THE FAMILY of the late Daniel McAnaspie should be allowed to obtain information on his treatment while in the care of the Health Service Executive, the High Court was told yesterday. Daniel McAnaspie was found stabbed to death in May 2009. He had gone missing while in the care of the HSE.
Mr Justice George Birmingham was hearing submissions on questions put to him by the District Court concerning whether that court had jurisdiction to lift the in camera rule in relation to an application by the sister of the boy, Caitríona McAnaspie, for disclosure to her, as his next of kin, of reports relating to his care proceedings.
She was seeking reports prepared by the boy’s guardian ad litem, appointed by the court to represent his interests, for various court proceedings relating to his care by the HSE. Ms McAnaspie also sought permission to publish these reports.
When the application came before the District Court earlier this year Judge Conal Gibbons referred the matter to the High Court, asking it to decide on whether the District Court had jurisdiction to lift the in camera rule in this instance. He also asked it to consider whether the care order was brought to an end by his death, if the definition of “child” in the Child Care Act included one who is now deceased, and whether a third party could bring an application.
John Rogers SC, for Ms McAnaspie, told the court that his client wanted the reports prepared by Daniel’s guardian ad litem for the court so that she could know what the guardian voiced on his behalf. These were at least part of the story of how he was cared for and the events leading to his death, he said. He pointed out that the District Court had already ruled that material could be released to the Garda, which was investigating the boy’s death. It had been released at the request of the HSE.
Mr Rogers said that the case had to be considered in the context of article 34.1 of the Constitution, which stated that justice should be administered in public, except where otherwise prescribed by law.
He said the provisions of the Child Care Act which required that childcare proceedings be heard “otherwise than in public” also contained provisions stating that anything published should not lead to the identification of a child in care. This suggested some information could be published.
He said some of these issues had been explored by Mr Justice Barr in 1998, when he was hearing an application concerning the release to the Medical Council of reports on children in care who were alleged to have been sexually abused. A complaint had been brought to the council against the doctor involved in the case.
In that case Mr Justice Barr ordered the release of the documentation subject to restrictions as to its use. He had said the overarching considerations were the interests of the child and the interests of justice, Mr Rogers said.