age of sexual consent

DanOB

what is the age of sexual consent in ireland for both genders?

what laws are their surrounding someone under the age of 18 having sexual intercourse with another person under the age of 18?

im writing an essay on it, anything else i should know?

thanks alot!

Saruman

17 i think.

Rhonda9000

17, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

Lesser punishments for sex with minors >15 years.

Refer to Crim Law (Sex Offences) Act 2006.

shoelaceface

hmmm you should bring in that court case that was going on a year or two ago about statutory rape. i think the man was sent to court for being with an underage girl and she claimed to be older and therefore over the age at the time. the point being that if the person claims they are older then the person shouldnt be convicted! caused huge controversy!

mikemac

And it works regardless of gender?

So to use an example, a female teacher in her 20's sleeps with her 15 year old student.
Will the teacher be charged with statuory rape?

I mean you hear about men being prosecuted but I can think only one case of a women being brought to court and that was in America.
Sorry if this was clearly answered already, just giving an example to help me understand it

Rhonda9000

In the C case, the statutory child rapist succeeded in having his conviction quashed on the basis that he was unable to avail of the defence of honest mistake as regards the girls age. This precedent saw the temporary release of child rapists.

The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 was the emergency response to this and remains the law on the matter today.

Greenmachine

micmclo wrote: »

And it works regardless of gender?

So to use an example, a female teacher in her 20's sleeps with her 15 year old student.
Will the teacher be charged with statuory rape?

I mean you hear about men being prosecuted but I can think only one case of a women being brought to court and that was in America.
Sorry if this was clearly answered already, just giving an example to help me understand it

If the student was a girl and the teacher a women more than likely alot of peeps would be calling foul play. If the student was a guy he would be the envy of his friends and his father would prolly think damn my son has more game than me. Lucky bugger.

Realistically the women is less likely to be prosecuted but every now and again you hear about one being prosecuted.

Rhonda9000

micmclo wrote: »

And it works regardless of gender?

So to use an example, a female teacher in her 20's sleeps with her 15 year old student.
Will the teacher be charged with statuory rape?

I mean you hear about men being prosecuted but I can think only one case of a women being brought to court and that was in America.
Sorry if this was clearly answered already, just giving an example to help me understand it

Yes, it is gender neutral. Yes, the teacher can be charged with statutory rape (I presume by "sleeps with" you mean has sex with ). Thanks to the Crim Law (Sex Off) Act of 2006, the teacher would face lesser punishments than had she e.g. had sex with a 14 year old student.

Rhonda9000

Greenmachine wrote: »

If the student was a girl and the teacher a women more than likely alot of peeps would be calling foul play. If the student was a guy he would be the envy of his friends.

The State still refers to it as statutory rape.

johnnyskeleton

DanOB wrote: »

what laws are their surrounding someone under the age of 18 having sexual intercourse with another person under the age of 18?

There was a lot of criticism of the 2006 Act because it did not contain a Romeo & Juliet clause i.e. provision for a couple aged, for example, 18 and 16. Some American states have such provisions and they make a lot of sense. The closest we have here is that if the offender is aged within 24 months of the victim if he/she is convicted the provisions of the sex offenders act (i.e. sex offender registration and obligations) do not apply to them, which is cold comfort to someone convicted of what arguably should not be an offence. The 2006 Act was very rushed (it was presented, passed, signed and commenced in a day) and there was talk of revisiting it at a later date, but knowing our government they will forget about it until it is found unconstitional (and I believe it will be found unconstitutional, there is a case pending before the courts).

DanOB

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

There was a lot of criticism of the 2006 Act because it did not contain a Romeo & Juliet clause i.e. provision for a couple aged, for example, 18 and 16. Some American states have such provisions and they make a lot of sense. The closest we have here is that if the offender is aged within 24 months of the victim if he/she is convicted the provisions of the sex offenders act (i.e. sex offender registration and obligations) do not apply to them, which is cold comfort to someone convicted of what arguably should not be an offence. The 2006 Act was very rushed (it was presented, passed, signed and commenced in a day) and there was talk of revisiting it at a later date, but knowing our government they will forget about it until it is found unconstitional (and I believe it will be found unconstitutional, there is a case pending before the courts).

so your saying that a couple, aged 16 and 15 are not commiting any offences?

johnnyskeleton

DanOB wrote: »

so your saying that a couple, aged 16 and 15 are not commiting any offences?

No they are*, and that's the problem.

*except that where they have sexual intercourse the girl is not committing an offence but they guy is.

DanOB

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No they are*, and that's the problem.

*except that where they have sexual intercourse the girl is not committing an offence but they guy is.

how is that legal? to have the male commiting an offence but not the female? surely there's gender equality issues there?

johnnyskeleton

DanOB wrote: »

how is that legal? to have the male commiting an offence but not the female? surely there's gender equality issues there?

There are, which is primarily why I believe it will be found unconstitutional.

Spike440

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No they are*, and that's the problem.

*except that where they have sexual intercourse the girl is not committing an offence but they guy is.

Sorry I seem to have missed something here. The provisions are gender neutral, so ... how?

Tom Young

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

There are, which is primarily why I believe it will be found unconstitutional.

So do I.

The provisions are not gender neutral, to previous poster.

Spike440

Ah I made the mistake of not looking up the provision before posting.

sid4lev

This is unlikely to be found unconstitutional. The government, at the time of its enactment, foresaw the potential gender inequality issues but gave the following reasons for the law being the way it is:
Say if guy and girl are both under 17 and have sex. Girl gets pregnant.
DPPs case: look at her belly=unequivocal proof=conviction.
This is against public policy BIG time. The girl is basically self-incriminating herself!! Even if it arises as a constitutional issue in the future, balancing test will be adopted but the latter imho will win out.

sid4lev

btw all of the provisions are gender neutral EXCEPT for the abovementioned exception: when girl under 17 having sexual intercourse (penis in vagina; she can be prosecuted for any other type of sex).

Our man in Havana

Is there protection from self incrimination?

sid4lev

there is plenty of protection against self-incrimination in several criminal instances but in case like the one mentioned above, although the court could technically rule out the evidence of pregnancy due to self-incrimination the trial would become a farce. The point is that it is completely against public policy/morality for the government to enact legislation that could potentially leave open the possibility of a girl being convicted for statutory rape based on evidence of her pregnancy. The government, when making legislation, cannot assume "that maybe the court will rule out this evidence on the basis of self-incrimination"....and like i said above, if this were to happen the trial would become a bit of a joke-ie-the girl would be arguing that she didnt have sex when she's clearly pregnant! do you know what i mean?

Our man in Havana

I would expect the Gardaí/DPP to have the cop on not to bring such a case.

sid4lev

You're dead right-such a case would never ever be brought.
However, my point is that the government CANNOT enact legislation that could "in theory" allow this to happen - im just trying to explain why the law is the way it is-this is all theoretical. Imagine if the 2006 act didnt have the above exception and one morning you get the paper which is headlined "DPP contemplating prosecuting pregnant 15 year old for statutory rape" - there would be public outcry even if the DPP dont bring the case, the simple fact that our law would "in theory" permit this would be unacceptable. That is why an under 17 year old girl cant be tried for statutroy rape in cases of intercourse.