An interim reporting ban which prevented publication of an Armagh man’s identity has been lifted following a Press challenge.
Named for the first time, 36-year-old Marc Evans, whose full address remains subject to the ban out of precaution due to an alleged threat – which has yet to be confirmed – is charged with possessing indecent photographs of children on August 16, 2023 .
The case first came before Armagh Magistrates’ Court in June when defence lawyers asked for reporting restrictions as Evans claimed he was threatened by a known criminal who had referred to his name and address.
An interim ban was permitted for evidence of this and District Judge Anne Marshal advised this was to be provided to Press in advance of the next hearing.
The following month nothing was provided to Press and when challenged on this by Judge Marshall, the defence advised they would ensure this would be corrected.
The barrister added PSNI had been contacted to provide evidence of the alleged threat and that Evans had reported his concerns at the time.
However, over the course of a further four hearings Press were not provided with any supporting evidence and the only communication came when the defence advised they would be seeking to extend the order further.
At this point Press decided to challenge the order as enough time had been afforded and the case had drifted to an extent anonymity was applying by default through delay.
Judge Marshall agreed and directed PSNI to send an officer to court to give evidence under oath of any existence of threat to Evans.
At the most recent sitting it emerged whilst the defence had contacted PSNI it was not done directly with an investigating officer or similar, but rather by a Subject Access Request, which are known to take many months to complete.
This was never disclosed to Press at any time despite the judge’s repeated directions to do so.
A detective constable was duly sworn and was asked by Judge Marshall if he had established whether there was evidence of threat leading to the requirement for Evan’s identity being withheld.
The detective replied: “I wasn’t made aware of any alleged threat. The information given to me is entirely different and the reason the defendant wanted the restriction on reporting was because he didn’t want his girlfriend to find out.”
Under defence cross-examination the detective confirmed his information had been provided by the investigating officer in the case and this was always the understood position.
He also advised he did not check the PSNI system as he was not aware of any threats at all against Evans.
The defence argued this was contrary to his information and insisted there was something logged with police.
He also objected to the detective “constantly peddling” the grounding rationale for the reporting ban was Evan’s concerns of his girlfriend finding out about the charge as she is aware of the sensitive details of the case.
The judge replied: “She now knows so what I need to know is whether there is a threat against this man or not.”
She allowed a further short adjournment and on return the detective said: “I have checked this system back to 2021 and there are no threats against the defendant. There are also no serial numbers which would even suggest that has happened at any time.”
This was not challenged by the defence and Judge Marshall remarked: “This case first came before me in June and I allowed a large number of adjournments for the defence to provide evidence. The Press object to the reporting ban continuing and quite rightly raise the issue of restrictions by default when they are allowed to drift.
“Courts have to bear in mind open justice principles and a defendant should not obtain reporting bans for the duration of their case by continued adjournments of interim orders. There have been ample opportunities to provide evidence and none has materialised.”
She removed the order in terms of Evans’ name and commended the Press suggestion of keeping his address withheld at this stage out of caution but this will be revisited in due course.
Meanwhile, the defence advised the charge is denied and Judge Marshall listed a contest for hearing on October 7.
