Public required to remove masks to be considered for jury duty

Members of the public were required to remove their face masks to allow lawyers to consider whether they would object to them being sworn in for a rape trial. File Picture: Dan Linehan
Members of the public were required to remove their face masks to allow lawyers to consider whether they would object to them being sworn in for a rape trial. File Picture: Dan Linehan

Members of the public called for jury service were required to remove their face masks briefly in court to allow lawyers to consider whether they would object to them being sworn in for a rape trial.

Ms Justice Eileen Creedon canvassed the views of defence and prosecution lawyers on whether or not the jury panellists should wear face masks when arriving in court to be sworn in at the Central Criminal Court sitting in Cork.

The judge explained that as matters stood, the panellists would be wearing face masks but she said they would be called in groups of six for empanelling on the jury and then brought individually into the courtroom where they could be asked to remove their face masks on entering the room.

Prosecution senior counsel Tom Creed said, “It is probably appropriate that they would remove their masks as the accused can challenge (the empanelling of a person on to the jury) and, indeed, the prosecution can challenge.” 

Mr Creed suggested they could put their face masks back on as soon as each person’s empanelling was complete.

Defence senior counsel Siobhán Lankford agreed each person should remove their mask when called to be empanelled.

As it happened, the prosecution and defence both objected to a number of people being empanelled as jurors. Where there was no objection, the person was required to pick up the bible and be sworn in as a juror. Four women and eight men were empanelled on the jury for the case, which is expected to take most of this week.

The defendant, who is 22, pleaded not guilty to all four charges against him. 

He denied having sexual intercourse with the complainant at a time when she did not consent or when he was reckless as to whether she consented or not. 

He also denied two charges of sexual assault by penetration of her anus with his penis and one count of sexual assault by penetration of her mouth with his penis. The charges relate to a period between October 2011 and June 2014.

More in this section

Lunchtime News

Newsletter

Get a lunch briefing straight to your inbox at noon daily. Also be the first to know with our occasional Breaking News emails.

Cookie Policy Privacy Policy Brand Safety FAQ Help Contact Us Terms and Conditions

© Examiner Echo Group Limited