The unlawful carnal knowledge legal controversy has continued at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court with the State seeking to discontinue the current proceedings against the man in the C case and others but with the intention to start new proceedings.
Barristers for the Director of Public Prosecutions asked Judge Bryan McMahon to enter a nolle prosequi on the current charges against Mr C and other accused to discharge them from their indictments and said it was intended to re-charge Mr C and some of the other accused with sexual assault.
Judge McMahon adjourned his judgment to today and remanded all the men on continuing bail.
Judge McMahon was told that the DPP's move came following consideration of last May's Supreme Court ruling that section 1.1 of the 1935 Criminal Law Amendment Act, concerning unlawful carnal knowledge, was unconstitutional.
Marie Torrens, defending, asked Des Zaidan, prosecuting in the C case, to point out "the place in law" which gave the court jurisdiction to allow a nolle prosequi to be entered. She argued that the Supreme Court ruling meant that the only thing the court could do was to make no order.
Mr Zaidan submitted that the return for trial as set out in the District Court and the subsequent indictment stating the charges against Mr C were "lawful, proper and valid".
He said the Supreme Court never made any ruling in relation to the validity of these documents and they were never challenged following the ruling.
He asked to be allowed enter a nolle prosequi so that the DPP could bring a "finality to these specific charges".
Ms Torrens claimed that the DPP intended to discharge Mr C from these charges and as soon as he left court he would "be lifted by the DPP and charged with other offences". She added if the court made no order, it would not be prejudicial to the DPP.
Other prosecuting barristers adopted Mr Zaidan's argument and asked that five other men be discharged from the charges laid against them.
It was generally indicated that the men would be re-charged with sexual offences.
Geraldine Small, defending one of these men, said that her client wished to vacate a guilty plea he had already entered and indicated that she would have no difficulty with the DPP entering a nolle prosequi in relation to this man.
Ms Torrens told Judge Katherine Delahunt, on an earlier date, that the DPP had "no further function" in the C case and that she was bringing the matter back to the higher courts.
Ms Torrens 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.
She said Ms Justice Mary Laffoy had released Mr A and the Supreme Court had overturned that decision. The Supreme Court had made it quite clear in the C case that section 1.1 was unconstitutional.
She said her client had not pleaded guilty and would have relied on the defence of "honest mistake" as to age.