Some observers may feel that yesterday's case "lacked justice or fairness", Kate Mulkerrins, of the Rape Crisis Network of Ireland (RCNI), said after Judge Raymond Groarke's ruling.
She said in a statement: "The purpose of the 1935 Act (prohibiting unlawful carnal knowledge of young girls under the age of 17) was (and is) to provide a 'bedrock of protection' to young girls. In 1935we, as a country, looked at the age limit left to us in British law (16) and we decided to raise it. In so doing we were sending out a powerful message as to society's views as to the undesirability of underage sexual intercourse." Observers may well agree the girl in the case was a "conspiring party".
"However the RCNI believe that calls for the criminalising of such girls is a retrograde step which could potentially be harmful in a number of ways, not least by dissuading such girls from looking for appropriate help and by failing to recognise that the capacity to give valid consent in a sexual context is a complex issue, until such time as they are mature enough to have some prospect ofbeing able to make such decisions about their own good."
The statement added that the the message from all these agencies of justice (Gardaí, DPP etc) was clear - the offence was criminal and worthy of condemnation. "The need to reflect features (such as how less 'blameworthy' such conduct is in the context of a consensual relationship, how there was not a large age gap between the parties, what a model citizen the offender might be in other contexts) are clearly relevant to the type and length of appropriate sentence,but not to whether the offender ought to be convicted nor indeed to whether any party ought to have been considered a co-defendant."