By Paddy Clancy

A NEW Supreme Court ruling which banged shut the door to freedom for convicted child sex offenders has been widely acclaimed as a victory for common sense.

Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Bertie Ahern led a string of tributes for the unanimous findings of the court’s five judges in a controversial and complex case prompted by an earlier judgment that the law on statutory rape sex with an under-age person was unconstitutional because it didn’t permit genuine ignorance of a youngster’s age as a defense.

That ruling, allied to the release of a 41-year-old man freed halfway through a three-year sentence for sex with a 12-year-old girl whom he plied with drink, sparked national outrage.

The man – known as Mr. A to protect the identity of his victim – was rearrested and returned to jail when the Supreme Court ruled that while the law was unconstitutional at the time of his conviction of an offense which he admitted, he was not entitled to his freedom.

This week the judges delivered their explanation. They said that in the interests of the greater good there could be no automatic retrospective effect when a law that had been relied on by the state was found to be unconstitutional.

Ahern said the judgment removed the appalling prospect of child rapists walking free, and brought clarity to the law.

Top law lecturer Ivana Bacik, not known for her ready acceptance of establishment decisions, acknowledged that it was hard to disagree with the “greater good” argument.

Bacik, Reid professor of law at Trinity College in Dublin, said, “The decision represents not just an important legal precedent. It is also a decision with immense practical effect. It means that other convicted offenders like Mr. A will not now be released, and it means that future constitutional challenges will be subject to the doctrine of limited or qualified retrospectivity developed in the five judgments.”

Opposition politicians also welcomed the ruling, although Brian Hayes, the Fine Gael leader in the Senate, the upper house of Parliament, repeated his party’s criticism of the government’s handling of the issue in the early stages.

Hayes said that the court could have made clear in the first instance that its ruling would not have retrospective effect, had the government asked for such clarification, but it failed to do so.

There had been severe criticism of Justice Minister Michael McDowell and Attorney General Rory Brady for not having a Plan B in place when the likely original ruling that the law was flawed was flagged for more than a year before the decision was delivered.

But this week McDowell insisted that the final ruling and the judges’ clarification of their reasons added up to total vindication of his strategy.

The judgments were as follows — Chief Justice John Murray didn’t accept it was a binding principle that decisions based on foot of a statute later found to be unconstitutional must be set aside as null.

*Justice Catherine McGuinness said that on the facts of the case the conviction and jailing of Mr. A couldn’t be seriously questioned.

*Justice Adrian Hardiman said Mr. A’s release would be “a windfall” to which he was not entitled in justice. It would “negate the closure, solace and vindication” for the victim of his very grave crime.

*Justice Susan Denham said that the general practice when declaring laws unconstitutional was not to apply the rulings retrospectively. The Mr. A case was decided in accordance with the law applicable at the time and was not now open to attack.

*Justice Hugh Geoghegan said that if every past conviction and sentence were declared null because an offense was found to be unconstitutional it would be contrary to good order in a civilized society.