THE DUBLIN District Court has reserved its judgment in an application by The Irish Timesand other media to report on proceedings being taken by the family of the late Daniel McAnaspie, whose body found in a drain in Co Meath in May.
He had been in the care of the Health Service Executive since 2003, and had gone missing in February.
The proceedings concern an application by the family for access to reports from his guardian ad litem, the court-appointed person representing his views and interests in the care proceedings taken by the HSE. This application will be heard later.
The media organisations are seeking the lifting of the in camera rule that normally applies to cases involving children in care in order to report on the family’s application, and the family supports that application.
Moving the application on behalf of The Irish Timesbefore Judge Conal Gibbons, Cian Ferriter, said that all of the law in relation to the in camera rule was based on the bedrock of the welfare of the child. Hearings are in private because it is in the best interests of the child.
“Here we have a unique situation for tragic reasons,” he said. “It appears for the first time since the care regime began a child was murdered while in the care of the State.” He said the McAnaspie family was here to represent the interests of Daniel McAnaspie, and the law was clear, they represented his interests. The family said the public interest would be served by an open inquiry into the circumstances of his death in care.
“A public debate on the care system and how it served or did not serve Daniel McAnaspie is clearly in the public interest,” he said. Mr Ferriter said the European Court of Human Rights had made it clear the right to life persists after death in the context of an investigation into the death, and that the next of kin had the right to be involved in the investigation. The family was saying they needed the documents for the purpose of ensuring there was a proper investigation.
Whether or not the HSE thought the proceedings should be in public was neither here nor there. The legislation did not set the child’s interests on one side and the HSE’s on the other. The only issue was the interests of the child.
Ray Ryan, for the Irish Independent, RTÉand the Examiner, said the fact that Daniel McAnaspie was in State care was already in the public domain. There was a very significant public interest in these proceedings, and there was a distinction between the public interest and public curiosity. What was involved was information on historic proceedings and not anything ongoing in relation to a child.
Felix McEnroy SC, for the HSE, said three investigations were going on, the Garda investigation into the death, the investigation by the Minister for Children and there would be an inquest. The court had no evidence as to whether these investigations might be affected by any order made. What was involved was a balancing exercise, balancing the public interest, the Garda interest, the Minister’s interest and the coroner’s interest.
Judge Gibbons said he would mention the case next week and give a date then for his decision.