THREE MEDIA outlets have denied that various reports and broadcasts by them of court proceedings in which a man admitted charges of rape and sexual assault, had identified the two children who were his victims.
In their defence to High Court proceedings brought by the two children, the media outlets also deny the reports breached the children’s rights to privacy and to anonymity.
Mr Justice John Hedigan is hearing proceedings brought by the children, suing through their mother, against the three media organisations over reports and broadcasts used after a man pleaded guilty to offences of rape and sexual assault against them.
Reporting restrictions apply in the case and the judge has recommended nothing should be published which would identify or tend to identify the children.
They claim certain details in those reports, including the name, age and address of the convicted man as well as the dates when the offences occurred, resulted in them being widely identified in their locality.
They claim this caused them considerable distress, upset and embarrassment, had a “catastrophic effect” on them and resulted in their having to leave their home.
They claim the defendants published and broadcast information to the public without authority and were in breach of Sections 7 and 8 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1981, which grants the right of anonymity to victims and or complainants in criminal cases involving offences of a sexual nature.
They are also alleging breach of their constitutional right to privacy and are seeking damages, including exemplary damages.
The media defendants deny the claims and contend the articles and broadcasts did not contain details such as where the offences took place, the ages of the victims, their relationship to each other or any reference concerning the relationship between the abuser and his victims. In evidence yesterday, two neighbours of the children told Peter Finlay for the children, they were able to identify the children from the material published.
Cross-examined by Oisín Quinn for the defendants, both witnesses agreed the reports did not contain details about the victims, including their ages and relationship to each other and did not disclose the location of the offences.
The case continues on Tuesday.