Now there is no justice in Ireland

Ph3n0m

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/05/30/story261120.html

The law gone mad? Opinions?

Giblet

Jesus, I don't see this going over well. A precedent has been set and now we'll be seeing more of this scum.

BoozyBabe

In this case, yes, it's fcuking ridiculous!!!!!
If it was say a 17year old who slept with the 14 year old thinking she was a legal age, then you can understand where the new law is coming from.

But that pervert knew he was atleast 20years older than her & filled her full of drink to have sex with her.

How can they justify that as being legal? Of course he knew what he was doing

Heinrich

When yo see this:

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2004/0525/4191118674HM1LEAD.html

then you get the message!

Thirdfox

Nope - this is to do with the recent ruling (last Wednesday if I'm not mistaken) that there is no defence to statutory rape. It was ruled unconstitutional and therefore people convicted under that assumption may be set free.

Thirdfox

They probably couldn't have a retrial since that would be against the rules of double jeopardy.

I see the legal point of the ruling but of course I dislike it on a moral point.

Kersh

The long term answer to this will be decided upon at election time.
DONT VOTE THEM BACK IN>>>>>>>

whitetrash

The greater age difference shouldn't automatically grant a conviction of statutory rape so overturning his conviction in that sense is correct.

However, if he did fill her with drink (ie incapacitate her) and did actually rape her then he should have been tried for sexual assault.

Thirdfox

But to retry someone who has been acquitted, wouldn't that be a great injustice too? This case people can see the validity of it, but what happens in the next case where the DPP just want to retry under they get a conviction?

Roen

I thought I had misheard the radio in the car when I heard this tramp had been freed, WTF? He should have been shot in the first place.

whitetrash

Sorry, I mean he should have been tried for sexual assault in the first place, rather than getting an automatic statutory rape conviction for, techincally, being the man in that situation.

Hagar

Until we get legislators who know their ass from their elbow this type of thing is going to keep happening.

I would caution posters that regardless of what you think this man is innocent of any crime.
Be careful of what you say.

Thirdfox

whitetrash wrote:

Sorry, I mean he should have been tried for sexual assault in the first place, rather than getting an automatic statutory rape conviction for, techincally, being the man in that situation.

From the DPP's view they probably just took the easy conviction of stat. rape. Didn't know the SC would change the law later on... but kind of ironic as I argued in my criminal exam (on the morning of the day the law was changed) that the automatic conviction was probably unconstitutional and could be a problem.

The law on rape is quite unsatisfactory in my opinion (having improved a lot over the years) hopefully these type of cases coupled with public outrage will force the Government to correct the anomalies once and for all.

Thirdfox

For example the 1935 Criminal Law Amendment Act (that the SC ruled partially unconstitutional) didn't mention underage sexual intercourse with boys - clearly an infringement of the guarantee of equality article in the Constitution.

So even on equality grounds the provision would probably have been ruled unconstitutional...

whitetrash

Thirdfox wrote:

hopefully these type of cases coupled with public outrage will force the Government to correct the anomalies once and for all.

I may be wrong, but I think public opinion on hearing the words "rape" and "no longer an automatic conviction for" will automatically swing towards complaining that the law was changed at all.

Thirdfox

I just hope the Gov. doesn't have a knee jerk reaction and just seek to plug holes in the law - they should use this as an opportunity to really rethink the theory behind the law on rape and what could be done to improve it.

I am glad to hear that Minister McDowell has, in his new plans, included the extra offence of underage male statutory rape.

The public is very easily swayed by these "hard" cases - I remember hearing about the X abortion case and how the Supreme Court was forced to follow public opinion and completely misinterpretate the Constitution - again the "right" result was achieved but at the cost of an effective legal system...

biko

Any adult (18+) that would fill up a child (-16) with drink and then have sex with her is just very very very wrong :mad:

whitetrash

biko wrote:

Any adult (18+) that would fill up a child (-16) with drink and then have sex with her is just very very very wrong :mad:

I don't think anybody disputes the morality of what the man in this case did (or is accused of doing at least), the problem is with an automatic conviction of statutory rape being put against him because of his sex. And, of course, his subsiquient accquital because of the DPP's not bringing him up on sexual assault charges.

super_furry

I hope that paedophile is tracked down and dealt with properly. It might not be lawful, but it would be justice.

Thirdfox

Any adult (18+) that would fill up a child (-16) with drink and then have sex with her is just very very very wrong

There was the English case where a man had consensual intercourse with a girl that he honestly believed with over 18 (she was in an over 18s club, subjectively looked over 18 and told him she was over 18) but that was not taken into account when convicting as the law stated that once underage then the person is liable - now where is the justice in that?

astrofool

I'd agree with Thirdfox that they take this as an oppertunity to amend/bring in a new set of laws covering rape/sex/age of consent/who is liable, preferably without letting the church get at all involved, and let it be representative of the reality that we live in today, where people do have sex when under the age of consent.

Something which places the onus on a person to reasonably have age of the other party proven, and obviously to sort out the difference in crimes between consentual sex of underage people, and non-consentual.

whitetrash

"reasonably have age of the other party proven" is quite vague though. How can this be enforced or even practiced in a normal social situation? Ask every girl you sleep with for id beforehand? There are too many older-looking young people and younger-looking older people for any kind of lawful rule to made about this isn't there?

astrofool

I think the case in law would be "beyond a reasonable doubt", and its really something that people have to have done a bit of study on before they can comment on it.

After all, there are very very few crimes which can be 100% proven, but beyond a reasonable doubt is what is used. If someone was shown to have gone to reasonable lengths to ensure they were legal, then they shouldn't be blamed, whereas if someone just took it for granted because they were in an over 18's club, then they could probably be held liable. Proving this type of thing is the exact reason we have court cases, otherwise we'd just have sentences being handed out without a trial.

And yes, it could require some re-education of the general public so as to keep themselves safe from prosecution.

whitetrash

I would have thought that meeting somebody in an over 18's club, it was resonable to assume they were over 18, had id checked at the door if they looked young, were deemed old enough by the managment of the club to be old enough to enter and be served drink.

astrofool

If you think the management of clubs do any sort of real checking on people, you are incredibly naive. Most clubs only really start really checking when close to being full. Thats a whole other problem to deal with, but fact is, the onus of responsibility is on the person themselves, and not the management of a club, that the person they have sex with is legal or not.

hepcat

This is going to cause mayhem...it is a very emotive topic, obviously, and seeing a 42yo let off on what has only recently become a loophole (well for 42year olds who rape drunk 12 year olds) just seems so wrong. Surely the conviction was lawful at that time, and surely there should be some temporary measure to fill the void left by the SC's decision rather than just letting all rapists of kids out because the law has changed..McDowell has already said he intends to take into account the age difference issue...

Well at least he had served half his sentence :rolleyes:

Thirdfox

Technically that law never existed (that's what a finding of unconstitutionality does) - that's why the guy can be set free after conviction. And unfortunately so can anyone else who has been convicted of this provision in the past, however long ago (as far as I know)...

whitetrash

astrofool wrote:

If you think the management of clubs do any sort of real checking on people, you are incredibly naive.

I don't believe appropriate checks are in place, but if an under 18 year old girl managed to get into the club who, I presume, are under similar rules to ensure nobody under the age gets in but were also fooled by this girl, plus the fact that I am aware of the law stating that nobody under the age of 18 should be there, then is it not resonable of me to assume that the law is being enforced (ie the club is successfully keeping under age people out) and that the girl is at least 18?

The evidence I have of her age is: 1) Her word, 2) She looks (presumably) at least 18, 3) she is in a place that is deemed by law to only allow people who are at least 18 entry. It seems my only other recourse would be to demand she produces ID :P

Sam Vimes

whitetrash wrote:

I don't believe appropriate checks are in place, but if an under 18 year old girl managed to get into the club who, I presume, are under similar rules to ensure nobody under the age gets in but were also fooled by this girl, plus the fact that I am aware of the law stating that nobody under the age of 18 should be there, then is it not resonable of me to assume that the law is being enforced (ie the club is successfully keeping under age people out) and that the girl is at least 18?

The evidence I have of her age is: 1) Her word, 2) She looks (presumably) at least 18, 3) she is in a place that is deemed by law to only allow people who are at least 18 entry. It seems my only other recourse would be to demand she produces ID :P

[joke. please don't flame]

if there's grass on the field you can play

[/joke. please don't flame]

astrofool

Well, look at it this way, if the club are caught with someone under 18, then they probably won't get into much trouble, if you sleep with her, then you could go to jail, so you're going to want to be at least alot more thorough than a club, which does indeed ask for ID.

Commander Vimes wrote:

[joke. please don't flame]

if there's grass on the field you can play

[/joke. please don't flame]

AFAIK, it's "If there's grass on the wicket, play cricket"

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3Fterm%3Dgrass%2Bon%2Bthe%2Bwicket&e=15235&ei=-3J8RMbVGLecRaCn_LMO

Saintly

The fact that this legislation was highlighted as being unsound as far back as 1990 says it all. We are a nation of kneejerk reactions. Everything is put on the long finger until ultimately the problem is well, biting at our ankles. It's evident in our social services, our civil service and in Irish politics. There is no accountability in political or public services in this country.

Essentially, our government accepts poor practice (this isn't a political statement, I think lack of accountability is a feature of Irish politics). Nobody will be held accountable for a) not acting when the legislation was identified as unsound b) not preparing (Dept of Justice, Equality AND Law Reform, hell it's in their title) alternative legislation, to have at hand, in the likely event that the unsound legislation would be thrown out by the Supreme Court. Just like no-one was held accountable for the PPARS fiasco, (civil servant moved sideways, despite inability to manage public funds). You can build a Port tunnel that does not meet the needs of the traffic population, you can spend millions on an unused electoral voting system, you can remain in government for years and fail to put an appropriate speed camera system in place - no accountability, no responsibility. The HSE head came on Prime Time last week and was quizzed about an earlier appearance he made in relation to Leas Cross - where he had clearly given inaccurate information. He acknowledged that at that time, he had been misinformed/ignorant of pertinent information (that was available to him at that time) of the case. No accountability - just a shoulder shrug and 'ah sure' attitude.

Instead we get kneejerk reactions - just like we got the ten point plan after media coverage of the Mater Crisis, just like we were promised the social service inspectorate after the Prime Time expose on Leas Cross, just like organised crime was tackled after the murder of Veronica Guerin, just like we had a warm hearted Peter McVerry FF get together after the trouncing on the doorsteps, etc. etc.

As long as this lack of accountability remains in Irish society, (I think it has as much to do with voters who vote on party lines consistently, regardless of performance or broken promises, as it has to do with politicians), situations like the present, will continue. Incidentally, the proposed changes to legislation sound promising and are in line with relevant research - bar age of consent, which I think the RCN are recommending as 17.

Saintly.

whitetrash

astrofool wrote:

Well, look at it this way, if the club are caught with someone under 18, then they probably won't get into much trouble, if you sleep with her, then you could go to jail, so you're going to want to be at least alot more thorough than a club, which does indeed ask for ID.

Ok, well you continue on asking every girl you're interested in for id. Good Luck to you, Sir

slipss

biko wrote:

Any adult (18+) that would fill up a child (-16) with drink and then have sex with her is just very very very wrong :mad:

Well I only kind of agree with you there, it all depends on the circumstances. Its one thing in the case described where a 42 year old man knew the girl was under alot younger than 16 and poured drink down her deliberatly cause he knew it would make it easier to take advantage of her. I dont think you can view that in the same light as an 18 year old guy buying a girl under 16, that he thought was older a lot of drink so he had a better chance to get off with her. I mean what fellas here havent been in a club chatting to a girl and kept buying here drinks (I mean you aren.t really just that genorous) or had a girl back in your flat and kept topping up her glass of wine. I mean be serious, thats what blokes do, and girls too for that matter.

Our man in Havana

Thirdfox wrote:

Technically that law never existed (that's what a finding of unconstitutionality does) - that's why the guy can be set free after conviction. And unfortunately so can anyone else who has been convicted of this provision in the past, however long ago (as far as I know)...

And probably claim compensation from the state for unlawful imprisonment.

astrofool

Bond-007 wrote:

And probably claim compensation from the state for unlawful imprisonment.

I'd imagine if they did try and do that, that the state would simply have them charged on whatever charge is then more appropriate, using the same evidence, that convicted them, as the first trial.

Our man in Havana

astrofool wrote:

I'd imagine if they did try and do that, that the state would simply have them charged on whatever charge is then more appropriate, using the same evidence, that convicted them, as the first trial.

Statute of Limitations would stop the state in their tracks.

Thirdfox

Also double jeopardy?

CuLT

Thirdfox wrote:

Also double jeopardy?

That's from American law if I'm not mistaken. Doesn't necessarily apply in Ireland, like many American laws that the Irish people seem to think are written into the Bible because they watch too much American television.

The Raspberrier

I wonder what the man's lawyer is like.

Thirdfox

CuLT wrote:

That's from American law if I'm not mistaken. Doesn't necessarily apply in Ireland, like many American laws that the Irish people seem to think are written into the Bible because they watch too much American television.

Read it in my law books too - it's not a binding principle (as in written in statute) I think but it is still common law afaik.

We share a lot of law with America (both common law jurisdictions), it's our European neighbours that we don't have a lot in common with.

*edit: see this Irish case here: double jeopardy

CuLT

Thirdfox wrote:

Read it in my law books too - it's not a binding principle (as in written in statute) I think but it is still common law afaik.

We share a lot of law with America (both common law jurisdictions), it's our European neighbours that we don't have a lot in common with.

*edit: see this Irish case here: double jeopardy

I would have presumed (not formally educated in law or anything) that our laws had more in common with English law?

Now, the strictness of "double jeopardy" in English law was only slackened a few years back, so I can only guess Ireland didn't follow suit, but maybe we did as much years ago.

Thirdfox

Well England spread her legal system all across the Empire so many countries have a common law system (the USA being one of them). I didn't know English law relaxed the rule on double jeopardy, would have thought it would be a fundamental breach of human rights... have you any links?

Sorry to OP. Perhaps should take this to the legal discussion forum?

CuLT

think this covers it in full.

And this offence would qualify for a retrial under this recently altered British law as one of the qualifying "serious crimes" is "sex with a girl under 13".

humanji

Well I know bugger all about law, but I did watch Matlock a lot, so I get the gist. My thinking (probably incorrect thinking) is that they arrested that guy for statutory rape. Can't they now try for an actual rape charge? I'd assume they went for the original option because it was an easy win (although giving him 3 yrs for what he did is crazy, imo), and they may be hard pressed to prove a rape charge, but can they still try?

And aslo, can someone dumb down what the judges reason for throwing out the charge was? I read it a couple of times and it's a legal mumbo jumbo to me.

Thirdfox

Thanks for the link... big change in English law then, surprised no one has taken a case to the European Court of Human Rights yet (maybe no one has been retried yet?)

Anyway - end of off topicness

edit: jomanji - the evidence needed to secure a rape conviction would be long gone by now, not to mention statute of limitations and double jeopardy defence (imo).

Basically (in my understanding) the guy was charged with stat. rape - open and shut case (back then, as no defence was available) => Convicted... Now after the recent Supreme Court ruling there are defences open to the accused, since he didn't get a chance to defend himself at the original trial there has been a miscarriage of justice (ironic!) and the conviction must be overturned.

No need to worry about legal loopholes for any further offenders, as they can use defences now (and it would seem if a similar case came up again the judge would not accept a defence of honest mistake).

second edit:
actually looking at the link Cult it states (further down the page):
"The DPP's consent may only be given to an application to the Court of Appeal if:

* There appears to be new and compelling evidence against the acquitted person in relation to the qualifying offence (as required by section 78);
* It is in the public interest for the application to proceed; and
* Any trial pursuant to an order on the application would not be inconsistent with obligations of the United Kingdom under Article 31 or 34 of the Treaty on European Union relating to the principle of ne bis idem [the right not to be prosecuted or tried twice for the same facts] section 76(4).

seems like a high obligation to meet... one would need new evidence, not present in this case I would think.

Pigman II

Nice touch having an advert for Smitwicks slap bang in the middle of an article about a paedo plying kids with drink!

The_Minister

Kersh wrote:

The long term answer to this will be decided upon at election time.
DONT VOTE THEM BACK IN>>>>>>>

This is hardly the fault of the government. Once the legislation was struck down they could really do nothing.

ODS

Surely the buck stops with the current Justice Minister. Either that or the previous Attourney General.... Oh, just noticed theyre the same person:rolleyes:

The_Minister

ODS wrote:

Surely the buck stops with the current Justice Minister. Either that or the previous Attourney General.... Oh, just noticed theyre the same person:rolleyes:

What could they do? If they had introduced the two-year gap then all the rape agencies would have called foul, and they cannot now put these people in jail when they commtted no crime.(technically)

ODS

Firespinner wrote:

This is hardly the fault of the government. Once the legislation was struck down they could really do nothing.

The flaw has been known about since 1990; since which the PDs have been in power for 3/4s of the time while FF have been in power for all but 2 years. Maybe this government should spend less time on passing legislation to destroy heritage sites, and more time on laws that protect our kids!