The High Court has dismissed J.F.’s constitutional challenge to provisions of the Sex Offenders Act 2001 governing notification requirements and the offence of failing to comply with them.
In a judgment delivered on 14 July 2015, Mr Justice Binchy rejected claims that sections 8(3)(a), 11(2) and 12 of the Act were invalid under Articles 38 and 40 of the Constitution. The plaintiff had withdrawn his separate claim under the European Convention on Human Rights Act at the start of the trial.
J.F. was 13 when he committed the rape offence for which he was later convicted. He was 20 when, having pleaded guilty, he was sentenced to 30 months in prison. Because the sentence exceeded two years, the Act subjected him to notification requirements for an indefinite period, with a review application available after ten years.
The challenge argued that the law failed to account for people who committed sexual offences as children but were adults when convicted or sentenced. It also contested the length of the review period and argued that section 12 created a strict liability offence and was too vague. The defendants disputed the claims and argued, among other things, that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the provisions.
The court found that J.F. had standing to challenge sections 8 and 11: the requirements applied to him and could affect his constitutional rights. On the substance, however, the judge concluded that the Oireachtas had deliberately applied the same notification period to adults and minors for offences considered sufficiently serious, measured by the sentence imposed. The court held that this policy choice was proportionate and was for the legislature to make.
On section 12, the judge held that the offence was not one of strict liability. A prosecution would have to establish that the person had been informed of the notification obligations and had failed to comply. The court also treated “reasonable excuse” as an objective standard: an excuse could be assessed by the court or jury, and the burden on an accused to provide one was evidential rather than legal. The judge found the provision sufficiently clear and distinguished it from the immigration law provision struck down in Dokie v DPP.
The plaintiff had been charged under section 12 in relation to an alleged failure to notify Gardaí of his address. Those proceedings had been adjourned pending the constitutional challenge. The judgment dismissed the constitutional proceedings; it did not determine the separate charge or record its outcome.