30 May 2006
Child rapist freed by woman judge
Okay, something is fecked up here when a 41 year old man can coerce a 12 year old child to become intoxicated by buying her alcoholic drinks--7 of them--and then when she gets up in the night because she is sick, he rapes her. Excuse me if I don't say that he had sexual intercourse with her as I believe when you deliberately get a young girl drunk and then have sex with her, that is RAPE. I don't care what the woman judge who has gone out of her way to protect this man's identity by referring to him only as 'Mr A', calls it. In fact, this judge's so-called reasoning needs to be examined in that the man has already previously admitted that he KNEW the girl was 12. None of this bullshit of saying oh, gee, I thought she was 16 or 17 or 20. No, he KNEW damn well she was 12, he got her drunk, and he had sex with her. How much more guilty under the law of having sex with underage children can you get? Yet Justic Mary Laffoy has freed the man without any further ado. Can somebody explain to me why this so-called judge--who needs her credentials yanked--can free a convicted sex offender? This is utter bullshit.
High Court urged not to free sex offender
29/05/2006 - 17:56:58
The High Court was warned today that it is wholly inconceivable to set free a convicted sex offender following the Supreme Court ruling that men who have sex with a minor should not automatically be deemed guilty of rape.
Turning the rules of the age of consent on their head, the five-judge court ruled last Tuesday it is unconstitutional to convict a man who admits to having sex with a child if he does not know their true age.
But counsel for the Attorney General and the Governor of Arbour Hill Prison Gerard Hogan SC told the Hugh Court that it should reject an application to free a 41-year-old man who admitted the unlawful carnal knowledge of a 12-year-old girl.
The man, who cannot be named, pleaded guilty in November 2004 to one count of sexual assault.
At the time he revealed that he knew the girl’s true age.
His lawyer Connor Devally SC made an application to the High Curt to have him freed.
Mr Devally said the man’s incarceration was unconstitutional as the law he was convicted under no longer existed.
Ms Justice Mary Laffoy made an order that the man only be referred to as Mr A.
“This is an application that is simply saying I am being held on foot of a warrant founded solely on a provision that is not law,” Mr Devally told the court.
“I think it is ludicrous or absurd to suggest that Mr A while being held under a statute that is not law cannot complain about it.”
Mr Devally told the court there was no issue of compensation and that the court should not concern itself with the consequences of releasing the convicted sex offender.
He insisted the only issue at stake was Mr A’s liberty.
“I do not stand here and say the conviction is invalid nor do I stand here and say the sentence is invalid. I am saying simply that there is no longer a lawful mechanism for the respondent to hold Mr A,” Mr Devally told the court.
He went on to say that to continue Mr A’s incarceration would be to perpetuate a known unconstitutionality.
The court was told that in November 2004 the man, who is in Arbour Hill Prison, was jailed for three years at the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court after being convicted of unlawful carnal knowledge of an underage girl.
Mr A was 26 years older than the victim at the time of the offence.
His application to the High Court came less than a week after the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the 1935 law under which any man is automatically guilty of a crime if he has sex with a girl under 15.
But Mr Hogan SC told the court that granting the convict freedom would in effect give him a windfall bonus following the Supreme Court ruling.
“These are matters that can only be properly ventilated in judicial review proceedings,” Mr Hogan said.
“There is a large stone in the road which he is now challenging and the stone in the road is his conviction.”
Mr Hogan told the court that due to the large age difference between the victim and her attacker it was difficult to see how he could use the ruling from the Supreme Court to secure an order for his freedom.
“Given the disparity of ages between the victim and Mr A, 12 and 36, it’s very hard to see how under any possible circumstances he could have raised that argument,” Mr Hogan said.
“Why should he be allowed to get that benefit after. Why should he... be allowed to march through the resulting gap in the statute.”
Ms Justice Laffoy will give judgement in the case at the High Court tomorrow.
Court frees man who had sex with 12-year-old
30/05/2006 - 14:49:43
A convicted sex offender who plied a 12-year-old girl with drink before having sex with her was today set free after a High Court judge ruled his imprisonment was unlawful.
The 41-year-old man was halfway through a three-year jail term for unlawful carnal knowledge of the child and applied to be released on the grounds that his detention was unconstitutional.
When he had sex with the youngster in 2003 he was 26 years older than her.
Ms Justice Mary Laffoy told the court the law he was convicted under no longer stood following last week’s Supreme Court ruling that men who have sex with underage girls should not automatically be deemed guilty of rape.
Counsel for the State, Paul Anthony McDermott SC applied to the court to put a stay on the release pending an appeal to the Supreme Court, but the judge refused the application.
The judge said the Supreme Court had struck down Section 1.1 of the Criminal Law Act, 1935 in its entirety with the effect that that section ceased to have legislative existence when created in 1937.
In her ruling she said thereafter there was no statutory offence of unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of 15.
“To put it another way, the offence with which the applicant was charged did not exist in law when it was purported to charge him with it, nor at the respective dates of his purported conviction and sentencing,” the judge said.
Ms Justice Laffoy told the court the only consequence of the Supreme Court declaration that she was concerned with was whether or not Mr A’s detention was unlawful.
And she said submissions made by lawyers for Arbour Hill Prison that the only appropriate course of action for Mr A was a judicial review of his conviction were inappropriate.
“The contention is that the conviction remains valid on its face. In my view that submission is not correct,” the judge said.
“In the light of the declaration by the Supreme Court of the inconsistency of Section 1.1, the only offence of which the applicant was convicted, the conviction is a nullity and the warrant is bad on its face.
“I would see no sense whatsoever in the applicant pursuing a remedy in judicial review proceedings to quash a conviction, a sentence, and a warrant which are patently bad.”
Costs in the matter will be determined at a later stage and it was also indicated to the court that the decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court.