The High Court has quashed District Court orders refusing summary jurisdiction in three prosecutions over alleged publications identifying two boys tried for the murder of Anastasia Kriégel. The court found that the District Court’s single ruling on ten cases did not show that each prosecution had been considered individually.
In a judgment delivered on 8 July 2022, Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan ordered the three cases to return to the District Court for a plea or a date. She did not prevent the judge dealing with them on remittal from reconsidering jurisdiction if the judge considers it necessary or appropriate.
The prosecutions concern alleged breaches of reporting restrictions under section 252 of the Children Act 2001. The three applicants named in the judgment are Declan Corcoran, Edel Doherty and Kyle Rooney. The alleged publications took place on social media on 19 June 2019, the day after guilty verdicts in the murder trial. The allegations differed: they involved images, names or comments said to identify the boys. They remain allegations; the High Court was addressing the District Court’s jurisdiction decisions, not determining guilt.
On 28 October 2020, a District Court judge heard an outline of the allegations in each case, accepted jurisdiction for summary disposal with the Director of Public Prosecutions’ consent, and adjourned the cases for a plea or date. On 2 December, a different judge, acting on his own initiative, reheard the allegations and refused jurisdiction across ten prosecutions in one ruling, describing the offences as not minor and unfit for summary trial.
The High Court rejected the applicants’ argument that a later District Court judge could not revisit jurisdiction before a trial began. It held that the District Court has a continuing duty to ensure that an offence is minor and suitable for summary trial, and a judge may reconsider jurisdiction when called on to take a step such as receiving a plea. The applicants’ complaint that they lacked notice of the jurisdiction hearing was also rejected: they were represented, and no specific unfairness from the lack of notice was identified.
However, Justice Phelan found that the December ruling dealt with the cases collectively without addressing their differences or giving reasons tied to each case. Because the alleged conduct varied, each prosecution required individual consideration. The court concluded that the manner of the ruling breached the applicants’ rights to constitutional justice and made orders of certiorari quashing the three December decisions.
The judgment did not decide whether any applicant’s case is minor or should ultimately be tried summarily. It remitted the cases for a plea or date and left any necessary reconsideration of jurisdiction to the District Court judge assigned on the return.