A supreme court is appealing to three individuals accused of disclosing the identities of Ana Kriegel’s teen killers, who argue they were wrongly moved from the District Court to the higher-ranking Circuit Court. Scrambling such jurisdictional decisions has the potential to spiral into a “procedural disorder”, according to the Supreme Court.
The two boys, identified only as Boy A and Boy B, murdered 14-year-old Ana Kriegel in an abandoned farmhouse in Lucan, Co Dublin, in May 2018 when they were both aged 13. The order of the trail judge and the mandate of the Children Act, which blocks the identification of underage individuals accused or convicted of a crime, barred them from being identified.
The case in front of the Supreme Court includes three of the 10 people indicted with identical violations of the Children Act, who were originally informed by Judge Brian O’Shea in October 2020 that their matters could be resolved in the District Court. However, later, on December 2, 2020, Judge John Hughes found the violations to be of serious nature and warranted that they be shifted to the Circuit Court, which can impose harsher penalties upon conviction.
The three defendants had then successfully sought a judicial review of the situation in the High Court, which resulted in Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan overturning Judge Hughes’ ruling. Nevertheless, the state effectively appealed the High Court’s decision in the Court of Appeal.
Among the three, Edel Doherty (48) of Rory O’Connor House, Hardwicke Street, Dublin, was reported to have uploaded pictures of the two murderers on her Facebook. In addition, Kyle Rooney (26) of Rathfield Park, Raheny, Dublin, was accused of posting photographs of the boys on Twitter.
Declan Corcoran, a 30-year-old resident of Williams Place Lower in Dublin, was charged with revealing the identities of two boys on Twitter, along with sharing their images. Mr Corcoran’s senior counsel, Feichín McDonagh addressed the Supreme Court on Tuesday, objecting to the decision made by Judge Hughes to transfer the case to the Circuit Court in December 2020, given that jurisdiction had already been defined.
According to Mr McDonagh, Judge O’Shea initially agreed to listen to the case, which was favorable due to practical reasons. He argued that before a judge can reconsider the jurisdiction, they need to be tasked with officiating a summary trial first.
McDonagh further expressed concerns regarding the possibility of bias and unfairness his client might face in the Circuit Court, adding that the application of the Probation Act was no longer valid in this situation. He stated that Judge Hughes had not been requested to preside over the hearing when he categorised the crime as more serious than minor.
Mr McDonagh pointed out the inappropriateness of Judge Hughes deciding on the jurisdiction for the second time, calling this action unfair and without precedent. He argued that evidence suggesting Judge Hughes was expected to preside over the hearing was non-existent.
Explaining that Judge Hughes’s initial case was procedural and not set for a jurisdiction decision, McDonagh stressed that the judge had not examined any evidence while forwarding the cases. He was quick to assert that the judge had not entertained a plea or date and sent on the case before a plea was possible.
McDonagh further lamented the premature decision on jurisdiction, warning it may cause procedural disorder.
On the other hand, Kathleen Leade, senior counsel for Ms Doherty, expressed that there was no reasonable ground or justification for Judge Hughes to reconsider the order pertaining to jurisdiction.
Ms Leader emphasized that no recent developments or new information surfaced that would call for reviewing the authority of the District Court. As per her, a judge focussed on case management isn’t a hearing judge and hence, lacks the authority to reassess jurisdiction.
Defence barrister Conor Devally, representing Mr Rooney, argued that the initial adjudicator, by conceding to treat the case as a minor offence, acted in a just and reasonable manner. However, Judge Hughes independently escalated the severity of the offence, leaving Mr Rooney unprepared and absent. Devally claimed this was undeniably unjust.
On behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, leading counsel Sunniva McDonagh presented to the court that the decision to proceed with prosecution was apt and lawful. She assured that such a decision would not spur a constant back-and-forth of legal proceedings.
McDonagh maintained that nothing barred Judge Hughes from making his decision. Additionally, she remarked that if pleas were heard in the District Court, dealing with them as non-minor offences was obligatory.
A guilty plea became fixed and halted the case’s timing to forbid revisits, she elucidated. McDonagh conveyed that Judge Hughes was cognizant of possible pleadings during his trial day. If such pleas were submitted, the judge found himself obliged to work on non-minor issues at a minor level, an act considered illegal.
She reinforced that the judge was authorised to pass judgement, notwithstanding the absence of fresh facts or data in the case, and there was no evidence to suggest he couldn’t.
The court, comprising a five-judge panel, has suspended its verdict on the matter.