The Court of Appeal has allowed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeals in three cases arising from alleged online identification of two juveniles convicted of murder, restoring the District Court’s refusal to try the cases summarily.
The appeals concerned Edel Doherty, Declan Corcoran and Kyle Rooney. The prosecution alleged that posts attributed to the three shared photographs or names that identified the juveniles, contrary to section 252 of the Children Act 2001 and a court order protecting their identities. The allegations were not findings of guilt in this appeal.
The cases were among ten matters before the District Court on 2 December 2020. A judge, having heard an outline of the alleged facts in each case, ruled that the offences were not minor and were unfit for summary trial. A different District Court judge had accepted jurisdiction at an earlier listing on 28 October 2020. The three respondents challenged the later refusal by judicial review.
In July 2022, the High Court quashed the District Court orders. It found that the judge’s collective ruling did not show that each case had received individual consideration and that the respondents could not be satisfied he had properly considered their particular circumstances.
The Court of Appeal rejected the respondents’ argument that the second judge was barred from reconsidering jurisdiction. It held that a District Court judge may revisit whether an offence is minor up to the point of a decision in a summary trial or an accused’s indication of an intention to plead guilty. The earlier judge’s acceptance of jurisdiction did not bind the later judge, and new or additional evidence was not required.
The appeal court also found no unfairness in the way the cases were handled. Gardaí had given separate outlines of the alleged facts for the respondents, and the judge could issue one ruling after considering them. His brief explanation—that he had considered the alleged facts and was satisfied the offences were not minor or fit for summary trial—was adequate. The court noted that the respondents’ lawyers had objected to reopening jurisdiction but had not complained at the time about a collective ruling or unclear reasons.
The Court of Appeal vacated the High Court’s certiorari orders and consequential orders. It remitted the cases to the District Court to establish whether the DPP consents to sending them forward for trial on indictment and, if so, for service of the books of evidence and any further procedural steps. The appeal did not determine guilt or direct that an indictment trial must proceed. Costs were adjourned to a later case management listing.