knowledge 17 September 2024 |

Clear High Court recognition of the media’s right of access to court records

The High Court judgment in Law Society of Ireland v Ellis¹ considers and recognises again the ability of bona fide members of the print and broadcast media to apply for disclosure of and access to court records, including those which have not been read aloud in open court, for the purposes of fairly and accurately reporting on court proceedings (and leaving aside exceptions such as family law proceedings or proceedings involving minors). 

The judgment is a useful reminder for parties involved in the preparation of court records such as affidavits and their exhibits that bona fides members of the media are in general entitled to seek disclosure of and report on such documents where they form part of the court record irrespective of whether they are read aloud in open court. 

In the case it appears the Respondent raised concern as regards the reporting by the media of the contents of an affidavit which had been submitted to the Court and read by the judge prior to a hearing, but which had not been read aloud in Court at the hearing.  It was alleged that the affidavit had been “leaked” to the media.

The Court in its judgment noted that the reason why a member of the print or broadcast media is entitled to report accurately on the content of court documents notwithstanding that they have not been read aloud in open court is obvious in light of the practice which has developed, whereby judges hearing applications will frequently have read the papers in advance.  That practice is in ease of parties and results in savings of time and costs because instead of time being spent unnecessarily reading out lengthy documents, the judge has read them in advance and comes to court armed with information in relation to the case. The judgment is clear in stating that it is critical that the press who are reporting on proceedings are entitled to refer to that documentation notwithstanding that it has not been read aloud in court. That is as it is still part of the court record: the judge has read it, he or she will be relying on it and the exchanges between the judge and counsel will be based on that material.

The Court noted that this proposition was supported by the constitutional requirement under Article 34.1 that justice be administered in public; discussion in the judgment  In re Independent News and Media plc²; and the Rules of the Superior Courts³, which allow members of the media to apply for disclosure of information contained in a court record for the purpose of facilitating the fair and accurate reporting of proceedings to which the record relates, even where the information in question represents “personal data” within the meaning of the GDPR⁴.

Also contributed to by Kate Doyle and Eoin O'Riordan