Bench Marks
- Judge Patrick McCartan -

In a broad sense, the legal system in this country seems to have changed little since I headed from St. Peter’s to UCD to study law. The substance of the legal system has not changed, and that is
how it should be. Our legal system is built on the solid foundations of equality and fairness and has served us well.
.
However the public perception of the law has changed. The media and public now examine, comment on and criticise legal decisions. Lobby groups representing different interests express their views critically and openly. Commentators debate the merits of legal decisions in the newspapers, on radio and on television. Previously there was plenty of comment about legal decisions but it was talk among colleagues or on a bar stool not an open debate on specific legal decisions and their consequences.
.
Overall this is an excellent development. The administration of law must be in public and the fairness of procedure must mean open courts. Judges’ decisions should never have been seen to be above scrutiny. There was a misinformed view held previously by many newspaper editors and those who make decisions relating to what can be printed or broadcast that judges’ decisions could not be criticized or questioned.
.
Indeed I recently saw myself referred to by a disgruntled defendant, in a newspaper report, as “the icing on the cake” of the legal system– it was meant pejoratively though it was a strange choice of metaphor. Of course this was not a sophisticated debate on the merits or otherwise of my decision but merely a man having his say – and why not?
.
Whether they like it or not, judges are now in the thick of things. Once regarded as aloof from the common rough and tumble, in recent years, we have seen the law and judges taken down from the bench for public scrutiny and more. Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodies? Everybody wants to these days.
.
Law now provides much ready copy for news outlets and also evening entertainment. Whoever envisaged the day when legal hearings would become prime time radio like Vincent Browne’s
re-enactments of highlights of the tribunals complete with plummy tones for judges and lawyers?
.
Regrettably alongside the more open approach to reporting legal matters there has been the growth of an undesirable but related development. Newspapers and broadcast media have a duty to report
on the law but they must do so without committing contempt. There must be limitations on reporting legal matters at hearing to protect the rights of all litigants whether in criminal or civil proceedings. This is not a dark conspiracy to conduct law behind closed doors or away from public view – it is an essential protection for all.
.
Most welcome fair and vigorous debate on all aspects of the law. Unfair, intrusive and insensitive reporting of legal matters, which can lead to serious difficulties in the conduct of trials, does a disservice to the media in general.