Statutory rape - Report is a significant step forward

FEW issues convulsed the Irish public more than the Supreme Court verdict in the statutory rape case which allowed a man to walk free from jail because he claimed he did not know the age of the 12-year-old girl that he raped after plying her with alcohol.

People were so outraged following last summer’s judgement that the perpetrator was soon back behind bars and the beleaguered Government hastily appointed an Oireachtas committee to come up with legislative proposals aimed at copper-fastening the protection of children in the Constitution.

Published yesterday, the committee’s much leaked report is a significant step towards giving children the kind of protection they need against the activities of unscrupulous and predatory adults.

Basically, it sets a new and absolute zone of protection for children at 16. Under that age, having sex with a child would be absolutely forbidden.

Moreover, a mandatory life sentence is recommended for statutory rape while the defence of honest mistake regarding a person’s age would no longer apply.

In a domino effect, however, if two children under the age of 16 had sex they would be breaking the law. Making criminals of children is wrong and this discrepancy must be resolved.

Nonetheless, disagreement is already emerging on the key question of whether the age of age of consent should be lowered from 17 to 16. In this context, the political parties, with the exception of Fine Gael, are at odds with the Rape Crisis Centre at the coal face of victim support.

Criticising the committee’s central proposal, experts claim it would be a serious mistake to lower the age of consensual sex because young children would face risks of crisis pregnancies and sexual disease while their protection would be reduced.

Such fundamental divisions suggest a rocky passage lies ahead of the referendum campaign to amend the Constitution. Likely to be held next March, it will piggy-back on the proposed amendment to copper fasten the rights of the child, an issue also expected to be divisive since some fear it will diminish the status of the family in the Constitution.

Less contentious are proposals that gardaí be trained to deal with children and that video evidence be used in children’s courts.

Essentially, the committee concludes that the Supreme Court verdict sent out the wrong message and should be reversed. It tilted the balance too much in favour of the accused person and away from the protection of children, a view most right thinking people endorse.

Besides under-mining 70-year-old laws, widely regarded as affording children a high level of protection (although the seemingly endless rash of child abuse scandals suggests otherwise), the controversial judgement could make them targets for paedophiles and rapists pleading ignorance of a victim’s age.

Under these circumstances, rapists rather than children would be protected, a travesty of justice never envisaged by the authors of the Constitution.

Given the vulnerability of teenagers to perverse swimming coaches or teachers, it would make sense to increase the age of consent to 18 in respect of persons in authority. That should prevent them from exerting malign influence over children.

On one side of the argument, the committee claims if its proposals are implemented by Government, Ireland would have one of the most robust child protection regimes in the world. On the other side of coin, experts skilled in supporting rape victims, argue that setting the age of consent at 16 is too young.

With the ink barely dry on the committee’s report, the first shots have already been fired in the referendum campaign to underpin protection of children in the Constitution and the prospect of a turbulent debate is looming.