Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. I am deputising for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform who is out of the country.

The Minister does not have responsibility for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That office was established under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974. The principle which underpins the Act is that prosecutorial decisions should be and should be seen to be free of undue or inappropriate pressures being brought to bear in particular cases. It is this principle, which is a very important part of the legal system, which requires that the Director of Public Prosecutions be independent in the performance of his functions, in accordance with section 2(5) of the Act. That independence would not be maintained under a system where the DPP's decisions were subject to review or justification. While the director is independent in the performance of his functions, he is not independent from the rule of law. Like every other person and authority in the State, the DPP is subject to the Constitution and the law and is obliged to act in accordance with it.

Section 2(6) of the Prosecutions of Offences Act 1974 provides that the Attorney General and the director shall consult each other from time to time on matters pertaining to the functions of the director. Arising from this provision I understand that the Director of Public Prosecutions has from time to time consulted the Attorney General. Such consultation has related to general issues which had arisen rather than specific cases. The consultation provided for by section 2(6) of the Prosecutions of Offences Act 1974 works in a way which does not compromise the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions and does not leave the Government open to accusations of attempting to interfere in prosecutorial decisions. In addition to the provisions contained in the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974, the Accounting Officer for the office must appear before the Committee of Public Accounts to answer questions on the expenditure, general administration and effectiveness of the office.

The Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunity of Witnesses) Act 1997 also provides for the appearance of the DPP before the Committee of Public Accounts on matters of general administration and certain other matters. That committee can also seek evidence or documents from the director or his officers concerning statistics relevant to a matter referred to in a report of and published by the director regarding the general activities of the office.

The director's practice is not to disclose the existence of material after a trial has taken place which was not put before the court of trial because it was inadmissible or not probative of the case. If the director were to do this, it could involve disclosing prejudicial material and leaving persons affected by the disclosure with no effective means to combat any damage to their reputation.

The policy of 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. A number of principles underpin this policy. The first is that if reasons were given in some cases, it would be difficult not to give them in all. Otherwise, wrong conclusions would inevitably be drawn in those cases where the reasons were refused. On the other hand, if reasons were given in all cases and those reasons were more than bland generalities, unjust consequences would be difficult or impossible to avoid. Disclosure of reasons could prejudice a future re-trial following a successful appeal.

While acknowledging the long-established principle of not giving reasons in public, I am aware that the Director of Public Prosecutions is examining whether there may be scope for giving more information about prosecutorial decisions to victims of crime. An obvious difficulty is that where reasons are given privately to victims, they may subsequently be disclosed in public. It is the practice of the director's office to give the Garda Síochána a full account of the reasons for prosecutorial decisions. Furthermore, the DPP has published on his website a statement of general guidelines for prosecutors which sets out in general terms the principles which guide the initiation and conduct of prosecutions in Ireland. These guidelines are intended to give general guidance to prosecutors so that a fair, reasoned and consistent policy underlines the prosecution process. These guidelines are at present the subject of review in the DPP's office. An updated version of the guidelines should be available soon.