The Supreme Court has held that protections prohibiting the naming of a young man convicted of murdering the Co Cork student Cameron Blair should continue to apply throughout and beyond the conclusion of the proceedings, including appeals.
The court’s judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley on Thursday, overrules a landmark Court of Appeal judgment permitting the naming of the young man, who was 17 when he pleaded guilty to Mr Blair’s murder on the Bandon Road in Cork on January 16th, 2020.
The man had reached adulthood when the Court of Appeal last year dismissed his appeal against being sentenced to life detention with a review to be conducted after serving 13 years. The court also held that the media could identify an accused person who turns 18 during their criminal court proceedings or appeals.
This dislodged a long-standing interpretation of section 93 of the Children Act, 2001 that identity protections for child offenders continue to apply when an accused appears before appellant courts.
Armagh man who caused baby ‘catastrophic’ brain injuries jailed for at least 20 years
Ireland v Italy: Simon Easterby shakes up team for Six Nations final round
How crucial are US pharma firms to Ireland? And what happens if Trump entices them home?
Taoiseach can’t disguise the fact that he’d say anything to keep shamrocks flying high in Trumpland
An order was made pausing the effects of the Court of Appeal’s decision pending his appeal of the court’s decision lifting anonymity.
The Supreme Court determined that the sole issue in the young man’s appeal was whether a defendant who is charged and brought before the courts while a child remains entitled to the Children’s Act 2001 protections if they reach the age of 18 before the criminal proceedings, including any appeals, have concluded.
The court ruled that the protections should apply when criminal proceedings are commenced against a child and continue to apply throughout and beyond the conclusion of the proceedings.
Ms Justice O’Malley said this interpretation of the Children’s Act 2001 section seems to her “to reduce the possibility of unequal and unfair treatment as between young offenders, and attempts to ensure that they are not subjected to additional, unjustified and unnecessary pressure and harm while involved in the criminal justice process”.
The Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General had said that the protections should apply when criminal proceedings are commenced against a child, and are capable of having indefinite effect. However, the State parties argued the protections should expire if the person reached 18 before the conclusion of the proceedings.
The five-judge court agreed unanimously with Ms Justice O’Malley’s judgment.
She proposed making an order allowing the young man’s appeal, and granting a declaration stating the anonymity protections should apply to him in proceedings before the Central Criminal Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, “notwithstanding the fact that he reached the age of majority during the currency of those proceedings”.
The case was adjourned to March 26th for the making of final orders, allowing for submissions from the parties.
Ms Justice O’Malley noted that a separate Supreme Court appeal – which was also delivered by the court on Thursday – affects the young man, as a review of his sentence to be conducted after his serving 13 years cannot now be held.
This separate appeal was taken by a young man convicted of murdering Mongolian woman Urantsetseg Tserendorj in January 2021 and sentenced to life with a review after 13 years.
In the judgment delivered by Ms Justice O’Malley, the Supreme Court ruled that, following the repeal of the Children’s Act 1908 in 2007, a sentencing court does not have the power to review the detention of a child convicted of murder.
The court ruled that a sentencing court may not reserve the power to modify a sentence through a review procedure, as it infringes on the Constitution.
The court ruled that it would allow the young man convicted of stabbing Ms Tserendorj to death to appeal his sentence. Ms Justice O’Malley said her provisional view is that the case should be remitted to the Court of Appeal so that the court can impose a new sentence.
The judgment, in effect, means that a small number of people who were sentenced as children to life sentences are now serving straightforward life sentences.
The ruling may now lead to appeals brought by those people against their sentences.
