A victim of child rape has succeeded in having her rapist named, 18 months after his conviction.
The woman, who is now an adult, had also wished to waive her right to anonymity and speak in person about her case.
However, because of a recent ruling concerning the law on identification of child victims of crime, the media is prevented from publishing her name.
Declan Hannon, 50, first raped the nine-year-old child during a game of hide-and-seek when he was aged 17. He raped her three more times during the summer in around 1987 or 1989.
He was convicted by a jury and jailed for seven years after a trial at the Central Criminal Court in March 2019.
Hannon, of Ramsgate Village, Gorey in Co Wexford, had pleaded not guilty to four counts of rape and two counts of indecent assault on dates between 1987 and 1989.
Today the Court of Appeal ruled that a previous order, which prevented the publication of the identity of both parties, "was superfluous and ought not to have been made".
After the trial last year the judge had refused to lift reporting restrictions because the Director of Public Prosecutions waited until the trial had finished before asking for the reporting restriction to be lifted.
Mr Justice Michael White said his mandate to decide on the matter had expired. The man's defence lawyers had also argued that there is no provision in law for a victim of sexual assault to waive their right to anonymity.
The DPP appealed the judge's order preventing publication of the man's identity.
President of the Court of Appeal Mr Justice George Birmingham today said the judge's order preventing publication of the man's name was "superfluous" as the law already dictates that the media cannot identify the injured party.
The Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981 allows publication of the name of a person convicted of rape, providing it does not identify the victim. However, it has become common practice that a person convicted of rape can also be named if their victim agrees to waive their anonymity following conviction.
But following a recent ruling by the Court of Appeal it is deemed an offence under the Children Act to publish anything that might lead to the identification of a child victim of crime even if they have reached adulthood by the time their case comes to court.
Mr Justice Birmingham said the original ruling by the judge ought not to have been made. He also noted that neither the DPP nor defence lawyers had addressed the judge in any depth on whether identifying the convicted man would identify the injured party.
He said that even if the judge found that it would, no order would be necessary as it falls on the media to observe the terms of the statute. However, he added that: "It will probably often be the case that an indication from the judge that, in his view, identifying an accused would have the effect of identifying an injured party may prove of assistance to the media."
Mr Justice Birmingham also addressed the judge's refusal to revisit the order following the conclusion of the trial. He said that the approach taken by Mr Justice White was "unduly restrictive".
He noted that the DPP was acting on behalf of the injured party when making the application for the reporting ban to be lifted and said the judge was "not precluded from addressing the merits of the application that was made to him."
The judge noted that an "overly-strict" view of when a judge's mandate has expired could deny an injured party the right to be heard on an issue of very major importance to them.
In this case, an order was made affecting the victim and that was promptly brought before the court. The trial judge had been asked to vary his order on 23 May 2019, six days after making it.
Speaking outside court in 2019 the victim told reporters she was never asked by the DPP at the sentencing hearing about her wishes and did not know she had to address the question of her anonymity.
The recent decision of the Court of Appeal which prevents child victims of crime being identified even as adults or if they are deceased means her name cannot be published, despite her wishes.
In her victim impact statement the woman said she had to think long and hard about coming forward when she was approached by gardaí in 2013.
She said she had "tucked away the horror" of what had happened but ultimately decided to come forward "to right this terrible wrong".
She described how she was a witness in the long court process with no legal representation or guidance and had to remind herself not to get her hopes up as there was the potential for it all to go wrong.
"All I had was the truth and the knowledge I was doing the right thing," she told the court.
"You had the opportunity to prevent all this by taking responsibility but again chose the hurtful path of deception. You rolled the dice at our expense and very rightfully lost," she told Hannon.
She said there had been reference during the court case to delay in coming forward, but she said having been through the trial process now, she knows they did the right thing then and her mother had protected her from the trauma of a court case as a child.
"This may be a drop in the ocean of what goes on inside these walls but I will never forget what has been done for me. I finally have justice, peace and closure," she said.
In sentencing, Mr Justice White said that Hannon carried the brutal and cynical rape of an innocent child. He set a headline sentence of 11 years.
He reduced this to seven years after taking into consideration the fact that he had led a "constructive and exemplary life" since this offending.
Mr Justice White paid tribute to the "exceptional courage" of the victim who he noted had to give evidence on six occasions during the legal process.
"She showed exceptional courage in the way she comported herself throughout this process," he said.
He said the court was very conscious that serious sexual abuse during childhood affected a person throughout their life.
He commended the woman for conquering these issues and living a normal life.
