Justice Adrian Hardiman: The release of Mr A would be "a windfall" to which he has no entitlement in justice and would "negate the closure, solace and vindication" for the victim of his very grave crime, Mr Justice Adrian Hardiman said. It would also be an "affront to true social order".
The concrete facts of Mr A's case presented "a strong resistance" to setting aside his conviction and sentence on grounds of unconstitutionality of the offence. It was "scarcely possible to think of a less meritorious applicant" for release.
Now aged 40 and jailed for statutory rape of a 12-year-old friend of his daughter's, whose age he admitted he knew, Mr A was trying to "piggyback" on the case of CC, an 18-year-old man whose challenge to the constitutionality of the law on statutory rape was upheld.
The facts of the two cases were "in stark contrast". CC brought his challenge before his trial while Mr A did not. CC denied the offence, claimed the intercourse was consensual and that he was told by his alleged victim she was 16.
Mr A pleaded guilty and admitted he knew his victim's age. There was no evidence he had suffered any injustice or oppression.
CC had challenged the constitutionality of Section 1.1 of the 1935 Act and the Supreme Court had upheld his claim that the fact he could not make a defence of honest mistake about the girl's age rendered Section 1.1 5 unconstitutional.
Mr A brought no such challenge and would not have had the necessary legal standing to do so.
In much of the "often intentionally alarmist" coverage of the Mr A case, it had escaped attention that Mr A's lawyer was unable to point to any case, Irish or foreign, in which a declaration of unconstitutionality was applied retrospectively to invalidate a past case on the application of an uninvolved party such as Mr A.
No-one else has succeeded to date in impeaching a conviction or sentence arising under a law and imposed prior to another person succeeding in having that law declared unconstitutionl.
In freeing Mr A, the High Court failed to distinguish between the Section 1.1 law itself and transactions carried out under it.
The High Court erred in ruling that, because of the established unconstitutionality of Section 1.1, there must be a finding of nullity for all transactions under it.