Vol. 451 No. 5
4 Mr. O'Dea asked the Taoiseach if his attention has been drawn to a statement by the Director of Public Prosecutions quoted in a paper (details supplied) to the effect that he considers it important that some mechanism should be established whereby the public can feel that the Director of Public Prosecution's decisions are not beyond scrutiny; the proposals, if any, he has to establish such a mechanism; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6449/95]
5 Ms O'Donnell asked the Taoiseach if he will respond to the statement of the Director of Public Prosecutions that a mechanism could be set up under existing provisions of the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1974, under which the Attorney General could review any decisions by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider if it had acted correctly according to due legal process in reaching its decisions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6732/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 and 5 together.
The mechanism suggested in the recent Sunday newspaper article was one of a number of recommendations contained in a 1987 Report of the Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism. The suggestion was that, under section 2 (6) of the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1974, the Attorney General could be consulted by the Director of Public Prosecutions relevant to his decisions in certain cases for the purpose of establishing whether the decision was arrived at in accordance with the proper legal criteria. The recommendation was not implemented at the time because it was the considered view of the Director of Public Prosecutions, after reflection, and of the then Government that it would interfere with the independence of the Director and bring such matters into the political arena.
I have again consulted both the Attorney General and the Director on the matter and they are strongly of the view that such a mechanism would not be a good idea, for these same reasons.
Does the Taoiseach accept in principle that a review of the decisions of the Director of Public Prosecutions and thereby more accountability of the office is necessarily good? Is he mindful of the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions has openly and publicly stated he thinks it would be good and desirable if his decisions were open to review? Does the Taoiseach intend to introduce a review mechanism?
I discussed the matter with the Director of Public Prosecutions. He confirmed the advice that he had given in writing directly to me that the arrangements suggested in the Deputy's question are not satisfactory. It is my impression that there is no proposal at present which overcomes the difficulties to which I have referred on many previous occasions in the House. If a proposal is suggested that would overcome those difficulties, I am willing to have the matter considered, but I see fundamental difficulties of the kind I have recited at considerable length previously.
Is the Taoiseach aware that the concession by the Director of Public Prosecutions that he had no problem with a review by the Attorney General of some decisions allowed for under the 1974 Act was made in the context of massive criticism of a major discrepancy between reported prosecutions and those that proceed to trial, in other words, charges of child sex abuse which are dealt with by the Garda and ultimately by the Director of Public Prosecutions which do not proceed to trial and the low rate of success in such cases as are prosecuted? It was in that context that the Director of Public Prosecutions indicated he was willing to concede that there was a need for some scrutiny of certain policy areas. Will the Taoiseach not agree that, having wrenched this concession from the Director of Public Prosecutions, it is folly for the Taoiseach and the Executive to row back on that concession and that there is a need for a review of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of prosecutions?
I want to make it clear that my views on these matters are my own. I strongly believe that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions should not be politicised. I see serious dangers in any of the proposals I have heard for the introduction of what is called "accountability". The result would be the politicisation of the office and of prosecutorial decisions, which would be profoundly dangerous. It is possible that Deputies, such as Deputy O'Donnell, may hold a different view. I wish to assure the House that my views on this matter are firmly held and are not inspired by anybody else. I have already indicated in the House that I favour the idea of an external audit of the operations of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and have conveyed those views to him. I see no difficulty with that because it would involve the overall operation of the office. I see profound difficulty in reporting on individual decisions because, if people know that individual decisions will be the subject of parliamentary scrutiny, they will inevitably tailor their decision-making to the political requirements that would entail. That would not lead to the proper separation of powers and the proper independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Director of Public Prosecutions has stated publicly that he considers his decisions should be reviewable and he would welcome that. Will the Taoiseach say if he disagrees with the view of the Director of Public Prosecutions on how his office should operate? Does he fundamentally disagree with that statement?
I would like to put on record what I understand happened in regard to the so-called views of the Director of Public Prosecutions. He was asked in general if he was opposed to the concept of accountability. In order to illustrate the fact that he was not opposed in principle to accountability as long as it did not interfere with the problems to which I referred, he said he had been open to the suggestion made in the 1987 report of the Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism. He said that to indicate an openness on his part but subsequently, having considered the matter carefully, he came to the firm view that the actual proposal was dangeous, wrong and would not work. There is no difference between the Director of Public Prosecutions and myself on this issue. If specific proposals can be made which do not politicise prosecutorial decisions or create a position where explanations are offered which could be prejudicial to the rights of innocent people, such proposals can be considered. I have already indicated that I favour the idea of an external audit of the general operations of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I also favour the arrangements for reporting on the processing of cases in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions on an ongoing basis to ensure that no cases simply disappear, as was suggested by Deputy Séamus Brennan in an earlier exchange on this subject. I am open to those types of suggestions, but I am determined not to allow these decisions to be politicised.
Will the Taoiseach indicate the relevance of section 2 (6) of the 1974 Act which appears specifically to allow for such consideration and discussion with the Attorney General of the operation of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions? Regarding the Taoiseach's response that he has no problem with some type of independent accounting generally to the House on policy issues, would he agree that an annual report of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions which would focus on specific areas of policy which have caused concern, such as child abuse cases, should be debated in the House? Surely such a debate would provide an opportunity for the Attorney General to review any discrepancies in the figures for prosecutions in a general way.
The time for dealing with questions to the Taoiseach is fast running out.
I accept the Taoiseach's point that the individual cases should not be politicised.
I would not favour an annual debate on the operations of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions as I believe that would have the effect of politicising his decisions which I wish to avoid. Regarding the provisions of the 1974 Act, the best advice I could offer the Deputy is to read the Official Report at that time where she will find the motivations for the section to which she referred. It is the view of the current Attorney General, the current Director of Public Prosecutions and the current Taoiseach that any attempt to implement those provisions in the manner suggested in the 1987 report would lead inevitably to the politicisation of the office because that would result in my answering questions on the floor of the House on behalf of the Attorney General in respect of individual decisions on whether or not to prosecute. That would not be desirable as it would involve the politicisation of prosecutorial decisions. I hope Deputy O'Donnell and others who are pursuing this matter realise that would be the position.
Will the Taoiseach indicate what politicisation would be involved or how innocent people's rights could be interfered with by advising a victim why precisely a charge was withdrawn against a specified individual or individuals?
I answered that question on the previous occasion this matter was raised and, if the Deputy wishes, I will answer it again.
Yes.
If the Deputy checks the record, he will see that I have given at least two examples of problems that could arise in that regard. For example, a specific witness may be absent or unreliable or other evidence may not be available which would point the finger in a particular direction without it being possible to prove the matter one way or the other. I consider that would be prejudicial to the interests of individual innocent persons. In order to have an authoritative statement of my views on this matter, I refer the Deputy to my previous and more comprehensive answers to the same question in the past few months.
I was surprised the Taoiseach said he did not want to answer individual cases given that he came to office and the Government of his predecessor collapsed because of a delay in the Father Brendan Smyth case. Will he accept there is a difference between the politicisation of the office and public accountability? Furthermore, does he agree it would be good for our system of justice if victims of vicious crimes were at least given privately the reason a prosecution was not initiated by the Director of Public Prosecutions?
There is no parallel between the administrative decision on the extradition of somebody being charged in the normal way and offering explanations as to why an individual now at liberty and innocent under the law was or was not prosecuted. If answers were furnished in this House why individuals were not prosecuted, we would in effect conduct a second trial here. I stand with Daniel O'Connell and others who were opposed, as far as the law was concerned, to the rule of the mob.
Many things have changed since Daniel O'Connell's time.
Has Redmond been forgotten?
Redmond will never be forgotten on that side of the House.
