Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

6. To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality his plans to amend the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974, or introduce any other legislation in order to improve the transparency and accountability of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. [5307/14]

Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There has been some concern about the operation of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, because decisions are not published and are not made accountable or monitored. The Minister said earlier that he does not like to rush into things but he has been in office for three years and these matters have been in the public domain for some time. What plans does the Minister have to make the Office of the DPP more accountable and transparent?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Independence for prosecutors is a key principle underpinning the rule of law in the international standards set by the Council of Europe, the UN and the International Association of Prosecutors. The independence of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is set out in section 2(5) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974 which states: “The Director shall be independent in the performance of his functions”.

The Office is accountable to the Committee on Public Accounts for administrative and statistical matters in accordance with section 67(7) of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Inquiries, Privileges and Procedures) Act 2013. The Director of Public Prosecutions is also accountable to the courts for her actions.

The Office of the DPP also provides reasons to victims’ families and close associates for its decisions not to prosecute in certain cases involving death through a project which was initiated in 2008. Speaking about the reasons project in 2008, Mr. James Hamilton said:

the Director of Public Prosecutions prosecutes on behalf of the People as a whole, on behalf of society, not on behalf of individual victims. For this reason I think the concept of accountability is not the appropriate concept to use when discussing the Office’s relationship to victims. There is not and will not be accountability to victims in the sense that we will regard ourselves as bound by their wishes or will allow them to determine how cases should proceed... The fundamental idea behind the change in policy is one of fairness, not of accountability.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are several important issues here. Nobody would dispute the need for the DPP to be independent but I reject the implication that there is a contradiction between independence and accountability. One can have both. In a society which aspires to be democratic and open it is necessary to have both. The Minister has acknowledged that he will finally bring in the EU legislation next year which would give victims the right to know why the DPP decided not to prosecute.

That should have been done well before now. I am glad the Minister is looking at it now, but to my mind that is a basic human right. For example, the GSOC referred a number of cases to the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of the Corrib incidents, but not one of them was prosecuted and nobody got information about it. I attempted to table a question last month about the DPP and I was told it had nothing to do with the Minister and therefore nothing to do with the House.

I would like to give one last example from the public domain of how we address this balance between independence and accountability. Mr. Justice Barry White, as part of a libel action in the case of Mr. Ian Bailey, made a writ - an extensive discovery order - that the DPP should release files in its possession on Ian Bailey, as well as copies of all statements in the possession of the DPP which cast a doubt on his involvement in the murder of Sophie Toscan du Plantier and documents suggesting that he was of good character. The DPP's office furnished 700 statements and then furnished a list of other documents which they claimed they could not release because of confidentiality. More importantly, they did not provide information on a crucial previous DPP critique of that case, which exonerated his character. That decision and failure by the DPP to adhere to a court order has been a serious problem for this man and his liberty. What is the Minister, who has a role in justice and accountability, going to do about that?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy has just provided an example of why we need an independent DPP that is not subject to reporting to Parliament or to a Minister, who can make prosecutorial decisions based on the obligations of his or her office under the provisions contained in relevant legislation, and who cannot be pressurised in Parliament by any Deputy on any particular case or issue. The Deputy classically illustrated the difficulties that would arise if the DPP was so accountable. On a daily basis, Deputies Daly and Wallace are naming individuals in this House-----

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

And the Minister is naming them on RTÉ.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----raising specific cases and making comment that could be prejudicial in circumstances where court proceedings exist. Instead of the DPP's office carrying out its role, we would have a government forced to interfere politically. That is exactly what we do not need. It would be contrary to the public interest. I would like to draw the Deputy's attention to the Venice Commission's 2010 draft report on European standards on the independence of the judicial system, which states that "accountability to parliament in individual cases of prosecution or non-prosecution should be ruled out."

Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was not making any allegations. We were speaking of matters that are in the public domain.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy was speaking of two specific cases.

Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The point I was making, which perhaps the Minister did not fully understand, was that in this instance it has been demonstrated that the DPP failed to adhere - in fact breached - a court order for discovery by Mr. Justice Barry White. To whom is the DPP accountable for breaching court orders? Can the Minister enlighten me as to why in the national Parliament we are not allowed raise issues of such public interest?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thought the Deputy knew the answer to the question she is raising, but I think she is only raising the question to grab a headline. If the DPP or anybody else does not comply with court orders, he or she is accountable to the court. Are there court procedures in place to deal with any individual engaged in litigation of any description, be it civil or criminal, against whom it is alleged that he or she does not comply with court orders? Of course there are. That is an issue that the courts address. It is not an issue for Parliament, nor is it an issue on which prejudicial comment or judgments should be expressed by Members of this House if matters are still current and before our courts. It is unfortunate that the Deputy has travelled this route this morning, but it is helpful to illustrate the frailty of her case and to illustrate the dangers posed by her suggestion that the DPP should be accountable to this House for the manner in which prosecutorial decisions are made.

However, in the context of victims' rights, I support the enactment of new legislation to incorporate the new European measure, which I supported when it was going through the Council of Ministers. The Deputy may not be aware that I previously published two Bills on victims' rights, the most recent in 2002. The EU measure, together with the previous legislation that was drafted, will inform the content of what we bring before the House, which will not be minimalist in the context of victims' rights, and may address some issues that we are not obliged to address under the EU provision for the benefit of victims of crime.