Cameron Blair's murderer entitled to anonymity, court rules

High Court reporters

The Supreme Court has ruled that protections prohibiting the naming of a young man convicted of murdering the Co Cork student Cameron Blair should continue to apply throughout and beyond the conclusion of the proceedings relating to the case, including appeals.

The court’s judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Iseult O'Malley on Thursday, overrules a landmark Court of Appeal judgment permitting the naming of the young man, who was 17 years old when he pleaded guilty to Mr Blair’s murder on the Bandon Road in Cork on January 16th, 2020.

The young man had reached adulthood when the Court of Appeal last year dismissed his appeal against being sentenced to life detention with a review to be conducted after serving 13 years. The court also held that the media could identify an accused who turns 18 during their criminal court proceedings or appeals.

This dislodged a long-standing interpretation of section 93 of the Children Act, 2001 that identity protections for child offenders continue to apply when an accused appears before appellant courts.

An order was made pausing the effects of the Court of Appeal’s decision pending his appeal of the court’s decision lifting anonymity.

The Supreme Court determined that the sole issue in the young man’s appeal was whether a defendant who is charged and brought before the courts while a child remains entitled the Children’s Act 2001 protections if they reach the age of 18 before the criminal proceedings, including any appeals, have concluded.

The court ruled that the protections should apply when criminal proceedings are commenced against a child, and continue to apply throughout and beyond the conclusion of the proceedings.

Ms Justice Jackson said that this interpretation of the relevant Children’s Act 2001 section seems to her “to reduce the possibility of unequal and unfair treatment as between young offenders, and attempts to ensure that they are not subjected to additional, unjustified and unnecessary pressure and harm while involved in the criminal justice process”.

The DPP and the Attorney General had said that the protections should apply when criminal proceedings are commenced against a child, and are capable of having indefinite effect. However, the State parties argued the protections should expire if the person reached 18 before the conclusion of the proceedings.

The five-judge court agreed unanimously with Ms Justice Jackson’s judgment.

She proposed making an order allowing the young man’s appeal, and granting a declaration stating the anonymity protections apply to him in proceedings before the Central Criminal Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, “notwithstanding the fact that he reached the age of majority during the currency of those proceedings”.

The case was adjourned to March 26th for the making of final orders, allowing for submissions from the parties.

Ms Justice Jackson noted that a separate Supreme Court appeal – which was also delivered by the court on Thursday – impacts the young man, as a review of his sentence to be conducted after his serving 13 years, stipulated in the life sentence handed down to him by the Central Criminal Court, cannot now be held.

The separate appeal was taken by the young man convicted of murdering Mongolian woman Urantsetseg Tserendorj in January 2021 and sentenced to life with a review after 13 years.

In the judgment delivered by Ms Justice Jackson, the Supreme Court ruled that, following the repeal of the Children's Act 1908 in 2007, a sentencing court does not have the power to review the detention of a child convicted of murder.

The court ruled that a sentencing court may not reserve to itself the power to modify a sentence through a review procedure, as it infringes on the Constitution.

In the circumstances, the court ruled that it would allow the young man convicted of stabbing Ms Tserendorj to death to appeal his sentence. Ms Justice Jackson said her provisional view is that the case should be remitted to the Court of Appeal so that the court can impose a new sentence.

The judgment, in effect, means that a small number of people who were sentenced as children to life sentences are now serving straightforward life sentences. The ruling may now lead to appeals brought by those people against their sentences.