Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 May 1986

Vol. 366 No. 1

Estimates, 1986. - Vote 13: Office of the Attorney General (Revised Estimate).

Minister for Finance (Mr. J. Bruton)

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £3,716,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1986, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Attorney General including a grant-in-aid.

If I may, I will introduce both Votes. This is probably one of the few occasions on which these two Votes have been discussed separately from the Finance group of Votes. I suppose there is no harm in that. It affords us an opportunity of looking at the overall role and function of the Offices concerned. It has been decided in the past — and I can quote a precedent on this, at volumes 56 and 60 of the Official Report — that the Attorney General's administration of his office may not be discussed in the course of the debate on the Estimates. The Minister for Finance is merely responsible for the expenditure concerned and the carrying of that through the House. The activities of the Attorney General — and, by extension of that precedent, the duties of the Director of Public Prosecutions — do not come within the purview of the Minister for Finance, nor do they therefore come within the purview of a debate of this kind. Obviously, that confines one essentially to a basic description of the expenditure involved and the functions of the two office-holders, but beyond that the debate cannot go.

The primary function of the Attorney General is that of legal adviser to the Government and, indeed, to all Government Ministers and Departments. He is, therefore, provider of the legal service of the State. His main functions may be summarised as follows: First, legal adviser to the Government and all Ministers; secondly, administration of public services, both within and without the State, relating to the legal representation of the Government and of the public in all legal proceedings; administration and control of the functions of the Chief State Solicitor's Office, the Parliamentary Draftsman's office and the local State solicitor; the prosecution of offences in which the Minister is the prosecutor and finally——

Dr. Woods

Has the Minister a script?

Mr. J. Bruton

No.

Mr. Wilson

I raised that point today. I know that genuinely, the Minister wants the proceedings of this House to be efficient and effective. A Member of this House, if he gets a script from the Minister and has some other work to do or has to meet somebody else, can take away the script, read it and perhaps come back later and contribute to the debate. Otherwise, he will have to wait until the Official Report is available and he cannot take part in the discussion. I am not saying that my remarks relate particularly to what is going on now. I am making this as a general statement with regard to the efficiency of debate in this House. I just had to get that off my chest.

Mr. J. Bruton

I do not think Deputy Hyland has control over Deputy Wilson: I am merely describing the functions. If the Deputy wants me to elaborate on any of these points, I shall do so. I am sure the Deputy will be listening closely to what I have to say and with his well known highly retentive memory, he will not need to be supplied with a script.

Mr. Wilson

I shall listen to the Minister on the monitor.

Mr. J. Bruton

I know how seriously to take the Deputy's interventions in future. The office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was established by the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1974. The aim of that Act is to take prosecutions out of the political arena, to hive off criminal matters from the Attorney General, whose office had become overloaded with advisory work after the accession of Ireland to the European Economic Community, and to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of prosecution briefs. The Act provided that the director would take over the functions formerly exercised by the Attorney General in criminal matters and that he would be independent in the performance of those functions. Just as I have given the functions of the Attorney General under five headings, I shall give the functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions under five headings. I trust Deputy Woods will be able to retain this information.

Dr. Woods

There is no chance of that, but let the Minister continue, anyway.

Mr. J. Bruton

Deputy Woods knows it all already, being as well informed as he is. The functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions are as follows: First, the prosecution of all offences on indictment before a jury or in the special Criminal Court; secondly, the granting or withholding of consent to summary trial for certain offences; thirdly, the prosecution and defence of State side applications; fourthly, the nomination and payment of barristers to appear for the Director; fifthly the dispensing of general legal advice to the Garda and State solicitors on criminal matters.

Now let me come to the financial side, having described the functions of the two office-holders. The allocation for 1986 for the Attorney General's Office is £3,716,000. This represents a reduction of 8 per cent on the outturn for 1985, due primarily to reductions in the provisions for fees to counsel retained by the Attorney General and for general law expenses, expenditure on both of which was exceptionally high in 1985. It is therefore capable of being reduced in 1986. While, given the nature of the expenditure on these items, accurate forecasting is extremely difficult, it is hoped that expenditure patterns will return to a more normal pattern in 1986. Thus the allocations made in this case are adequate and will not be exceeded.

With regard to the financial allocation for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, provision here is for £1,255,000, which is an increase of 13 per cent, or £144,000 over the 1985 outturn. The main components in the increased allocation are the provision for salaries due, inter alia, to some strengthening of the staff of the office, and for payments and fees to counsel representing the Director in the Central Criminal, Special Criminal, and Circuit Criminal Courts. It is impossible in any one year to forecast with any accuracy the number and seriousness of crimes that will be prosecuted and, in consequence, the forecasting of expenditure is very difficult. The provision for 1986 under this heading is £834,000, representing an increase of 11 per cent on 1985.

As I have said, the matters which may be discussed on this Estimate are rather limited. As the House will be aware, the Minister for Finance, although responsible for the Vote, has no statutory responsibility for the exercise of his functions by either the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions. Therefore, the Minister for Finance can only answer in this Estimate debate and Members only discuss in this Estimate debate matters which come within the responsibility of the Minister. There are many precedents for this position. However, within those constraints I shall, of course, be happy to answer any queries or deal with any points raised from the other side of the House or from my own, as the case may be.

There are a few points I might mention which could be of interest to some Members, although it is hard to anticipate what Members are going to want to know in a debate of this kind. One is the position of the Law Reform Commission. At the moment the position is that the Government have directed the Attorney General to establish an ad hoc committee representative of a number of Departments as well as his own, to identify those areas of law reform requiring the attention of the Law Reform Commission. It is the view of the Attorney General and of the Government that the final selection of the new law reform commissioners should not take place until this review has been completed. This would enable members to be chosen and the mandate to be given to them on the basis of the actual needs for law reform at the point in time.

As the House will be aware, the outgoing Law Reform Commission set a programme of work for themselves soon after their foundation, I think around 1976. That programme of work has been almost entirely completed at this point. There is, therefore, a need for a new programme of work of which the agenda, so to speak, initially is appropriate to be decided by the Government. The Law Reform Commission are then established and once established, the commissioners will have entire freedom as to the conclusions they come to on the agenda set for them.

The Government are fortunate in the services they can call on from both the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions. Both of these individuals are distinguished people who make a very useful, if different, contribution to the affairs of this country. I would like also to avail of this opportunity to pay a special tribute to the two offices concerned and in particular from my own direct knowledge to pay tribute to the work of the Attorney General's Office. During the three Ministries I have held at different times since the beginning of this decade, I found that when the Government had occasion to look for advice from the Attorney General's office at short notice and very often after hours when most people, if they were not already in their beds would certainly be at home with their families, the Attorney General's Office were prepared to provide advice of a very high quality under pressure. This advice has turned out to be, in almost every case, extremely good and well founded. I am sure that has been the experience of all Ministers in the various Administrations.

I would like to say also, that the Government of the day, and in particular this Government, have had occasion to make great calls on the dedication of the parliamentary draftsman's office in that we have been producing very large volumes of legislation. Often this legislation has been extremely complex against deadlines agreed in this House, very often under pressure from the Opposition who were demanding that legislation be produced by a particular date, not unreasonably from their point of view. I am very glad to say again that despite the fact that their staffing resources are quite limited the parliamentary draftsman's office have provided the Government with an extremely good service. I am quite sure that that will also have been the experience of Deputy Woods during his period as a Minister. Certainly, it has been mine. It is no harm that we have had this opportunity in the House, which is unusual because these Estimates are not usually discussed separately, to pay tribute and express our thanks to the offices concerned for the contributions they make to the State.

Dr. Woods

I welcome the opportunity to make some comments of a very general nature in relation to these two offices. They are two very important offices of the State and they are particularly important in relation to the prosecution of offences. I should like to join with the Minister in congratulating the office-holders for the services they give and their attention to detail under the pressures they have to work under, in recent times particularly. These offices are having to handle a tremendously increased volume of work, particularly in relation to the prosecution of criminal offences which as we know have grown very largely in number in recent times.

All Governments in recent times have put a lot of pressure on the office of the Attorney General because of the demands for legislation. If we look at the allocations, we find that this is reflected in the figures. In 1981, the Director of Public Prosecutions was allocated £603,000. This has doubled by 1986 to £1.255 million. This figure increased consistently each year in between, reaching a peak in 1985. The 1986 figure is slightly down from that. That of course reflects the tremendous increase in the rate of crime and the number of cases coming before the courts and consequently being prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions on behalf of the State.

The Attorney General's office have likewise been burdened with an increased volume of business. The figure allocated to them has increased from £2.3 million in 1981 to £3.716 million in 1986. Therefore, we see that the figures bear out by the case we can recognise fairly readily that these offices have been forced to deal with a greatly increased volume of business.

I was very interested in the Minister's reference to the Law Reform Commission. That commission have been in somewhat of a limbo in recent times. They have done a tremendous amount of basic work on which much of the legislation coming before this House, particularly in relation to family law, owes its origin. It is particularly sad that they are faced with this situation. The Minister was quick to come in tonight to say that the Government have appoined an ad hoc committee to identify the areas of law reform which might be pursued in future.

The people want to know what is happening with the Law Reform Commission. They want to know why the appointments are not being made, when they will be made and when the position of the Law Reform Commission will be regularised and set out clearly.

During the past year there has been growing public concern about the workings of Ireland's criminal justice system. Taking the system as a whole, there have been delays in presenting books of evidence with the result that cases were struck out. The prosecution of the offences involved were halted and suspects were released. For example, there was the case of the robbery of goods valued at £19,000. The case was struck out at Rathfarnham District Court because the book of evidence was not available.

Members of the Judiciary have repeatedly complained about delays in presenting books of evidence and warned that they would have no option but to strike out cases if books of evidence were not prepared in time. Other examples of cases being struck out because of delays were published in the media. So there have been problems in the general administration of this area. There was a very good article in The Irish Press of Monday, 23 September 1985 when the kind of problem which was developing was highlighted. The justices concerned were saying that the system was not working for them, that in general, the money was not being provided, that the system was not working and that they were fed up with repeated remands because of delays in the production of books of evidence. Mr. Justice Herbert Wine, District Justice Gillian Hussey and Mr. Justice Delap have all highlighted the problem. All this relates back to the efficiency of the operation of this system.

While we cannot go into any individual case we must be concerned with the overall system as it performs and with its needs. We have a duty in this House to provide the means necessary to carry out the legal system as we know it and as we operate it. Ultimately, the whole question came to a head with the Owens case in August last. In this case a man was charged with murder and brought before the courts. He was remanded in custody pending the presentation of the book of evidence and the prosecution of the case. After repeated warnings by the district justice a final week's warning was giving and when the book of evidence was still not ready the case was struck out and the accused was freed.

Mr. J. Bruton

On a point of order, is it in order for the Deputy, first of all, to refer to a particular case and, secondly, to refer to the detailed administration of the legal system? This is not a matter for which I have a responsibility.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

According to previous rulings of the Chair, the Attorney General's administration may be debated during a debate on an Estimate.

Dr. Woods

I would like to assure the Minister that I am talking only in very general terms. It is necessary to refer to specific cases. There is no point in allocating money and saying that everybody is happy. The worry was that enough money was not being allocated. Perhaps we were not doing our job in providing the staff. I mention these cases in passing. A murder case is a very important case. The man involved could have evaded justice completely and was later apprehended and found guilty of manslaughter. The case finally highlighted the fact that the system of prosecution had broken down. The administration that we are talking about was clearly at fault whether through negligence, lack of supervision or possibly the absence of a cohesive and effective system. The due process of the law was brought into disrepute and public confidence was undermined.

The prosecution of the offences was seen to be the weak link in the entire criminal system. That is why I must refer to this. The Garda are being repeatedly accused of not succeeding in prosecuting cases. This is something which we must address in general terms. No system can work with inherent weaknesses. The justice system in particular relies on coordinating the activities of the Garda, the community, the public prosecutors, the courts and the prison service. At present over 11,000 gardaí are involved in some 98,000 indictable crimes annually, many of these involving violence. Given that the detection rate for all crimes is only one in three, we must at least ensure that these detected cases are fully and properly prosecuted.

The public outcry was directed at the office of the DPP. On examination we discovered that the delay was apparently due to the barrister who was nominated by the DPP. The Minister for Justice promised an investigation into this matter but so far we have not been informed of the outcome. Given the public concern in this case and the need to preserve the integrity of the whole criminal justice system. It is not acceptable to sweep this matter under the carpet. We are told that as a result of this case changes have been made in the prosecution of murder cases and that additional staff have been allocated to the Chief State Solicitor's office. I had hoped that the Minister in his reply would be able to give the House the outcome of the investigation which was carried out in this case and say what changes were made in staffing and in the prosecution of offences.

As we have seen from various statements it was decided that certain murder cases would be dealt with directly by the staff of the DPP and not by the barristers operating in a semi-independent way. This was part of the change which was brought about. It is also suggested that, because of the embargo, a number of staff were not appointed and that following these events extra staff members were made available. The Department's management services unit examined the request for additional staff which came from the Chief State Solicitor. Permission was given to appoint 15 additional staff, some legal and some technical. The allocations we are talking about are very relevant to the general operation of the justice system. While we are not permitted to go into any of the individual cases, public concern about these matters is reflected in the House. The House is expected to provide the resources to ensure that the prosecution of offences can go ahead in a normal way without the Judiciary having to be critical in public, which they are very reluctant to do, and without the DPP and the Chief State Solicitor having to make public statements or to have the Attorney General make them on behalf of the DPP as happened in this case.

In another case which came to public attention the wrong charge was made in the Circuit Court. Once again the people charged walked free. This was the Ballinspittle case. The Garda had proffered the correct charge in the District Court but this was changed by the barrister engaged on behalf of the DPP when the case came to the Circuit Court. It was subsequently struck out on the grounds that the charge was wrong. The public were outraged and offended at this outcome especially when those involved admitted vandalising the Ballinspittle statue. The law was brought into disrepute. It later emerged that no supervision is exercised on barristers prosecuting cases on behalf of the DPP.

There is a general problem in relation to the management and organisation of spending within this Vote. We can keep our distance from the details. The Prosecution of Offences Act is there to ensure that the details in relation to decisions on the prosecution of an offence are matters which are not interfered with. Ultimately it is a matter for the DPP in that case. At the same time, the question of how the whole system operates or should operate in the future is one about which we must be concerned.

In two recent celebrated cases, the Owens case and the McArthur case, the families involved were very upset at elements in the handling of these cases. In the Owens case no charges were proffered against a person who was allegedly involved. In the McArthur case there was no prosecution for the second murder which was allegedly involved. In both cases explanations were demanded by the public from the DPP. There was considerable public agitation and concern. Under the existing legislation, to all intents and purposes, the DPP is gagged even in cases of vital public concern and even where we may know or assume that he has good reasons for the kind of decisions which he has to make.

The public perception of what is going on is a problem. It has led to very virulent demonstration and protest. When this happens within the system, it is time to have a look at the system and at how it operates. This is unacceptable and it does not encourage public confidence. Although it is open to the Attorney General to consult with the DPP and presumably get the necessary explanations, this does not appear to have been done in these cases. This is regrettable in that the Attorney General could have reassured the families and the public that the due process had been observed.

Experiences, particularly during the past year, highlight the need for a reappraisal if not a radical overhaul of the whole system of prosecution including the accountability of the prosecutors and public officials involved. Some of these examples, and I have only referred to them in passing, have indicated very clearly that there are problems which have to be addressed. If we are serious about beating the criminal we must not allow our criminal justice system to be undermined by staff embargoes, by the lack of organisation and finance or by the mismanagement of the present resources of the prosecution system. The system must not only be effective but must also be seen to be effective and accountable to the public.

In some of these cases the Garda are blamed. In the Ballinspittle case people were offended and upset because those who admitted doing this act of public vandalism got away scot free and the Garda were blamed in the public eye. The Oireachtas established the Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism and when they inquired into the case they were told the Garda were completely blameless.

The fault lies with the system, which was not capable of responding in the normal way. The correct charge was put when the case was brought to court in the first instance, but when it was referred to the Circuit Court a barrister was brought in and he put a different charge. The court had to strike out the case as a result. What kind of supervision was there which resulted in that? The book of evidence was not in by a week——

Mr. J. Bruton

The case could have been re-entered.

Dr. Woods

The person was allowed free and could go out of the country and the Garda could not chase him.

Mr. J. Bruton

In most of these cases the accused are given bail anyway.

Dr. Woods

In this case the accused was on remand in Mountjoy.

Mr. J. Bruton

The Deputy is making a good case but he is exaggerating the details and drawing conclusions from them.

Dr. Woods

The public were outraged and offended at this outcome, especially when those involved admitted vandalising the Ballinspittle statue. The law was brought into disrepute. It emerged later that no supervision is exercised on barristers prosecuting cases on behalf of the DPP.

In two recent celebrated cases, the Owens case and the McArthur case, the families involved were very upset at elements in the handling of these cases. In the Owens case no charges were preferred against another person who was allegedly involved.

In the McArthur case there was no prosecution for the second murder which was allegedly involved. In both cases explanations were demanded from the DPP and there was considerable public agitation and concern. We are faced with the fact that the DPP is, under existing legislation, to all intents and purposes gagged, even in cases of vital public concern. This situation is unacceptable and does not encourage public confidence. Although it is open to the Attorney General to consult the DPP, and presumably get the necessary explanations, this does not appear to have been done in these cases. This is regrettable, all the more so because the Attorney General could have reassured the families and the public that the due process had been observed.

The committee got a reply from the Office of the DPP in regard to the working of the system. This is on record in the report of the committee. The reply stated:

The Director would not wish to be in any way unhelpful to the Committee. However he considers that it would be entirely inappropriate for him having regard to the general framework of the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1974, and of Section 2(5) thereof in particular, to enter into correspondence or explanation regarding the processing or conduct of a particular case. When any governmental or legislative agency wishes to make enquiry regarding any such matter, the Director considers that such enquiry should be addressed to the Attorney General, with whom the Director has a statutory obligation to consult on matters pertaining to his functions (See Section 2(6) of the 1974 Act). Should the Attorney General ever so request, the Director will be more than happy to place the full facts of any case at his disposal for such use by him as may seem appropriate to him.

The DPP made it quite clear how the system works. I am talking about supervision in the case that was struck out when a wrong charge was entered. We wanted to know how this could happen. The Garda were blameless. As I have said, it was in the Circuit Court that the wrong charge was entered. The committee wanted to understand the system and to find out if a system of supervision was in existence, if there was somebody watching and supervising the preparation of these cases. The letter from the DPP continued:

That said, the Director feels that he should, in fairness to the hardworking and dedicated staff of his Office, state that the reports in the national newspapers of the 10th instant relating to the meeting of your Committee on the previous day, were wholly unjustified in so far as they related to this Office. Furthermore, the Chairman of the Committee is quoted as suggesting that there was "need for more supervision of counsel for the DPP". The Director wishes to make two comments on that suggestion. First, this Office has four legal assistants, who handle approximately 5,000 files per annum, many of them very complex and difficult. It would be ludicrous to suggest that in addition they could undertake the task of supervising the work of prosecuting lawyers in all the courts around the country. Secondly, the Director takes this opportunity of stating, unequivocally, that barristers retained by his Office are selected exclusively on the basis of the most expert advice available as to their professional competence and commitment, and that they perform and have over the years performed their duties in a thorough and highly professional manner which does not admit of supervision any more than would the professional services of a surgeon or an architect. He considers that once a function is delegated to a barrister, it is virtually a contradiction in terms, and a defeasance of the purpose of the delegation, to seek to supervise the detail of the professional performance of that function.

The problem is that there were instances when the system broke down, and this brought the process of law into disrepute. The committee suggested that there should be a system whereby the barrister would be given cases and would figure out how he would present them. Surely somebody in the prosecution must oversee, check and make sure that this is done by a certain time. The Minister should arrange for management studies so that a unit would go and have a look at prosecution cases.

We had another such case in regard to an escape from Portlaoise Prison. Charges were being prepared and, in the process, security information on prison officers was included in the book of evidence which was given out to people, including the defendant who had attempted to escape? How can that happen? I do not know how a management system can allow such things to happen. Security information given by prison officers about themselves was included in the book of evidence and, of course, this was dangerous to the prison officers — it may have got into the book of evidence inadvertently. There is a lack of checking and control within the system.

Mr. J. Bruton

What point is the Deputy making about prison officers?

Dr. Woods

It is a matter of supervision within the system. There was a breakout from Portlaoise Prison and charges were prepared against the people involved. In preparing the charges, apparently a security check was done on the prison officers at the time and details of that check ended up in the book of evidence that was presented to the people on the other side. That kind of thing should not happen. Parliamentary questions were asked about it at the time. I am saying we should have a system that would ensure nothing like that would happen again.

There was also the case that arose in Malahide, County Dublin where there was a charge against a member of the Garda Síochána for allegedly assaulting a person in the station. The case came forward and the barristers working on behalf of the State came to what they regard as an agreed price. The agreed figure of £16,000 was given in the informations and was published in the media. Apparently, the Attorney General was proceeding on that basis but he had to get approval from the Department of Finance. In the event, they did not approve the agreement and, as a result, the case went to a jury who made an award of £85,000. I should have thought that the judgment of the Attorney General and the barristers and the staff in that Department — the Minister complimented them earlier on the difficult and onerous work they carry out — should have been relied upon. It turned out to be a very expensive business. Probably it will be settled eventually for some figure between the two amounts. I will not go into details——

An Ceann Comhairle

It would appear the matter is sub judice.

Dr. Woods

Yes, it is still proceeding.

An Ceann Comhairle

I think we should leave it at that.

Dr. Woods

A barrister commented that this kind of think is happening almost daily in the Four Courts. He said that one gets an agreement with the Attorney General's office but that is knocked on the head by some nameless gnome in the Department of Finance——

An Ceann Comhairle

It is hardly fair to refer to civil servants in a Department. You may criticise the Minister, who must accept responsibility.

Dr. Woods

I am talking about the process.

An Ceann Comhairle

The process is that the Minister is responsible to this House.

Dr. Woods

The case was reported in The Sunday Press, dated 26 January 1986, and was also reported elsewhere. I will advise the barrister in question to pass on the comment to the Minister and not to the civil servants involved. In recent times the Attorney General has not apparently been given the same freedom to exercise his functions in that direction that he had previously. I ask the Minister to look at the matter. The case I mentioned brought the matter to public attention and it indicated that the Department of Finance had a direct function in the matter. The financial purse strings are controlled by the Department. The Minister also operates within the system in that he arranges for management studies and operates embargoes in relation to staff. All of that is relevant to this Estimate.

In Scotland they have a system of independent prosecuters who do all the State prosecutions. The office is known by the title of Procurator-Fiscal. In their case the police do not prosecute and they are moving towards that system in England. The Crown prosecution system will be under one office and, again, in that system the police will not prosecute.

Mr. J. Bruton

What would that mean in the Irish context?

Dr. Woods

It would probably be the DPP here. The problem here is that responsibility is scattered between several quarters. It may be the responsibility of the Chief State Solicitor, the DPP or perhaps some independent barrister. I am saying that this may lead the system into disrepute and I am suggesting that we look at the way it works overall.

Mr. J. Bruton

What do they do in Britain?

Dr. Woods

In England they are proceeding along the lines of the Scottish system where all the prosecution is done under one office. In that case the police do not prosecute. It is beyond the pilot stage.

Mr. J. Bruton

Does that mean that the DPP would be responsible in the Irish situation for prosecutions in the District Court? I think that would be going a bit too far.

Dr. Woods

That is what must be considered.

Mr. J. Bruton

Then we would have district offices of the DPP.

Dr. Woods

It is solicitors who do the job for the DPP. In any event, the system needs to be looked at. I do not think the Minister should smile and laugh at it. The system is falling into disrepute.

Mr. J. Bruton

I am not laughing at anything the Deputy has said.

Dr. Woods

I am saying it is time to reexamine the system to see how it might function in the best way possible.

Mr. J. Bruton

I take it the Deputy is not advocating that the DPP would take over functions now exercised by the Garda Síochána?

Dr. Woods

No, I am not. I was trying to outline how the different parts function. The Minister has people to carry out management studies and I am suggesting that he might look at the system. From the point of view of the Garda Síochána, there is the benefit that gardaí would have more time on the beat and more time to deal directly with crime. Obviously that is why the British are going in that direction now. They will have to make adjustments also. If the Minister undertook a study of the system, he might provide the basis on which future decisions could be made. That is as far as I would go in that regard. In Britain they are tending to use full time staff to prosecute cases. We have reached the stage where we need to take another look at our system and consider the best use of the time of the gardaí. This is a very interesting area and I am glad the matter can be discussed here in general terms.

Mr. J. Bruton

If I could interrupt the Deputy——

An Ceann Comhairle

I will be calling the Minister shortly.

Mr. J. Bruton

The Deputy may be aware that there is a procedure whereby there can be brief interventions at the conclusion of this debate as a result of the new Estimates system. If the Deputy wishes I can reply to one or two of his points and he can come back within the next five minutes. If he wants to use up all of his time, of course he can do so.

Dr. Woods

I am finished now anyway.

Mr. J. Bruton

I thought the Deputy might like to use the facility that now exists of making a second speech.

Dr. Woods

I appreciate the point. I want to reiterate what I said at the outset. I appreciate the volume of work that has fallen on the Office of the DPP in recent times. I outlined this increased work and the increased cost. I appreciate that the office and the system have been put under great strain, but that gives us an opportunity to look again at the way we do our work in this area. We are quite happy to support the Minister on these two Estimates and we give our full support to both the Office of the DPP and the Office of the Attorney General in the very onerous functions which they have. We assure them of our full support.

Having said that, there are situations which arise and it is important that they be faced up to and dealt with. The Minister for Finance is in an especially good position to look at this matter in conjunction with his colleague, the Minister for Justice, and perhaps at the end of the day they will bring about systems to prevent the kind of public concern which has been expressed over the past year in relation to a number of these areas. There are many examples of this kind of thing and I suggest it is time to have a look at the functioning and effectiveness of the system in the face of a new situation and in relation to the general question of accountability. We must consider some means of giving reassurance to the public or the House in particular cases where people are aggrieved.

Mr. J. Bruton

In the case of failure to prosecute?

Dr. Woods

Yes, that is one example. Another example would be the case I mentioned where a murder case was not pursued. There is very great public concern and we need some mechanism which does not involve the DPP. It may be that a statement from the Office of the Attorney General could allay public fears in relation to a particular case. There might be a mechanism for doing that, thereby preventing feelings of public unease.

Mr. J. Bruton

I will deal first with the last point made by Deputy Woods, although it ran right through his contribution. I refer to the question of the wisdom of the DPP or someone on his behalf giving an explanation as to why a particular case on which a file had been prepared had not been prosecuted. There would be serious dangers involved in any procedure of this kind, even if applied only in exceptional circumstances. Of course, prosecution does not in any sense prejudge the result of the court case, but in very many cases failure to prosecute might be due simply to a technical matter such as the non-availability of a particular proof or the death or unavailability of a particular witness.

If the DPP gave an explanation in that type of case he would have to draw attention to the fact that this was the only factor preventing him from prosecuting. In another case where there was no evidence, good, bad or indifferent, if he gave an explanation it would have to be a much more full explanation indicating that there was no evidence whatever. The contrast would then be drawn between the two explanations. In the first case the DPP would be admitting that but for the non-existence of a particular witness he would have proceeded, whereas in the other case he would be giving almost carte blanche to the prospective defendant. The public would immediately——

Dr. Woods

I interrupt by way of explanation. I am asking for a reassurance that the Attorney General has looked at the situation and is satisfied with some mechanism of that sort. There is no need for any statement in detail.

Mr. J. Bruton

If any statement at all is made it is likely that more and more elaboration of that statement will be called for and the reputation of the prospective defendant might be taken in a non-judicial way by public statement by the director and the comment that might emerge, either in public or in private conversation, on what the statement contained or, more often, what it did not contain. In essence the result of the director's making any statement could be trial by public opinion rather than trial by jury or trial by the court. That would be clearly contrary to the whole principle upon which our criminal justice system in this country and in many similar countries is based.

Notwithstanding the reasons of good sense and fellow feeling which might lie behind the suggestions made by Deputy Woods in this matter, it would be most unwise if they were pursued by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I do not accept that the bland type of statement which he would like to allow the DPP to make would be sufficient. He would be put under more and more pressure to make statements, if he made any at all. In my opinion the Deputy's suggestion is not a good one.

Deputy Woods made a number of other points about the position in regard to cases where it could be argued that counsel employed either by the DPP or the Attorney General had not acted in a manner that would be considered up to scratch and where the results suggested in some sense or other that there had been a failure on the part of the person acting. Deputy Woods asked whether there should not be a system of supervision whereby the barrister would be acting but the DPP would be looking over his shoulder on a daily basis to ensure that he was doing all he should. That would be a little like having a dog and barking yourself, as far as the DPP is concerned. Under our system he pays the barrister to do the job and there would not be much point in that if the DPP were trying to do the job too by second guessing the individual decisions the barrister took in a particular case.

There is general supervision in the sense that, if a particular barrister fails to conduct the case to the satisfaction of the director, the director will of course be inclined to review whether or not that barrister would be retained again in a case of that seriousness. That process is designed to ensure that the barrister always will have the incentive to conduct his business up to the highest possible standard because he knows that in practice it will affect the likelihood of his being given further business by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is probably a sufficient incentive. The system we have at present is such that in individual cases the director and the barrister are acting at arm's length. The system suggested by Deputy Woods would consist of a public prosecutor's office conducting the case with direct responsibility on a day to day basis on the part of the counsel employed by the director to the director, cross-checking individual decisions as they are taken. But in either of these two systems, as the House is well aware, there are likely to be mistakes made. Obviously, those errors tend to get disproportionate publicity relative to the overwhelming majority of cases where the prosecutions go through normally without any difficulty and the court is able to make its decision on the basis of the evidence presented.

Dr. Woods

Who is accountable for the errors in that system?

Mr. J. Bruton

Obviously, there are likely to be difficulties in either system. But changing the present system simply because there are difficulties is not the answer. Of course, the Director of Public Prosecutions is ultimately accountable for failures of this kind; but the purpose of accountability is not so much to go back over past errors as to ensure that one learns from these errors. That purpose of accountability is entirely fulfilled by present practice in that if a particular barrister fails to perform adequately the director does not have any requirement to retain that barrister again. That would not be the case if we had a system whereby the barristers were full time civil servants employed by the director. In such cases if a particular person was not performing well he would still have a contract of service and would have to be retained in the service of the director until he reached the age of 65. So there would be far less effective accountability in a system of a public prosecutor's office where all of the counsel were employed, because they could not be disemployed so easily as is the case in the present system, which provides a far better and more positive form of accountability, in a really meaningful sense that yields results than any system of supervision of the kind that Deputy Woods is advocating could.

Deputy Woods drew some inferences from the fact that seven extra solicitors were recruited by the Chief State Solicitor's Office in June 1985 and he seemed to suggest that this was in some sense an indication of understaffing in the past. That was not the case at all. The reason for these additional solicitors being recruited was that, up to that, work which was more appropriate to the solicitors' branch of the legal profession was being conducted, in the absence of in-house solicitors, by barristers. As the House will be aware, that is a very expensive way of getting work done that might be more appropriately conducted by solicitors. As a result of the decision to take on these additional staff, considerable savings have been made. That is evidence of the prudent conduct of his office by the Attorney General and the Chief State Solicitor and is in no sense an indication that there had been inadequate provision in the past, but rather that prudent action was taken to reduce costs in the fashion I have just described.

The Deputy made great play of the fact that in regard to his functions it is possible for the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General to consult together from time to time in matters pertaining to the director's functions and that the Attorney General is the director's channel of communication to the Government. However, I think that it would be highly unwise, in cases of public controversy, if it were to be publicly advertised that the Attorney General was exercising his rights to consult with the director in a particular case. If it came to public knowledge that this was being done, as seemed to be the inference in Deputy Woods' suggestion, there could be incessant demands from the Press to know exactly what had occurred at this consultation. That would defeat the whole purpose of the consultation. This type of discussion in public would not be conducive to the best conduct of justice and would probably worsen it considerably. It is better that the Attorney General should continue with the practice that he has already well established of, where he does consult from time to time with the Director of Public Prosecutions, doing so in a manner which is not advertised publicly and the results of which are not advertised publicly, because to do so would simply raise expectations as to the availability of information, which availability would not serve the interests of justice at all, for reasons that I have already elaborated quite fully. Having said those negative things about the points being made by Deputy Woods——

Dr. Woods

I could quote some of the things that are being said by the people involved, but I will not.

Mr. J. Bruton

——I would like to say, first of all, that I think he has done the House a service by allowing these matters to be debated here in the House. They are matters of considerable importance. I believe the debate has proved useful. While I do not agree with the conclusions drawn by Deputy Woods, I would like to thank him for the considerable research that he obviously put into his contribution. I hope that he will find my reply useful, if not entirely agreeable.

Dr. Woods

As long as the Minister considers it further afterwards, I will be happy.

Mr. J. Bruton

The record of the debate will be available to everyone to consider.

Vote put and agreed to.