Trio accused of identifying Ana Kriegel’s killers to be tried before jury after losing Supreme Court appeal

Three people accused of breaching publication restrictions during the trial of the murder of teenager Ana Kriégel have lost a Supreme Court appeal over a decision that they should be tried before a jury rather than in the District Court where potential penalties are less severe.
The three were among 10 charged with breaches under the Children Act 2001 which provided that no one could legally identify the two boys who were convicted of murdering 14-year-old Ana at a disused farmhouse in Lucan, Co Dublin, in May 2018. The boys were both aged 13 at the time.
Edel Doherty (48), of Rory O’Connor House, Hardwicke Street, Dublin, is charged with posting photos on Facebook of the two, known as Boys A and B.
Kyle Rooney (26), of Rathfield Park, Raheny, Dublin, is charged with the posting of photos of the two boys on Twitter.
Declan Corcoran (30), of Williams Place Lower, Dublin, is accused of naming the boys on Twitter and of posting images of them.
When they first appeared in court on the charges, the three accused were told by the judge that the cases against them could be dealt with in the District Court. However, when the case returned before the District Court, another judge decided the offences were too serious and they should be sent for trial before a judge and jury in the Circuit Court, where potential penalties are more severe.
The three brought a High Court challenge over the second judge’s decision. In July 2022, the High Court ruled the decision was incorrect and the matter should be sent back to the District Court for reconsideration. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) appealed that decision and a year ago the Court of Appeal reversed it.
The three then asked the Supreme Court to hear a further appeal on grounds that the decision involved a matter of general public importance or that the interests of justice necessitated a further appeal.
They argued, among other things, that trial in the Circuit Court before a jury will remove certain statutory entitlements they can have in the District Court, including that their cases could potentially be dealt with under the Probation Act without proceeding to conviction. It was also claimed that where a judge must give reasons when refusing jurisdiction.
The DPP opposed a further appeal saying the law is clear and there was no deprivation of rights.
On Thursday, a five-judge Supreme Court unanimously dismissed their appeal.
The three accused had asserted in this case that the second District Court judge had no function once the first judge had decided to accept jurisdiction. However, in a judgment for the court, Mr Justice Peter Charleton said the second judge was dealing with case management and this “gave him the authority to consider if this series of several cases were indeed minor in nature”.
In managing the cases, the second judge was entitled to conclude the offences in question were not minor in character for the purposes of article 38.2 of the Constitution, which relates to the trial of minor offences, he said.
He had jurisdiction to conclude as he did as he was called upon to decide how long the cases would take and when they should be heard, said Mr Justice Charleton.
It had not been otherwise suggested, that is apart from the fact that the first judge had apparently taken a different view, that he was not entitled to conclude that the offences were not minor, the Supreme Court judge said.