The Supreme Court has issued a ruling on the legal definition of consent in cases of rape.
The ruling comes after the Director of Public Prosecutions asked the court to clarify the law in cases where a man charged with rape claims the woman agreed to sex.
So, here it is:
Under section nine of the amended Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1990, consent is defined as "an offence that consists of or includes the doing of an act to a person without the consent of that person any failure or omission by that person to offer resistance to the act does not of itself constitute consent to the act."
The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre has called for a definition of consent to be put into legislation following the ruling from the Supreme Court today.
Noeline Blackwell, CEO of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, said the law is still focusing on the accused and "not on the reality".
The Supreme Court set out first of all that sexual intercourse without consent is rape. But the question that they really had to tease out a bit was the mental element of an accused when they're having that sexual intercourse.
In Irish law, if a person is having sexual intercourse with a woman and he really believes he has her consent, that will be a defence of rape.
This had us thinking - what on Earth was it before?