Vol. 454 No. 1
5 Ms O'Donnell asked the asked the Taoiseach, in view of the high incidence of child sex abuse being reported to health boards with a view to subsequent prosecution by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the number of people assigned to child abuse cases in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; the expertise if any, in that aspect of criminality that is at their disposal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10177/95]
Child sex abuse cases referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions are considered independently by at least two legal assistants and, where appropriate, by a third or the director personally. No legal assistant in that office is excluded from dealing with such cases.
The expertise required for discharging the director's functions in child sex abuse cases is the same as that required for every other criminal investigation file, which is the ability to assess the available evidence and to form a sound and objective judgment based on that assessment as to whether a prosecution is warranted and appropriate. Every legal assistant is required to acquire and develop that ability and the director is satisfied that all have done so. His office has available to it, and routinely avails of, a wide range of expertise in the area of child sexual abuse. These include child psychiatrists and psychologists, paediatricians and other specialist workers.
Does the Taoiseach accept that the reason I tabled this question is that I want to try to understand why so few cases involving sexual offences are prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions? In a written reply the Taoiseach indicated that in the four months period from January to April 1995, 279 cases involving sexual offences were sent by the Garda to the Director of Public Prosecutions to be processed. A decision was taken to prosecute in only 59 of these. Can the Taoiseach justify this figure? Does he accept that such a low rate gives rise to justifiable concern? In 138 cases a decision was taken not to prosecute.
Brief and relevant questions, please.
Can the Taoiseach justify, on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions for whom he is accountable, such a poor rate and the quality of decision making?
It is the function of the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether there is a case which is capable of being proved beyond reasonable doubt. This involves an assessment of the evidence in a balanced way and it would not be appropriate to set target rates of prosecutions in respect of files referred to the office. That would constitute interference with the proper independent function of the Director of Public Prosecutions in weighing up the evidence and deciding in a balanced way whether a case exists which is capable of being proved beyond reasonable doubt and sufficient evidence to achieve that objective. Cases involving child sex abuse are difficult and complex in regard to the assembly of evidence and ensuring that any genuine case is prosecuted and people not wrongly accused. A careful and balanced function has to be performed. It is good that the Director of Public Prosecutions is independent in making that judgment. I would not like to see a situation arising where political pressure, however well intended, is exerted on the Director of Public Prosecutions to achieve a certain rate of prosecutions for any category of case. The independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions is a valuable protection of the liberty of the citizen in this State.
I disagree with the Taoiseach. Whereas the Taoiseach insists on independence the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is accountable, which is undesirable. The Taoiseach said that sufficiency of evidence is the only criterion used. However, he is aware of one case about which a constituent of mine has written both to him and the Minister for Justice and received no reply and in which the accused confessed to the Garda that he abused two children of the constituent concerned. Nevertheless, a decision has been taken not to prosecute.
I could not and will not comment on a particular case. It is unwise of the Deputy to try to politicise prosecutions in this way and to involve me in individual cases. That is not desirable. The Deputy and all Members have good reason to appreciate the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions. For whatever reason the Deputy in her line of questioning is seeking to create some form of political atmosphere in which the Director of Public Prosecutions will prosecute cases so that he can say that he has prosecuted——
That is not so.
—— rather than assess the evidence in a fair and balanced way.
The wrong decision has been made. Perhaps the Taoiseach wants me to talk to him privately about this case——
I do not.
A decision has been taken not to prosecute in a case of which the Taoiseach is aware and in which the person has confessed——
Details of specific cases should not be adverted to.
Does the Taoiseach think it is fair that while an accused person in a case involving sexual offences can seek an injunction by way of judicial review in the courts to stop a prosecution proceeding a victim has no right to challenge a decision not to prosecute?
That matter can be addressed in legislation. If the Deputy wants to propose changes along those lines she is free to do so. No matter how many times the Deputy asks the question I will continue to defend the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I will not allow a situation to be created where we will have some form of mob law and where the Director of Public Prosecutions is supposed to prosecute simply to satisfy some political requirement.
The Taoiseach is accountable for that office; it is making big mistakes.
The function of the Director of Public Prosecutions is to independently assess the evidence on a fair basis. I will not allow this to be interfered with in any way as I regard it as fundamental.
The Taoiseach does not know if it is doing this in a fair way.
In the light of recently reported cases involving child sexual abuse, which took a long time to prosecute, does the Taoiseach accept that a better system should be put in place to improve communication between the health boards and the prosecution authorities to ensure that files are forwarded for decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions?
As recently as Friday, 21 April the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Currie, launched the new procedure for the notification between health boards and the Garda of suspected cases of child abuse. Those new procedures clarify the circumstances in which the health boards and the Garda will notify one another of suspected cases of physical, sexual and emotional abuse or neglect of children and give guidance in a formal way for the consultation that should take place between the two authorities following such notification. Where a health board suspects that a child is physically or sexually abused, or wilfully neglected, the Garda must be notified immediately by the health board; it is stressed that the health board should not await confirmation of abuse. There may have been some ambiguity or doubt prior to these guidelines being issued by the Minister of State, Deputy Currie, but I hope that is no longer the case.
Have the Taoiseach or the Minister for Justice put in place mechanisms, such as those in the Attorney General's office, to ensure that files are dealt with sensitively and expeditiously by the DPP? Are there mechanisms in place to keep the Government informed and ensure there is no undue delay in cases such as this? The information the Taoiseach gave on the expertise available to the DPP on the aspect of criminality was very skimpy. Has the Taoiseach details on whether specific people are consulted by the DPP, or does he pick some name or names of people with whom to consult in individual cases?
That file referred to the DPP by the Garda would normally contain assessments by psychologists, paediatricians or other relevant people who dealt with the case. The normal course would be for the DPP to consult them if further information is required rather than bring in a third party, but that option exists if there is doubt. I understand there is an effective system in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for dealing expeditiously with files, but as I said on a previous occasion, I think in response to Deputy O'Dea, there is always room for improvement in every office. I see no disadvantage in having a form of external audit of the DPP or any other office to ensure its information management systems are up to date.
Is the Taoiseach aware that all files passed to the DPP by the Garda have already been validated by the health board and other agencies so there should be very little need to look into the matter further in terms of validation for child abuse? Does the Taoiseach stand over all the decisions of the DPP not to prosecute?
The DPP is independent and, therefore, my standing over his decisions does not arise. I stand over his independence. I am not in a position to account for individual decisions of the DPP; if I did I would be politicising the office of the DPP and interfering with his independence, and as I explained to the Deputy on about 40 occasions, I am not willing to do that. The Deputy may have a different view on how the DPP should operate and she is entitled to push that view but I do not agree with it. The independence of the DPP is of paramount importance to the liberty of citizens and I believe that a majority of Members agree.
The Deputy must understand that the validation carried out in the DPP's office is different from that carried out in the health board. The health board considers the matter from the point of view of establishing the facts and gathering evidence on child sex abuse. It assembles the information from a social work point of view. The DPP has a different function in terms of the file; his function is to establish whether there is sufficient evidence that an offence will be proved beyond reasonable doubt in the courts. That is a different exercise in terms of the considerations to be brought to bear on the facts from that undertaken in the health board. The health board simply establishes in a general way that a case is to be answered, whereas a specific requirement rests with the DPP because he has to decide whether a person should be prosecuted. There is a distinction between the burden of proof in criminal law and the burden of proof in administration, that is essentially the difference.
Does the Taoiseach consider it desirable to empower the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute Irish citizens here in respect of child sex offences committed abroad?
It is usually better to prosecute people in the jurisdiction where the offence has been committed because it is more likely the evidence will be available to sustain the prosecution in that jurisdiction. The practice of trying a person in one jurisdiction for offences committed in another is rare and I am not sure it would have applicability or value in this case. However, I will ask the Attorney General to advise me on the matter in view of the fact that the Deputy raised it.
