RCNI Press Release 24 April 2008
RCNI ask the Children’s Ombudsman to clarify her position in relation to Child Protection
Rape Crisis Network Ireland (RCNI) are calling on Children’s Ombudsman, Emily Logan, to clarify her position on Child Protection following the latest reports in relation to the debate arising from the Mr K case.
Fiona Neary, RCNI Director, said ‘the Ombudsman issued a statement today in response to the Mr K case reiterating all previous public statements as regards the question of Strict Liability in Statutory Rape cases. Yet there is a lack of clarity here. The Ombudsman appears to support it in the Submission to the Joint Committee on Child Protection August 2006, appears to oppose it in her submission to the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children February 2008, but then appears to concede that she supports the concept as a Child Protection measure in her oral hearing to the same Committee on February 13th 2008 (please see appendix below).
‘It may be that the Ombudsman’s confusion around her position arises from a too narrow understanding of the purpose of Absolute Liability. In her written submission to the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children, Ms Logan comes out against the child protection measure of Absolute Liability. She bases this position on the understanding that the “principal concern” of Absolute Liability “is the protection of children who may be exposed to damaging court room proceedings.” She reiterates this analysis later when stating that “the real issue here is about protecting children in the court room.” Thus from this position the law is seen as only potentially protecting the tiny numbers of children who are unfortunate enough to be witnesses in a court case.
‘This, we would contend, is not the real issue or the principal purpose of Absolute Liability. Instead, the principal purpose is to prevent sexual violence against vulnerable teenagers. It is to offer protection to all children.
‘The Ombudsman states her “concern is with the protection of children’s rights.” Yet it is the RCNI’s understand that one cannot enjoy rights if one does not first enjoy protection. We would ask the Ombudsman to clarify her position on Absolute Liability from the point of view of prevention and Child Protection in today’s Ireland, rather than simply as a means of addressing the harshness of court room procedures.‘
Appendix
Extract from an exchange open session to the Joint Committee Constitutional Amendment on Children on Weds 13th of Feb 2008 went as follows:
Deputy Peter Power: He [Deputy Shatter] teased out some of the issues. The Government made a decision not to hold a referendum in the short term and to deal with all issues together subsequently subject to the committee’s advice. Ms Logan’s intervention is noted in that regard, but I am confused about several points. It was my clear understanding that, for the purpose of reversing the decision in the CC case, she supported the proposition as a concept that strict and absolute liability was correct. She stated this to the committee 15 months ago, but does she agree with the proposition as a concept? She seems to have an issue with it and to believe that, by adopting it, we may cause problems in terms of the cross-examination of young people and in respect of the issue of consensual sex between young people. Deputy Shatter dealt with these points adequately. Assuming he is right on both counts and our advice is that there are no issues there, will you say now that you accept the concept of strict and absolute liability for the purpose of reversing the CC decision?
Ms Emily Logan: My concern is the duty to protect children in court, which I stated in the March submission and from which I have not strayed.
Chairman: Through the Chair, Deputy Power. I do not want the meeting to develop like that.
Deputy Peter Power: I beg your pardon. Has Ms Logan kept to her position, namely, that she is in favour of strict liability as a concept for the purpose of reversing the CC decision?
Ms Emily Logan: I am in favour of criminalising any sexual offences against children or the engagement in sexual relations with children.
Deputy Peter Power: If the introduction of strict and absolute liability is required, would she be in favour of it?
Ms Emily Logan: Have we not referred to this matter in respect of Deputy Howlin’s question?
Deputy Peter Power: I am asking the question for a reason. The concept of strict and absolute liability was supported. If the issues of cross-examining young people, criminalising them and so on, which Ms Logan was right to raise, were no longer of concern to her and had been addressed by way of legislation, would she be in favour of the concept to stop predatory sexual activity by older persons, predominantly men, against young persons?
Ms Emily Logan: Yes.
Deputy Peter Power: If the only way of doing so is to introduce a referendum in these terms, would she support it?
Ms Emily Logan: Yes, I would support the protection of children.
Chairman: If I may, Deputy Power’s question concerns a referendum to protect young persons from predatory activities by older people. Is that not what he is asking?
Deputy Peter Power: Exactly. If Ms Logan assumes she no longer had her concerns, would she accept the concept as a valid proposition as she did 15 months ago?
Notes:
• The RCNI is the national Rape Crisis Sector body, which provides a strong voice for survivors and is a catalyst for social change to end rape and all forms of sexual violence.
For information contact:
Cliona Saidlear: 087 2196447
……………..End…………………