THE DISTRICT Court has referred to the High Court an Irish Timesapplication for the lifting of the in camera rule relating to a childcare case. The rule requires that such cases are heard in private and cannot be reported.
Judge Conal Gibbons will ask the High Court for its guidance on a series of questions arising out of the application, from The Irish Times,RTÉ, the Irish Examinerand the Irish Independent,to be allowed report on an application from the family of the late Daniel McAnaspie for the release of documents relating to his case.
Daniel McAnaspie’s body was found on May 15th. He had died from stab wounds and had been missing from State care since February 26th.
His family has been campaigning for a public inquiry into the circumstances of his care while with the HSE and events leading up to him going missing. As part of this they sought access to certain documents.
On May 27th The Irish Times asked the court for permission to report on their proceedings. Its application was joined by other media, and written and oral submissions were made by the HSE and the media organisations to the District Court during a number of hearings. It adjourned its decision until yesterday.
Referring to the submissions made, Judge Gibbons said: “Issues relating to the right known as the freedom of expression and the equally important right to privacy which families and young people are entitled to in proceedings of this nature arise.”
He said it must be acknowledged that the media represented in court had all commented responsibly on the issues that arose in these types of proceedings, and played a valuable and essential role in assisting the public to understand them.
He also acknowledged that researching case-law in the area of family and child law in Ireland was particularly difficult given the limited availability of court judgments, due to the in camera rule.
This was accentuated by the fact that the District Court was given exclusive jurisdiction as the first court to deal with all matters under the Child Care Act, and written judgments were not usual or expected in this court.
It had also been argued that there was a danger that a false perception could arise about the legal process due to a lack of knowledge, and this could undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.
He said that the Child Care Act had been amended to permit reporting by lawyers, researchers or persons nominated by the Courts Service. The type of report was not specified in the legislation.
A number of questions arose from the principles that emerged from the case law in this area, he said. These included both the interests of justice and those of the child, particularly in these circumstances when the child was no longer with us. “What is the distinction between the public interest and the interest of the public in certain matters, and how does the court ascertain this
“When Daniel McAnaspie was alive he had certain rights. Now that he is dead, should these rights be any less or diminished, he asked. Is the care order under which he was placed in care still in being even though he is dead?”
The issues before the court not only concerned this case but also had implications constitutionally and in a much wider context, he said. The District Court had no power to deal with interpreting the Constitution, but it must vindicate the constitutional rights of those before it.
Judge Gibbons said he needed assistance in his determination of the issues, and therefore he was referring the questions of law to the High Court. He adjourned the matter to allow an agreed statement of facts to be prepared, together with the questions of law the High Court would be asked to decide.