Judge adjourns release bid by notorious child rapist ‘in the interests of justice’

THE High Court has postponed hearing an application made by a notorious sex offender seeking his release from prison as a result of last week’s controversial Supreme Court ruling, which struck down the offence of statutory rape.

Mr Justice John Quirke yesterday ruled that he would adjourn a hearing in the case by a Wexford publican and shopkeeper that his continuing detention in prison is unlawful because of the Supreme Court ruling.

Simon Murphy, aged 53, from The Hollow, Ramsgrange, New Ross, was sentenced to eight years in prison in June 2002 for sexually abusing his sister and three other young girls.

The father of four had pleaded guilty to 42 counts of sexual abuse and unlawful carnal knowledge of the four young females over a 25-year period.

Murphy was sentenced to five years in prison for the convictions relating to unlawful carnal knowledge and was given a further consecutive three-year sentence for the sexual abuse offences. The trial judge ordered that the final two years of the eight-year term of imprisonment be suspended.

Yesterday afternoon, Murphy was brought from Wheatfield Prison in Clondalkin to the High Court, where his lawyers argued that he was entitled to release from prison as he was now only serving the part of his sentence that related to unlawful carnal knowledge.

Murphy’s name is allowed to be published by the courts as his sister, Nuala Murphy, waived her entitlement to anonymity after he was convicted during the original trial.

Gerard Hogan SC, for the State, sought an adjournment of the hearing on the basis that the State did not have time to file a proper affidavit opposing Murphy’s release.

He also applied for an adjournment of the hearing as the Supreme Court will today hear an appeal against last week’s High Court decision by Ms Justice Mary Laffoy to release Mr A, convicted of statutory rape, like Murphy, under Section 1.1 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935.

Mr Hogan indicated that the State will also argue that Murphy must have known and did know the age of his victim, at all times, because she was his sister.

He pointed out that the Criminal Law Amendment Act had only been found unconstitutional in so far as it excluded a defence of mistaken age — something which could not be applied to Murphy’s case.

“At all material times, there was no defence of mistaken age,” remarked Mr Hogan. He claimed that Murphy “cannot be allowed march through this resulting gap”.

Dressed in a red check shirt and blue jeans, Murphy showed no sign of emotion during the 40-minute hearing as he sat flanked by two prison officers.

Liam Stafford BL, for Murphy, said the application for his client’s release was based on the finding that the legislation under which he was convicted was unconstitutional.

“It is an absurdity that a citizen cannot rely on a constitutional right that has become available,” said Mr Stafford.

However, Mr Justice Quirke ruled that while there was an obligation to deal with Murphy’s application urgently, he did not “as a matter of law” have to hear it immediately.

The judge said the matter in question was “an exceptional case” which was of profound importance for the interests of the community.

Because today’s Supreme Court ruling will impact on Murphy’s application, Mr Justice Quirke said it was in the best interests of justice to adjourn the matter until June 7.