No long-term commitment on adverts - Hogan

The publisher of In Dublin Mr Mike Hogan yesterday refused to make any long-term decision on dropping the controversial advertisements…

The publisher of In Dublin Mr Mike Hogan yesterday refused to make any long-term decision on dropping the controversial advertisements for health studios and escort agencies from his magazine until the High Court makes a ruling on the issue.

Mr Justice O'Donovan yesterday lifted the six-month ban on the sale and distribution of the magazine imposed by the Censorship of Publications Board, pending a judicial review of the decision. However, the judge ordered that the publication not carry the controversial advertisements in the meantime.

Mr Hogan said afterwards he was delighted with the result, but that he had no regrets about running the controversial advertisements Mr Justice O'Donovan was scathing in his criticism of the censorship board's handling of the case. Its decision to vote to ban In Dublin on April 18th and then continue to correspond with Mr Hogan without informing him of this decision was "incredible" and "nothing less than reprehensible". Mr Hogan was not informed of the decision until August 3rd, with the prohibition commencing on August 10th.

He also ruled that the board had been "totally unmindful" of the principles of natural and constitutional justice and basic fair procedures.

READ MORE

A spokeswoman for the board said no comment would be made at this stage.

Mr Justice O'Donovan ruled there was a case to be tried by a judicial review on the constitutionality of the powers granted by the 1946 censorship act, and whether the board had failed to observe the principles of natural and constitutional justice and basic fair procedures when arriving at the decision to ban In Dublin.

Mr Hogan said the last 10 or 12 days had been very trying. Allegations made in a Sunday newspaper had been "very personal" and were currently being dealt with by his legal advisers, he said, The In Dublin publisher said the case would never have had to go to court if the censorship board had agreed to meet representatives of his firm. The strength of their case had been their entitlement to be heard and their willingness to meet the board, he said.

Mr Hogan said he still did not know the identity of the person who made the complaint about his magazine to the board, and had only discovered the exact subject of the complaint during the opening day of court action on Tuesday. Meanwhile, the Labour Party yesterday welcomed the Government's recent decision to review the censorship laws. The party's spokeswoman on equality and law reform, Ms Jan O'Sullivan, said the review should not be used by the Minister for Justice as a "smokescreen for inaction" on dealing with advertising for prostitution. She said such advertisements should be dealt with as a criminal offence and not a censorship issue.