More pain for Blairs at killer’s last-ditch plea
Murdered Cameron’s parents tell of anguish at Supreme Court appeal to keep identity hidden
THE parents of murdered student Cameron Blair told of the frustration at their ongoing court trauma after their son’s killer made an 11th hour appeal to block a court ruling to identify him.
Legal sources this weekend said the 21year-old man who killed Cameron in an unprovoked attack four years ago could remain unnamed until next Christmas.
It’s the latest blow to Cameron’s parents Kathy and Noel, who had hoped an earlier court ruling would have finally allowed their son’s killer to be identified for the first time on Friday.
Noel Blair said the killer’s last minute appeal to the Supreme Court ‘keeps dragging the whole thing on more and more’ for his family.
Cameron was murdered on January 16, 2020. His then 17-year-old killer received a life sentence in April, 2020.
Reporting restrictions had been due to lapse this weekend in line with a judgment by the Court of Appeal that did away with lifelong anonymity for child offenders.
But on Thursday evening, on the eve of the last day an appeal could be submitted, Cameron’s parents were told by their liaison garda their son’s killer had submitted an appeal and he would remain unnamed for now.
Mr Blair told the Irish Mail on Sunday: ‘The liaison garda rang us on Thursday night to let us know.
‘We’ve heard no indication as to how long it will take the Supreme Court to make a decision… we’ve heard nothing.
‘We just know this is where we’re at now, we’re going to the Supreme Court.
‘It keeps dragging the whole thing on more and more. There’s nothing we can do it about it.’
The lodging of the application with the Supreme Court means the killer will not now be named, at least until the appeal is dealt with.
The killer was 17, going on 18, when he stabbed Cameron, a much loved engineering student and talented sportsman.
He has never been publicly named due to an old interpretation of a section of the Children Act.
The Court of Appeal examined the relevant section of the Act and in a ruling last month, it found that a child before the courts for a criminal offence could be identified if they turn 18 during the course of proceedings, or by the time any appeal is set for hearing.
The ruling, delivered on January 19, said Cameron’s killer could be named 28 days later.
At the time of this decision, Cameron’s parents told of their relief at the decision.
‘Finally... We weren’t really expecting it, but we are very relieved he can be named,’ Mr Blair told the MoS at the time.
‘As long as he [the killer] doesn’t appeal and I wouldn’t put it past him to do that.
There is a link relating to an incident which occurred in the aftermath of Cameron’s murder that the Blairs are keen to be made public. Mr Blair said: ‘Many people do not realise all that happened to us. It is very important to us that he is named.’
A four-week stay was granted to allow time to consider an appeal.
The application to appeal was lodged with the Supreme Court on Wednesday, three days before the deadline was due to expire.
The Supreme Court now has to decide whether to hear the appeal.
If it agrees to hear it, the killer will continue to enjoy anonymity at least until it delivers its judgment.
His anonymity had been preserved by an interpretation of Section 93 of the Children Act, which held that the rules protecting the identity of child offenders still applied when that person appeared before the Court of Appeal having reached the age of 18.
However, the court ruled last month that Section 93 ‘applies only to a child’, which is defined as a person under the age of 18 years.
Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy said the language used in the Act was ‘clear and unambiguous’ in that it provides for reporting restrictions in proceedings before any court concerning a child.
She said no provision of the Act ‘provides for an extension of reporting restrictions and anonymity to those who age out before proceedings conclude. Reporting restrictions are expressly limited to those under the age of 18 years’.
Ms Justice Kennedy said that to find that the legislation provides anonymity to those who have aged out would require the court to ‘rewrite and extend the plain meaning of the language used’.
‘It keeps dragging the whole thing on more and more’