Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

Would the Minister not accept that proposition? There must be thousands of prosecutions that take place in the District Court every year about which the DPP has no clue. Let us consider amendment No. 34, which states:

In page 12, line 40, after "direction" to insert the following:

", provided that where it is ascertained that a failure to comply with this section or that direction has occurred, the criminal prosecution concerned shall be stayed pending a specific direction from the Director of Public Prosecutions".

If the DPP is taking responsibility for a prosecution as instituted by the Garda Síochána, for whatever reason, surely there is need for some mechanism and a period of time to enable the DPP to come on board and be informed of the situation so he can give specific direction on the matter. By and large, the DPP knows nothing of what is taking place in the District Court. It is at a later stage, relating to matters of indictment, that the DPP is aware of prosecutions taking place. If we are to tighten up this process it is important that we are more specific and that there is the space and time for specific direction from the DPP if that office is taking over from the Garda Síochána, which instituted it. It has been instituted in the name of the DPP but that does not mean he or she knows about it. The process is a formality. It should be built into the legislation that he is empowered to take over the direction. It should be specified that there will be a period of time for him to be able to direct the prosecution after it has been initiated by somebody else. By tabling these amendments, I am trying to put the Director of Public Prosecutions more at the centre in dealing positively with matters.

See this speech in context