The Court of Appeal has overturned an order which prevented the identification of D.H. after he was convicted of four counts of rape and two counts of indecent assault of a child in a Dublin commuter-belt village.
The complainant reported to Gardaí in 2013 that she had been raped on four occasions during a summer when she was about nine years old. The evidence suggested the offences occurred in 1987. D.H., who lived in the same small housing estate, was about 17 at the time.
After two earlier trials did not result in a verdict, a third trial concluded on 16 April 2019 with D.H. convicted on all six counts. He received seven years' imprisonment on each rape count and five years on each indecent assault count, all concurrent.
At sentencing on 17 May 2019, the trial judge directed that reporting restrictions continued to prevent publication of information identifying either the complainant or D.H. The issue had arisen without prior detailed submissions. Shortly afterwards, the complainant told Gardaí she wanted to waive her anonymity and the DPP sought to have the restriction lifted.
The trial judge later held that he was functus officio, meaning his role in the case had ended and he could no longer alter the order.
The Court of Appeal disagreed on both points. Birmingham P. held that the restriction concerning D.H. was superfluous and should not have been made without first hearing submissions and establishing the complainant's position.
The court also said reporting-restriction orders can have continuing effects and may be revisited when circumstances change. A strict rule preventing later reconsideration could deny an injured party or affected media organisation an opportunity to be heard.
The appeal was therefore allowed and the continuing court-ordered restriction on identifying D.H. was removed. The judgment stressed that responsibility still falls on publishers to comply with statutory rules protecting the complainant from identification.