Anastasia Kriégel
The judge in the trial of two teenage boys accused of the murder of 14-year-old Anastasia Kriégel has told the jury that he has made an order restricting publication of evidence given in the trial until its conclusion.
He told the jurors that it was a matter of law and the order stood until any further order.
…He said it was his duty to maintain the integrity of the trial process to ensure a true verdict in accordance with the evidence.
Anyone?
Judge restricts reporting in Kriégel case (RTÉ)
Update:
Mr Justice Paul McDermott has now varied his order from earlier in the Ana Kriegel case. The order barring reports until the trial comes to a conclusion has now been varied. It now only applies to one media outlet.
— Michael O'Toole 🇮🇪🇪🇺 (@mickthehack) May 3, 2019
Oh.
Oh no! Does that mean we won’t have any more front pages like this?
http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/idm-12.jpg
A rag of the lowest order.
the evidence is so stomach churning and sickening that in my estimation the judge is preempting a violent demonstration or attempt by members of the public from attempting to gain retribution during the trial
My estimation is that the judge is preempting newspapers from compiling headlines and reports that would make pornhub balk. I’d say there’s a lot of annoyed editors who can’t get off on compiling the violent details in a salacious manner of how a child died.
The trial judge may make such an order where he is of the opinion that there is a serious risk that media coverage will prejudice the conduct of the trial.
Given the gratuitous sensationalism we’ve seen so far, there was a serious risk that, in the event of guilty verdicts, the defendants would appeal on the grounds that jurors in considering their verdict may not have put out of their minds saturation coverage of that nature.
+1
sensible order and one that we will be seeing more and more of
Top comment as usual, Old Boy
why now, old boy?
why not at the commencement of the trial?
The presumption against making orders of this nature is strong. Even if the judge predicted the nature of the trial coverage, it wasn’t until it actually began to appear that he could point to content that any defence lawyer would argue is prejudicial.
A second possible factor is that forthcoming evidence is more harrowing and therefore likely to generate even more sensational coverage. The prosecution is just getting underway. The defence will be robust and will likely make suggestions that will anger many observers, not least the press.
That answers my same question pretty decently – thanks Old Boy.
thanks, OB
They should have taken the same approach in the Belfast rape trial.
Thanks, Old Boy.
Good move by the judge, but he is late with this as reporting is already in full swing with details of the movements of the victim and accused that day.
Prejudice aside, the accused could encounter the same aggressive reaction as the Jamie Bolger killers did. All families here deserve ample protection.
Good move by the judge, for all the reasons outlined here.
And uniform praise on BS.
Is this a record?
I dont understand the holdup on that trial, dont tell me they dont have DNA of the agressor(s) and matched up?
Where are the accused from?
Is that the big secret?
It’s pretty well known.
Correct move by the judge.
It was all being set up for some salacious reporting and virtue signalling.
Like yesterday’s Irish Times feature on how to talk to your kids about this case over dinner. Well done, Irish Times.
An unexpected update:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/ana-kriégel-murder-trial-judge-limits-media-reporting-restrictions-to-one-outlet-1.3879956
I don’t know how the variation of the order came about, so I have no intelligent comment to make, only that it illustrates how stringent the test is.
It seems odd that the media outlet in question appears to have not been named, although I take it as a given that the Judge must have named it. Is it possible that he has given an order for the media outlet to remain anonymous, or is this a case of other media organisations acting with an abundance of caution?
I don’t know what form the varying order took, but the paper will always walk alone.
Received and understood, graz. Not a rag to ever meet my gaze, intend to remain happily unfamiliar with the details.
Now I understand. Gotchya!!
Sorry all, I was misinformed. It wasn’t the Sun.
Surely it’s the Irish Daily Mail, not the Sun?
Common sense prevailed.
Not so much when Guards breathalyse pensioners on their way to mass or commuting workers just to rack up the numbers?
18 full pages of coverage in the Indo yesterday, 3 pages today of the murder in Tipperary, it’s hard to understand the editorial decision to allocate so much resources to the story – a low-down rag.
The victim and her family should be afforded the same protection as the accused boys.