Woman posted in ‘pure anger’ photo of boy who murdered Ana Kriégel

Hazel Fitzpatrick (25) says offence ‘the biggest mistake she has ever made in her life’

A woman who posted a photo online of one of the boys convicted of the murder of Ana Kriégel thought it was “wrong they are protected when she [Ana Kriégel] was not protected”, a court has heard.

Hazel Fitzpatrick (25) posted a screenshot on Facebook of a photo that identified Boy A on the day after both juveniles were convicted of the murder that took place in Dublin in May 2018.

Dublin Circuit Criminal Court heard that there was no premeditation, that Fizpatrick acted out of “pure anger” and that at the time she had become “almost reliant and addicted to social media”.

The court heard the accused woman, a mother-of-two, describes the offence as “the biggest mistake she has ever made in her life”.


Fitzpatrick of Easton Green, Easton Road, Leixlip, Co Kildare, pleaded guilty to posting a picture on her Facebook account which includes a picture of Boy A in contravention of the Children's Act 2001 within the state on or about June 19th, 2019. She has no previous convictions.

Sergeant David O’Neil told Gerardine Small BL, prosecuting, that on the day after two juveniles commonly referred to as Boy A and Boy B were convicted of the murder of Ana Kriégel (14) in June 2019, a picture identifying Boy A was published on the Facebook account of the accused.

The court heard this post contained a picture of the boy, as well as the words “Name and shame the c*nts, justice was served but they should not be allowed to see daylight again”.

The post also called the two convicted juveniles “sickos” and said that everyone should see who did it.

Sgt O’Neil said the presiding judge of the trial had made an order that nothing could be published that would identify or tend to identify the two convicted juveniles. He said the trial and this order was extensively reported by media outlets.

Snapshots of certain posts made on social media sites were brought to the attention of gardaí, including the post made by Fitzpatrick. Gardaí were satisfied the image shared was a clear breach of the order and identified the accused’s address.

Judge’s order

The sergeant said that when gardaí attended at her address in July 2019, Fitzpatrick said she had been expecting them, invited them into her home and agreed to an interview, stating that she had nothing to hide.

In interview with gardaí, Fitzpatrick said she had followed the case online, that people were talking about it and she was from the locality. She said she was also a mother and this formed a part of her interest in the case.

Fitzpatrick told gardaí she could not understood how two juveniles could do something like that. She said she had heard about the judge’s order and that people could be brought to court and fined.

She admitted to sharing the material on Facebook, saying she had screenshotted the photo from someone else’s page and then shared it. She said she took it down two or three minutes later because people were texting her.

When asked by gardaí why she had shared the photo, Fitzpatrick said she questioned why the boys were being “hidden” when their actions were not the actions of juveniles and that the girl did not get a say in anything.

Fitzpatrick said she thought it is “wrong they are protected when she [Ana Kriégel] was not protected”. She said she was sorry for the boys’ families, but was not sorry for them.

The court heard that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) initially directed a summary disposal in the District Court and that jurisdiction was accepted by a District Court judge, only to later be refused by another judge.

Sgt O’Neil agreed with Kevin Roche BL, defending, that his client posted a screenshot of a photo and she was not the original person who uploaded the photo to Facebook.

Pure anger’

He agreed with counsel that there was no premeditation, that it happened out of “pure anger” and his client was not part of “a greater conspiracy” to pervert the course of justice. He agreed her admissions were important as the case would have been very difficult to prove otherwise.

The sergeant agreed Fitzpatrick was previously of exceptional character who was suffering from anxiety and depression at time. He agreed he did not expect to see her come to Garda attention again.

Mr Roche said his client was suffering from post-natal depression at the time of the offence. He said she became “almost reliant and addicted to social media”, particularly Facebook.

Counsel said that anger within his client’s local community led her to make a mistake that is going to follow her around for the rest of her life. He said his client knew her actions were illegal, but did not fully ascertain their severity.

He said the offending behaviour was “spontaneous” and represented an “utterly misguided foray into criminality”. He said she describes the offence as “the biggest mistake she has ever made in her life”.

Mr Roche said a report from the Probation Service describes his client as being at a low-risk of reoffending. He said his client has two small children.

Counsel asked the court to consider utilising Section 100 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. This section allows the court to impose a fine and defer the passing of a sentence of imprisonment for the offence.

Judge Karen O’Connor remanded Fitzpatrick on continuing bail and adjourned the matter for finalisation to November 18th, next.