Rachel O’Reilly’s murder
Published March 15th, 2006 in JusticeOut of commission for a few days, but hoping to get up and running properly soon. Just read Sarah Carey’s blog, one of my favourites, but on this occasion I think she has seriously misjudged a very serious issue.
The IT like RTE is not mentioning the fact that Joe O’Reilly, Rachel’s husband, has been arrested again. Every other paper and news organisation is. I suppose they will argue that they are not going to risk allegations of an unfair trial by revealing his name. The other papers must be taking the view that the cops will never get him so there will be no trial. Either way, the family of Siobhan McLaughlin must be hoping that their case will not go the same way since there is a “chief suspect” there too….
As a jobbing journalist, I find her argument specious. The notion that the ‘other papers’ reckon the cops believe he will never come to trial is not supported with a scintilla of evidence or even reasonable conjecture. Even citizen journalists should lend support to their arguments; otherwise it is akin to pub talk.
Sarah’s post does, however, expose a conundrum faced by all media - the fear of being held in contempt of court or being responsbile for prejudicing a fair trial. Stating that Rachel’s husband has been arrested again ‘in connection with her murder’ suggests a serious measure of culpability on his part. This is dangerous territory for any newspaper.
The issue of contempt is an interesing one. Most people imagine the Big Bad Wolf of journalism is the law of libel. Sure enough, that is a consideration for any journalist but, in Ireland, the laws governing contempt are far more onerous.
For example, if you are held in contempt in facia curia ( in the face of the court, ie, during a hearing in court) you can be immediately interned without trial by the judge.
The laws of contempt in Ireland violate every principle of constitutional and natural justice, including:
1. The right to a fair trial (see above)
2. The rule that you cannot be a judge in your own cause (judges violate this all the time by jailing people for upsetting the ‘majesty of the court’)
3. The right to liberty
4. The right to be tried by a jury of your peers
5. The right to legal representation
Responsible media may well be prepared to incur the wrath of judges. That does not mean they want to risk prejudicing a fair trial which can, and often does, let the perpetrator off the hook.
70 Responses to “Rachel O’Reilly’s murder”
- 1 Trackback on Mar 25th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
- 2 Trackback on Apr 15th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
- 3 Trackback on May 10th, 2007 at 2:43 am
- 4 Trackback on May 31st, 2007 at 8:48 pm
- 5 Trackback on May 31st, 2007 at 9:06 pm
- 6 Trackback on Jun 6th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
- 7 Trackback on Jun 6th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
- 8 Trackback on Jun 7th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
- 9 Trackback on Jun 7th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
- 10 Trackback on Aug 6th, 2007 at 7:05 am
- 11 Trackback on Aug 25th, 2007 at 5:37 am
- 12 Trackback on Oct 24th, 2007 at 4:24 am
- 13 Trackback on Nov 29th, 2007 at 3:42 am
- 14 Trackback on Dec 4th, 2007 at 5:54 am
- 15 Trackback on Dec 13th, 2007 at 11:45 pm
- 16 Trackback on Jan 3rd, 2008 at 5:19 am
- 17 Trackback on Jan 16th, 2008 at 2:38 am
- 18 Trackback on Jan 18th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
- 19 Trackback on Feb 1st, 2008 at 7:44 am
- 20 Trackback on Mar 3rd, 2008 at 6:01 am
- 21 Trackback on Mar 8th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
- 22 Trackback on Mar 8th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
- 23 Trackback on Mar 14th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
- 24 Trackback on Mar 25th, 2008 at 5:03 am
- 25 Trackback on Apr 2nd, 2008 at 12:50 am
- 26 Trackback on Apr 2nd, 2008 at 6:18 am
- 27 Trackback on Apr 2nd, 2008 at 6:48 am
- 28 Trackback on Apr 2nd, 2008 at 6:50 am
- 29 Trackback on Apr 2nd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
- 30 Trackback on Apr 2nd, 2008 at 2:46 pm
- 31 Trackback on Apr 2nd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
- 32 Trackback on Apr 2nd, 2008 at 7:39 pm
- 33 Trackback on Apr 2nd, 2008 at 8:14 pm
- 34 Trackback on Apr 2nd, 2008 at 9:23 pm
- 35 Trackback on Apr 14th, 2008 at 7:13 am
- 36 Trackback on May 2nd, 2008 at 8:52 pm
- 37 Trackback on May 3rd, 2008 at 3:18 pm
- 38 Trackback on May 3rd, 2008 at 5:57 pm
- 39 Trackback on May 4th, 2008 at 6:56 am
- 40 Trackback on May 4th, 2008 at 11:18 am
- 41 Trackback on May 4th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
- 42 Trackback on May 5th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
- 43 Trackback on May 6th, 2008 at 9:43 am
- 44 Trackback on May 6th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
- 45 Trackback on May 6th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
- 46 Trackback on May 28th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
- 47 Trackback on May 29th, 2008 at 1:34 am
- 48 Trackback on Jun 17th, 2008 at 12:37 am
- 49 Trackback on Jun 19th, 2008 at 12:32 am
- 50 Trackback on Jul 1st, 2008 at 1:34 pm
- 51 Trackback on Jul 16th, 2008 at 6:17 am
- 52 Trackback on Aug 15th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
- 53 Trackback on Aug 19th, 2008 at 7:41 am
- 54 Trackback on Aug 20th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
I have to say I saw the Herald yesterday and just thought it was sooo irresponsible. But hey it will sell papers and they obviously feel they can absorb the cost of a libel suit so they just don’t care. The other media outlets are not reporting who was arrested for good reason.
But for me the more serious issue is that coverage of this kind in court cases, as you say, will prejudice a trial and someone who shouldn’t would walk free. I wouldn’t want that on my conscience.
The Herald has probably ensured that no one will be tried for Rachel’s murder and that is just wrong. But they can use that fodder to be angry about it in future stories which once again will sell loads of papers.
Hi,
I’m not defending the other papers and radio stations for mentioning his name. I am just wondering why they are doing it. Presumably they don’t WANT him to get off so they must firmly believe that their coverage won’t effect any trial, either because there will be none or the evidence will be so overhwelming that their coverage can’t effect it. Or they don’t actually care. In my naive little way, I find it hard to believe this.
Still, do remember Joe himself did an interview with the Sunday World admitting he was a suspect. A deliberate attempt to thwart a case? We’ll see. Personally I have serious doubts that the Gardai have the evidence and there will be no charges.
we all know that joe did it ….
i have heard it from people that even know him
so come on joe admit it for your kids
and for your life ..
do you really think you can live with this ???
and if you can … who,s next ???
it wil all catch up on you threefold
and you will suffer ..
and the truth be known i hope you suffer so badly
she was worth so much more than you which is why it happened i presume …
well you are always watched
and you will be found out
and i dont even mean all that by the police
its nearly your time and you will pay dearly i think and i hope
bye joe and may you pay for your sins
you have many ….
Hello your comment is funny. I like your site.. See ya
Who doesn’t love classic cars? Seems everybody does and hollywood has jumped on the bandwagon too. You see them in just about every movie and TV show now.
car classic insurance line classic low insurance car
I just love the classics!
where xanax buy online xanax can online buy
[url=http://groups.google.com/group/gay-viagra-information]gay viagra[/url] oetfrs [url=http://groups.google.com/group/generic-viagra-lowest-prices-pill]generic viagra lowest prices[/url]
It is Years later, When and we often what effect I never
activ does pro pro activ acne
I love digital music
hi great site nice work thanks youporn co =) downloading redtube videos see u
Good job on putting this into easy to understand language. I\’m book marking this site.
Thanks to the article, Now there is more reason to comment than ever before!
adult chat chat cam2cam free xxx chat xxx free rooms adult chat