Lawyers for the media have told a judge that there is no reason for preventing the identification of a public servant accused of falsely imprisoning and sexually assaulting a woman at his workplace.
The 35-year-old man, with an address in Co Laois, appeared at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on Friday morning, having been sent forward from Dublin District Court to face trial.
The man is charged with three counts of sexual assault on a woman at his workplace in the east of the country on September 29th, 2020.
He faces an allegation of false imprisonment of the woman at the same place and on the same date.
The fifth charge is for engaging in offensive conduct of a sexual nature at another location in the same Leinster county between August 23rd, 2019, and February 25th last year.
Last October, on foot of an application at a district court appearance by defence solicitor Martin Moran, Judge Treasa Kelly made an order that the man’s name or occupation were not to be published.
'No basis'
Tom Murphy BL told Judge Melanie Greally on Friday that he was instructed by RTÉ, Independent News and Media, the Irish Times and the Daily Mail Group to apply to have that order lifted.
Mr Murphy said that an application by the media was previously made before Judge Kelly challenging the order last December but Judge Kelly refused to vary the order. He said on that occasion Judge Kelly said the best course of action was for the media to make an application before the circuit court as the case was going forward for trial there.
Mr Murphy submitted on Friday that there was no basis to restrict the identification of this defendant and that the defence had failed to put forward any grounds of substance to justify doing so. He said that the defendant's personal right to privacy was not a basis for restricting the Constitutional right for justice to be done in public.
Mr Moran told the court that an application was made to Judge Kelly on the basis of the sensitivity of the allegations and that she was then “quite satisfied” to make the order.
Mr Murphy said that it was “very clear” from previous judgements that there were only two grounds for imposing reporting restrictions. He said the first was legislative provisions restricting publication and the second was where there is a real identifiable risk of an unfair trial arising from publication.
He said there was no evidence that identifying this accused would impair his right to a fair trial. He said that the rights of the media have been, and continue to be, restricted since October.
John Berry BL, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, told the court that it was the view of the DPP that reporting of the defendant's name would not give rise to identification of the complainant, which would be the grounds for an anonymity order. He said the DPP did not see any potential for the fair trial rights of the defendant being interfered.
Judge Melanie Greally said that she was “minded to lift the restrictions” but she would leave over her decision until next Thursday. She said she would consider the relevant case law and in the meantime she would maintain the status quo.
