Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
A failure to prepare
Read more about: Government, Youth
The case which has lead to the voiding of a section of law intended to protect children from sexual predators is another example of a failure to plan or anticipate outcomes. Surely, the judicial system including the AG’s office and the dept of justice was aware that this case was coming before the Supreme Court. And the possibility that the court might rule in favour of the plaintiff must have occurred to someone at some level. And it would be expected that some thought would have gone into how to address that outcome and what knock on effects it might have.
This is not necessarily party political in the sense of what party A would have done differently rather would someone other than the individuals in the current jobs have done something different? In fact FF members are entitled to ask what might the Bull have done if he were in the job inside of McDowell.
The simple issue of competence comes down to that (A) you are aware an event is about to occur and (B) you have some idea of possible outcomes and (C) you have prepared some possible actions to deal with those potentialities should they arise. It’s called anticipation.
Or are we expected to believe that the government should operate by shooting from the hip and acting on the spur of the moment, all seat of their seats flying? I would expect any minister from any party to know what is going on around them, in their area of responsibility. For example I would expect that Dick Roche and the dept of the environment knew that the ECJ was going to rule on the case on Sellafield at some point around now and might come out either against us or in favour of us, and have planned to some degree a response to deal with the possible outcomes. Which it would appear they had done. I believe the term used is being on top your brief.
It doesn’t matter which laws we are talking about, the justice system should be well enough aware that a challenge was being taken and should have given some basic thought to what happens if any of a number of reasonably likely possiblities come to pass. And to have drawn up plans in place to take immediate action if necessary to correct the situation. Or are you suggesting that no one thinks about what might happen and simply waits for things to occur and then acts on that basis alone?
Problem for the judges is that they would have had to create legislation and that is not their role at all. It is a basic principle that the judges have to stay out of the making laws area.
Part of the difficulty that we are seeing now is that we have a legislature that knows nothing about drafting even the most basic legislation. It is their job to pass legislation, it is fine to be outsourcing it to when they have the time to drafts people but surely out of the 226 people in the Oireachtas they could come up with something to ensure that no one can commit what would be consider a crime by most safe in the knowledge that the child would be forced to testify for any prosecution to be brought.
I’m not suggesting that we need more lawyers in the Dail, but it would be good that the people in there would have learned something in their time there so that they could act in some sort of fashion.
Pat Carey was on Morning Ireland today calling on the government to act, you ARE in government you ninny.
Fact is the system has failed because of a lack of due attention to what was going on around them. If not one single person loses their job over this then we’re being told that no matter what happens, no matter how big the screw-up, no one in this government will ever take responsiblity for it.
There is already a Bill on the Order Paper - Brendan Howlin tabled it last night. It basically reenacts the relevant legislation, but provides for a defense of not knowing the person was underage. It would be a temporary measure, but at least it would cover the hole until consideration could be given to more permanent legislation.
I agree it would help to get us over the immediate problem. It is unclear how it would address the retrospective aspect of the invalid nature of the previous law, and thus the people who are going to challenge their convictions.
There’s no way you can deal with the people who are now challenging their convictions. They were convicted based on a law which has been declared invalid. The Supreme Court has already ruled that laws can’t be retrospective (see the Nursing Home Charges bill).
Is it double jeopardy to charge them with rape or sexual assault?
I don’t think there’s such a thing as “double-jeopardy” in Ireland, but any sentence handed down for another offence would most likely be considered to have already been served by anyone who’s been in jail for statutory rape.
I can see how they would take the time already served into account but sentencing for rape is usually more severe than for statutory rape. I wasn’t sure about the whole double jeopardy thing.
There is a double jeopardy rule however I think that in these cases a different offence might be charged. The sentence would be said to have been served in all likelihood however they would be required to be registered on the register of sex offenders, which would be important from a child-protection perspective
This is the other case, it was from November of last year.
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2005/1123/3835084029HM2JUDGE.html
In deference to the IT, I would normally not post the whole article but I think it is necessary in this case. I will see if I can find out what the sentence was.
Judge says underage girl conspired in statutory rape
A Circuit Court judge asked yesterday why charges were not brought against a 15- year-old girl who had consensual sex with her 19-year-old boyfriend, remarking that the girl was a conspirator in the commission of an indictable crime, namely statutory rape or underage sex.
The now 20-year-old man, who cannot be identified in order to protect his girlfriend’s identity, appealed an 11-month sentence imposed on him at Tuam District Court recently for four counts of having unlawful carnal knowledge of an underage girl, when he appeared before Galway Circuit Criminal Court yesterday.
The court heard that the young couple were now living together with the accused man’s mother and that the girl, who is studying for her Leaving Certificate, gave birth to a baby last January.
Det Sgt Michael O’Driscoll said the girl’s parents found out she had sex with the accused last April and May, when she was still 15 years old and he was 19. They brought the injured party to Tuam Garda station in May to make a complaint.
Judge Raymond Groarke asked Det O’Driscoll why he kept referring to the girl as “the injured party” in his evidence. “Why is she referred to as the ‘injured party’? Were any charges brought against her?” he asked. Det O’Driscoll said he did not understand.
Judge Groarke said that the girl was a conspirator. “She was part of a conspiracy to commit an indictable crime, was she not?” he said.
Defence barrister Paul McGettigan said it was an unusual case in that the mothers of the young couple were in court and were supportive of the situation. He said the girl’s mother did not want to see the accused going to prison.
“Even though he raped her daughter, in law?” Judge Groarke asked.
The judge asked Mr McGettigan how he should approach sentencing in a way that would act as a deterrent.
Mr McGettigan said such behaviour was now “rampant” in society and society no longer wondered at it. He suggested that perhaps the law should be changed. This case, he added, presented a most unusual set of circumstances in that the couple were still together and it had not been “a one-night stand”.
Judge Groarke disagreed on every point. He said 15-year-old girls should not be regarded as targets. “Perhaps it is time courts started jailing young men who behave in this fashion and maybe young ladies too,” he observed.
“If we are to believe the headlines and if we go out out any Friday or Saturday night in any city or town in the country, we will see this sort of behaviour,” Mr McGettigan said. “It’s not unusual. What’s unusual in this case if that the girl’s mother is pleading for leniency because the accused is a good father and the couple have just got engaged.”
Judge Groarke said he needed time to consider the matter and he deferred his decision to next Tuesday.