The High Court yesterday overturned a Circuit Court judge's order preventing the media from publishing the name and address of a man convicted on sexual assault charges.
Circuit Court Judge Kieran O'Connor had made his order although the victim, then a minor, and her parents, were agreeable to have the offender - Charles O'Connor (59) of Lindisfarne Vale, Bawnogue, Co Dublin - identified.
In judicial review proceedings, the Star newspaper challenged the Circuit Court judge's prohibition and the challenge was upheld yetserday by Mr Justice Kearns.
The judge noted that O'Connor had pleaded guilty on November 29th, 2000 to several counts of sexual assault. He received a three-year prison sentence which was suspended subject to certain conditions. Judge O'Connor had made an order prohibiting any reporting whatsoever of the case.
A day later, on November 30th, following submissions on behalf of the media, Judge O'Connor varied his previous order so as to prohibit publication of the names and addresses of either the offender or his victim.
On December 1st, Judge O'Connor turned down an application by the Star to name the offender despite the fact that this might lead to the identification of the victim.
The Star was granted leave by the High Court to seek a judicial review of Judge O'Connor's decision. The only opposition to the Star's application was on behalf of the offender.
Mr Justice Kearns said it appeared that, immediately following the court order of November 30th, the victim and her parents made contact with the Star.
They were anxious to have the prohibition on identification of the accused lifted even if there was some risk that the girl would be identified.
They saw this as important for her rehabilitation from the abuse she had suffered. Judge O'Connor had rejected the application, principally on the ground that it would not be in the girl's best interests.
Mr Justice Kearns said he was concerned only with the legality of Judge O'Connor's orders.
He said that any rights which the accused might have were dealt with by legislation which was quite explicit in removing the protection of his identity following a conviction.
The Star had argued that, under the Criminal Law (Rape) Acts, Judge O'Connor did not have jurisdiction to make the order of November 30th prohibiting the publication of names.
The newspaper submitted that any protection which an accused enjoyed under the legislation disappeared once he was convicted.
Counsel for the Star had also submitted that it was not for the perpetrator of a sexual offence to invoke the victim's possible concerns, or indeed those of the newspaper, in an attempt to prevent publication of his own name.
Counsel for the convicted man had argued that under the legislation there was scope for a trial judge, following the outcome of a trial, to make such directions as he deemed appropriate.
Mr Justice Kearns accepted the newspaper's submission that any consideration as to whether victims might be more or less inclined to come forward to make complaints if Judge O'Connor lifted the prohibition was clearly a matter of policy and not a reason to sustain the making by Judge O'Connor of his order of November 30th.
While he accepted that Judge O'Connor had acted from the best possible motives, his reasons for making the order of November 30th could not be sustained.