Rape case highlights gaps in legislation

VICTIMS’ groups have criticised the Government’s failure to plug a hole in child protection legislation after a man walked free from court after admitting he had sex with a 14-year-old girl.

Earlier this week, a jury decided a 26-year-old Donegal man had not raped his accuser.

He had admitted having sex with the girl in the back of his car at a secluded area near her parents’ home on August 24, 2004.

The man claimed he did not know what age the girl was at the time and benefited from a clause in the revised statutory rape legislation which allows for an honest mistake.

This meant a full rape trial had to be conducted and the teenage girl had to take the witness stand to prove she did not consent to sex.

His release, and the fact the trial had to go ahead as an adult rape case, has angered the Rape Crisis Network of Ireland.

Its policy and communications co-ordinator, Cliona Saidlear, said the case exposed gaps in the legislation and the risks to children brought on by the Government’s failure to revisit the 2006 legislation.

“We do not know from this trial if he made any effort to establish the girl’s age or how well they knew each other. It is not good enough that the responsibility is taken away from the man and he can just say he did not know she was 14.

“This is what happens when we do not have a proper statutory rape law,” she said.

Her comments came after a six-day trial which spent large sections in legal argument.

The girl had alleged the man had locked the doors of his Ford Mondeo after driving her home and forced her to have sex with him.

Later on that day, she was examined by Dr Eliza Joseph, who travelled back from India to give evidence. Dr Joseph said the girl was in a distressed state but showed no signs of physical injury consistent with a struggle.

Prior to the “Mr C” case in the High Court in May 2006 the act of having sex with any child under the age 15 was a criminal offence regardless of the circumstances.

It carried a potential life sentence and victims were not obliged to take the witness stand once it was accepted sex took place.

However, since the introduction of the so-called “honest mistake” defence by the last Government after the Mr C case, men who argue they did not know what age their accuser was can escape a conviction.

In this case, the man admitted having sex with the girl for 40 minutes.

Ms Saidlear said it was not acceptable for the word of men to be simply accepted. She questioned the onus put on the men to prove they were ignorant as to a girl’s age and if the situation lent itself to confusion.