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

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach if the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974 establishing the office and functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be reviewed to ensure that matters of general public concern arising from the performance of his duties are clarified; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3630/06]

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are no proposals to initiate legislation to amend the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974 as suggested by the Deputy.

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

I thank the Taoiseach for that comprehensive answer. I asked if the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974 would be reviewed to ensure that matters of public concern arising from the performance of the DPP's duties are clarified. An amendment to the Act would not be necessary to enable the DPP to make statements of clarification to victims or to the public at large on matters of general public concern.

I am seeking a review of the operation of the Act. It is 30 years since the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was established. It was set up to ensure independence in prosecutions, but there is also a need for accountability and transparency in prosecutorial decisions made by the DPP. Such a need does not exist in Britain, where the Attorney General, who is a Member of Parliament, regularly comes into the House of Commons and answers questions. No mechanism is in place in this country to explore or inform victims of the reason a particular course of action was embarked upon by the Director of Public Prosecutions. In the interests of justice and to combine independence with accountability, I seek to determine whether a mechanism or avenue can be found to obtain clarification when various high profile court cases have controversial outcomes.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

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

I thank the Taoiseach for his lengthier reply. I am aware it is practice and precedent for the Director of Public Prosecutions not to make statements. Although the current DPP's immediate predecessor never made statements, the incumbent has made several clarificatory statements. While I welcome the fact the DPP is seeking to determine whether there is scope for providing extra information, the legislation provides for consultations between the DPP and the Attorney General. That might be a useful avenue of exploration in terms of opening up the decision making process within the office of the DPP and providing a mechanism for releasing information to the public domain.

Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is correct that section 2(6) of the 1974 Act provides for consultation between the Attorney General and the DPP from time to time. I have no function on these consultations and do not have the power to direct them to take place, order that particular matters be discussed or request details of the contents of the consultations, which have always been regarded as confidential. I am afraid that does not help much.