There was no question but that she could go.

She'd known this friend for years, and her mother, Jackie, was well acquainted with the family.

Indeed, Jackie had grown up on the same streets as Mr A, the father of the family. She trusted Mr A implicitly.

And so it happened that on Saturday evening the girl made her way to the modest south Dublin council estate where Mr A and his family lived. Their house was nestled in a neatly-kept cul-de-sac across from the church.

When she arrived, Mr A took her and his own children, all of whom were under 14, to a local offlicence to choose drinks for the evening. Over the next few hours, the 12-year-old girl was fed four Bacardi Breezers and two vodkas by the 38-yearold man she'd known all her life. At around midnight, she climbed into the double bed that she was sharing with her friend, and went to sleep.

Around three hours later, close to 3.30am, the girl woke up to get sick. It is unclear whether Mr A had been waiting in the bedroom with her while she slept, or was in a separate room and was awakened by any noises she may have made.

Regardless, he appeared at her side. And he had sex with her.

The girl fled. She reached her sister's house, and together they reported the incident at Shankill garda station. The gardai went to Mr A's house.

They placed him under arrest.

From there, life went downhill. The trial was two and-a-half years away, and until then the girl could be offered no protection. Jackie, her mother, was devastated. She wanted to protect her daughter.

She wanted her daughter to trust her. She wanted her daughter to feel safe. In all of this, she felt she had failed.

The girl seemed very confused about the attack, and found it very difficult to speak about it. Only once, said Jackie, she "told me how hurt she was, and asked me why".

She refused to go to school, and shunned all those around her. She developed an addiction to vodka, sometimes drinking a bottle a day. She also turned to drugs, experimenting with cannabis, before dabbling in cocaine and ecstasy. At home, she became aggressive and withdrawn. She didn't trust men to be near her.

In a victim impact statement which she prepared for the court case she said she felt "dirty, angry and depressed". She was afraid of being left alone.

Mr A admits he knew girl's age The case was finally brought in front of the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in November 2004. Mr A admitted that he knew the girl was 12 years old when he had sex with her. He pleaded guilty. In court, Judge Frank O'Donnell noted that Mr A had started suffering from depression since he had sex with the girl. He had tried to commit suicide numerous times, including once when he took a serious overdose. And his relationship with two of his children had deteriorated.

Judge O'Donnell also made reference to the fact that acquaintances of the man had submitted favourable testimonials to his character. But, said the judge, "innocence was taken from a young child" and he felt he must mark the seriousness of that offence. He sentenced Mr A to three years in prison.

No counselling was offered to the girl, or her family. Two years passed, and the girl celebrated her 16th birthday. But she continued to struggle with her life, and she continued to miss school.

Neither she nor Jackie was aware of the looming Supreme Court case, in which it was to be decided whether the law of statutory rape was actually unconstitutional. And when that ruling was made, nobody informed the girl or her mother that Mr A was due in court, asking to be released from jail.

Jackie read about it in a newspaper.

The girl did not attend the appeal. She wanted to protect her anonymity. But Jackie went into court, accompanied by a garda, and stood at the back of the room squashed between cloaked barristers.

She watched as Mr A was escorted into the dock, dressed smartly in a blue suit and tie, his hair neatly cut. "It was like a nightmare, " she said last week. "It was like living it all over again."

The court's decision was announced. Jackie sobbed. Just once, out loud. She fled the building.

Mr A waited another 15 minutes. Then, flanked by three officers, he pulled his heavy wool coat over his head and walked from the court. "No comment, " he said to the waiting media.

And hell broke loose. Jackie took to the airwaves, pleading with the judiciary and the government to reverse the ruling, and put Mr A back in jail. Her daughter spoke to the media also. She spoke of her fear that Mr A would come near her again. "He knows where I live and I know he can come and get me any time he wants. I am frightened that he will come after me again, " she said.

"That is what I am terrified of."

As Jackie and her daughter told their stories, many Fianna Fail TDs were taking hostile calls to their constituency offices. On returning home from Leinster House, one Fianna Fail deputy from Dublin was met by his wife. "Can you lot do anything right?" she asked. Like his colleagues, this TD could offer no real answer.

Willie O'Dea was given the task of briefing the Fianna Fail parliamentary party last Wednesday evening. About 60 of the party's TDs and senators packed in to hear the defence minister explain the government's strategy for dealing with the weeklong controversy which followed the Supreme Court's ruling that led to Mr A being freed.

Few in the room could remember when the government had last been so rattled. "A headless band of bunglers, " was how earlier that same day Enda Kenny had described the government's handling of the affair. Privately, few Fianna Fail TDs at the special party meeting disagreed with the Fine Gael leader. "The cabinet has been sleepwalking for a week, " one rural TD offered. "We've been pussyfooting around, " another deputy said.

There was genuine anger as Fianna Fail's backbenchers spoke. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice had, in the aftermath of the Supreme Court judgment, said with some confidence that there was no real problem. The decision "is not the gaping void that some people are arguing", Michael McDowell stated. "No one will walk, " Bertie Ahern forecast. Those promises, however, were overturned when the High Court ordered the release of Mr A from Arbour Hill Prison.

At Wednesday evening's meeting, O'Dea was said to have done a good job in explaining what the cabinet was now proposing to do to resolve the crisis.

"But can Mr A be charged with other offences?"

one TD asked. Suddenly, a debate started. Different answers were offered by the politician lawyers in the room. Various opinions were given by O'Dea, Brian Lenihan, the children's minister, Peter Power, a Limerick East backbencher, and Barry Andrews from Dun Laoghaire, who was chairing the meeting. Finance minister Brian Cowen, another with a legal qualification, offered his view. "Look, will you stop the legal talk?" one non-legal backbencher interjected. "We've only got an hour for this meeting. We have a political problem and we need a political response."

It was that sort of week for the Fianna FailProgressive Democrat coalition. The Fine Gael leader set the tone when he was the first to speak at Leader's Questions in the Dail on Tuesday afternoon. "As a public representative and a father, I am appalled by today's decision by the High Court which releases a pervert back into society, " Enda Kenny said. It was the first of several notable contributions from Kenny. "The fact that a person who deliberately plied a young girl of Confirmation age with alcohol and then had sex with her has now been released back into society at a time when this government failed to see such a scenario in respect of protecting young people."

Taoiseach insists there is no problem The Taoiseach's response in the Dail, before he left for a UN conference in New York, was not one of his best. Reading regularly from his notes, Bertie Ahern argued it was not credible to have draft legislation ready for the eventuality of any decision by the Supreme Court. He also continued to insist there was no real problem. "I had no idea and neither had my colleague, " he stated. "It might sound odd to people outside the House that the Supreme Court does not ring the Taoiseach or the minister of the day to say that a judgment is coming up, " he said.

Ahern's problem was that his party colleagues, and many members of the public, did find it odd that nobody in government was prepared for the range of possibilities that flowed from the Supreme Court's decision. "The backbenchers are the ones who are damaged. Our seats are vulnerable, but we're not the ones who made the mistake, " one Fianna Fail TD from Cork said. The tag of political incompetence was more forcefully than ever being attached to the government's reputation.

There were inconsistencies over who knew what about the Supreme Court case. Ahern sought to distance the government from the problem. The DPP, on behalf of the Attorney General, fought the constitutional issue. The DPP was in charge.

However, a day later the Tanaiste admitted the DPP and the AG were both involved. By Wednesday evening, the AG himself was accepting there were "communication issues" in his office.

Twenty-four hours later it emerged that a top civil servant in the Department of Justice had been told about the court challenge in November 2002. But nobody, it seems, informed the justice minister or any other senior legal or political figure in government. From the end of 2002 until May 2006, nobody of any political seniority was aware that a constitutional challenge to the 1935 legislation was under way.

The matter was reported in the national media last summer, and a few months later an article appeared in the Law Society Gazette. "As a lawyer, I would have been fascinated by the manner in which apparently we won in the High Court, unbeknown to me, and that the case went to two hearings in the Supreme Court. It would have been of major interest to me, had I known about it. Howver, I did not know about it, " McDowell admitted.

The justice minister later used what he called "a motoring analogy" with "the office of the DPP in the driving seat while the office of the AG was in the back seat". The minister could have gone on to describe the government's predicament as a car crash.

The coalition's strategy . . . and strategy may be too strong a word for a performance described by one adviser as one "needing much changing of nappies" . . . evolved over the week. Before Mr A was released the response was, 'there's no problem, we'll reform the law over the next few weeks'. Then, with public unease increasing when Mr A was freed by the High Court, the response changed to, 'we'll work over the weekend to draft a bill and call the Oireachtas back from its planned break next week to pass the legislation'. But with other convicted child rapists set to join Mr A in enjoying unexpected freedom, and with the public mood hardening, a special cabinet meeting decided to approve the drafting of emergency legislation and pass it into law following special sittings of the Dail and Seanad on Friday.

"This government and minister are making it up hour by hour, " Labour's Brendan Howlin said. He was right. The various party whips met at 8pm on Wednesday evening. The opposition whips thought they were going to discuss the special sitting set for the following week. But then Tom Kitt, government chief whip, revealed the new plan for a Friday sitting. "And what about next week?"

Emmet Stagg of Labour asked. Kitt was at first unsure. He left the meeting. Calls were placed to the Taoiseach in New York. Kitt returned to the meeting. "Yes, we'll go ahead with next week, " he said.

At the same time, McDowell was in the Seanad explaining the new plan. The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2006 would fill the gap created by the Supreme Court judgement. The following morning's radio news bulletins on RTE led with a story about the SSIA windfall. But any respite disappeared when Brian Cowen was quoted as blaming the Supreme Court for the mess. The finance minister didn't actually use the word blame, but he did seek to put distance between the government and the Supreme Court.

Cowen adopts combative approach In the absence of the Taoiseach, Cowen was the most senior Fianna Fail politician to bat on the affair. Several other ministers ensured their diaries did not include any possibilities for 'doorstep' interviews which would bring questions about child rapists. In a lunchtime radio interview on Thursday, Cowen was combative when many of his colleagues would have preferred if he had been apologetic.

He offered support for his embattled cabinet colleague. "I have full confidence in the Minister for Justice. He has my support and he has the government's support, " he said. This view was out of step with many of Cowen's Fianna Fail party colleagues. The previous evening, several backbenchers met informally to discuss the various political permutations from the crisis. "McDowell should be shifted out of justice, " one TD argued.

Another said, "He should be sacked and if the PDs walk we can continue in government with the support of independent TDs like Jackie Healy Rae and Mildred Fox." This grouping was, however, playing the equivalent of fantasy politics. The government parties were determined to see out the crisis. After all, for the first time since the Supreme Court decision eight days previously, a strategy of sorts had been agreed.

Throughout Thursday there was continuous activity in McDowell's office in Leinster House. The opposition parties were consulted on the hastilydrafted legislation. Tweaks and changes were incorporated. The legislation was debated less than 24 hours later with the Fine Gael leader once more serving up a well-measured contribution.

"This is a government dangerously, damagingly, out of touch with the people they are supposed to serve, " Kenny said.

McDowell continued to attack in a manner which made many of his government colleagues uncomfortable. He concluded a cranky contribution by regretting that opposition TDs had "heckled, harassed and shouted down" his speech.

As the Oireachtas met, a number of spontaneous demonstrations took place, with people clamouring to show public support for Jackie and her daughter. Calls for McDowell's resignation were chanted on the street in front of Leinster House.

Nobody, not even the justice minister, was happy with the emergency legislation. The opposition parties talked about flawed law and possible constitutional challenges. Then, at 5pm on Friday afternoon, with McDowell taking the bill through the Seanad, news came from the Supreme Court.

The state had won its case. A warrant had been issued to re-arrest Mr A.

"It was a bad week but its finished up okay, " one government adviser surmised. For Jackie, there was some relief that the man who raped her daughter was again back in prison. He has one more year left to serve before he walks free.

HOW THE CRISIS DEVELOPED

1990: The Law Reform Commission recommends changing the law regarding statutory rape to allow the accused a defence on the grounds that they believed the person with whom they engaged in sexual relations to be over the age of consent.

November 2002: The Department of Justice and the of"ce of the Attorney General are informed that a challenge to the existing legislation is under way. The challenge relates to the legislation's refusal to allow the accused to plead "mistake as to age".

12 July 2005: The Supreme Court gives the go-ahead to a constitutional challenge to Section 1 (1) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 1935. The challenge is taken by a man wishing to plead "mistake as to age" in relation to his charge of sexually assaulting a girl under the age of consent.

October 2005: An article in the Law Society Gazette highlights the case and its potential importance.

23 May 2006: The Supreme Court rules that Section 1 (1) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 1935 is unconstitutional as it does not allow the accused to defend themselves on the grounds of "mistake as to age". The court "nds it is unconstitutional for the accused to be denied a defence once the act of intercourse has been established.

24 May: Bertie Ahern describes the court's ruling as an "urgent and important matter" and says new legislation will be in place "as speedily as possible".

25 May: Justice minister Michael McDowell says the ruling "isn't the gaping void that some people are arguing". Tanaiste Mary Harney (RIGHT) promises new legislation within two weeks.

26 May: The state enters a nolle prosequi in relation to two charges against a 36-year-old man accused of the statutory rape of a girl aged 16.

29 May: 'Mr A', a man serving three years for the statutory rape of a 12-year-old, applies to the High Court to be released. Lawyers for Mr A argue that their client is being held under legislation that no longer exists. The state argues that it would be an appalling vista if those guilty of serious sexual assault on minors got a "windfall bonus" from the Supreme Court's ruling.

30 May: Judge Mary Laffoy in the High Court orders the release of Mr A on the grounds that his detention is now unlawful. Laffoy rules that "his detention was rendered unlawful by the declaration [of the Supreme Court] and cannot continue". Michael McDowell states that neither he nor the Attorney General was aware the case was being taken before the Supreme Court decision one week earlier.

1 June: Two men convicted of statutory rape apply to the High Court for release; their cases are deferred.

Fifty-nine Fianna Fail TDs and senators hold an emergency meeting. It is confirmed the Attorney General's of"ce was involved in the defence against the Supreme Court challenge but a communications problem led to the AG not knowing.

2 June: The Dail agrees new legislation on statutory rape which includes the ability to plead mistake as to age.

Government and opposition parties are concerned at the possibility of minors being cross-examined, but pass it. At 5pm the Supreme Court upholds the state's appeal against the release of Mr A and a warrant is issued for his arrest.

The court rules that Mr A accepted the constitutionality of the legislation when he was charged and admitted raping a minor.