Appeal court rules against public naming of deceased child.

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

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

political analyst wrote: »

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

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 ?

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.

stockshares wrote: »

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.

Carawaystick wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

Some good news on it

https://twitter.com/OCallaghanJim/status/1323224199654232070?s=19

political analyst wrote: »

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...

political analyst wrote: »

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.