In yesterday's ruling, Judge Kevin Haugh summarised his previous judgment on the issue of adverse pre-trial publicity, the arguments put forward by Mr Haughey's counsel on this occasion and the response from counsel for the DPP, and concluded:
"Having reconsidered the material originally put before me on the occasion of the previous motion and having considered the new or additional material put before me in relation to this motion and having considered the submissions of counsel, I consider that the accused's reputation and standing are now more damaged than was so when I gave my judgment on December 17th, 1999.
"I believe that many of the `new' or `additional' allegations or purported statements of fact accuse him of corruption in a much wider area than the previous allegations, and of corruption of a far greater magnitude than previously, and that many of these allegations impinge upon issues more likely to arise on the obstruction charges and more pertinent thereto than many of the allegations previously made.
"I believe that there is a real risk that considerable further damage to the accused's character has occurred arising from the interview of the Tanaiste published in the Irish Independent of May 27th, and the further publicity flowing from the interview, including publicity given to the proceedings in Dail Eireann consequent thereon.
"I believe that the views and assertions of the Tanaiste, as expressed by her in the course of the said interview, constitute an attack on the accused's character of a sort which I must assume would not be permissible to be made by the prosecution in the course of a trial.
"At their lowest, in my opinion, the statement made and views expressed constitute attacks whose prejudicial value would wholly outweigh any possible probative value and are therefore inadmissible. I further find that such attacks are liable to influence potential jury members or actual jury members in such a fashion as would dilute or diminish the presumption of innocence which an accused should enjoy, be it that it would affect a jury member consciously or subconsciously. And I believe that the risk of such a jury member being so influenced would be significantly enhanced by reason of the high standing and reputation for integrity of the Tanaiste and what I believe a jury member might consider to be her special position, or pre-eminent position, to make assessment or to express informed views on the matters in question.
"Having read and considered the newspaper reporting the said interview, and considered the contents of the letter from the Tanaiste's private secretary to the accused's solicitors dated June 16th, I readily accept that the comments attributed to her, of which the accused complains, were clearly intended by her to relate, and did relate to, `new information which suggested that Mr Haughey had received some £8 million from business persons in Ireland' and that she was not speaking of the proceedings which are before this court which relate to obstruction of the McCracken tribunal.
"Nonetheless, in my opinion, this does not detract from the true gravity of the accused's complaint, which is that this attack on his character has prejudiced his entitlement to a fair trial, and I further accept Mr Leahy's submission that, even when construed in this way, the Tanaiste's comments impinge on a matter relevant to this trial, as the `some £8 million' would include the money referred to in the charges, and there is issue or presumed issue as to whether this money was paid in the manner alleged, in the charges concerned.
"While the motive or intention of a publisher of prejudicial statement of fact or comment would be a relevant consideration on a motion to attach or commit for contempt, what is relevant here is only the effect or potential effect of such publication, and I am satisfied that the effect or potential effect of what is attributed to the Tanaiste here is of real or substantial prejudice to the accused.
"For similar reasons, I also believe that the leaflet captioned `Jail the Corrupt Politicians' has similar potential for real and substantial prejudice, not only because of its content, but also the position and status of those announced as due to speak at the rally concerned.
"I further believe that the very existence of the plan to hold this rally and the stated reasons for the purpose thereof is probably symptomatic of the depth of feeling which exists in a percentage of the population of Dublin against the accused, and this further causes me concern.
"As to the comment of the chairman of the Questions and Answers programme referred to, I do not believe that this created any real potential for irremediable prejudice and is a matter which could be readily obviated or avoided by a direction or instruction of a trial judge.
"As to the Who Wants To Be A Millionaire compilation, I do not accept that the Irish people, or any significant number of them, are so influenced by political correctness, or so devoid of a sense of humour or are so po-faced that this had any real potential to corrupt the pool from which jurors would be chosen, or to pose any real threat of prejudice against the accused. I personally consider it to be a clever and funny composition.
"In conclusion on this aspect, I believe that by virtue of the sustained, prolonged and repetitive nature of the attacks made against the character and reputation of the accused in relation to matters which I believe might well influence a jury in its deliberations, should these charges be permitted to proceed to trial in this climate of opinion, I believe there is a real and substantial risk that he would not receive a fair trial.
"I believe that the degree of vilification is such and the depth of feeling against the accused is such that I would not be at all confident that it could be obviated or cured by instructions, directions or warnings by a trial judge, no matter how strong they might be.
"By reason of the matters which I have stated above, I am satisfied that there exists a real and substantial risk that the accused would not receive a fair trial on the charges currently before the court. However, I do not propose to grant a permanent stay against further proceedings on this indictment, as I am not satisfied that the circumstances, as I find them to be and which compel me to put a stay against further proceedings, will be permanent or will remain as they now are for the forseeable future.
"There may be a change in circumstances which for the present I do not seek to forsee.
"Accordingly, subject to any further submissions counsel may wish to make, I propose to make an order staying all further proceedings on this indictment without leave of this court."