The unconstitutionality of Mr. A's conviction

C

CmTaz

Registered User
Messages
114
I can't believe that "Mister A" has been freed because of the supreme court decision that the law on statutory rape was unconstitutional. I can accept that it is perhaps unfair to automatically assume guilt when underage sex has occurred as young girls can pass off as a lot older and a defence should be allowed in such matters.

However for a 41 year old man to be freed after admitting plying a 12 year old with drink before having sex with her when he had previously acknowledged he knew she was 12 is absolutely scandalous. How can his solicitor look herself in the mirror after pulling that stunt ????

Furthermore to see various political parties using it as a beating stick to smack the government with is sickening oportunism.
 
Re: I am absolutely sickened

It's a disgrace alright.

But the judge was effectively handcuffed by the Supreme Court ruling.

McDowell was defending the fact that the Government didn't have legislation raring to go in the event of such a ruling, but even if they had, it wouldn't have prevented this scumbag from going free. I'll be interested to read about it tomorrow.

Someone had to defend the guy-that's the nature of the justice system.
 
Re: I am absolutely sickened

Although there is no 'official' plea bargaining in Ireland, this man was allowed to plead guilty to the lesser offence of statutory rape and, as the law on which this charge was based was found to be unconstitutional, he was allowed to walk free.

Had he been tried on a more serious charge, such as rape, he would not have walked free and the Irish legal system would not appear to be such a joke.

I was travelling today and listened to Gerry Ryan, Pat Kenny and The Last Word on the Radio and was moved by the outrage felt by ordinary people who could not understand how such a thing could happen.

I was also moved by 'Jackie', the mother of the 12 year-old who was plied with alcohol and raped by this monster, who spoke on the Gerry Ryan show.

Only when the justice system has been honed to protect the rights of the majority - the law abiding citizens - and not to pander to the minority - the criminals - will Ireland be a better place to live.
 
Re: I am absolutely sickened

will that Donegal priest who was found guilty today of raping a 13 year old 21 years ago walk free as well? or will the scenario described by delgirl kick in? hopefully so.
 
Re: I am absolutely sickened

Mr "A" was due to be released next year anyway which in itself is a disgrace-he only got 3 years for the offence and original conviction ,i think dpp/ag have a lot to answer for.
 
Re: I am absolutely sickened

cuchulainn said:
will that Donegal priest who was found guilty today of raping a 13 year old 21 years ago walk free as well? or will the scenario described by delgirl kick in? hopefully so.
Click to expand...
Unless he was convicted of statutory rape then the recent developments are presumably irrelevant?
 
Re: I am absolutely sickened

I saw an interesting post on another forum which contained two newspaper articles from yesterday's papers.
The first was the story of Mr A being released and the second was the arrest of a man in dublin for viewing child pornography...

So the headline was "You can have sex with children,just dont look at it"
 
Re: I am absolutely sickened

Whatever about the 'justice' at play here, there should be political ramifications. If you feel strongly about this, take time out of your weekend to visit your TD's constituency clinic to vent your opinion.
 
Re: I am absolutely sickened

The fault seems to lie with the judiciary rather than with the politicans. It strikes me as barmy that a judge could rule that an entire piece of legislation should fall asunder just because one aspect of that legislation is deemed to be unconstitutional.

On several occasions over the years various aspects of tax legislation were found to be unconstitutional, however in those cases the entire tax code did not fall apart. One example was when the constitutionality of an aspect of the tax treatment of married couples was challenged successfully in the 1980s. Had the present form been in vogue at the time, it seems that the entire income tax framework relating to married couples would have been instantly abolished, and any married person facing income tax bills, or any sort of evasion proceedings, could have gone to court to have them scrapped. This makes absolutely no sense to me...


ps, moderators, any chance of a meaningful title for this important discussion??? Thx.
 
Re: I am absolutely sickened

The Law is an ass!
The opposition are delighted they've a stick to beat the government with, otherwise they couldnt give a rats. Laws are there to suit the rich (i.e TDs and their backers). They will only get off their asses to sort things out if its bad for their ratings or is likely to affect the pockets of their puppetmasters!
 
Re: I am absolutely sickened

I agree with your point CmTaz. There is no morality. Do we live in a country where it's okay to do wrong as long as you get away with it by fair means or foul? Did the lawyer representing Mr. A not think to himself/herself, this man did wrong and was convicted and should stay in jail because that's where he belongs ... or did he/she just see euros and a chance to boost his/her ego by taking a high profile case. I don't know how they can sleep at night.
 
Re: I am absolutely sickened

the lawyer representing Mr. A not think to himself/herself, this man did wrong and was convicted and should stay in jail because that's where he belongs ... or did he/she just see euros and a chance to boost his/her ego by taking a high profile case. I don't know how they can sleep at night.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that the solicitor has a legal obligation to act according to his client's instructions, the only people who can decide on an individual's innocence or otherwise are judges and/or a jury of one's peers. Who is a solicitor to judge his client's guilt or innocence, or to decide on the punishment warranted?

Looking at the bigger picture, it would be disastrous for our society and our democracy (not to mention unconstitutional) if solicitors, barristers etc. refused to represent people they 'knew' or even thought were guilty. Refusing to represent people who 'everyone knows' are guilty, or who even admit to being guilty, is fundamentally opposed to living in a democracy.

Of course it is sickening what happened, but there were warnings aplenty going back 17 years about this law, so the fault really lies with the legislature and not with the Supreme Court nor his legal team.
 
Re: I am absolutely sickened

Henny Penny said:
IDid the lawyer representing Mr. A not think to himself/herself, this man did wrong and was convicted and should stay in jail because that's where he belongs ... or did he/she just see euros and a chance to boost his/her ego by taking a high profile case. I don't know how they can sleep at night.
Click to expand...

Lawyers in this country are obliged by their professional ethics code to act at all times in the best interests of their clients - regardless of the intregrity or otherwise of their clients. If a lawyer fails to act in the best interests of their clients, they may be disciplined by their professional regulatory body and may be exposed to a professional negligence claim from an aggrieved client.
 
Re: I am absolutely sickened

I just heard on Newstalk that the website of Dutch Association of paedophiles (or something) is featuring the current situation here on their website.

As long as this situation remains there will be people coming into this country because they know that as long as there was consent, it is not a crime to have sex with a child.

The whole thing makes me feel physically sick . . . . how could they allow this to happen.
 
Re: I am absolutely sickened

ubiquitous said:
Lawyers in this country are obliged by their professional ethics code to act at all times in the best interests of their clients - regardless of the intregrity or otherwise of their clients. If a lawyer fails to act in the best interests of their clients, they may be disciplined by their professional regulatory body and may be exposed to a professional negligence claim from an aggrieved client.
Click to expand...


UB, I saw a solicitor on the TV the other night saying that he would not take a case against another solicitor. On the same program they stated that from a list of 20 or so "willing" solicitors providers by the Law Society not one would take a case against a negligent solicitor.... isn't there a double standard here whereby briefs are only too happy to prostitute themselves defending the indefensible while not one of them is prepared to help elderly people get some justice because some of negligence by their solicitor.

Roy
 
Re: I am absolutely sickened

I don't think you are comparing like with like. A solicitor has discretion whether or not to accept instructions from a client in relation to taking a civil case on their behalf. On the other hand, if an individual is charged with a criminal offence, they are legally entitled to legal representation. There is a difference between the 2 scenarios.
 
Re: I am absolutely sickened

ubiquitous said:
The fault seems to lie with the judiciary rather than with the politicans. It strikes me as barmy that a judge could rule that an entire piece of legislation should fall asunder just because one aspect of that legislation is deemed to be unconstitutional.

On several occasions over the years various aspects of tax legislation were found to be unconstitutional, however in those cases the entire tax code did not fall apart. One example was when the constitutionality of an aspect of the tax treatment of married couples was challenged successfully in the 1980s. Had the present form been in vogue at the time, it seems that the entire income tax framework relating to married couples would have been instantly abolished, and any married person facing income tax bills, or any sort of evasion proceedings, could have gone to court to have them scrapped. This makes absolutely no sense to me...


ps, moderators, any chance of a meaningful title for this important discussion??? Thx.
Click to expand...
the problem aint with the judicary in terms of constitutionality,people knew decades ago this law was on dodgy ground and succesvie governments failed to change it,especially fianna fail as they have been in government for 13 of last 16 years and 16 years ago the law reform commision said this law was dodgy and had to be changed,also McDowell was AG and should have been aware and changed things,also current DPP/AG could have prosecuted MR "A" etc under differnet laws(eg rape,sexual assualt) and still be in jail now for a long time.
 
Re: I am absolutely sickened

ubiquitous said:
I don't think you are comparing like with like. A solicitor has discretion whether or not to accept instructions from a client in relation to taking a civil case on their behalf. On the other hand, if an individual is charged with a criminal offence, they are legally entitled to legal representation. There is a difference between the 2 scenarios.
Click to expand...

Following on from the Prime Time programme earlier this week about solicitors, the contrast is stark, i.e. a solicitor is not obliged to provide you with a service if you want to take an action against one of their own, but for MR A, they're obliged :rolleyes: .
 
Re: I am absolutely sickened

bearishbull said:
people knew decades ago this law was on dodgy ground and succesvie governments failed to change it,especially fianna fail as they have been in government for 13 of last 16 years.
Click to expand...

Accepted, although it is easy to see why this wasn't done. Quite simply, any unilateral move by the government to lower the age of consent to 15 years for teenage girls would have been unpopular to say the least.

bearishbull said:
current DPP/AG could have prosecuted MR "A" etc under differnet laws(eg rape,sexual assualt) and still be in jail now for a long time.
Click to expand...

The AG does not have any powers to prosecute anybody.

The DPP's office is specifically above politics and the DPP is not answerable to politicians in terms of having to justify action or inaction in any particular case.

My questions remain:

1. Why on earth did the entire legislation have to fall if a small part of it was found to be unconstitutional?

2. If there is a valid reason for this, why have entire Finance Acts and other laws not similarly fallen by the wayside when elements thereof have been declared unconstitutional?
 
Re: I am absolutely sickened

TarfHead said:
Following on from the Prime Time programme earlier this week about solicitors, the contrast is stark, i.e. a solicitor is not obliged to provide you with a service if you want to take an action against one of their own, but for MR A, they're obliged :rolleyes: .
Click to expand...

This is only partly true. I'll rephrase:

A solicitor is not obliged to provide you with a service if you want to take a civil action against a third party.

A solicitor is obliged to provide you with a service if you are faced with criminal prosecution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top