Man charged with murder of teenager in Dublin

A man has been remanded in custody charged with the murder of a teenager in Dublin.

The boy cannot now be identified due to a court order based on a recent ruling prohibiting the media from identifying deceased child victims.

However, on Saturday when the case came before Dublin District Court, the presiding judge extended anonymity to the adult accused despite pleas from the media to set out the basis for that decision.

The man, who is in his mid-30s, was charged on Saturday afternoon and appear before Dublin District Court.

The accused was charged with murder of the boy and production of a knife during a dispute.

At the start of the hearing, Judge John Campbell told reporters: “There are reporting restrictions with respect to the accused, and the the victim”.

The accused has not yet indicated how he will plead.

Det Sgt Shane Noone told the judge that he charged the man at 1.47pm. The defendant made “no reply” to the murder charge and in response to the weapon allegation, he answered: “This is the charge, or this is the final decision”.

Det Sgt Noone made an application under section 252 of the Children Act for the media to be prohibited from naming the victim.

A bail application in a murder case can only be heard by the High Court.

Defence counsel Barry Ward, instructed by solicitor Sinéad Mulhall, said his client was not a person of means. Legal aid was granted.

The accused, who did not address the court, was remanded in custody to appear via video-link at Cloverhill District Court on Thursday.

Solicitor Fergus Foody, on behalf of Independent News & Media (INM), then made an application in relation to the anonymity order.

He asked the judge to clarify one aspect of his reporting restriction ruling. Clearly section 252 applied in relation to the deceased, he said, but the basis for no identification of the accused was not clear, he submitted.

“My view, is that the identification of the accused could give way to identification of the victim, and the victim must be protected,” the judge replied.

“In my view, the name of the accused should be prohibited,” he continued.

The INM solicitor said that he had not been given any basis at which the judge replied, “I have made my decision”, and he left the bench.