The Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Independent News and Media Plc & Ors [2017] IECA 333 (21 December 2017)

The Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Independent News and Media Plc & Ors [2017] IECA 333 (21 December 2017)

The Court of Appeal (majority, Hogan J) held that the publications did not create a real risk to the fairness of the pending trial given the context, timing, and the extensive prior publicity. Therefore, the constitutional protection of freedom of expression applied and contempt was not established. Edwards J dissented, finding that the publications did create a real risk of unfairness and that the High Court was correct to find contempt.

Citation
[2017] IECA 333
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent/appellant: Independent News and Media plc; Respondent/appellant: Claire Grady; Respondent/appellant: Stephen Rae; Respondent/appellant: Internet Interactions Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal (contempt of Court) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed (majority); High Court finding of contempt overturned.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Freedom of Expression, Fair Trial Rights, Prejudicial Publicity, Jury Trial, Constitutional Balancing
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Media Law Contempt of Court Freedom of Expression Fair Trial Rights Prejudicial Publicity Jury Trial +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Applicant/respondent

Independent News and Media plc

Respondent/appellant

Claire Grady

Respondent/appellant

Stephen Rae

Respondent/appellant

Internet Interactions Limited

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (contempt of Court) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publication by the appellants created a real risk of an unfair trial for an accused person and thus constituted contempt of court
  2. 2 Whether the constitutional right to freedom of expression protected the publication in question
  3. 3 Whether the High Court erred in finding contempt and imposing penalties

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal (majority, Hogan J) held that the publications did not create a real risk to the fairness of the pending trial given the context, timing, and the extensive prior publicity. Therefore, the constitutional protection of freedom of expression applied and contempt was not established. Edwards J dissented, finding that the publications did create a real risk of unfairness and that the High Court was correct to find contempt.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (majority); High Court finding of contempt overturned.

Orders

  • Convictions for contempt set aside for the appellants.
  • Fines and injunctions imposed by the High Court vacated.