SUPREME COURT BACKS REPORTING OF DRUG TRIAL

The Supreme Court has declared The Irish Times, and other media
organisations, were entitled to publish, in accordance with law, "true and
accurate" reports of a major trial in Cork which arose out of the seizure
of cocaine valued at IEP47 million in Cork Harbour.

The court made the declaration yesterday following its unanimous decision
last April upholding a challenge by The Irish Times and the other media
organisations to Judge Anthony G. Murphy's decision to ban contemporaneous
reporting, apart from limited matters, of the trial before Cork Circuit
Criminal Court.

Judge Murphy's order was in excess of his jurisdiction, the Supreme Court
also formally stated.

In its judgment in the matter last April, the Supreme Court greatly
clarified the role of the media in reporting the courts.

It found the constitutional requirement that justice should be administered
in public, set out in Article 34.1, should be adhered to save in
exceptional circumstances and that impeding media access to the courts was
equivalent to limiting public access.

It also found that a ban on contemporaneous reporting should be issued only
where there was a real risk of prejudicing the accused's right to a fair
trial which could not be avoided by rulings or directions from the judge.

The proceedings against Judge Murphy's ban were initiated in February last
year by The Irish Times Ltd, Independent Newspapers, Examiner Publications
(Cork) Ltd, News Group newspapers and RTE.

In the Cork trial, four foreign nationals were accused of drug related
offences. One pleaded guilty to a lesser charge prior to the trial and the
others were acquitted.

Soon after the opening of the trial Judge Murphy made an order that there
should be no contemporaneous media reporting other than the fact that the
trial was proceeding in open court, the names and addresses of the accused
and the nature of the charges. The High Court rejected an appeal by the
media organisations against the order but the Supreme Court unanimously
allowed the appeal. The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, said justice,
in a democratic society, must not only be done
but must be seen to be done. The public's right to be informed about what
was taking place in the courts was not absolute but it was hard to envisage
in any circumstances how fair and accurate reporting could interfere with
the accused's right to a fair trial.

The court adjourned to yesterday the issue of costs and of what form of
order it would make.

Mr John Gordon SC, for The Irish Times Ltd, said there had been discussions
between the parties about the form of the order. The media organisations
were seeking a declaration regarding their entitlement to publish, in
accordance with law, true and accurate reports of the trial but the State
was opposed to that declaration being made. The State was consenting to an
order that Judge Murphy's ban was in excess of his jurisdiction.

Ms Mary Finlay SC, for the Attorney General, queried what the words "in
accordance with law" meant in relation to the declaration being sought by
the media. She submitted the court should confine its order to finding that
Judge Murphy acted in excess of jurisdiction.

After consideration, the Chief Justice said the court would grant the
declaration and order sought by the media organisations.

Applying for costs, Mr Gordon said the media organisations had been
victorious and costs should follow the event.

The Chief Justice said the court was aware of the deep interest of the
media in the issues raised, and the public interest, but the court had
decided what was a moot.

Mr Gordon said the court had indicated earlier that the fact the issue
would be moot (in the context of the drugs trial being concluded before the
proceedings were) would not be to the prejudice of the media. The matters
raised were of considerable public importance, he said. The media
organisations had won and should get their costs.

Mr Paul O'Higgins SC, for RTE, said the real substance of the case was that
it dealt with the wider issues concerning the entitlement of the press to
report court proceedings and the nature of what was a public hearing in
court. The State had entered a cross-appeal in the Supreme Court, he noted.

After considering the matter, the Chief Justice said he would allow the
High Court costs of the notice parties - three of the accused - against the
Attorney General. The court would adjourn the substantive costs issue to
October.