Mr. Barry Donoghue:

I thank the committee for its invitation to discuss appropriation account of the Comptroller and Auditor General in relation to Vote 5. Before discussing the appropriation account, it might be useful if I gave the committee a brief overview of the work of the office and the more significant developments that have taken place in recent years.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions directs and supervises public prosecutions and related criminal matters. The office has two legal divisions - the directing division where decisions are made in the more serious cases as to whether there should be a prosecution and what the charge should be and the solicitors division which implements those decisions and represents the director in all the criminal cases in Dublin, as well as in constitutional and judicial review matters. Outside of the Dublin area, there are 32 State solicitors who provide a solicitor service in the Circuit Courts and in some District Courts matters in their local areas. These are solicitors in private who are employed on a contract basis to act on behalf of the director. The two legal divisions of the office are supported by a policy and research unit and an administration division which provides HR, IT, finance and support services.

Since our last appearance before the committee, the office has established a small number of dedicated units to deal with new and specialised areas of work which I think is something that I should mention. In 2011, a specialised financial unit was set up to deal exclusively with fraud and white collar crime cases. The unit was initially staffed by two lawyers but it has expanded over time and now comprises five lawyers together with administrative support. The nature of the work in the unit is such that very large amounts of documents need to be analysed and presented in court.

To facilitate this, the unit developed skills in the area of electronic collation and presentation of evidence. Working with the Courts Service, the office has successfully presented a number of cases making extensive use of technology.

As the committee will be aware, in November 2014 a new Court of Appeal was established. This resulted in a sharp increase in the number of criminal appeal cases to be dealt with by our solicitors division in court. Sanction was obtained by the director to recruit three additional staff to deal with this increase in workload and a dedicated appeals section was established in the solicitors division of our office. By July of this year, the Court of Appeal had processed a total of 280 criminal appeal cases.

As a result of the transposition of the EU victims directive, our office set up a dedicated communications and victims liaison unit in July of this year to deal specifically with this area of work. Sanction was sought and granted for two lawyers and three administrative support staff for the unit. The unit is responsible for developing the structures and procedures required to ensure the rights of victims and their families, as set out in the directive, are implemented in so far as they apply to the work of the office. The directive will have direct effect on 16 November 2015, which is next Monday. Under the directive, victims and the families of victims will have the right to seek reasons from our office when a decision is made not to prosecute, and also to ask for a review of a decision not to prosecute. I should say that this builds on work we have been doing to date whereby there has been for many years a procedure for a victim to look for a review of a decision. We have, since 2008, given reasons in fatal cases.

In 2014, the office dealt with just over 14,000 new prosecution files. This represents the first increase in the number of files received since 2011 when we recorded the highest number ever of new prosecution files. The complexity and size of files submitted in more serious case categories continues to increase, particularly in the area of fraud and white collar crime. While the actual number of files received in white collar crime cases is low relative to other offence categories, this area of work, as Deputies can imagine, is very resource intensive because of the amount of material submitted in these cases and the complexity of the issues involved. The total number of prosecution files received in the office, therefore, is not necessarily indicative of the level of resources required to deal with them.

The files now being submitted to the office by An Garda Síochána generally relate to more serious and complex matters. This is because under section 8 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, the Garda is given a general consent to prosecute in less serious cases without reference to the office. The general consent has been extended by the director to include a broader range of offences that can be prosecuted by the Garda without reference to the office. The effect of this has been a reduction in the numbers of files submitted to the office in less serious cases.

Specialised regulatory agencies also submit files to the office. These include the Revenue Commissioners, the Competition Authority, the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, the Health and Safety Authority, local authorities and the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission. By their nature, files received from these agencies tend to be large and involve complex legal issues.

As the committee will be aware from the appropriation account, the total cost of running the prosecution service in 2014 was €36.7 million. The largest single area of this cost arises in relation to fees we pay to counsel who prosecute cases on behalf of the director. In effect, we outsource advocacy work in the higher courts to prosecution counsel. While the total amount paid in fees to counsel has increased in absolute terms in recent years, I would highlight that in response to the economic downturn, our office applied cumulative reductions of 24% in the rate of individual fees paid to counsel between 2009 and 2011. These reduced rates continue to apply.

In 2014, counsel fees accounted for 37% of the total cost of the prosecution service. It is important to note that the amount paid in counsel fees is demand-led and is driven by the number and, in particular, length of trials heard in the various criminal courts. The office does not have control over the number and types of cases scheduled for hearing by the courts each year. The establishment of the new Court of Appeal is also having an impact on fees paid to counsel. This year to the end of October, fees amounting to €944,000 were paid to counsel for appeals compared with total fees paid for all of 2014 of €581,000.

The second largest expense for the office is salaries paid to staff which accounted for 34% of the total expenditure in 2014. In common with all public sector organisations, the office operated within very tight staffing constraints in recent years and saw a reduction in staff numbers. Arising from sanctions to recruit a small number of additional staff to deal with new areas of work, such as financial crime, the new Court of Appeal and the EU victims directive, staff numbers have risen to 190. This is still well below our staffing complement of 196 from 2011. Of the 190 staff employed by the office, 111 are legal staff and the remaining 79 are administrative support staff.

The State solicitor service and law costs awarded against the office are the two other largest areas of expenditure, at €6.4 million and €2.7 million, respectively, in 2014. As I mentioned, 32 local State solicitors provide a solicitor service in the Circuit Court and some District Court matters outside of Dublin.

Most of the law costs arise from judicial review and habeas corpusapplications taken by defendants. These costs are managed through an office costs settlement policy which involves negotiating with the defence in cases where costs fall to be paid with a view to settling the question of costs without the necessity of having the matter determined by the Taxing Master. This has resulted in a reduction in the total amount paid in costs from €7 million and €6 million, respectively, in 2009 and 2010. Deputies will see from the appropriation accounts that the figure for last year was €2.6 million, which is obviously a very considerable reduction. It has also resulted in a saving of court time by reducing the number of court dates and hearings. However, I note that this figure can increase significantly, as happened in 2012 when a small number of exceptionally expensive cases came to be settled.

I would like to outline briefly for the committee some of the challenges facing the office in the short to medium term which will need to be managed effectively to ensure we can continue to provide an efficient prosecution service. I have mentioned the establishment of the communications and victims unit to deal with the additional work which will be generated by the victims directive. It is difficult at this stage to gauge the volume of requests for reasons for decisions not to prosecute and requests for reviews of decisions that might be received from Monday next. The office has done significant work in preparing for the directive. Systems and procedures are in place to process and manage requests. Our guidelines for prosecutors have been revised to ensure all prosecutors are aware of their obligations under the directive. In fact, at our recent annual conference, which is attended by all prosecutors, the question of the victims' directive was central. We are engaged in an extensive training programme, both for our own staff, State solicitors and An Garda Síochána. We have drafted plain English information booklets, which will be published next week, explaining to victims how we make decisions and how victims can request reasons and reviews. These are the documents I am referring to, and the National Adult Literacy Agency has been very helpful in terms of settling these documents to ensure they are in plain English. While much work needs to be done, we are not quite sure at this stage what will be the resource implications of the directive.

The establishment of the new Court of Appeal has, as stated, resulted in additional work for the office. We have additional staff in place to deal with the increased workload but we may be faced with additional expenditure on counsel's fees as the court deals with an increasing number of cases. Cases being dealt with by our specialised financial unit will continue to put pressure on resources in the office. Since establishment in 2011, the number of lawyers assigned to this specialised area of work has increased from two to five. As more cases come before the courts, we will continue to review the resources allocated to this area.

I would like to mention an issue which I think will have implications for the office, that is, the starting salary level for a prosecution solicitor. Now that the economy is recovering, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the public service, because of its relatively low starting salaries for lawyers, to attract and retain the calibre of legal staff required. After a period of retrenchment, very attractive salaries are being paid in the private sector for even newly qualified lawyers. If we cannot attract and retain the requisite level of expertise required by the work of the prosecution service, it will create real problems in maintaining standards and may also adversely affect the ability of the office to carry out its work.