'C' case adjourned

The case which was the subject of the Supreme Court’s striking down of a law in relation to unlawful carnal knowledge has been adjourned for mention by Judge Katherine Delahunt at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court.

Counsel for the man in the ‘C’ case, Ms Marie Torrens BL, told Judge Delahunt that it was "quite clear" that section 1.1 of the 1935 Criminal Law Amendment Act was unconstitutional. She said that the Circuit Criminal Court had no jurisdiction and the Diretor of Public Prosecutions no further function in the case.

Mr Des Zaidan BL, prosecuting, asked that the case be adjourned so that the Supreme Court’s written judgement in the related "Mr A" case could be delivered and considered.

Ms Torrens said that the unconstitutionality of the section had been decided in the ‘C’ case and that the ‘Mr A’ case had then arisen in relation to unlawful detention.

She said Ms Justice Laffoy had released ‘Mr A’ and the Supreme Court had overturned that decision. The Supreme Court had made it quite clear in the ‘C’ case that section 1.1 was unconstitutional. She said her client had not pleaded guilty and would have relied on the defence of honest mistake as to age.

Judge Delahunt said "the matter is in general somewhat in flux" and granted the DPP’s request adjourning the case for mention to a date in October.

Ms Torrens told the court that she would take the matter further "elsewhere".

Five other cases in which individuals were facing charges under section 1.1 were also adjourned for mention by Judge Delahunt. In each case the DPP asked for time to consider the expected judgement of the Supreme Court in the ‘Mr A’ case.

In one of the further five cases before the court, Ms Torrens said that another of her clients was no longer abiding by signing-on conditions attached to his bail as it interfered with his liberty.

Counsel for the DPP in that case, Ms Lisa Dempsey BL, told Judge Delahunt that the investigating garda wanted the accused to sign on. She said the alleged injured party lived in the vicinity of the accused and the conditions allowed the situation to be monitored

Ms Torrens repeated that she was not accepting the Circuit Criminal Court’s jurisdiction in the matter and would go to the High Court.