Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Appeal court rules against public naming of deceased child.

  • 29-10-2020 12:53pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 4,319 ✭✭✭


    https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1029/1174666-court-of-appeal-children/
    The Court of Appeal has ruled that a dead child cannot be identified, when someone is charged with killing them.

    The ruling also means that the person charged with the child's murder or manslaughter cannot be named if by doing so, the child would also be identified.

    The ruling came in an appeal taken by RTÉ and other media outlets in the case of a woman who was found not guilty by reason of insanity of killing her three-year-old daughter.
    The ruling means that victims of violent crime, such as 14-year-old Ana Kriégel, who was murdered in 2018 by two 13-year-old boys, cannot be identified when those accused of killing them are charged.

    Does this mean that, if the Court of Appeal had passed this judgement before Ana was murdered, her parents would have been unable to have her name or family photos of her published in the media?


«1345

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    I'd say it means that she was named unlawfully, and the CoA has stated the law as was determined by the Oireachtas

    https://courts.ie/view/judgments/b37ccbdc-2247-4531-b5af-c2b2ce2f4657/b9037200-9e83-43d1-96a0-78edc98fc903/2020_IECA_292%20(Unapproved).pdf/pdf


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,742 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Does this mean that, if the Court of Appeal had passed this judgement before Ana was murdered, her parents would have been unable to have her name or family photos of her published in the media?
    Not in a way that would have identified her as the victim of this murder, no.

    Of course, as she wouldn't have been identified in the media as the victim of the murder by anyone else either, they might not have felt the same need to put their perspective on her in the newspapers.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,757 ✭✭✭stockshares


    This decision has just been discussed on the This Morning With Claire Byrne show. Philip Boucher Hayes was standing in for Claire.

    He Interviewed a parent of murdered children but he could not name her or the children or theur killer. It was a very difficult interview for the Parent as she had to constantly check what she was saying in order to not name her children or their killer.

    Jim O Callaghan made a very good contribution afterwards. He said that legislation needs to be brought in to change article 252 of the Children's Act.
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/24/section/252/enacted/en/html#:~:text=Anonymity%20of%20child%20in%20court%20proceedings.&text=(b)%20no%20picture%20which%20purports,to%20his%20or%20her%20identification%2C&text=(5)%20Nothing%20in%20this%20section,as%20to%20contempt%20of%20court.

    I'll post the podcast later.

    In the meantime an attempt to use the new ruling has already been tried and not for the better.

    Defending Barrister SC Patrick Gageby has tried to use this law as a means of not identifying his client who is accused of the rape of two children.
    https://twitter.com/courtsnewsIRL/status/1321862631293128705?s=19


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,319 ✭✭✭political analyst


    This decision has just been discussed on the This Morning With Claire Byrne show. Philip Boucher Hayes was standing in for Claire.

    He Interviewed a parent of murdered children but he could not name her or the children or theur killer. It was a very difficult interview for the Parent as she had to constantly check what she was saying in order to not name her children or their killer.

    Jim O Callaghan made a very good contribution afterwards. He said that legislation needs to be brought in to change article 252 of the Children's Act.
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/24/section/252/enacted/en/html#:~:text=Anonymity%20of%20child%20in%20court%20proceedings.&text=(b)%20no%20picture%20which%20purports,to%20his%20or%20her%20identification%2C&text=(5)%20Nothing%20in%20this%20section,as%20to%20contempt%20of%20court.

    I'll post the podcast later.

    In the meantime an attempt to use the new ruling has already been tried and not for the better.

    Defending Barrister SC Patrick Gageby has tried to use this law as a means of not identifying his client who is accused of the rape of two children.
    https://twitter.com/courtsnewsIRL/status/1321862631293128705?s=19


    If the victims of the rapists have reached adulthood and are still alive then I can't imagine that even yesterday's CoA decision would prevent them from waiving anonymity.

    By the way, here's the summary of what Jim O'Callaghan said this morning.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2020/1030/1174882-court-of-appeal-children/


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,757 ✭✭✭stockshares


    If the victims of the rapists have reached adulthood and are still alive then I can't imagine that even yesterday's CoA decision would prevent them from waiving anonymity.

    By the way, here's the summary of what Jim O'Callaghan said this morning.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2020/1030/1174882-court-of-appeal-children/

    Thanks for the link. It's helpful as it's difficult to grasp everything that's said during the interview.

    It is indeed absurd that a murdered child can't be named and neither can their killer.

    Do you know why Helen McEentee can't intervene? This wasn't asked by Boucher Hayes.

    Would this amendment only refer to murdered children and not to children who were harmed in other ways?

    Quote
    He said it will take legislation rather than an intervention from Minister for Justice Helen McEntee in order to amend Section 252 of the Children's Act 2001 in such a way to exclude, he said, offences that relate to the homicide of a child.

    Also regarding the Case mentioned above the children appear to be alive and are Adults now as said by Paul Murray Sc of the DPP in this tweet.
    https://twitter.com/courtsnewsIRL/status/1321863825688350721?s=19


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,757 ✭✭✭stockshares


    How does the new ruling affect the reporting of the murder of children and their mother at Llewellyn Court, Ballinteer in the last few days. The link is up on Rte now naming the children?

    These murders happened shortly before the ruling and the mother and children had already been named before the ruling was made

    https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2020/1029/1174565-dublin-deaths-rathfarnham-ballinteer/


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,432 ✭✭✭SusanC10


    I remember 2 mothers in particular, both of whom Husbands killed their children. 1 killed himself and the other is in prison.
    Does this mean that these mothers would not be in a position to speak publically about these crimes ?
    Even after the conviction of the husband/father who remained alive ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,757 ✭✭✭stockshares


    This decision has just been discussed on the This Morning With Claire Byrne show. Philip Boucher Hayes was standing in for Claire.

    He Interviewed a parent of murdered children but he could not name her or the children or theur killer. It was a very difficult interview for the Parent as she had to constantly check what she was saying in order to not name her children or their killer.

    Jim O Callaghan made a very good contribution afterwards. He said that legislation needs to be brought in to change article 252 of the Children's Act.
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/24/section/252/enacted/en/html#:~:text=Anonymity%20of%20child%20in%20court%20proceedings.&text=(b)%20no%20picture%20which%20purports,to%20his%20or%20her%20identification%2C&text=(5)%20Nothing%20in%20this%20section,as%20to%20contempt%20of%20court.

    I'll post the podcast later.

    In the meantime an attempt to use the new ruling has already been tried and not for the better.

    Defending Barrister SC Patrick Gageby has tried to use this law as a means of not identifying his client who is accused of the rape of two children.
    https://twitter.com/courtsnewsIRL/status/1321862631293128705?s=19

    Here is the Boucher Hayes Interview. Let the Ad play first. Interview starts at 6m:50sec.
    https://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/share/radio1/11247415


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,757 ✭✭✭stockshares


    SusanC10 wrote: »
    I remember 2 mothers in particular, both of whom Husbands killed their children. 1 killed himself and the other is in prison.
    Does this mean that these mothers would not be in a position to speak publically about these crimes ?
    Even after the conviction of the husband/father who remained alive ?

    I'm not a Solicitor so I'm only interpreting from what was said this morning.

    I think neither can mention the names of their Children in the media. I don't know how the ruling applies to them speaking in public to people outside the media.

    Both Mother's in the cases you mentioned are in the same position as the Mother who spoke with Boucher Hayes this morning and she could not mention the names of her children which seemed cruel to me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 78,195 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/24/section/252/enacted/en/html
    (2) The court may dispense to any specified extent with the requirements of subsection (1) if it is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so in the interests of the child.

    Hmmm, is it in the interests of a child to have their murderer named? While the deceased won't gain directly from such naming, it is some form of vindication.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    How does the new ruling affect the reporting of the murder of children and their mother at Llewellyn Court, Ballinteer in the last few days. The link is up on Rte now naming the children?

    These murders happened shortly before the ruling and the mother and children had already been named before the ruling was made
    It only applies when a person is charged with a crime involving a child, i.e. court proceedings have started. So a murdered child can be named up until the accused is brought before the court, but then can't be.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Victor wrote: »
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/24/section/252/enacted/en/html

    Hmmm, is it in the interests of a child to have their murderer named? While the deceased won't gain directly from such naming, it is some form of vindication.

    How can a dead person benefit or have any interest?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,861 ✭✭✭Nokia6230i


    It only applies when a person is charged with a crime involving a child, i.e. court proceedings have started. So a murdered child can be named up until the accused is brought before the court, but then can't be.

    This explanation is perfect; but it'll mean how court cases can be reported on from here on in will be very difficult.

    Remember the Athlone case where the man raped 2 Kids? No paper identified hiim but the social media justice warriors did; not sure what they were trying to achieve & the behaviour outside the Barracks etc. was that of a lynch mob.

    Traditional media on & off line will be subject to this but social media is the Wild West & if you look at the relatively few (11) so far charged with naming Boy A & B there's gonna have to be multiple prosecutions going forward.

    Hopefully Section 252 can be adjusted for sake of victims & families (at their consent) & also for the media; the gossip groups will have a field day while the media're hamstrung; if on a Facebook/Twitter post the media report but don't name child victim/defendant they're gonna have to turn off comments immediately.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,861 ✭✭✭Nokia6230i


    Here is the Boucher Hayes Interview. Let the Ad play first. Interview starts at 6m:50sec.
    https://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/share/radio1/11247415

    I know the lady in the interview; she's well known locally in a positive way; rulings like this silence not only her childrens (not saying if plural or singular; I don't want to risk Boards being in legal bother) & her but also give anonymity to the killer; this is totally unfair for their memory.

    Unsure what hounding the killer achieves but sometimes when these people get back into society they don't reveal their past to say, potential partners etc.

    Even listening to the interview she couldn't get out what she wanted to say in a way she has so eloquently before.....


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,742 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Nokia6230i wrote: »
    This explanation is perfect; but it'll mean how court cases can be reported on from here on in will be very difficult.

    Remember the Athlone case where the man raped 2 Kids? No paper identified hiim but the social media justice warriors did; not sure what they were trying to achieve & the behaviour outside the Barracks etc. was that of a lynch mob.

    Traditional media on & off line will be subject to this but social media is the Wild West & if you look at the relatively few (11) so far charged with naming Boy A & B there's gonna have to be multiple prosecutions going forward.

    Hopefully Section 252 can be adjusted for sake of victims & families (at their consent) & also for the media; the gossip groups will have a field day while the media're hamstrung; if on a Facebook/Twitter post the media report but don't name child victim/defendant they're gonna have to turn off comments immediately.
    To be honest, I could live with this quite comfortably. The comments that get added to news reports are rarely enlightening or edifying.

    As for the social media, I think social media operators are going to have to lift their game, in terms of monitoring what gets posted and taking some responsibility for it. This particular one is not technically challenging; it's not difficult to screen all posts for mention of a specific name and put a block on them until satisfied that the post will not breach a "do not identify the victim" law. Obviously there can be an issue where a victim has a common name and many posts which mention that name are in fact referring to someone else, but this isn't an insurmountable problem.

    There's an issue about whether we should ban the identification of child victisms and, if we do, whether and when we should create exceptions to bans. But I don't think those questions should get answered by reference to what will be convenient or profitable for the news media and/or the social media operators. They'll just have to learn to operate within whatever rules we think fit to adopt.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,251 ✭✭✭speckle


    What happens if they charge someone and bring them to court with the child still missing.. will it hamper the search and any parental/ public appeals? Maybe the ruling needs more nuance?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,742 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    speckle wrote: »
    What happens if they charge someone and bring them to court with the child still missing.. will it hamper the search and any parental/ public appeals? Maybe the ruling needs more nuance?
    It's not the ruling that needs more nuance; it's the legislation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,251 ✭✭✭speckle


    Apologies, thats what I meant. thanks


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,757 ✭✭✭stockshares




  • Registered Users Posts: 4,319 ✭✭✭political analyst


    Nokia6230i wrote: »
    I know the lady in the interview; she's well known locally in a positive way; rulings like this silence not only her childrens (not saying if plural or singular; I don't want to risk Boards being in legal bother) & her but also give anonymity to the killer; this is totally unfair for their memory.

    Unsure what hounding the killer achieves but sometimes when these people get back into society they don't reveal their past to say, potential partners etc.

    Even listening to the interview she couldn't get out what she wanted to say in a way she has so eloquently before.....

    I don't believe that last week's judgement applies to adults who have already been sentenced for the homicides of children because, as a rule, these judgements are not retrospective.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,861 ✭✭✭Nokia6230i


    I don't believe that last week's judgement applies to adults who have already been sentenced for the homicides of children because, as a rule, these judgements are not retrospective.

    You didn't hear last weeks Philip Boucher-Hayes interview with the mother of chlldren who were killed by an adult; even on here I don't want to say her/their/his name cos it'll get Boards into legal trouble.

    It felt so odd, knowing her story and having heard her interviewed & speaking on local & national radio, to not hear her name being used by PBH, to not hear her being addressed, to not hear her use their name or his etc. during it.

    So it does appear to be retrospective....hopefully that Jim O'Callaghan bill will repair the situation and soon rather than we're still discussing this in a year or twos time...


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,757 ✭✭✭stockshares


    I don't believe that last week's judgement applies to adults who have already been sentenced for the homicides of children because, as a rule, these judgements are not retrospective.

    The link to that interview is in post #9.

    Boucher Hayes approached it like it was retrospective but it was shortly after the ruling.

    I haven't heard an updated opinion on it by Rte or anyone else.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,319 ✭✭✭political analyst


    Will there be an appeal to the Supreme Court?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,742 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Will there be an appeal to the Supreme Court?
    That's up to RTE and the other media outlets. They can appeal if they want to.

    But they already fought this case in the High Court and lost it, then appealed to the Court of Appeal where they have lost again, with all three judges ruling against them. They'll think long and hard about whether a further appeal has any real chance of success before they commit to one.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,319 ✭✭✭political analyst


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    That's up to RTE and the other media outlets. They can appeal if they want to.

    But they already fought this case in the High Court and lost it, then appealed to the Court of Appeal where they have lost again, with all three judges ruling against them. They'll think long and hard about whether a further appeal has any real chance of success before they commit to one.

    The irony is that this chilling effect on the naming of convicted criminals wouldn't be happening if it wasn't for the media looking to name the woman who was acquitted by reason of insanity on the charge of the murder of her child. Why couldn't they just leave her alone?!

    Jim O'Callaghan is putting legislation forward to resolve this issue. I believe that Helen McEntee will approve.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,319 ✭✭✭political analyst


    Why didn't the Court of Appeal state in its judgement that the anonymity in question applies only when such an order sought by the DPP has been granted and that it doesn't apply to cases which have been dealt with and in which the perpetrator has died or been convicted?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,319 ✭✭✭political analyst


    Jim O'Callaghan's Dáil and Fianna Fáil colleague Jennifer Murnane O’Connor is also proposing the new legislation.

    https://kclr96fm.com/carlow-kilkenny-td-calls-for-amendment-to-childrens-act-to-allow-identification-of-deceased-children-who-were-crime-victims/


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,319 ✭✭✭political analyst


    https://www.irishlegal.com/article/rival-proposals-to-allow-identification-of-child-killers
    Fianna Fáil TD Jim O’Callaghan and Independent Senator Michael McDowell, both of whom are barristers, have now promised to bring forward legislation addressing this, the Irish Independent reports.

    Mr O’Callaghan said his bill would amend the 2001 Act to exclude deceased children from restrictions on identifying children in reports or proceedings.

    Senator McDowell’s bill would be similar but would also allow a court to permit the identification of an accused or convicted person in respect of non-fatal offences against children where it is in the public interest to do so.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,742 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Why didn't the Court of Appeal state in its judgement that the anonymity in question applies only when such an order sought by the DPP has been granted and that it doesn't apply to cases which have been dealt with and in which the perpetrator has died or been convicted?
    Because that's not what the Act says. The courts arent' legislators. Unless the Act is unconstitutional they must give effect to it, and if we don't like the effect of the Act the proper thing to do is to have the Act amended - a matter for the legislature, not the courts.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,861 ✭✭✭Nokia6230i


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Because that's not what the Act says. The courts arent' legislators. Unless the Act is unconstitutional they must give effect to it, and if we don't like the effect of the Act the proper thing to do is to have the Act amended - a matter for the legislature, not the courts.

    Fair to say this was/is an anomaly in the act & the only reason it was noticed is this is 1st time it's been challenged and/or the 1st time the DPP've issued such a reason not to disclose the anonymity of defendant in such a case, innocent or guilty or NG by reason of insanity etc.

    DPP invoked their power under the act & all of a sudden this anomaly is noticed; will be intereested to see when the legislation is altered if it's retrospective to take in this case.

    Given the length of time such things take to go through the Oir. this is likely to be an issue til when, Autumn 2021 maybe?


Advertisement