The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by four media organisations against a reporting restriction that prevented identification of a child homicide victim and, in practice, the accused.
The judgment, delivered on 29 October 2020, concerned an accused referred to as Ms. C, who was alleged to have suffocated her three-year-old daughter. The judgment says Ms. C accepted responsibility for her daughter’s death but pleaded not guilty to murder by reason of insanity. The jury was empanelled in the Central Criminal Court on 21 October 2019, but the trial did not begin that day.
At the Director of Public Prosecutions’ application, and with the apparent concurrence of the accused, the trial judge imposed restrictions under section 252(1) of the Children Act 2001. They barred reports revealing the child’s name, address, school or other identifying details, and pictures likely to identify her. The restrictions’ practical effect was that Ms. C could not be identified.
Four media organisations—the Irish Times, Independent News and Media, RTÉ and News Group Newspapers—applied to lift the order. The judge who took over the case declined to interfere with the earlier order and continued the restrictions. The media argued that the provision was intended to protect living children and that the restriction unduly limited reporting on criminal proceedings held in public. The DPP argued that the wording covered an alleged offence involving the killing of a child and that no basis had been shown to lift the restriction in the child’s interests.
The Court of Appeal held that section 252 covered proceedings for an offence against a person who was a child when the offence was allegedly committed, even if the child had died. It rejected the media’s proposed interpretation that “child” could mean a living child in one part of the section but include a deceased child in another.
The court said the provision’s language was clear and that changing the law, if desired, was a matter for the Oireachtas. It agreed with the High Court’s interpretation and dismissed the appeal. The judgment records that Ms. C was ultimately found not guilty by reason of insanity, but states that this had not been reported. It does not set out the trial’s full outcome or any separate order made on appeal.