Challenge to 'Romeo and Juliet' law rejected

97i9y3941

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0326/court.html

A man who is charged with having sex with a 14-year-old girl when he was 15 has lost his High Court challenge to the law under which he is charged.

The now 18-year-old man had claimed that the law that allows him to be prosecuted was old-fashioned gender-based discrimination for which the State had no justification.

He is charged under the so called 'Romeo and Juliet' law - Criminal Law Offences Act 2006. He faces a maximum of five years in jail if convicted.
Advertisement

Under the same act, a girl under 17 cannot be charged with an offence for engaging in sexual activity.

At the hearing last December his lawyers said it was a gender-based law that proceeded on the basis that the boy was the 'guilty party' and the girl was the 'comely maiden' whose virtue must be protected.

Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne gave her ruling this morning.

Ms Justice said it was clear from studies that the adverse affect of underage sex, such as pregnancy, early parenthood and resulting lower educational and occupational attainment, fall to a greater extent on girls than boys.

She said that far from being an example of good old-fashioned discrimination or a form of rough equalisation, as contented by lawyers for the young man, the law provided a limited immunity to girls in the one area of sexual activity that can result in pregnancy.

She said society was entitled to deter such activity and to place the burden of criminal sanction on those who bear the least adverse consequences of such activity. She said the act goes no further than was necessary to achieve this object.

Last December, Senior Counsel for the young man, Gerard Hogan told the court that a conviction for a sexual offence for a boy of 15 who engaged in consensual sexual activity was a 'savage penalty'.

He said that while no-one would suggest that pregnancy in a young girl was something to be countenanced, there was no comparison between pregnancy and the prosecution for a sexual offence that would destroy a young life.

The legislation was enacted in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling that found that the laws governing statutory rape were unconstitutional because they did not allow for a defence of reasonable mistake about a girl's age.

The State had argued that the law was there to protect young people, both male and female, and was not paternalistic.

Lawyers for the State said the 2006 law was just one piece of legislation where gender discrimination was made, as it had never been considered that females could perform the same sexual acts as males.

Similar gender-specific laws applied in other jurisdictions and reflected a pattern repeated throughout out law-making and dating back as far as AD 760, the court was told.

The case may now be appealed to the Supreme Court. A criminal prosecution against the young man will remain on hold for the moment.

i dont know what to make of this case,i think it was bit bizarre one way that boy/man can be convicted of it if it was consent and both near same age,i know in the eyes of law its wrong due to below consent age,anyways what do you make of it?...

Chuchoter

I'm a 16 year old girl and I find it highly offensive the law has decided I'm too bloody stupid to say no to a boy. Seriously, we're not all dim-witted bimbos who don't realize sex=pregnancy. It doesn't matter that the consequences are more severe for me, we both had the same choice to make: have sex or don't have sex. Its up to the girl to make the right decision, if she's not going to, then fine, but no-one should molly-coddle her and say "Oh you poor dear; that nasty,horny boy was just too smart for your woman brain"

flogen

Moved to AH.

Dohnny Jepp

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055866378

We already have one, so you media folk can keep this one:P

skyhighflyer

Stupid ruling. Well, roll on the Supreme Court appeal.

Mike 1972

On this principle should motorcyclists be declared exempt from the motorway speed limit since in the event of them hitting any other vehicle they are likely to come off worst ?

MaybeLogic

Mike 1972 wrote: »

On this principle should motorcyclists be declared exempt from the motorway speed limit since in the event of them hitting any other vehicle they are likely to come off worst ?

Don't be silly.
You can't get pregnant from a motorbike crash.

Mike 1972

Surely that depends on where the motorcyclist lands

UrbanSea

This has to be one of the most stupidest trials of all time. 5 years in prison is a possibility? One of the many laws that were created in B.C Ireland that need to be seriously ammended.

strobe

greetings wrote: »

One of the many laws that were created in B.C Ireland that need to be seriously ammended.

It would be somewhat understandable if the law was created a long time ago when people thought differently. The sad thing is the law was written circa 2006......

UrbanSea

strobe wrote: »

It would be somewhat undestandable if the law was created a long time ago when people thought differently. The sad thing is the law was written circa 2006......

Are you serious?:eek: I thought I read somewhere it was 1926 or something..

UrbanSea

Wait,I just saw a photo of the judge. It's no wonder she is upholding it.
She hardly got sex at 14... or any other age.

MagicMarker

crayolastereo wrote: »

I'm a 16 year old girl

Giggidy, giggidy, gig-gi-dy!

Mark200

I think the reason for the law is that the Government doesn't want to encourage abortion. For example, if the 14 year old girl had gotten pregnant and had a baby then there is no way she could deny breaking the law around the age of consent. So if she did get pregnant, she may feel under pressure to get an abortion to hide the fact that she broke the law.

In that sense it is somewhat understandable, but when you consider that a male can get convicted as a sex offender and a girl, who does the exact same thing, can't. Then it's pretty ridiculous.

Seaneh

he is being tried as an adult for a law he broke when he was 15? that's retarded. If he was 20 and ****ed a 14 year old then yeah, it would make sense to try him as an adult but this is taking the piss.

also, the law is completely flawed, the legal oweness is always on the male.

so if you have a 13 year old male and a 16 year old female it is still the male who gets prosecuted, wtf?

OutlawPete

Seaneh wrote: »

he is being tried as an adult for a law he broke when he was 15? that's retarded. If he was 20 and ****ed a 14 year old then yeah, it would make sense to try him as an adult but this is taking the piss.

also, the law is completely flawed, the legal oweness is always on the male.

so if you have a 13 year old male and a 16 year old female it is still the male who gets prosecuted, wtf?

Yeah, but girls are made of sugar and spice and all things nice.

UrbanSea

OutlawPete wrote: »

Yeah, but girls are made of sugar and spice and all things nice.

And fight off the forces of evil,i.e intercourse.



They always beat me in the fight:(

Tigger

I think that it's not that girls should also be criminalises but that neither should

97i9y3941

i wonder will this lead to more cases...

Tigger

naw i hope this means that the girls will make sure they don't let thiert parents find outa bouta thier lovers

OutlawPete

Tigger wrote: »

naw i hope this means that the girls will make sure they don't let thiert parents find outa bouta thier lovers

Sure the girls have nothing to fear.

They can have sex at 15 or 16 with their similar aged boyfriend and know that if caught, only the boy will be prosecuted.

Crazy situation.

Tigger

True but
I hope that most of them will realise that it's importa to keep stchum

Fear Uladh

greetings wrote: »

And fight off the forces of evil,i.e intercourse.



They always beat me in the fight:(

Haha reminds me of the Seinfeld episode were Jerry has a chessmatch between his Brain and Penis. While very funny it was extremely inaccurate.

Sharpshooter

flogen wrote: »

Moved to AH.

Thread already here.