The Gazette 1976

GAZETTE

J UNE /J U LY 1976

of a trial could be made. That should not be misunderstood by any- one concerned with the adminis- tration of justice. Mr. Lovatt-Dolan said that if an accused had the right to declare his innocence of a charge it fol- lowed that his legal representative was entitled to do it on his behalf. The President referred to the por- tion of Mr. Goldberg's letter which stated that the statements were not made voluntarily, and said that the test should be whether to any ordin- ary person reading it, it indicated not only that the statements were not voluntary but that it carried at least, if not an overt concealed alle- gation that the statements had been obtained by torture. The President said he thought publication of the letter making even this much reference to a pend- ing criminal proceeding was un- wise. He thought it was unwise for a solicitor and unwise for a news- paper but a decision that it lacked wisdom did not constitute contempt of Court. In those circumstances he would discharge the conditional order. Mr- Goldberg, in an affidavit sworn on August 8th, 1975, said his letter to the Minister showed his concern and intention to avoid mak- ing any reference or excessive ref- erence of any improper nature in respect of the four accused persons, because he appreciated that these cases were sub-judice, and even in a letter to the Minister, he did not wish, as a matter of prudence, to be guilty of any breach of the sub- judice rule. He therefore exercised caution and restraint in the words which he used. Mr. Goldberg said he believed "it was his duty to express concern, that his clients were undergoing prolong- ed interrogation at which he was not permitted to attend and advise them. He was concerned also with the failure of the Garda authorities to furnish him with copies of state- ments which he understood had been made in writing by certain of the accused men and, also, by other clients who were not then, or who had not since been charged. He believed there was nothing in his letter which could have been regarded as tending to prejudice the possibility of a proper trial tak- ing place and that his concern was to ensure just that. "I say that there has been a fail- ure on the part of the Minister, the Garda authorities and the Director of Public Prosecutions to deal with my complaints".

He said he had been practising for almost 41 years and in all of his experience he had never been so hampered or found himself in such difficult and distressing circum- stances as he had encountered in this case. "I do not see how I can discharge my professional obligations and re- concile my conscience with my knowledge of facts and events in this case without being false to my clients, to myself, to the profession of which I am a member and to the State of which I am a citizen". He said that while he asked the Irish Press to publish his letter he did not anticipate that an article would be written nor was he con- sulted as to this. D.P.P. v. Irish Press and Goldberg — Finlay P. — unreported — 15th December, 1976. Note—The Judgment in this case is not available. CENSORSHIP Censorship Board's powers to be tested in b a n n i ng "Family Planning". Mr. Justice McMahon in the High Court on December 10 made an order directing the Censorship of Publications Board to show cause why its order prohibiting the pub- lication and sale of a booklet called Family Planning should not be quashed. A conditional order of certiorari was granted to Frank Crummey, his wife, Evelyn, and Family Planning Services Ltd-, and, in view of the fact that constitutional issues are to be raised in the proceedings, Mr. Justice McMahon directed that the conditional order be served not only on the Censorship of Publi- cations Board but also on the Chief State Solicitor on behalf of the Attorney General Mr. R. J. O'Hanlon, S C., who, made the application, read an affidavit by Mr- Crummey, a private investigator, of Crumlin, Dublin, who stated that he was aged 40 and he was married to the second- named prosecutor on April 4th, 1961 and they had five children aged be- tween 15 and 5. He said that he was at present a full-time student at Trinity College, Dublin, studying economics and social studies. His wife was employed in a restaurant in order to supplement his limited income as a private investigator. Without his wife's income he would no longer be able to continue as a

student since his other job was of necessity a part-time one. It was imperative that they should not have any more children at this stage as that would place an in- tolerable burden on their family and their resources. In that regard it was essential for them that they have the fullest information immed- iately available concerning family planning. Mr. Crummey said he was a dir- ector of Family Planning Services Ltd., of 67 Pembroke Road, Dublin, which was-a non-profit making com- pany and employed three persons- It was one of the major distributors of Family Planning and he person- ally distributed it during 1972 and advertised it in Woman's Way mag- azine. Family Planning Services Ltd. provided a postal and personal ser- vice to about 30,000 couples in the State in respect of (a) the supply of non-prescriptive contraceptives and (b) information and advice on fam- ily planning. They had distributed many thousand copies of Family Planning. Mr- Crummey referred to a copy of Iris Oifguil dated December 3rd, 1976, from which it appeared that the Censorship of Publications Board had ordered that Family Planning, being allegedly obscene and indecent, should be banned from publication and/or sale. Neither he nor any member nor director of Family Planning Association had been given notice of the proposed banning of the booklet, nor were they given time to make argument against the banning, and in that regard he claimed that their natural rights and legal and constitutional rights had been infringed. As a result of the ban, his wife and he were being frustrated in their constitutional right to infor- mation on family planning. He also claimed that his reputation was be- ing damaged by the ban; his child- ren and friends would see him as a distributor of obscene and indecent literature. Mr. Crummey, said that in Feb- ruary 1974, Family Planning Ser- vices Ltd. had been prosecuted in the District Court on charges of sell- ing this booklet in contravention of Section 16 of the Censorship of Publications Act, 1929, charging that it advocated the unnatural pre- vention of conception. The District Justice dismissed the charge after hearing the prosecutor's evidence. Similar charges had been dismissed against the Irish Family Planning Association.

38