The Court of Appeal has refused an applicant’s request for more time to appeal a High Court decision concerning anonymity in pending District Court proceedings over public order charges.
In a judgment delivered on 23 September 2025, Ms Justice Tara Burns said the applicant had not explained why he missed the appeal deadline or why he waited more than three months after it expired to seek an extension. The court also found there was no arguable ground of appeal. Justices Faherty and Allen agreed.
The charges arose from an incident on 25 August 2019. The applicant was charged with public order offences following an interaction with a garda after returning to a car where his younger child had been left asleep. The charges include threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour, failing to desist when directed, and failing to provide his name and address. They remain before the District Court; this appeal judgment did not decide the criminal charges.
In January 2023, the District Court refused the applicant’s request to anonymise those proceedings. The applicant said he might call one or both of his children as defence witnesses and wanted assurance they would not be named in reports. The District Court judge confirmed they were not prosecution witnesses and would not be identified by prosecution witnesses. The judge concluded the charges did not concern children and there was then no basis for anonymity.
The High Court refused judicial review in September 2024, finding the District Court had acted within jurisdiction and followed fair procedures. It said the trial judge could consider anonymity or reporting restrictions if the applicant decided to call his children as witnesses. The applicant sought to appeal that decision, but the deadline was 10 December 2024. He requested the prosecution’s consent to a late appeal on 16 December; consent was refused. His extension motion was issued on 24 March 2025.
The Court of Appeal accepted that the applicant had been considering an appeal within the permitted period, but said his enquiry to the High Court registrar about when the order would be perfected did not establish a definite intention. It found no evidence of a mistake causing the missed deadline. The applicant cited pressure from separate proceedings, but the court said he did not explain how that affected this appeal, and the order he relied on accounted for at most one week.
On the proposed appeal, the court said judicial review concerned whether the District Court acted within its jurisdiction, not whether it made the correct decision. It found the anonymity application had been premature because the children had not been called to give evidence and there was no evidential basis for an order at that stage. The applicant remained free to present his defence and could seek anonymity or reporting restrictions later if circumstances provided a basis.
The court refused to extend time to appeal the High Court order.