A DISTRICT court judge has recommended that the DPP monitor cases where media coverage could impinge on the right of a citizen to a fair trial after hearing an apology from the Examiner.
Judge John Neilan was speaking at Tuam District Court on the 12th day of the trial of 34 people charged with offences arising out of rioting between two traveller families in Tuam last June.
The editor of the Examiner, Mr Brian Looney, was asked to appear before the court and explain why he had published two photographs in Wednesday's edition which defence solicitor, Mr Gerard Gannon, asserted were prejudicial to the defendants getting a fair trial.
Mr Looney was not in court but was represented by Mr John Kiely, barrister, who said he was there to offer an apology on Mr Looney's behalf and that Mr Looney had rescheduled his day and was prepared to appear in person if the court wished.
Judge Neilan said Mr Looney seemed to think he was a law unto himself, apologising in one court for his actions and then adding insult to injury by doing the same thing in another court.
He questioned the sincerity of his apologies and wondered about the purpose of them if he had apologised to the highest court in the land and then repeated his actions soon afterwards.
Mr Kiely said he had been instructed by Mr Looney to make it clear that no undertaking he had given to any court had been done in an insincere manner.
But if Mr Looney was going from one court to the next without meaning or sincerity, asked the judge, then how did he know he would not do the same thing again after this apology? Mr Kiely said the publication of the photographs was a mistake, an error, something that ought not have happened and for which Mr Looney apologised.
He assured the court there was no concerted effort on his client's behalf to devalue the apologies he had already made. He assured the judge that there was no malafides on the part of the publication towards the courts or judiciary in any manner.
Mr Gannon, who had requested Mr Looney be cited for contempt on Thursday, said that Mr Justice Flood in the High Court had accepted Mr Looney's apology and his assurances that procedures would be in place at the Examiner to ensure the rights of persons before the courts were not impinged upon.
He said this was in March and in April he had highlighted a serious breach of standards and a significant infringement of the legal rights of a defendant by the same publication recently. This concerned photographs and an account of a trial taking place in Galway, and this matter was being considered by the DPP.
He said (his breach had occurred only three weeks ago and despite this the Examiner had committed yet another breach in relation to the Tuam case this week.
"I have to question the genuineness of this assurance that procedures will be put in place to ensure this problem will not arise again. This is their third time in six weeks to be involved in such an issue, and in the face of the facts we can have no reliance on these assurances.
"Perhaps the editor and his company have not sufficient expertise in constitutional rights. Is he aware of concepts such as the presumption of innocence and fair procedures?"
Mr Kiely assured the court that the publication was aware of its duties and obligations in this regard and that Mr Looney would set up a regime of editorial control to ensure photographs which could be prejudicial to persons before the courts would not be published.
Judge Neilan said he did not believe any point would be served by referring the matter to the DPP, but suggested the DPP should monitor such situations and if there were breaches of procedure and the rights of citizens were impinged on, then he or the Attorney General should take appropriate action. He accepted Mr Looney's apology offered to the court.