The publishers of the Star newspaper have challenged a Circuit Court judge's decision to prohibit publication in a sex assault case of the names of the complainant and the accused.
Independent Star Ltd has taken High Court proceedings against Judge Kieran O'Connor. In an affidavit, Mr Gerard Colleran, editor of the Star, said the judge had dealt with a case on November 29th last in which allegations of sexual assault were made. He heard evidence and imposed sentence. The judge prohibited any reporting of the proceedings. The following day, having heard submissions from a number of media organisations, the judge agreed to vary the order, replacing it by an order prohibiting publication of the names of the complainant and accused, the district where they lived and the accused's employment.
The judge said this was to prevent identification of the complainant and to ensure that other persons were not discouraged from bringing forward complaints of allegations of sexual assault.
On November 30th, the complainant made contact with his newspaper, Mr Colleran said. She was a minor at the time of the offence. Representatives of the newspaper talked to the judge, together with the parents. The complainant and her parents were anxious to have the ban on identification of the accused lifted, even if there was some risk she would thereby be identified. They saw this as important for her rehabilitation.
On December 1st, the newspaper sought a variation of the November 30th order to permit the accused be named. The judge refused to change the order. He said he did not consider it in the best interest of the complainant to reveal her identity.
Publication might deter others from bringing forward allegations of sexual assault. The Star is claiming Article 34.1 of the Constitution provides, except in special and limited cases, that justice should be administered in public. It claims there was no risk of an unfair trial in this case through the absence of an order of the type made. The mere identification of an accused would not create the risk of an unfair trial, it is claimed. Furthermore, by the time the order was made, the trial had been concluded and the accused had been sentenced.