A brief account of some of the arguments put forward by counsel for Mr A Gerard Conor Devally SC and the State represented by Gerard Hogan SC .
FOR THE APPEAL: It would be a triumph of "abstract logic" over justice if Mr A benefited from the overturning of the law on statutory rape, counsel for the State Gerard Hogan SC, said. It would mean the State, including its judicial arm, had failed in its duty to protect persons.
The Constitution was not just a "marvellous charter" of freedom, liberty and justice, but also a charter of order which included a right of victims to have their bodily integrity protected.
Law was not "a pure science" and loses its vital meaning if it was not correlated to the organic society in which it lives, Mr Hogan argued. There was no dispute that Mr A knew the age of his victim. Nor had he appealed against his conviction. Mr A must also have been aware that, by pleading guilty, he might secure a benefit in relation to the length of sentence imposed.
AGAINST THE APPEAL: Conor Devally SC, argued the liberty of the individual was a fundamental, unqualified and mandatory right under our Constitution which "plainly and unambiguously" states that no persons may be deprived of that right except "in accordance with law". The court should guard against being influenced by the "grave disquiet" surrounding Mr A's release.
The right to liberty was not hedged by qualifications of balance or civil rights, or by an overview of what the people might regard as the justice of a person's incarceration, but was plainly and unambiguously stated.
As of May 23rd, when the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional Section 1.1 of the 1935 Criminal Law Amendment Act, the offence on foot of which Mr A was convicted no longer existed. From that date on, there was no lawful reason to continue the detention.