Coleman v. Ireland & Ors [2004] IEHC 288 (6 July 2004)

Coleman v. Ireland & Ors [2004] IEHC 288 (6 July 2004)

The legislative intent in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935 and related statutes was to exclude the defence of mistake as to age in offences involving unlawful carnal knowledge and sexual assault of minors. This exclusion is justified by the public policy objective of protecting young girls and is not unconstitutional. The statutes impose strict liability but not absolute liability, and the balance struck by the Oireachtas is reasonable and proportionate. Judicial review is not appropriate prior to trial except in exceptional circumstances, which are not present here. Applications were not brought promptly, but the importance of the issues warranted substantive determination.

Citation
[2004] IEHC 288
Parties
Applicant: Christopher Coleman; Applicant: Joseph Molloy; Applicant: Paul Grace; Respondent: Ireland; Respondent: The Attorney General; Respondent: The Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
06 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Application for Declarations and Stay of Prosecution
Outcome
Applications for declarations and stay of prosecution refused; no declarations of unconstitutionality made.
Legal Topics
Strict Liability Offences, Mens Rea, Statutory Interpretation, Constitutionality of Statutes, Sexual Offences, Delay in Judicial Review Applications
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Strict Liability Offences Mens Rea Statutory Interpretation Constitutionality of Statutes Sexual Offences +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Coleman

Applicant

Joseph Molloy

Applicant

Paul Grace

Applicant

Ireland

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Application for Declarations and Stay of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exclusion of the defence of mistake as to age in sexual offences under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935 and related statutes is unconstitutional
  2. 2 Whether knowledge or reasonable belief as to age is a defence to charges under the relevant statutes
  3. 3 Whether the judicial review applications were brought within time

Ratio Decidendi

The legislative intent in the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935 and related statutes was to exclude the defence of mistake as to age in offences involving unlawful carnal knowledge and sexual assault of minors. This exclusion is justified by the public policy objective of protecting young girls and is not unconstitutional. The statutes impose strict liability but not absolute liability, and the balance struck by the Oireachtas is reasonable and proportionate. Judicial review is not appropriate prior to trial except in exceptional circumstances, which are not present here. Applications were not brought promptly, but the importance of the issues warranted substantive determination.

Court Disposition

Applications for declarations and stay of prosecution refused; no declarations of unconstitutionality made.

Orders

  • Refusal of declarations sought by applicants
  • Refusal to stay prosecutions pending determination