Reason was the catch word of the day when publisher Mike Hogan squared up to the Censorship of Publications Board in the High Court yesterday morning.
On the one hand, Mr Justice O'Donovan made no secret of the poor view he took of the board's handling of proceedings leading up to its six-month ban of Mr Hogan's In Dublin magazine. The board voted on April 18th to ban In Dublin, but then continued to correspond with Mr Hogan without informing him of its decision. This was "nothing less than reprehensible", Mr Justice O'Donovan declared. The board did not write to inform him of the ban until August 3rd.
The board's failure to meet Mr Hogan to discuss what changes might be expected, its failure to suggest what changes might be acceptable, and its continued correspondence with him after it had already decided to ban his publication, combined to suggest the board had been "totally unmindful" of the principles of natural and constitutional justice and basic fair procedures.
On the other hand, there was Mr Hogan, who after the judgment presented himself as reasonableness personified. In fact, he told reporters afterwards if reason had reigned, the case might never had ended up in the Four Courts.
"I would like to think I am a fair and reasonable person to sit down and have a discussion with."
But, despite requests to meet the board, requests for clarification of its concerns about his publication and any recommendation for changes it wanted, he only received acknowledgments that his letters had been received. Such requests had been "eminently reasonable" the judge declared. He had also sought the board's recommendations and comments, but again only received a letter of acknowledgment.
Mr Hogan's entitlement, under natural justice, to be heard and his willingness to meet the Censorship Board were their strongest arguments, the smiling publisher told reporters afterwards.
And Mr Justice O'Donovan agreed. From early in his ruling, it became clear he was dissatisfied with the procedures adopted by the board.
Leaning forward in the front row of a half-empty public gallery, with both hands wrapped around his right knee for support, Mr Hogan hung on the judge's every word.
Mr Hogan appeared to be on a roll as the judge continued his criticism of the board's unfair procedures. Then turning his attention to Mr Hogan and his publishing firm, KCD (Dublin) Ltd., the judge said he deplored the publication of Dublin magazine, which he believed was contrary to the spirit of the 1946 Act. But it was not unlawful, he ruled.
However, Mr Justice O'Donovan noted the effect of a six-month ban would have been inestimable and he questioned how else Mr Hogan could have achieved the status quo while seeking leave to have the prohibition lifted.
Following the judge's order to lift the ban on In Dublin pending the outcome of a full judicial review, Mr Hogan said he was delighted.
"It has been a very trying 10 or 12 days," he said.
"The ban would have closed us down," he said. "It is like saying The Irish Times could come back in six months' time - it could not; business is about continuity."