THE TRIAL OF Graham Dwyer attracted a ferocious amount of public interest, despite the horrific details the case contained.

On many days, crowds gathered outside the court, waiting for a garda to open the door so they could scramble for a seat.

Although the public were excluded from the courtroom while some graphic footage was shown to the jury, the majority of the trial was held in open court. However, in some jurisdictions, judges have more discretion to hold certain cases in private – something which columnist Aaron McKenna argued should have happened in this case.

We want to know what you think: Should trials with evidence of a disturbing nature be held in private?

Poll Results:

No (8094)

Yes (4994)

I don't know (896)

Yes
No
I don't know

Making a difference

A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.

For the price of one cup of coffee each week you can make sure we can keep reliable, meaningful news open to everyone regardless of their ability to pay.

Support us Learn More

Poll: Should trials with disturbing evidence be held in private?

Poll Results:

Making a difference

A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.