Public Prosecutions has been asked to consider bringing criminal charges against three tabloid newspapers. They were held by a High Court judge yesterday to have breached a law governing the non-identification of a child applicant in need of care.
Mr Justice Peter Kelly said he was satisfied the Irish Sun, the Irish Mirror and the Star newspapers had, in a manner which brought no credit to journalists, breached Section 31 of the Child Care Act and an order of the High Court prohibiting publication of any matter which might tend to identify the child.
He said the Irish Sun had reported a previous hearing of the child's application under double headlines: "I'll Murder Girls Who Refuse Sex", and "Chilling vow of . . . fiend the courts can't cage".
Mr Justice Kelly said part of the headline repeated one detail, extracted in isolation, from his ruling concerning the profound nature of the child's problem as outlined to him by psychiatric and psychological experts.
"The remaining part of the headline bears no resemblance to what had occurred and had been occurring to the child in the High Court," he said. He had been told that neither of the two reporters purporting to have reported the proceedings were in court to hear the case, and what they had written suggested an inability on the part of the court to "cage" this "fiend".
He said language of this sort was normally reserved for wild animals, and nobody who had taken the trouble to attend court could, in conscience, have used such expressions concerning the child. It had been the concern of everyone in court to address the needs of the child in a humane and effective way.
"The use of these phrases does no credit to responsible journalists, and one would have hoped that the days had long gone when the mentally sick would be treated in this fashion."
The Irish Mirror had published reports two days after the hearing, written by a journalist who had not been in court and under the lurid headline: "Boy facing mental prison. Judge to rule on wild child".
This misrepresented what had gone on in court. Nobody had ever suggested prison for the child. They were only there to work for the provision of a secure and therapeutic environment for the child.
Mr Justice Kelly said the Star had used another example of a lurid headline in which the child had been described as a "sex beast". No one who had been in court could responsibly have used such a description.
He held all three publications had identified the child by referring to his age, naming the health board responsible for his care and identifying the detention centre in which he was being held.
"These matters raise disturbing questions as to how these articles came to be headlined, written and published. One wonders how any of these journalists would feel if a member of their own family, who was mildly handicapped, was subjected to the remarks such as they applied to the child in this case?"
He had no doubt they would be greatly upset to see a family member equated to a beast requiring caging in order to be constrained. Such headline-writing was repulsive and of no benefit to journalism or to the child.
He told Mr John Rogers, counsel for the State authorities, and Mr Gerard Durcan, counsel for the child, that the High Court was interested in ensuring its orders were obeyed and, while satisfied a prima facie contempt of court had been made out, he would not at their request cite the newspapers for contempt.
He said both counsel feared contempt proceedings would detract from the matter in hand, namely the welfare of the child, and supported his ordering referral of the newspapers to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration of criminal prosecution.
Mr Justice Kelly directed that further evidence in the case be heard in camera but later ruled, in open court, that the child be transferred before September 30th to a suitable, secure institution which had now been found for him within the State and which had the proper psychiatric, psychological and educational facilities necessary for his proper treatment.
The judge, who for the last 14 months has taken a deep personal interest in securing proper placement for the child, and who returned from his holiday for yesterday's hearing, said the only regret he had was that this particular institution had not been identified before now.
Twelve days ago, when told that after more than a year of searching there was still no proper facility to be found for the child, Mr Justice Kelly made clear to State officials his intention of devising, if necessary, a scheme which could be imposed by court order under its constitutional powers.
He paid tribute to childcare workers for the further considerable research they had done throughout every health board area in the State since his August 5th direction and the success they had achieved in identifying a suitable facility.