Last March, a jury convicted a 41-year-old Wicklow man of repeated sexual attacks on a neighbouring child when she was aged approximately nine.

The man had pleaded not guilty to four counts of rape and two counts of indecent assault in Co Wicklow on unknown dates between 1987 and 1989. Mr Justice Micheal White, sitting at the Central Criminal Court, imposed a seven-year sentence earlier this month.

At that time he continued an order, made during the trial, preventing the publication of the identity of both parties. He said he made this order at the request of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

Last week, lawyers for the DPP brought the case back before Mr Justice White and told the court that the woman now wished to waive her anonymity so her abuser could be named.

Defence counsel Colman Fitzgerald SC indicated to the court that he intended to contest the application on the basis that there is no basis in law for the anonymity of complainants to be set aside.

At a full hearing yesterday, Paul Murray SC, for the DPP, said the relevant law is the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981 which provides for the anonymity of a rape accused during trial and up to and until conviction.

He said the Act states that “after a person is charged with a rape offence no matter likely to … identify a woman as the complainant in relation to that charge shall be published”, and therefore the anonymity afforded to a rape accused automatically falls after conviction and he can be identified.

Mr Murray told Mr Justice White that he did not believe a trial judge had to make an order in a situation where it was “clear on the face of it” that disclosing the name of the convicted man would tend to identify the complainant.

“The media cannot do so if to do so would contravene the protection afforded to the complainant,” he said. He said the Act places a responsibility on the media and provides for penalties and said an offender cannot be named by a media acting responsibility if to do so would contravene section 7.

Mr Murray said it would be remarkable if a victim of sexual assault simply has no right to waive their anonymity.

He added that if a person did go public in breach of the Act, he didn’t think there was any legal sanction.

Mr Fitzgerald replied that he disagreed and said that the law makes it an offence for anyone to publish the identity of a rape complainant.

“There is nothing there that permits the complainant to discard the prohibition of [the Act],” counsel said.

The court heard that the practice of complainants being identified began when rape survivor Lavinia Kerwick waived her anonymity in July 1992. Mr Fitzgerald said he could not find any legal basis “for what I acknowledge is routinely done”.

Citing a judicial review taken by Independent Newspapers on the lawfulness of reporting restrictions imposed by Judge Mary Ellen Ring in October 2016, Mr Murray said that the High Court ruled that the restrictions ought not to have been continued after the men were sentenced for sexual offences.

“The continuation of the order … was not warranted by the necessity to ensure a fair trial or to protect the [defendant’s] rights. There is no evidence to suggest that the preservation of his identity post-conviction was necessary to ensure the preservation of the complainant’s identity under s. 7 of the Act.”

Mr Justice White said the application had raised significant issues for the court and significant issues as to whether judges should be saying something during the course of these trials.

He said he would give a written judgment on 28 June and asked the DPP and the defence to make written submissions by 10 June and 19 June respectively.

Declan Brennan and Fiona Ferguson, CCC.nuacht