Minister for Justice Michael McDowell is urgently examining yesterday's Supreme Court judgment striking down the law making it an automatic crime to have sex with a girl under 15, writes Carol Coulter, Legal Affairs Correspondent.
The law as it stood meant that no question of consent could arise if a man had sexual intercourse with a girl under 17, and the maximum penalty for sex with a girl under 15 was life imprisonment.
The case was brought by a young man who had consensual sex with a 14-year-old girl who told him she was 16. He was 18 at the time. He was facing four charges of statutory rape under the 1935 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act when he brought the challenge to the Act. He said it was unconstitutional because it was not open to him to claim he honestly believed she was older or that he had made an honest mistake.
Yesterday the Supreme Court upheld his challenge to Section 1.1 of the Act, which outlaws sex with girls under 15, providing for severe penalties. Section 2, prohibiting sex with girls under 17 with lesser penalties, remains in place for the moment.
While accepting that a person should be able to advance a defence of honest belief about a girl's age, the court made it clear that "the protection of young girls from engaging in consensual sexual intercourse . . . is a legitimate end to be pursued by appropriate means".
It pointed out that the Law Reform Commission, in 1990, had proposed reform of the existing law to allow for a person to put forward a defence of honest belief, for which there were reasonable grounds, that a girl had reached the age of consent.
According to legal sources, the ruling means that none of the cases at present awaiting trial can now go ahead. There are seven such cases in the system.
In the past few years 54 cases of statutory rape have gone through the courts. It is unclear what will now happen to those convicted, but it is likely that the convictions can be struck down. Those who have had such convictions since 2001 were also placed on the Sex Offenders Register and they can now apply to have their names removed.
The judgment prompted calls for urgent action from Opposition parties and campaigning organisations yesterday.
Fine Gael spokesman Jim O'Keeffe called on the Minister for Justice to produce legislation as a matter of urgency and to explain why he failed to act on the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission.
The Labour Party's Kathleen Lynch called for those sections of the 1935 Act that were found to be repugnant to the Constitution to be replaced "with a modern law which provides adequate protection for the young".
The ISPCC said it believed that the decision would have significant implications for the prosecution of child sexual abuse offences.
The Rape Crisis Network also appealed for the implementation of the LRC proposals.
Ruling means law will have to be amended: page 4