Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Gallagher, and congratulate him on his appointment to a new position. I am seeking a review of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974, which established the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and set out its functions. There is a need for matters of general public concern arising from the performance of the DPP's functions to be clarified in the public domain. I am raising this matter on foot of the public controversy and confusion that followed the trial that arose from the tragic death of Robert Holohan. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions did not issue any response at that time — all we got was silence. It seems that some issues need to be clarified in this respect.

Over 30 years have passed since the establishment of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I am satisfied that there is a need for the office because it is important that matters of criminal prosecution should be determined by an independent prosecutor's office. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is, first and foremost, an independent forum. Such matters used to be decided on by the Office of the Attorney General, but they are now the responsibility of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

I remind the House that the predecessor of the current Director of Public Prosecutions established a precedent when he decided he would not make any public statements on his procedures. He did not comment on the manner in which he acted when bringing prosecutions, such as why he decided to introduce certain information but not other information. Nothing in the 1974 Act prevents the Director of Public Prosecutions from putting a statement into the public domain to clarify any matter or explain why he acted in a certain fashion.

The current Director of Public Prosecutions has issued public statements of explanation in the cases of Nora Wall, the former nun who was convicted of rape in strange circumstances, only for the conviction to be overthrown subsequently, and Brian Rossiter, who died while in Garda custody. While the Director of Public Prosecutions is under no obligation to make a statement, he is allowed to issue a statement if he wishes. The problem is that the current arrangements for making a statement are unclear. The Director of Public Prosecutions in the United Kingdom is also the Attorney General there. He is a Minister in the UK Cabinet and is subject to questioning by parliamentarians. There is a direct avenue to determining cause for prosecution in Britain and in Northern Ireland.

That is not the situation here. The Director of Public Prosecution jealously guards his independence, but there should be no conflict between independence and accountability. It is important because every prosecution is taken on behalf of the State and of every citizen through the channel of the DPP. Unless citizens are involved and unless they are considered in a caring fashion, the criminal justice system will not function. It is important to ensure that there is a level of accountability.

Given the length of time the Act has been in operation, does the Minister consider that it is in need of a fresh examination? There is a need for some mechanism to ensure that matters that cause public controversy and confusion can be clarified. There is provision in the Act whereby the DPP shall consult the Attorney General. To my knowledge, this has never happened and it is the Attorney General that consults the DPP. It would be valuable if that took place.

We have an Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention who makes an annual report to the Minister. In the new legislation for the Garda Síochána, there will be a new Garda inspector who will make an annual report to the Minister. Could we have an inspectorate for the aspect of the criminal justice system where prosecutions on behalf of the citizen are led by the State? An alternative possibility would be a review oversight committee that made an annual report and would keep an eye on the manner in which prosecutions are processed.

I am not saying that the DPP must give us a running commentary on every case before him, but there is a need for a happy medium. Citizens who are involved in the traumatic circumstances of serious criminal cases should not be left high and dry when major questions on how certain prosecutions took place remain unanswered. There should be some mechanism of clarification in the interests of democracy and accountability.

See this speech in context