The High Court has refused an application to quash a District Court judge’s decision not to anonymise criminal proceedings against an applicant identified as G. The criminal case remains pending, and the High Court did not decide whether the applicant should be anonymised at trial.
Mr Justice Barr said the judicial review was not an appeal on the merits of the District Court decision. He found that the District Court judge had acted within jurisdiction and had given the applicant an opportunity to make his application. The transcript showed no breach of fair procedures.
The underlying prosecution arose from an incident at Liffey Valley Shopping Centre on 25 August 2019. The judgment says the applicant’s child, then about two years and 10 months old, was left unattended in the applicant’s car. After a member of the public alerted shopping-centre security, gardaí attended. The charges arose from the applicant’s interaction with gardaí when he returned to the car.
The applicant faces charges under the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994, including failing to comply with a Garda direction, failing to provide his name and address when requested, and using or engaging in threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or recklessly as to whether one might occur. These are charges, not findings of guilt.
At the District Court hearing on 19 January 2023, the judge refused anonymisation after hearing that the prosecution did not intend to call either child as a witness or refer to them. The applicant argued in the High Court that he might call one or both children for the defence and would not do so without assurance they would not be named in reports. He also said naming him could allow the children to be identified indirectly. The DPP submitted that the charges concerned only the applicant’s dealings with gardaí and that the trial judge could address anonymity or reporting restrictions if needed.
The High Court accepted that the charges did not relate to the children. It said the trial judge could consider protections if either child is called by the defence, once that is known. The court refused the reliefs sought. It directed the parties to submit brief written views within two weeks on the terms of the final order, costs and other matters, and listed the case for mention at 10.30am on 24 October 2024 to make final orders. The judgment does not state the final terms or costs outcome.