The Schnapper
Golly gosh
I wonder what GG Allen's stance is on this?
On the subject, this is an absolute disgrace....
Court frees man who had sex with 12-year-old
30/05/2006 - 14:49:43
A convicted sex offender who plied a 12-year-old girl with drink before having sex with her was today set free after a High Court judge ruled his imprisonment was unlawful.
The 41-year-old man was halfway through a three-year jail term for unlawful carnal knowledge of the child and applied to be released on the grounds that his detention was unconstitutional.
When he had sex with the youngster in 2003 he was 26 years older than her.
Ms Justice Mary Laffoy told the court the law he was convicted under no longer stood following last week’s Supreme Court ruling that men who have sex with underage girls should not automatically be deemed guilty of rape.
Counsel for the State, Paul Anthony McDermott SC applied to the court to put a stay on the release pending an appeal to the Supreme Court, but the judge refused the application.
The judge said the Supreme Court had struck down Section 1.1 of the Criminal Law Act, 1935 in its entirety with the effect that that section ceased to have legislative existence when created in 1937.
In her ruling she said thereafter there was no statutory offence of unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of 15.
“To put it another way, the offence with which the applicant was charged did not exist in law when it was purported to charge him with it, nor at the respective dates of his purported conviction and sentencing,” the judge said.
Ms Justice Laffoy told the court the only consequence of the Supreme Court declaration that she was concerned with was whether or not Mr A’s detention was unlawful.
And she said submissions made by lawyers for Arbour Hill Prison that the only appropriate course of action for Mr A was a judicial review of his conviction were inappropriate.
“The contention is that the conviction remains valid on its face. In my view that submission is not correct,” the judge said.
“In the light of the declaration by the Supreme Court of the inconsistency of Section 1.1, the only offence of which the applicant was convicted, the conviction is a nullity and the warrant is bad on its face.
“I would see no sense whatsoever in the applicant pursuing a remedy in judicial review proceedings to quash a conviction, a sentence, and a warrant which are patently bad.”
Costs in the matter will be determined at a later stage and it was also indicated to the court that the decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court.
On the subject, this is an absolute disgrace....
Court frees man who had sex with 12-year-old
30/05/2006 - 14:49:43
A convicted sex offender who plied a 12-year-old girl with drink before having sex with her was today set free after a High Court judge ruled his imprisonment was unlawful.
The 41-year-old man was halfway through a three-year jail term for unlawful carnal knowledge of the child and applied to be released on the grounds that his detention was unconstitutional.
When he had sex with the youngster in 2003 he was 26 years older than her.
Ms Justice Mary Laffoy told the court the law he was convicted under no longer stood following last week’s Supreme Court ruling that men who have sex with underage girls should not automatically be deemed guilty of rape.
Counsel for the State, Paul Anthony McDermott SC applied to the court to put a stay on the release pending an appeal to the Supreme Court, but the judge refused the application.
The judge said the Supreme Court had struck down Section 1.1 of the Criminal Law Act, 1935 in its entirety with the effect that that section ceased to have legislative existence when created in 1937.
In her ruling she said thereafter there was no statutory offence of unlawful carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of 15.
“To put it another way, the offence with which the applicant was charged did not exist in law when it was purported to charge him with it, nor at the respective dates of his purported conviction and sentencing,” the judge said.
And she said submissions made by lawyers for Arbour Hill Prison that the only appropriate course of action for Mr A was a judicial review of his conviction were inappropriate.
“The contention is that the conviction remains valid on its face. In my view that submission is not correct,” the judge said.
“In the light of the declaration by the Supreme Court of the inconsistency of Section 1.1, the only offence of which the applicant was convicted, the conviction is a nullity and the warrant is bad on its face.
“I would see no sense whatsoever in the applicant pursuing a remedy in judicial review proceedings to quash a conviction, a sentence, and a warrant which are patently bad.”
Costs in the matter will be determined at a later stage and it was also indicated to the court that the decision will be appealed to the Supreme Court.
filthy fecker
