how restrictive is the sub judice law in Ireland?

Ninap

Based on a post I made in another forum on Boards, I was advised to Google sub judice and public comment. So I did. One of the more interesting and recent results was an article by Ruadhan Mac Cormaic in the Irish Times where he notes:

"Giventhat Irelanddoesn’t have a contempt of court act that would set out those rules in law, theparameters are not quite clear, but the prevailing view is that public commentwill rarely amount to a contempt of court unless it is plainly intended toinfluence a case, or where it’s likely to prejudice a jury trial."

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/sub-judice-is-not-necessarily-the-ultimate-conversation-stopper-1.2086067
So, how restrictive is Ireland's sub judice law? And does it still apply after a verdict in a trial is delivered (but prior to sentencing)?

conorh91

A finding of contempt of court is available where a person has calculated to interfere with the administration of justice.

This includes the period after a verdict has been returned by the jury, and prior to sentencing.

However, in a murder case where the sentence is mandatory, the application of the sub judice rule is to be minimal.

Supreme Court case of Kelly v O'Neill [1999]

Ninap

Given that GD is expected to appeal his conviction, does this mean that the brave souls who run Boards will declare the case to be still sub judice until the appeal is held? Laughable.

NUTLEY BOY

conorh91 wrote: »

A finding of contempt of court is available where a person has calculated to interfere with the administration of justice.

This includes the period after a verdict has been returned by the jury, and prior to sentencing.

However, in a murder case where the sentence is mandatory, the application of the sub judice rule is to be minimal.

Supreme Court case of Kelly v O'Neill [1999]

Thanks for that conorh91 as I have been searching for that case for something else !

Link http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/1999/81.html

NUTLEY BOY

Ninap wrote: »

Given that GD is expected to appeal his conviction, does this mean that the brave souls who run Boards will declare the case to be still sub judice until the appeal is held? Laughable.

Why would it be laughable ?

Generally, and not referring to any current case, imagine this ;

D is tried and convicted.
D appeals successfully but a retrial is ordered.

You cannot publish certain material about a criminal case once the accused has been charged. Otherwise, you fall foul of the sub judice rule.

If you publish such material after conviction but before appeal have you not run the risk of sub judice contempt because that material will now be in the public domain before the retrial ? Are the accused's rights inferior in a retrial as distinct from the original trial ? Would the publication of such potentially prejudicial material come within Re : Haughey and mean that the retrial would have to be postponed to allow for the operation of the "fade factor" concept ?

Haughey link http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2000/78.html

Ninap

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Why would it be laughable ?

Generally, and not referring to any current case, imagine this ;

D is tried and convicted.
D appeals successfully but a retrial is ordered.

You cannot publish certain material about a criminal case once the accused has been charged. Otherwise, you fall foul of the sub judice rule.

If you publish such material after conviction but before appeal have you not run the risk of sub judice contempt because that material will now be in the public domain before the retrial ? Are the accused's rights inferior in a retrial as distinct from the original trial ? Would the publication of such potentially prejudicial material come within Re : Haughey and mean that the retrial would have to be postponed to allow for the operation of the "fade factor" concept ?

Haughey link http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2000/78.html

It's laughable because every newspaper in the country has published acres of comment on the current case, along with every radio and tv station having discussed every possible detail of the case, along with speculation on the convicted person's acts and motivations. Meanwhile, several other online discussion forums have permitted comment on the trial since day one. It's laughable because there isn't even a restrictive sub judice law in Ireland to begin with.

Judges regularly tell jurors in cases which have attracted public comment to put such comment aside and judge purely on the facts. Judges themselves should be well capable of ignoring any public comment.

hullaballoo

Ninap wrote: »

It's laughable because every newspaper in the country has published acres of comment on the current case, along with every radio and tv station having discussed every possible detail of the case, along with speculation on the convicted person's acts and motivations. Meanwhile, several other online discussion forums have permitted comment on the trial since day one. It's laughable because there isn't even a restrictive sub judice law in Ireland to begin with.

Are you interested in having a discussion or are you just on a crusade because it's obvious you haven't bothered to read any posts on this issue, including the post you've quoted?

aphex™

Ninap wrote: »

It's laughable because every newspaper in the country has published acres of comment on the current case, along with every radio and tv station having discussed every possible detail of the case, along with speculation on the convicted person's acts and motivations.

Disagree. They just reported the messages revealed in the case and the only discussion, comment and speculation on motives I saw was on social media.

Comment, speculation came after jury's decision.