A successful constitutional challenge led to a public outcry and political controversy, writes Alison Healy
Mr C had challenged the original charges of unlawful carnal knowledge, claiming they were unconstitutional.
On May 23rd this year, the Supreme Court agreed, saying Section 1.1 of the 1935 Act was unconstitutional because it did not allow the defendant to use the defence that he believed the girl was over the legal age.
The offences were alleged to have occurred in July/August 2001 when the girl was 14 and Mr C was 18.
Mr C's successful challenge caused a public outcry and political turmoil, with people fearing that child rapists would be set free from prison and charges would be dropped against others.
A number of such applications were swiftly made and one man, Mr A, successfully sought his release from prison on the grounds that the law under which he had been convicted was unconstitutional.
This High Court decision was overturned by the Supreme Court following an appeal by the State. The Supreme Court found that the striking down of a law as unconstitutional did not invalidate all actions taken under that law.
Mr A had pleaded guilty to the rape of a 12-year-old girl after plying her with alcohol. According to the Supreme Court ruling, Mr A could not have taken a case challenging the constitutionality of the unlawful carnal knowledge law and was not entitled to benefit from someone else doing so.
The Government came under fire for its inaction on the issue when it emerged that, in 1990, the Law Reform Commission recommended that the law be changed to allow those accused of sex offences against young girls to defend themselves on the grounds that they genuinely believed that the girl involved was above the age of consent.
At first, the Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, claimed that the Supreme Court decision "isn't the gaping void that some people are arguing" but within weeks the Oireachtas had rushed through legislation which allows for the defence of honest belief as to the age of the girl.
The new legislation carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment - the same as the old penalty for unlawful carnal knowledge. However, new legislation cannot be retrospectively applied so the DPP can only seek to initiate new proceedings based on the laws at the time of the offences.
The DPP's application to drop proceedings and initiate new ones is not an unusual move; charges have often been changed before the Circuit Criminal Court in the past. However, this case is rather different, given that the original charges were found to be unconstitutional.