The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal by three people facing trial for allegedly breaching publication restrictions during the trial of the murder of teenager Ana Kriegel.
The three were among 10 charged with breaches under the Children Act 2001 which provides that no one could legally identify the two boys who were convicted of the girl’s murder.
Edel Doherty (48) of Rory O’Connor House, Hardwicke Street, Dublin, is charged with posting photos on Facebook of the two, known as Boys A and B.
Kyle Rooney (26) of Rathfield Park, Raheny, Dublin, was charged with the posting of photos of the two boys on Twitter.
Declan Corcoran (30) of Williams Place Lower, Dublin, was accused of both naming the boys on Twitter and of posting images of them.
14-year-old Ana Kriegel was murdered at a disused farmhouse in Lucan, Co Dublin, in May 2018, by the boys when they were both 13 years old.
When they first appeared in court on the charges, the three were told the cases against them could be dealt with in the District Court where penalties are less severe.
However, when the case returned before the District Court, another judge decided the offences were too serious and they should be sent for trial before a judge and jury in the Circuit Court where penalties are more severe.
As a result, the three brought a High Court challenge over the second judge’s decision.
In July 2022, the High Court ruled the decision was incorrect and the matter should be sent back to the District Court for reconsideration.
The DPP appealed that decision and last November the Court of Appeal reversed it.
The three then asked the Supreme Court to hear a further appeal on grounds that the decision involved a matter of general public importance or that the interests of justice necessitate such a further appeal.
They argued, among other things, that trial in the Circuit Court before a jury will remove certain statutory entitlements, they can have in the District Court including their cases being dealt with under the Probation Act without proceeding to conviction.
It was also argued that trial before a jury was somehow a “quantum leap” as to seriousness and that exposure to a penalty is to be treated as a peril that on summary disposal would not be a hazard for the accused.
It was also claimed that where a judge in the District Court chooses to refuse jurisdiction that reasons are required.
The DPP opposed a further appeal saying the law is clear and there was no deprivation of rights.
It was also argued a potential sentence was not a breach of rights since a judge may legitimately and must choose a sentence within the summary level if appropriate even if there has been a finding of guilt by a jury.
In a determination, a three-judge Supreme Court panel, comprising Mr Justice Peter Charleton, Mr Justice Seamus Woulfe, and Mr Justice Maurice Collins, agreed to hear a further appeal.
The panel said a key issue in this case was the classification and disposal of offences.
The potential for a greater sentence is key to the application, it said.
Loss of statutory entitlements may not be as argued, but require analysis, as to a decision by the District Court to refuse jurisdiction, it said.
Whereas Article 38.2 of the Constitution establishes a right of jury trial, the contention is that moving from summary trial to trial on indictment exposes an accused to hazard and to deprivation of statutory benefit.
As to when a judge should refuse jurisdiction on an offence triable in either way might be clarified by reason of a further appeal, it said.
