Court of Appeal: Irish Independent loses appeal against finding of contempt
Reading time: 2 minutes
in it by being complicit with another in the formulation of a strategy to withhold full information from persons entitled to it, and in the discounting of moral and ethical concerns in the consideration that was given to a particular proposed course of action”.
About this case:
- Judgment:unsuccessful" target="_blank">External link
Considering Article 40.6.10 of the Constitution, Justice Edwards emphasised that this was an extremely important right, and “the lifeblood of democracy”, but said that Irish society was “less dependent on the press to hold our government and institutions of state to account than persons living elsewhere under more volatile and repressive regimes”.
Further referencing Kelly v O’Neill, Justice Edwards said that although “freedom of expression is undoubtedly a value of critical importance in a democratic society, … like every other right guaranteed, either expressly or by implication, by the Constitution it is not an absolute right.”
The right to freedom of expression must not be exercised to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.
In all the circumstances, Justice Edwards held that he would dismiss the appeal against the conviction.
Mr Justice John Hogan dissenting, said that he differed “only with hesitation” from the views of his colleagues, finding that the publication of the material was constitutionally protected by the guarantees of Article 40.6.1 of the Constitution.
Justice Edwards agreed with Justice Hogan that Kelly v O’Neill 1 I.R. 354 was the leading authority, but disagreed that “the published material in controversy did not present any real risk to the fairness and integrity of the trial of the individual concerned”.
Share this article:
Subscribe to our newsletter to not miss articles like this one:
SUBSCRIBE
