A howl of outrage is the only appropriate response. Suddenly we are told that it is no longer a crime, indeed has not been since 1937, for an adult man to have sex with a young girl. How could this be? asks Mary Raftery
We all thought that children were protected by the law and we certainly all wished them to be. The conclusion that there is something fundamentally wrong with our system is inescapable.
So where precisely does the problem lie? Is it with the courts and the judges, who appear to be able to flout the public will? Or perhaps with the Constitution, which (it could be argued) places a higher value on the rights of a paedophile over those of his victim or even the public good?
What about the Government and the Oireachtas, whose job it is to enact just laws which protect citizens, particularly children, without abrogating the rights of others? It is easy to rail against the legal system, the courts and the judiciary in this context. After all, it is they who are most directly responsible for the release of a man who admitted to plying a young child with drink and then raping her.
However, on analysing the judgment of the Supreme Court, it is not sustainable to blame the legal system for the current fiasco. Its decision was exemplary for the clarity with which it upheld the human and constitutional rights of the individual.
In the red mist of rage currently and quite rightly consuming the country, we all might wish for a flaw in the court's argument, for some basis to contend that certain individuals, by virtue of the heinous nature of their crimes, should be denied the protection of the Constitution.
However, to do so would ultimately remove from all of us one of the critical foundation stones of our democracy, namely our right to be treated fairly by the law. This fundamental right is conferred upon us by the constitution and is policed by the Supreme Court. It prevents, for example, the enacting of any legislation by our elected representatives which may infringe that right. It is a vital safeguard which we undermine at our peril.
In this case, the Supreme Court's conclusion was simple and limited to a single point: it is unjust, therefore unconstitutional, to forbid an individual charged with unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under 15 the defence that he made an honest mistake about her age. It could lead to a blameless person being liable to life imprisonment. The remedy is equally straightforward - it is simply to permit such a defence.
According to the Supreme Court, this difficulty with the law protecting children should have be known about since 1970, when it arose in a UK case. Even our own Law Reform Commission pointed it out in 1990.
As Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Michael McDowell carries the Government can for this. One of the straws at which he desperately clutched this week is that the Law Reform Commission never actually argued that section 1 (1) of the 1935 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act was unconstitutional. This is indeed true, but it is a somewhat slippery straw from the Minister's perspective.
What the Law Reform Commission did say was that there was general agreement that the law was "unduly harsh" and could lead to the "possibility of serious injustice".
To describe a law in such a way is tantamount to saying that it may be unconstitutional. As it is a function of the Constitution to ensure that laws are just, it must follow that if a particular law is considered unjust or unfair, then it may also be deemed unconstitutional.
Mr McDowell's argument that there was no warning about the relevant law is thus not even remotely credible.
Looking even closer to home for the Minister is the Department of Justice's own 1998 discussion paper on sexual offences. This stated that "it can be argued that the present law denying a defence to the accused is unfair".
So not only did Michael McDowell's own department signal serious difficulties with the relevant law, but it should also be remembered that he himself became Attorney General shortly after that discussion paper was published. It would consequently have fallen to him to deal with the issues it raised. As we now know, he simply ignored them.
As the Government flails about trying to remedy legal defects which should have been addressed decades ago, what may happen next is even worse. John Adams was convicted three years ago of the unlawful carnal knowledge of three little girls, aged six, eight and 10.
Described in court as the worst case ever seen, he raped them over a period of years, while forcing them to take photographs of each other being defiled.
Adams received four life sentences. Should he apply to the courts - and he has already appealed once - it is perfectly possible, even likely, that he will secure early release.
At that point, if they have any semblance of decency left, Michael McDowell and the Government of which he is part should fall on their swords.