REPORTING BAN ON DRUG TRIAL APPEALED

Media organisations, including The Irish Times Ltd, yesterday brought a
Supreme Court appeal against the High Court's refusal to quash a Circuit
Court judge's order banning contemporaneous reporting of a major drugs
trial in Cork.

Mr John Gordon SC, for The Irish Times Ltd, said the order by Judge Anthony
Murphy "set an extraordinary precedent". It had immediate serious
implications for his client and all the appellants, and also had "very
serious" implications for the media in general in relation to how they
report court proceedings.

He said if Judge Murphy was found to be correct it would mean any judge,
without an application being made to him and in the absence of debate on
the issue, was entitled as he saw fit to preclude contemporaneous reporting
of proceedings before him.

That was such a clear and unwarranted invasion of his client's
constitutional rights that it could not be permitted. He contended the
judge had no power to make such a "preemptive" order.

Mr Gordon was opening the appeal taken by The Irish Times Ltd, Independent
Newspapers, Examiner Publications (Cork) Ltd, News Group newspapers and
RTÉ. The hearing is expected to conclude today.

The media groups are challenging the original ban on contemporaneous
reporting of a trial in Cork, imposed by Judge Murphy last February. The
trial followed the seizure of an estimated £47 million worth of cocaine at
Cork Harbour in September 1996. Four foreign nationals were accused of drug
related offences. One pleaded guilty before the trial and the remaining
three 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 crime alleged.

A challenge to the judge's order was taken by the media organisations to
the High Court, which last February refused to quash it.

In the High Court, Mr Justice Morris held that Judge Murphy was within his
rights and had not exceeded his powers in ordering a daytoday ban on
coverage of the trial.

Mr Justice Morris said Judge Murphy was empowered to make the order and had
applied the correct criteria of law. He was satisfied the trial judge was
justified in concluding that there existed "a real risk of an unfair trial".

In their submissions to the Supreme Court, the media groups stated it had
been the case in the past that the media had not reported on certain
matters that transpired at trials conducted before juries, notwithstanding
the fact that there was no statutory requirement in that regard or specific
order in existence.

The areas concerned the various matters that may be addressed to the trial
judge in the absence of the jury, such as a "trial within a trial" dealing
with the admissibility of evidence.

It was submitted that the media had, at all times, acted in a most
responsible manner in respect of such matters and, for that reason, it had
not been found necessary to introduce legislation empowering trial judges
to make orders prohibiting publication of such material.

It was conceded, however, that if there were any reasonable apprehensions
that the best traditions referred to were likely to be breached, then the
Oireachtas would be entitled to introduce legislation either prohibiting
such reporting generally or empowering trial judges to make appropriate
orders prohibiting such reporting.

The fact that such a measure had not been considered necessary was an
argument in favour of the generally responsible attitude of the media to
reporting that had characterised court reportage in this State. It also did
not affect the fact that, under the provisions of Article 34 of the
Constitution, no order restricting such reporting could be made without an
appropriate statutory measure.