A Fermanagh man who has admitted guilt over indecent child image charges, initially tried to have his identity withheld, claiming disclosure of the allegations would exacerbate the ill-health of a relative.

The application was ultimately refused following a challenge by Press, and the case against William Mullan (39), of Old Rossorry Park, Enniskillen, went on to be returned for trial.

At Dungannon Crown Court, Mullan pleaded guilty to 14 charges, which had been amended from possessing indecent child images to making them.

He further accepted single counts of possessing a prohibited image of a child and an extreme pornographic image.

Offending occurred on various dates between February, 2018 to July, 2019.

Judge Peter Irvine QC ordered Mullan to sign the Sex Offenders Register, and remanded him on continuing bail while pre-sentence reports are prepared.

A defence barrister told the court he intended to seek a psychiatric report ahead of sentencing, which is scheduled to take place on April 1.

When Mullan was first charged last year, he appeared before Enniskillen Magistrates Court, where his lawyers applied for anonymity based on the right to life of Mullan’s relative, advising Press and police had been put on notice.

While Press opposed the application, the defence stated police “have no objection”.

This was challenged by Press, as police would only have input on the basis of a third-party threat against Mullan, which was not the reasoning put forward.

Press argued the principles of open justice require accused persons to be named, and raised concerns around proffering a relative’s ill health as the reasoning for anonymity, as that could account for every defendant coming before the courts.

Deputy District Judge Ann Marshall retired to chambers to consider the application, and on return ruled in favour of Press.

Thanking both the defence and Press for their timely applications, she said: “Often these are made orally at first appearance, and the Press have not always been put on notice.

“This is how all these applications should be dealt with – by written submissions sent in to have the case ready to be dealt with.”

While acknowledging the court’s duty under human rights to protect life, Judge Marshall noted: “This is an unusual application, because it doesn’t relate to the defendant himself.

“The court starts with the first principle of open justice, and doesn’t deal with these applications lightly.

“The Press have a duty and a right to carry out responsible reporting in relation to these matters.”

She found police not objecting “to a large degree [to be] irrelevant in the circumstances”.

Continuing, she said: “That applies in relation to specific threats, and usually against defendants. I take account they do not object, but I give it very limited weight in this case.”

She concluded: “The defence have obviously been instructed to make this application, which I have considered carefully, but the balancing act falls on the side of open reporting.

“I’m not satisfied a real and immediate risk has been established, so I refuse the application.”