It Could Only Happen In Ireland

M

Melendez

At the Start
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
3,035
Location
Dublin
I remember a thread on here about what should constitute statutory rape and people being put on Sex offenders lists.

It now transpires that there has been no such offence in Ireland. I'm not sure if this has made the news in England but I'll give a quick bluffers summary (correct me someone if I've got this wrong)

The law pertaining to having sex with minors was tested in the Supreme court. It was found to be unconstitutional because, among other things, it did not allow for the defence that you were mistaken about the victims age. Therefore anybody charged under this act, regardless of whether they could possibly have used this defence, is now made void.

Yesterday we had an obsenity of a man, who, at 41, fed a 12 year old girl 4 bacardi breezers and 2 vodkas. When she awoke during the night to get sick he had full sex with her. He was released and will not be put on any sex offenders list and is probably entitled to damages for the time he has spent in prison.

This case is being appealed by the DPP, but there seems little hope of success. Following on from that there will be a raft of cases, which cannot be defended by the DPP, including, I believe, a 61 year old man who had sex with an eight year old girl.
 
That's sick, whoever challenged this law should feel utterly ashamed - how can you mistake a 12yo girl for someone older?

The age of the victim doesn't come into it it's whether he/she consented that is the act of rape unless we go into all the technicalities.

Is it not possible to re-define the whole law though?
 
how can you mistake a 12yo girl for someone older?
Click to expand...

That doesn't come into it. The law has been declared unconstitutional and therefore is void. So these people have been convicted under an act that doesn't exist. I'm sure a new law will be in place in a week or two, but anyone convicted under the old law can queue up for release.

I suspect, without knowledge that you will get people who forceably raped minors released as this charge would be easier to prove. Not that there is much difference when you are talking about 12 year olds.
 
My understanding (at least in this country) of the problem with statutory rape largely comes from the recent case involving an 11 year old becoming pregnant, where the father was charged with statutory rape, despite her consent. The young lady in question was not charged with anything.

To my mind at least, this is an unsatisfactory situation in many ways, although it does admittedly, have little in common with the horrendous cases Mel has outlined.
 
Originally posted by Irish Stamp@May 31 2006, 12:44 PM
That's sick, whoever challenged this law should feel utterly ashamed - how can you mistake a 12yo girl for someone older?

The age of the victim doesn't come into it it's whether he/she consented that is the act of rape unless we go into all the technicalities.

Is it not possible to re-define the whole law though?
Click to expand...
The guy who challenged the law was a 19 year old who had sex with a 15 year old after turning her down previously.She said she was 16 and by all accounts looked older.The law expressly forbade the defendant the defence of saying she said/he thought she was 16.The supreme court was left with no option but to declare the law unconstitutional which means all previous convictions are invalid and those convicted can claim compensation.Nuts.
 
It's lunacy :angry:

Also in Ireland, yesterday two men convicted of dog fighting had their convictions quashed. Their defence claimed that just because the men were in the same place as two dogs that were found fighting, doesn't mean the men were actually taking part. Disgraceful.
 
It hasn't been mentioned in the press, so maybe it's not the case, but it would seem logical that anyone who has served time under the act since 1935 is entitled to sue the state for unlawful detention.
 
There are some minor pedantic corrections.

Luke - the appellent was only 17 when sex occured - not 19. It looks like a situation that could be found behind any school disco on these Islands, so I don't really balme him his appeal.

The governer of his prison is appealling - not the DPP. It looks like the AG and DPPs office were aware of this liklihood and only now are we seeing correcting legislation. This is the real scandal. They knew but did nothing.l For those of you unfamiliar with our constitution, this judgement was an accident waiting to happen and I am amazed it didn't sooner.

The action was under 40.4 of the 1937 constitution - the right to a trial and a defence. Whereas the 17yo/15 yo incident is a blurred issue, the Judge found that there was no blurring in her law court. In my opinion she made the only reasonable decision open to her, under law.

I'm not sure, but I think the legislation of 'no excuse' predates the constitution, and the appeal will be on that basis.

Lastly - Griffin, I am sure your intention to introduce dog fighting as an equivalence in this discussion was an oversight.
 
In fairness to the AG and DPP, this could have been used as a defence for nearly 70 years, yet it would seem nobody thought it viable. Obviously they have made a major miscalculation on the response of the Supreme Court, but I reckon there must be so many "clever" people down through the decades who have got this wrong and must share the blame it is laughable.
 
Originally posted by Griffin@May 31 2006, 02:15 PM
It's lunacy :angry:

Also in Ireland, yesterday two men convicted of dog fighting had their convictions quashed. Their defence claimed that just because the men were in the same place as two dogs that were found fighting, doesn't mean the men were actually taking part. Disgraceful.
Click to expand...
Griffin,

is that disgraceful because you know they're guilty?

Just because a crime is genuinely heinous, it doesn't mean that anyone charged with it is automatically guilty. It's amazing how often the report that "a man has been charged with X" where X is of huge affront to the public elicits an almost universal response of "they should string him up" or "I hope he gets life" without those making the statements having any more information on the case.

Apologies if it looks like I'm having a go (or defending dog fighting pikeys!), it's just a little bugbear of mine. Apologies also for being off topic. As regards the topic, I think An Capall has made a particularly valid summation.
 
Originally posted by an capall@May 31 2006, 03:32 PM


Lastly - Griffin, I am sure your intention to introduce dog fighting as an equivalence in this discussion was an oversight.
Click to expand...
I never suggested it was. I was merely highlighting what appears to be another flaw in the law which benefits those who do wrong, not the victims.

Griffin,

is that disgraceful because you know they're guilty?

Just because a crime is genuinely heinous, it doesn't mean that anyone charged with it is automatically guilty. It's amazing how often the report that "a man has been charged with X" where X is of huge affront to the public elicits an almost universal response of "they should string him up" or "I hope he gets life" without those making the statements having any more information on the case.
Click to expand...

In my eyes, every single person in attendance at a dog fight is as guilty of causing suffering as the man or woman next to him. The two men in question were hardly there to stop it happening.

One of the news reports is here.

And here is the one from last year when they were convicted.

So now anybody can attend a dog fight in Ireland without fear of prosecution.
 
An Capall -I completely agree with the 17 year olds right to challenge the law,he was mislead to say the least and it certainly wouldn't have served the cause of justice to convict him.
 
Having a legal requirement to check passport details prior to the dirty deed would tend to dampen the passion. Stupid law.
 
Originally posted by Griffin@May 31 2006, 04:12 PM
In my eyes, every single person in attendance at a dog fight is as guilty of causing suffering as the man or woman next to him. The two men in question were hardly there to stop it happening.
Click to expand...
Isn't that exactly the point, though? While we try to promote a catch all law which can find guilt merely by association, this will be open to abuse. The onus is on the law makers to ensure that those who are placed at the mercy of the law are treated justly. Trying to make the law tougher to curry favour with the electorate will only lead to successful appeals against the minority of situations where the innocent are punished by this toughening, which will lead to others who would have been correctly been found guilty under a "less tough" law being acquitted on appeal. The disgrace is in the unjust tampering of the law by the regulators, not in the appeals process.
 
Not sure about that at all. As far as I am aware, ID cards will be required here for over 18s only, not 16s. Also, would you still, in the heat of passion, ask to see someone's ID card? I doubt it.
 
Originally posted by PDJ@May 31 2006, 05:27 PM
Not sure about that at all. As far as I am aware, ID cards will be required here for over 18s only, not 16s. Also, would you still, in the heat of passion, ask to see someone's ID card? I doubt it.
Click to expand...
With regard U18's, I presume it would breach some kind of EU legislation and that would be one main reason not to have them for minors but in response to the other point it would remove one more avenue of defense for guilty sex attackers and rapists.
 
Imagine you are 18 years old and you have pulled. Things are going very well and the young lady is getting very amorous. It's quite a while since I was 18 but I would imagine that things haven't changed too much in this area. The likelihood of me stopping at this stage to ask "Could I see your official ID card" would have been less than the possibility of Venn Ottery winning the Gold Cup anf Grand National in the same season.
 
It would be unfortunate if young men were to take the same approach to promiscuity as bouncers

"Sorry love, not tonight"

"So where are you coming from, darling?"

"Sorry, regulars only tonight"
 
Back
Top