AN INDIAN MAN has been charged with allegedly attempting to abduct a young boy from an apartment block in Dublin last Saturday and a court order that initially prevented the media from reporting his identity created controversy, particularly online.
When the man appeared in Dublin District Court on Monday, a judge ordered there be restrictions in place on reporting his identity, based on a request from gardaí, who cited the “sensitivity” of the case and the “current climate”.
The restrictions on naming the defendant were also sought so as to avoid the child being identified, according to Gardaí.
The case has provided an opportunity for certain agitators to point to reporting restrictions as evidence of the State “covering up” crimes allegedly committed by immigrants. They believe the government operates a “two-tier” justice system whereby foreigners get special treatment. Cases with reporting restrictions offer fertile ground in which to spread these claims.
A recent high-profile example occurred in the UK, where rumours that an asylum seeker had attacked children in Southport led to riots across England and Northern Ireland. The alleged attacker was a minor and therefore could not be named under law. He turned out to be a UK citizen.
Defendants and those convicted of crimes are usually named alongside their specific address in order to avoid confusion with or reputational damage to people who happen to have the same name.
Under the Children Act, 2001, “no report shall be published or included in a broadcast which reveals the name, address or school of any child concerned in the proceedings or includes any particulars likely to lead to the identification of any child concerned in the proceedings”. This includes defendants, victims and witnesses.
Reporting restrictions can also be put in place by a judge for a number of other reasons.
For example, it is the norm in cases of sexual assault, where identifying the defendant could lead people to discover the identity of the victim. The restriction can be lifted if the victim waives their right to anonymity.
Restrictions can also be ordered for the protection of the identities of witnesses who may be subjected to intimidation if named.
Breaching a court order is an offence punishable by a fine or up to six months in prison, or both, under the Criminal Justice Act, 1951.
Yesterday, a judge at the Cloverhill District Court lifted the restriction on naming the accused, 25-year-old student Visak Rajesh Leela, but left in place an order prohibiting reporting his exact address.
A barrister representing a number of media outlets had argued for the name restriction to be lifted, saying the order had impacted the media’s rights and that there were other protections in place to keep the child’s identity secret.
The State’s solicitor, in turn, told the judge their only concern was about the child being identified and that the defendant could be named “like in any other case”.
The court heard that naming Leela would not lead to the child being identified because he has no connection with them and does not live nearby.
A sergeant explained to the court that the initial Garda application on Monday was based on a concern that the child involved would be inadvertently identified.
However, he added, “We have received all the information and that is not the case.”
Judge Alan Mitchell then ruled the media could name him but must exercise caution and not identify any children involved in the case.
Following news reports about the case on Monday, agitators latched onto the initial judge’s decision to impose reporting restrictions and questioned the reasons behind it.
It is a common tactic for anti-immigrant ‘influencers’ online to single out criminal cases involving foreigners, or people with an immigrant background, in order to present a false narrative that crime and immigration are linked.
Reporting restrictions on cases involving children also help to feed the narrative that the Irish government “protects” paedophiles, and that the media and legal system are conspiring to help it do so.
This is likely what accounted for the judge’s “fuelled by social media” comment.
Asking for a restriction on his address, Leela’s legal representative cited an incident that took place in May, when far-right protesters gathered outside Taoiseach Simon Harris’ family home.
During proceedings about the incident, the court heard Leela was seen leaving an apartment building in Dublin with a child “under his arm walking away”. When he appeared in court this week, Leela denied the charges and his legal representative argued that the incident was a case of “extremely misguided, foolish horseplay by a drunk man”.
Judge Mitchell refused bail and remanded Leela in continuing custody to appear again on 2 October, pending directions from the DPP.
With reporting by Tom Tuite
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say