The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court ruling that quashed a District Court judge's refusal to hear the cases of three people accused of publishing information online identifying the teenage boys who murdered Ana Kriegel in 2018.
“We do not consider that there was any unfairness to the respondents, or breach of their rights to constitutional justice,” said Mr Justice John Edwards today on Thursday, vacating a ruling by the High Court in which Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan quashed a decision by Judge John Hughes to refuse jurisdiction in the case.
Edel Doherty (48) of Rory O’Connor House, Hardwicke Street, Dublin, appeared at Dublin District Court in October 2020 accused of posting photos on Facebook of two teenagers, known as Boys A and B, who were both convicted of the murder of Ana Kriégel following a trial in 2019.
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 Kriégel was murdered at a disused farmhouse in Lucan, Co Dublin, in May 2018, by the boys when they were both 13 years old. They could not be identified by order of the trial judge and under a provision of the Children Act that prohibits the identification of minors accused or convicted of a criminal offence.
The three accused were among 10 people charged with similar breaches of the Children Act who were initially told by Judge Brian O'Shea in October 2020 that jurisdiction was accepted and that their matters could be heard at the District Court level.
However, when the matter returned to the District Court on December 2nd, 2020, Judge Hughes deemed the offences as being too serious for the District Court and ruled that they should be sent to the higher Circuit Court, where penalties upon conviction can be more severe.
The three accused then brought a successful judicial review to the High Court challenging the decision, where Ms Justice Phelan decided that the matter should be sent back to the lower court for "reconsideration".
Ms Justice Phelan quashed Judge Hughes' decision saying the manner in which the judge approached the issue of jurisdiction was unfair because he did not address the cases individually or give reasons for the change.
State appeal
The State subsequently appealed this decision, submitting to the Court of Appeal that the return of the matter to the District Court was made in error by the High Court and that "no breach of natural justice had been made" by Judge Hughes.
In delivering the Court of Appeal’s judgement, Mr Justice Edwards said that at least one judge must give consideration to whether these are minor offences, and if decided, a second judge is entitled to reconsider the matter of jurisdiction.
“We do not see how a judge in such a position could be bound by the ruling of a colleague which was based on evidence that they have not personally heard,” said Mr Justice Edwards. He said that up to the point that a person is found guilty or enters a guilty plea, a decision by a judge of jurisdiction is not a determination set in stone.
“For all anyone may know, the decision by the first District Court judge could well have been a finely balanced one, resulting in that judge opting by a narrow margin to come down on one side of the jurisdictional line. However, a subsequent judge, hearing the same evidence, might perfectly legitimately opt to come down on the other side of that line,” he said.
He said that the fact that Judge O'Shea accepted jurisdiction did not bind Judge Hughes, who was entitled to ask for an outline of the alleged facts. Mr Justice Edwards said that the Court of Appeal rejected the assertion that the manner by which Judge Hughes dealt with the proceedings gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that he was dissatisfied with the previous determination of a colleague.
“We have been provided with no reason to believe that District Court Judge Hughes was motivated other than to conscientiously fulfil his constitutional duties,” said Mr Justice Edwards.
He said that in the District Court, the legal representatives for the accused raised objections with the judge concerning the revisitation of jurisdiction. However, nobody complained about a collective ruling being given or about a lack of clarity as to the judge’s reasons.
Mr Justice Edwards said that the Court of Appeal disagreed with the High Court judge’s assertion that it would have been unrealistic to have required the legal representatives to engage with the judge about his reasons.
“The legal representatives would have been perfectly entitled to ask him to elaborate on such reasons. They did not do so,” he said.
Individual consideration
He went on to say that the court was strongly in agreement with the submission by the State that the mere fact that the Judge of the District Court ruled on jurisdiction in a single collective or rolled up ruling does not imply a failure on his part to give individual consideration to each of the respondents’ respective cases.
“There was no failure to meet the requirement that not only should justice be done but that it should be seen to be done,” he said.
“We do not consider that there was any unfairness to the respondents, or breach of their rights to constitutional justice.”
Mr Justice Edwards said that the Court of Appeal was vacating the orders of certiorari granted by the High Court and the consequential orders remitting these matters to the District Court for a plea or a date in each case, and the High Court’s orders regarding costs.
He said that these matters will subsequently be remitted back to the District Court to ascertain whether the DPP is consenting to the respondents being sent forward for trial.
He adjourned any issues as to costs or possible recommendations under the Legal Aid Scheme to December 1st next.
