Six men, including the man at the centre of the "C" case, have appeared in court charged with sexual assault after charges of unlawful carnal knowledge against them were dropped.
The six men - aged between 20 and 43 - had nolle prosequientered this morning on charges of unlawful carnal knowledge, which means the State will no longer proceed with that charge.
They were originally charged with this offence which was deemed by the Supreme Court last May to be unconstitutional.
Following their release this morning all six were subsequently re-arrested and charged with sexual assault offences. At Dublin District Court this afternoon, the man at the centre of the "C" case was charged with four counts of sexual assault. Five other men were each charged with sexual assault. All were freed on bail with varying conditions.
The six men include a Nigerian now living in Dublin and three other men living in the capital. No details on the sixth man can be made public.
The cases have been sent for trial to the Circuit Criminal Courts, where the book of evidence will be served.
In Dublin Circuit Criminal Court the Director of Public Prosecutions had asked Judge Bryan McMahon to discontinue the unlawful carnal knowledge proceedings against the men, including "Mr C", because it intended to bring the new charges of sexual assault.
Judge McMahon was told yesterday that the DPP's move came following consideration of Supreme Court ruling that section 1.1 of the 1935 Criminal Law Amendment Act, concerning unlawful carnal knowledge, was unconstitutional.
Judge McMahon said the application for a nolle prosequiin the "C" case was the DPP's considered respsonse to decisions made in the higher courts on the matter. "Mr C" had been charged with four counts of unlawful knowledge of a girl under the age of 15 at four different locations between July 20th, 2001 and August 10th, 2001.
He said in declaring section 1.1 of the 1935 Criminal Law Amendment Act unconstitutional the Supreme Court has not detailed "the knock-on effects of its decision generally or for the "C" case in particular".
Judge McMahon rejected the defence argument that he did not have jurisdiction in the case and said it was up to him to deal with the "procedural aftermath" of this particular case and analogous cases that were before the courts.
Yesterday, Marie Torrens, defending, had said it was quite clear that the unconstitutionality of section 1.1 of the 1935 Act had been decided by the Supreme Court in the C case and that the subsequent A case had then arisen in relation to unlawful detention.
Judge McMahon said in overturning Miss Justice Laffoy's decision to release Mr A, the Supreme Court had not suggested that she was wrong to hear the case.
He said he was now addressing the legal fall out of those decisions and given the nature and history of nolle prosequithere was no "substantial prejudice" to the defendant in granting that decision.
Judge McMahon also said it was his opinion that if the DPP applies for nolle prosequiin similar cases it should be granted unless "different or special circumstances" applied.
