A JUDGE has refused to allow reporting restrictions in sexual allegation case amid a confusing hearing at Enniskillen Magistrates Court, whereby police claimed the accused had previously had anonymity.

David Alan Coupe (71) from Loughview Drive Enniskillen is accused of breaching a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) on August 6 by being in possession of internet enabled devices and cleaning software without approval from his Designated Risk Manager.

The SOPO was imposed a few years ago following a conviction for unspecified sexual offending.

A detective sergeant told Enniskillen Magistrates Court the charge could be connected.

At this point, the prosecuting lawyer said: “The sergeant has brought it to my attention that there was an anonymity order in the original case, granted in January 2017 and it’s my duty as an officer of the court to disclose what I have been told.”

Coupe’s barrister who did not act in the previous case, said he was not aware of the matter: “As this seems to have been raised by the police and not the defence.”

This was the first time the case was listed therefore any such order would have been required to be applied for at that hearing, with Press put on notice in advance which had not been done.

It was also not the role of police to highlight such an order in these circumstances and it remains unclear why this occurred.

The defence requested anonymity be granted at least on an interim basis until the facts could be established.

District Judge Alana McSorley initially agreed however, Press challenged this pointing out any previous anonymity order would have lapsed at the conclusion of the original case therefore had no bearing whatsoever on the new charge.

It was also stressed if such an order were to carry over into any new case against Coupe he would have been granted Lifetime Anonymity as only nine such orders exist across the entire United Kingdom and he is not among them. Even with that it would not be an automatic transfer and would still have required a hearing to determine if it was appropriate.

The judge agreed and passed the case for a time to allow for further information. 

On return the defence said: “The issue seems to be there are concerns the facts of the original case would be opened in court at some stage. However, there’s every possibility the order was actually on application of the prosecution in the previous case.

"It was raised to the court by the police and I would also now raise the concern that if the original case facts were opened it would breach the anonymity order.”

This was incorrect as the application was made by the defence and related only to Coupe’s identity, therefore the facts of the case were not bound by any form of anonymity.

The prosecution also said they were not seeking an order repeating: “I was made aware of the issue by the Detective Sergeant and simply raised it with the court in the course of my duties.”

Judge McSorley ruled in favour of Press telling the defence: “Because I am not enlightened any further and I haven’t heard anything to persuade me. I’m not minded to grant the application, interim or otherwise.”

Coupe was remanded on continuing bail to return to court on September 23.

Following the hearing, the PSNI were asked a series of questions including whether officers were trained and/or alert to the law and procedures around anonymity orders and under what would a police officer highlight a previous order for a defendant to the PPS and/or court and are they aware these lapse on conclusion of each case?

There has been no reply by the time of publishing.