G v Director of Public Prosecutions (Approved)

                  This is a challenge to a ruling of the District Court judge made on 19 January 2023, refusing anonymisation of the criminal proceedings pending against the applicant before the District Court.

                  In setting out the background to this application, this court must be careful in what it says, as there are criminal proceedings against the applicant extant before the District Court. As the court is anxious not to prejudice that trial, it will confine itself to referring to the events giving rise to the charges against the applicant, in the briefest possible terms.

                  It is common case that the applicant's child, who was then approximately two years and 10 months old, was left unattended by the applicant in his car in the car park of Liffey Valley Shopping Centre on 25 August 2019.

                  On 19 January 2023, when the criminal prosecution was listed for mention before the District Court, an order was made on consent permitting the applicant's solicitor to come off record. The applicant then proceeded to seek an anonymisation order in relation to the prosecution pending before the District Court.

                  The District Court judge refused that application because he had heard evidence from Garda Geoghegan that there were no child witnesses in the case. The Garda had further given evidence that the children would not be named by the prosecution witnesses. On this basis, the District Court judge held that the charges did not relate to, or concern, children and therefore there was no basis for making the order sought by the applicant.