Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I do not know. Last week I had little time for reflection, as the Deputies will understand, but something has occurred to me on a growing basis. An age category of 15 and 16 year old children was provided for in section 3 of this Bill and in section 2 of the 1935 Act and a separate offence was created for them. Suppose that, under the honest belief defence, a jury listens to an accused claim there was no conversation about the victim's age and that he or she believed the child was 17, not 15 or 16 years old. If that is the only evidence on the issue, and if it is agreed there was no extraneous evidence from which actual knowledge could be imputed to the accused, any of us, imagining ourselves as jurors, required to acquit unless the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt, would be forced to dig hard and deep before contemplating convicting a person unless there was something egregious or manifestly incredible about that evidence. In addition to the new cross-examination issues and new vagueness on 13, 14 and 15 year olds for one offence and 15 and 16 year olds for another offence, we must also face the fact that the 15 and 16 year old age category will be more difficult to prosecute in the case of total strangers. A curious by-product of where we are being driven by the court decision is that a contemporary or school pal would be imputed with more knowledge of the age of a young girl than a 24 year old man who met her casually. When the dust settles and everybody examines it again, it will not be seen as a step forward.

See this speech in context