Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)

Two issues arise. On the question whether the Director of Public Prosecutions will disclose, after a trial has taken place, the existence of material which has not been put before a court, the practice of the DPP is not to disclose, after a trial has taken place, the existence of material which was not put before a court because it was inadmissible or not probative of the case. To do so would involve disclosing prejudicial material and leaving the persons affected by disclosure with no effective means of combating any damage to their reputation. As I stated, there are no proposals to review or amend the legislation.

The policy for not giving reasons in public for decisions not to prosecute predates the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974 and the establishment of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. This policy is underpinned by an old principle which did not originate in the 1974 Act but found its way into it.

If reasons are given in one or more cases, it would be difficult not to give them in all cases, as wrong conclusions would inevitably be drawn with regard to those cases in which reasons were refused. If, on the other hand, reasons are given in all cases and those reasons are more than bland generalities, unjust consequences would be difficult or impossible to avoid.

The two main potential negative consequences of giving public reasons for a decision, as outlined by the Director of Public Prosecutions in a recent statement, is that to give a specific reason as opposed to a bland generality, such as, for example, that the evidence did not permit a prosecution, could in many cases cast doubt on the innocence of a person and thereby violate the presumption of innocence which can only be displaced by a trial, in due course of law, in open court at which the accused is legally represented. Second, giving reasons could damage or prejudice the good name or reputation of a potential witness, for example, if it was stated that a witness was not thought to be reliable.

While acknowledging the long-established practice of not giving reasons in public, I am aware that the Director of Public Prosecutions is examining whether there may be scope for giving greater information about prosecutorial decisions to victims of crime. An obvious difficulty is that in the event that reasons are given privately to victims, this information may be subsequently disclosed in public. It is the practice of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to give the Garda Síochána a full account of the reasons for prosecutorial decisions.

While no amendment or review of the Act is planned, the Director of Public Prosecutions has indicated he is examining whether there may be scope for giving general greater information to victims of crime. As the Deputy is aware, my role with regard to the DPP is administrative and I have no function in how he acts in cases.

See this speech in context