Sex offence trial of minor stayed pending constitutional case

[mothball]

The constitutionality of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 is being challenged.
“It was alleged that in the summer of 2006 the applicant D was guilty of sexual offences against a 14-year-old girl, when he was aged 15. He was charged under the 2006 Act, and she was not charged with any offence."

"Mr Justice Clarke outlined D’s challenge to the legislation, where s 3 states that any person who engages in a sexual act with a child under the age of 17 shall be guilty of an offence. S 5 states that a female child under 17 shall not be guilty of an offence by reason only of her engaging in an act of sexual intercourse."

"The State was defending the legislation on the grounds that it was entitled to distinguish between males and females in this area. It would also argue that, even if s 5 was struck down, the offence under s 3 (under-age sex) would remain, and D would not be immune from prosecution. The only result would be to expose the girl to prosecution as well.”

Sex offence trial of minor stayed pending constitutional case - The Irish Times - Mon, Jun 15, 2009
__________________________________________________ ___________


Am I missing something here or can the prosecution of just one party, for the same crime, not be seen as discriminatory? Personally, it looks like an open and shut case.

Secondly, why is the state even attempting to prosecute any minor for underage sex?

[corelli]

HA!! McDowell even said at the time that it was constitutionally dubious. It was only introduced as a sop to the weeping and gnashing brigade!! Doomed to failure, if not here than in Europe. Two people involved in the one act and the male is criminalised for it and the female not!! What absolute discriminatory tosh!

[John_C]

Am I missing something here or can the prosecution of just one party, for the same crime, not be seen as discriminatory? Personally, it looks like an open and shut case.

Secondly, why is the state even attempting to prosecute any minor for underage sex?

Thirdly, how is 'sexual act' defined? I hadn't had sex myself by the time I was 15 but, using a non-Bill Clinton definition, I'd certainly committed 'sexual acts' on other minors.

[mothball]

Could the DPP be using this as an opportunity to invite a constitutional challenge by going ahead with the prosecution or is he being pig headed and obeying the letter of the law?
In Britain, the crown prosecution service rarely proceeds with cases similar to this. It uses its discretion not to prosecute those involved on the grounds of public interest.

[corelli]

Thirdly, how is 'sexual act' defined? I hadn't had sex myself by the time I was 15 but, using a non-Bill Clinton definition, I'd certainly committed 'sexual acts' on other minors.

It's not a rape statute. Doing the nasty is not required. Any sexual act, from slapping of the buttox etc upwards would be covered. In other words, if some young fellow grabs a bird by the ass, and she him, he is the only one potentially guilty of an offence.

[John_C]

It's not a rape statute. Doing the nasty is not required. Any sexual act, from slapping of the buttox etc upwards would be covered. In other words, if some young fellow grabs a bird by the ass, and she him, he is the only one potentially guilty of an offence.

Basically, any boy who does more than hold a girl's hand is guilty of an offence? I don't see this law lasting.

[corelli]

Basically, any boy who does more than hold a girl's hand is guilty of an offence? I don't see this law lasting.

Not quite, but close enough!! LOL Too late to get into it!!

[Ah Well]

HA!! McDowell even said at the time that it was constitutionally dubious. It was only introduced as a sop to the weeping and gnashing brigade!! Doomed to failure, if not here than in Europe. Two people involved in the one act and the male is criminalised for it and the female not!! What absolute discriminatory tosh!

I agree Corelli looking at it .... should be an open and shut scenario .... if common sense prevails (hopefully legal one should fall along same lines )

[corelli]

I agree Corelli looking at it .... should be an open and shut scenario .... if common sense prevails (hopefully legal one should fall along same lines )

Hardiman will hammer the nails into that particular coffin, fear not!! He might be a reactionary old fecker but he is a very good lawyer.

[Ah Well]

Hardiman will hammer the nails into that particular coffin, fear not!! He might be a reactionary old fecker but he is a very good lawyer.

Adrian Abú