A journalist and a radio station have been fined by the Central Criminal Court for the inadvertent naming of one of the two 14-year-old boys convicted of the murder of Ana Kriégel.
Journalist Niall O'Connor and Cork radio station, RedFM, both apologised unreservedly to the court for the breach of the 2001 Children Act and the court's own orders.
Neither boy can be identified because of their age and a breach of the legislation can be punished by a fine and/or a term of imprisonment of up to three years.
Mr Justice Paul McDermott said he was satisfied what happened was an error and not an intentional breach of the court's orders or the law.
Mr O'Connor was fined €2,500, with three months to pay, and RedFM was fined €10,000.
Earlier, Mr O'Connor told the court he was truly sorry for what happened.
He said naming the boy was not his intention and he "deeply apologised".
RedFM CEO Diarmaid O'Leary said he apologised fully to the court and to the boy and his family.
He said the radio station viewed it as a very serious matter.
A "dump button" allowing a radio station to have a seven-second time delay on a live broadcast had been installed, following the broadcast.
The court heard Mr O'Connor named the boy, known as Boy A, twice during a live interview on Red Fm on 19 June, the morning after the verdicts were delivered in the trial.
The interview was immediately ended by the interviewer, Neil Prendeville.
Prosecuting counsel Brendan Grehan said it was obvious care had been taken in the earlier part of the interview not to identify the boys.
Nevertheless, he said, this had happened.
Mr Justice McDermott said the effect of the broadcast of the child's name in these circumstances was extremely difficult to assess, particularly for the boy's family.
But he accepted that what happened was an error and not a deliberate or reckless flouting of the court's orders or the legislation.
Mr Justice McDermott said, however, it was a lapse in professional standards and required a sanction.
He said it might be thought, given the history of the case, that it would be appropriate to impose a very significant penalty to send a message that this would not be tolerated in the future.
However, he said this would be wrong and he intended to impose proportionate penalties.
The judge said the offer of payments to charity was wholly inappropriate.
