Skip to content
Bramble

UK

High Court clears way for trial of father over 2019 Liffey Valley car incident

The High Court refused a father's bid for a separate preliminary hearing on disclosure, clearing the way for his District Court public order trial over an incident that began with a complaint about his child left in a car.

2 outlets · 1L · 0C · 1R First reported Account updated
Image: Irish Independent
Image: The Irish Times

1 / 2

The story, neutrally told

Left · 1The High Court has cleared the way for the hearing of a prosecution against a father for public order offences allegedly arising from an incident that followed a complaint to gardaí about his two-year-old child being left alone, asleep, in his car while he went shopping. Left · 1The man was arrested in the Liffey Valley Shopping Centre, Dublin, after an altercation with gardaí, who had been informed about the child in the car on 25 August 2019. Right · 1It was claimed that he left one of his sons, who was asleep, in the parked car for a brief period while he made a purchase.

Left · 1He was charged with threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour in a public place, failure to comply with a garda direction and refusal to give his name and address; he denied the charges. Left · 1He sought to bring his own private prosecution against the gardaí over what he said were three wrongful prosecutions; the District Court refused this and the Court of Appeal dismissed a challenge to that refusal. Left · 1Before the trial in Blanchardstown District Court, he brought High Court proceedings over a district judge's refusal to give him a separate preliminary hearing on his request for further disclosure, including video and audio recordings from the shopping centre and Garda station and any garda recording device footage; the DPP said disclosure obligations had been complied with.

Left · 1Judge Garrett Simons refused the application, saying no fixed rule requires a separate preliminary hearing before a District Court trial, still less one at least four weeks before trial, and that disclosure and any procedural measures needed for a fair trial are matters for the District Court in the first instance. Left · 1The judge said the man remains at liberty to seek additional disclosure when the case next comes before the District Court, and a reporting restriction on naming him to protect his children stays in force unless varied; a party or bona fide media member may apply to vary it on seven days' notice to the man.

Every sentence links to the reporting it rests on. The pill in front of each says where its sources sit: Left, Centre or Right when one side supplies at least half of them, Mixed when they are evenly split. The number is how many outlets it cites.

Left1 outlet

Framing
The Irish Times gives a detailed court report of the High Court judgment, with procedural history, the disclosure dispute and the reporting restriction.
Emphasis
Legal reasoning, the DPP's position and the reporting restriction.
Leaves out or plays down
Nothing notable relative to the other outlet.
For example
“The judge said the man remains at liberty to seek additional disclosure when the proceedings next come before the District Court.” — The Irish Times

Centre0 outlets

No centre outlet in our sources has covered this story yet.

Right1 outlet

Framing
The Irish Independent presents the case as a 'row' sparked by a complaint, leading on the claim that the father left his sleeping son briefly in the car.
Emphasis
The allegation about the child and the brevity of the absence.
Leaves out or plays down
Its headline and lede do not mention the disclosure dispute, the charges or the reporting restriction.
Charged language
“row”
For example
“Court clears way for hearing following row sparked by complaint about child left alone in car” — Irish Independent