The number of charges against a man accused of indecent child sexual images has risen from five to 31.
The accused, who is aged in his twenties, cannot be named as he has threatened to self-harm if identified.
He is charged with 20 counts of making indecent child images, seven of distributing as well as two each of possessing prohibited images of a child and extreme pornographic images.
Offending is alleged to have occurred over various dates between September 2016 and April 2023.
The details surrounding the circumstances of the charges were not disclosed however court documents indicate offending was carried out using the Telegram app.
The case first came before the courts last November when a defence solicitor presented a GP letter in support of an application banning the defendant’s identity from publication.
This was challenged by Press who said the letter was insufficient and the threshold for a reporting ban was not met.
It was noted the defendant only attended with his GP in the days before his first appearance in court despite the matter being under investigation for well over a year.
He was not referred to a psychiatrist and refused to take medication prescribed to assist with stress.
Nonetheless, the defence insisted the “test was met”, claiming the case had to reach court to secure Legal Aid in order to obtain funding for a psychiatric report.
Press argued this means the report will be obtained in a private capacity by the defence to support their application, not to provide a treatment and therefore based on a one-off assessment as opposed to an in-depth analysis from a treating psychiatrist.
It was also queried if the GP found risk to be present, why the defendant was not referred for specialist treatment, if only from a safeguarding perspective.
The defence insisted the GP report was presently all that was available and was sufficient for interim purposes.
But District Judge Oonagh Mullan remarked: “We all know people go into the GP and tell them what’s going on and they want a letter. GPs are all too often prepared to give these because they don’t want to take a risk.”
She continued: “We (judiciary) very regularly get these applications, and they have to be scrutinised because all too often people just use it as a means so that there’s no reporting. All I have is a GP letter saying if the case was reported it could likely create a situation.”
Echoing the position of Press she enquired why the defendant is not under the care of a psychiatrist.
The defence replied: “Simply put there’s been very little engagement with the GP and that’s not uncommon with acute mental health issues. However, he is engaging now.”
Judge Mullan said: “I guarantee the GP letter is not based on a full mental health assessment. I’m very wary of these cases.”
Out of caution, it was agreed to impose an interim reporting restriction pending a psychiatric assessment and the matter reviewed last December.
However, no medical evidence was submitted on that date and as the case was today (Thursday) returned for trial, that remains the position.
The matter will now be revisited at Dungannon Crown Court when the accused appears for arraignment on June 17.
Judge Mullan noted the charges were “extremely serious” and set bail at £500.
