G v Director of Public Prosecutions (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns a judicial review challenging a District Court judge's refusal to grant anonymisation of ongoing criminal proceedings against the Applicant in the District Court. The criminal charges arise from an incident on 25 August 2019, when the Applicant's young child, approximately two years and ten months old, was left unattended in a car in a shopping centre car park. A bystander alerted security personnel, who notified the police. The charges relate to the Applicant's conduct during his interaction with the police upon returning to his car with his older child, aged approximately four years and seven months.

The Applicant faces multiple charges under the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994, including failing to comply with a Garda direction, failing to provide name and address when requested, and using threatening or abusive behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace. On 19 January 2023, the District Court judge refused the Applicant's request for anonymisation of the criminal proceedings, finding that the charges did not concern the children and that the prosecution would not name the children or call them as witnesses.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the District Court judge erred in refusing to grant anonymisation of the criminal proceedings pending against the Applicant.
2. Whether the potential involvement of the Applicant's children as defence witnesses requires anonymisation to prevent identification.
3. The appropriate stage and authority for determining anonymisation or reporting restrictions in criminal proceedings involving children.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The District Court judge failed to consider that the Applicant might call one or both of his children as witnesses in his defence and that their anonymity should be protected.
• An anonymisation order is appropriate once infants are involved in a case to prevent their identification, including protection against "jigsaw identification" if the Applicant is named.
• It is inconsistent that the judicial review proceedings related to the criminal case were anonymised, while the substantive criminal trial was not.
• The Applicant seeks only anonymisation of the trial, not that the trial be held otherwise than in public.

Respondent's Arguments

• The District Court judge acted within jurisdiction and did not breach fair procedures in refusing anonymisation.
• The charges relate solely to the Applicant's conduct towards the police and do not concern the children, who will not be called as witnesses or referred to by the prosecution.
• The decision on anonymisation or reporting restrictions is within the trial judge’s discretion, who can make appropriate orders to ensure a fair trial and protect any child witnesses if necessary.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court emphasised that this judicial review is not an appeal on the merits of the District Court judge’s decision but a review of the legality of that decision. The evidence before the District Court indicated that the prosecution did not intend to call the children as witnesses or refer to them. The charges solely concern the Applicant’s alleged breaches of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 arising from his interaction with the police.

The court noted that the possibility of the Applicant calling his children as defence witnesses is a matter for the trial judge to address at the appropriate time. The trial judge retains the discretion to make anonymisation orders or impose reporting restrictions to secure a fair hearing and protect the interests of child witnesses if necessary.

The court found that the District Court judge acted within jurisdiction, afforded the Applicant a fair opportunity to present his application, and gave reasons for refusal. There was no breach of fair procedures. The court accepted the Respondent’s submission that the charges do not relate to the children and that anonymisation is not warranted at this stage.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the Applicant’s application for judicial review seeking to quash the District Court judge’s refusal to grant anonymisation of the criminal proceedings.

The direct effect is that the criminal trial will proceed without anonymisation of the Applicant’s identity. The decision leaves the discretion to the trial judge to make any anonymisation or reporting restriction orders if circumstances change, such as if the children are called as witnesses. No new legal precedent was established by this ruling.