Two men convicted of raping underage girls had their applications to be released adjourned by the High Court yesterday. A third man withdrew his application.
Simon Murphy (53) is serving an eight-year sentence, with the last two years suspended, for sexual assault and unlawful carnal knowledge of four girls, one of them his sister, over a period of 25 years. He is due for release in December.
He applied for release following the initially successful application for release of Mr A in the High Court last week. However, on Friday last week the Supreme Court ruled that Mr A, who had pleaded guilty to raping a 12-year-old girl, should not have been released.
In the High Court yesterday, Murphy's counsel said he was withdrawing his application.
At the same hearing, a similar application from another man was adjourned until June 19th, with permission to re-enter it if there were developments in the meantime as to the full reasons for the Supreme Court decision becoming available.
Another man, who is seeking to have Section 2 of the 1935 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act declared unconstitutional, had his application for bail adjourned until June 19th. He is serving 18 months for unlawful carnal knowledge of a 15-year-old girl, and claims that Section 2 of the Act, which prohibits sexual intercourse with girls between 15 and 17, is unconstitutional because it does not allow for any defence of mistake as to the age of the girl. This is the ground on which Section 1 (1) of the Act, prohibiting sex with girls under 15, was struck down two weeks ago.
His counsel, Martin Giblin SC, said he was seeking bail pending the hearing of his challenge to the Act. He would be claiming that he sought to make the defence that he thought the girl was 17 or older, but, following legal advice that he could not make any such defence, he pleaded guilty.
George Birmingham SC, for the State, said that the procedure was premature, and should await the ruling from the Supreme Court. He said this man's case differed from the CC case. A number of arguments were put forward in the Supreme Court that might be relevant. He said the man should not be granted bail until the Supreme Court decision was known.
Mr Justice Gilligan adjourned the bail hearing to June 19th.