Circuit Court: Charges of unlawful carnal knowledge were dropped in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court yesterday against Mr C, the man who successfully challenged the constitutionality of this legislation earlier this year.
Judge Bryan McMahon agreed to an application from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to enter a nolle prosequi (intention not to pursue the case) in this and in five similar cases.
This cleared the way for the DPP to begin new proceedings against Mr C and others, but Judge McMahon said he had no comment to make on the initiating of new charges.
After yesterday morning's Circuit Criminal Court case, Mr C and the five other men were re-arrested and new sexual assault charges were laid against them.
Mr C was originally charged with four counts of unlawful carnal knowledge between July 20th, and August 10th, 2001. The girl in question was 14 at that time while he was 18 years old.
He challenged the charges, claiming they were unconstitutional. On May 23rd, the Supreme Court upheld his claim, finding that Section 1.1 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935 was unconstitutional because it did not allow the defence of mistaken belief as to the girl's age.
This meant that the DPP could no longer proceed with these charges against Mr C and others.
On Tuesday, the DPP asked the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court to drop these unlawful carnal knowledge charges and he signalled his intention to initiate fresh proceedings against Mr C and others.
After considering the application overnight, the judge said the "procedural fallout" from the Supreme Court ruling had come before his court and it was incumbent on him to address it.
He rejected the argument from Marie Torrens, counsel for Mr C and two others, that he should make no order in the case as the Supreme Court had decided the matter.
He said no one had raised such concerns when High Court judge, Ms Justice Mary Laffoy had made her ruling in the Mr A case in May.
Mr A had pleaded guilty to the rape of a 12-year-old girl but sought his release from prison after the Supreme Court issued its ruling on the unlawful carnal knowledge law.
Ms Justice Laffoy ordered Mr A's release in light of the Supreme Court decision but the State appealed this and won its case.
Yesterday, Judge McMahon said he could see no reason to refuse the DPP's application for a nolle prosequi to be entered and he did not believe that the ruling would be prejudicial to the defendant.
"I am of the view that when the Supreme Court gives the decision striking down a piece of legislation as being unconstitutional, it is incumbent on other institutions and particularly other courts in the system to apply the law as newly stated and to adjudicate and adapt appropriately in administering the law," he said.
"To do nothing is not an option for this court," he added. What I am doing is no more than a consequential tidying up exercise . . . a matter of procedural housekeeping."
