asked the Taoiseach the steps he takes to satisfy himself that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions operates efficiently; and if any review of the operations of the office are proposed.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Director of Public Prosecutions Office.
1.
The efficient operation of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is primarily a matter for the director himself. However, the Attorney General is informed from time to time by the director of matters pertaining to the functions of the director. Where appropriate the Attorney General informs the Taoiseach of these matters. The operation of the system of criminal justice is kept constantly under review.
Does the Taoiseach review the efficiency of the operation of the office, and is he concerned that there are continuing long delays in the preparation of books of evidence from that office? It is now taking perhaps between eight and ten weeks — I am informed — to have these books ready and on occasions many district justices become very annoyed about this and strike the cases out. That has happened on a number of occasions. Secondly, would the Taoiseach agree that, by reason of the volume of work in the office, it might be prudent to examine the possibility of retaining solicitors and barristers as fulltime employees of the office who would also conduct the advocacy on the prosecutions in court rather than to rely on outside panels to do that? Thirdly, would the Taoiseach consider that where possible controversy arises, not in cases generally, it might be considered appropriate that reasons be given for a decision by the DPP not to institute a prosecution in a particular case?
The adequacy of the staffing is kept under review and additions have been made recently to staff. I believe the situation is satisfactory at the moment but I will keep it under review in the light of what the Deputy has said and I will make further inquiries as to the alleged delays and the reasons for them and to what extent, if any, they relate to any problems of the kind mentioned by the Deputy.
On the Deputy's second question, I have doubts about that proposal but I note the Deputy's suggestion and will take it into account. The general approach to that at present is probably the better one but I will not exclude the point from consideration, as the Deputy has made it.
On the Deputy's third point, a consistent policy has been pursued by successive Attorneys General before the appointment of the DPP and maintained by the DPP since then of refusing to give publicly reasons for decisions not to prosecute. This is not due to any reluctance to be accountable for the decisions but to the fact that the policy of giving reasons would inevitably in many cases mean serious damage to the reputation of individuals. I do not believe that one could be selective in this and give reasons in some cases and not in others without creating even far more problems and far more controversy about why in this case the reasons are given and in another case they are not given. I think the policy pursued by successive Attorneys General and successive Governments and by the DPP in this respect is the only practical policy.
Will the Taoiseach have another look at this question of giving reasons? Take a case such as happened in my constituency, and I am sure has happened elsewhere, where a person has died or been killed in a set of circumstances, papers are sent in to the Office of the DPP and he examines them and makes up his mind on whether to prosecute. That decision he makes on whether to prosecute, will the Taoiseach not agree, is a kind of judicial decision in itself, irrespective of what may transpire afterwards.
A question.
Being a kind of quasi judicial decision, where a decision was taken not to prosecute, the members of the family of that person who died were, understandably, very distressed and could get no explanation, answer or reason. In special circumstances of that nature, could some scheme be devised to meet the feelings of the family in such a position?
I have one final supplementary question on a slightly different point. Will the Taoiseach agree to review the question of the decentralisation of the office to some extent? Would it be considered that one centralised DPP Office to serve the entire country with communications coming from west, north, south and east on perhaps relatively minor matters on occasion might not be the best way of doing it——
A question.
——and that the question of decentralisation of the office to some extent should be examined?
There is a measure of decentralisation of the prosecution procedures through the existing mechanism, but the ultimate decision must rest with the DPP. I do not see that you can decentralise the DPP. He is there under Statute to fill a particular function and he has to be responsible ultimately for the decisions.
On the question of giving reasons, I readily understand the concern on some occasions when it has not been possible to give an explanation to people who are distressed or upset at the failure to prosecute. However, the decision not to prosecute is as serious as prosecuting and it is not practical to give reasons for decisions without the danger of serious damage to the reputation of individuals. It must be accepted that the distress and damage caused by departing from that principle will be very much greater than a process of selectivity in regard to deciding to give reasons in some cases and not in others. That would be the worst of all worlds.
Before the next question, I wish to state that it is not in order to ask a series of supplementary questions because it can complicate matters.