Judge denies father bail in children’s deaths case, freedom of the press questioned

The father accused of negligence leading to the deaths of his two young children was on Thursday ordered to remain in police custody by a British Bases court which ruled the seriousness of the allegations and the risk of absconding outweighed arguments for his release. The emotionally-charged hearing, was marked not only by arguments over whether the defendant should remain behind bars, but also by an unusual exchange between the bench and journalists over freedom of the press. During the hearing the prosecution argued that the defendant should remain in custody because he presented a substantial flight risk. The prosecution also referred to evidence suggesting the defendant may have consumed alcohol on the day of the incident as he had gone to “purchase alcohol after he had finished his job and did not go straight home.” The defence strongly opposed the application, arguing there was no evidence that the defendant intended to flee and that he had extensive and longstanding ties to Cyprus. The court heard from the defence that the defendant had access to financial resources for the bail, including approximately €1,500 in savings and a further €5,000 from another source. Defence counsel told the court that the defendant had established personal and community connections and that the defendant’s brother lives in Cyprus. Counsel further argued that the defendant’s conduct following the incident was inconsistent with an intention to flee, noting that he remained at the scene and cooperated fully with the authorities. In his ruling, the judge stated that the defendant’s connections to Cyprus have “of course largely gone” (making reference to the defendants children) adding that he did “not minimise that the defendant would be grieving for the loss of his children”. However, he concluded that the seriousness of the charges remained the overriding consideration. “The sole ground for objecting to bail is that the defendant will abscond. That he will fail to attend again. I must look at the information and try and assess as far as I can. On the information presently available I consider it strong. It includes cctv, number plate recognition amongst other aspects, he added.” “There is a presumption that I must grant bail unless a number of recognisable factors exist,” he said. The judge found that those factors were present in this case, concluding that there remained a real risk the defendant would fail to attend trial if released “describing the difficulty of obtaining the return of someone from the northern areas if he went there”. “The defendant is aware of the seriousness and in my judgement has strong incentive to abscond” he said. “I do not consider that any conditions would be sufficient to mitigate those risks,” he said. The defendant will remain in custody until July 16. Throughout the hearing, members of the defendant’s family, including his partner, sat quietly in court. At the commencement of today’s hearing, the judge opened Pandora’s box by addressing the issue of reporting restrictions according to the law of England and Wales. Referring to last week’s hearing at length, during which members of the media had been reprimanded over the use of mobile phones in court, the judge explained that pre-charge remand applications are ordinarily heard in camera not in open court because investigators may need to disclose sensitive details of ongoing police inquiries. “If that information enters the public domain, the investigation may be compromised,” he said, explaining that in such circumstances courts have the power to impose temporary restrictions to protect the integrity of criminal proceedings. The judge added that once formal charges are filed, cases move into open court, creating a different balance between the principles of open justice and the need to ensure a fair trial. At the end of the hearing, journalists present questioned the court on the extent of press freedom and how reporting restrictions could be reconciled with the public’s right to know. In response, the judge acknowledged the fundamental importance of a free press in a democratic society. “The law of the bases must be respectful of freedom of the press as a fundamental aspect of a free society,” he said, adding that the role of the court was to balance that principle against the interests of justice. “You may have a different view to the court,” he told reporters, “but ultimately the maintenance of justice is paramount.”