Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 Feb 1997

Vol. 475 No. 6

Ceisteanna—Questions. Priority Questions. - Implications of Consultants' Reports.

Liz O'Donnell

Question:

3 Ms O'Donnell asked the Minister for Justice the implications, if any, for her Department in relation to criminal prosecution arising out of the critical findings and urgent recommendations of two separate consultants' reports which reviewed the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Office of the Chief State Solicitor; the action, if any, which has been taken since the finalisation of both reports to Government; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5566/97]

As a member of Government and Minister for Justice, I am concerned that all offices and agencies which have a role within the criminal justice area should operate effectively and efficiently. The steps taken to improve the structure and management of the legal services provided to the State are, therefore, to be welcomed. I should emphasise that my Department does not have responsibility for either of the offices mentioned by the Deputy.

The part of the report on the DPP's office relevant to my Department is the comment on the role of the Garda Síochána in preparing files for the Director of Public Prosecutions. The matters concerned are being examined by a small working group, which includes representatives of my Department and the Garda authorities, established to review procedures. The group had its first meeting earlier this month and will report within three months.

On the report on the effectiveness or otherwise of the Chief State Solicitor's office, which acts as solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions in the prosecution of criminal offences in the Dublin area, will the Minister agree that while it is very strong on critical analysis and recommendations for change it is very weak as a mechanism for accountability? Will she further agree that the report outlines a panorama of difficulties and possible embarrassment for the Government if the present maladministration, which has been admitted, is allowed to continue? Has she been made aware of any hard cases where the State's case collapsed and criminals evaded justice because of incompetence in the Chief State Solicitor's office or delays in the preparation of the book of evidence? My question relates to accountability, not contingency plans for the future.

I am not responsible for the Chief State Solicitor's office. The report was not prepared at my behest and it is, therefore, not a matter for which I have responsibility. Similar questions were put to the Taoiseach who stated that a high level group had been established to provide a strategic overview of the law offices of the State. He went on to outline the terms of reference of the group and stated that the group, which had met on five occasions, was chaired by the Attorney General and included representatives of the offices of the Chief State Solicitor and DPP and the Departments of the Taoiseach, Finance, Justice and Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs.

I do not know of any hard cases which have collapsed. The decision on whether a prosecution should be taken rests solely with the DPP and I have no part to play in such matters.

With respect, I did not ask about cases where a decision was taken not to prosecute. I asked about cases to be prosecuted by the State — I am sure the Minister has an interest in criminal prosecutions — which had collapsed because of incompetence and delays in the preparation of the book of evidence. If the Minister is saying she has no interest in the efficiency of the prosecution service then she is taking yet another breathtaking flight from accountability.

Will the Minister agree that when a criminal case, which has implications for the victim and society in general, collapses because of inefficiency and delays in the preparation of the book of evidence etc. then there should be accountability and it must be a matter of public record? Does the Minister have any interest in the issue of accountability for the processing of criminal trials?

Deputy O'Donnell is again twisting my words. I did not say I had no interest in the State's criminal prosecution system, I said I was not responsible for the Chief State Solicitor's office. I ask the Deputy to please stop twisting my words. Of course I have an interest in the State's criminal prosecution system.

The report criticised the way in which the Garda presented files to the DPP. The file should be sent first to the State Solicitor or Chief State Solicitor, depending on the county in which the crime occurred, so that he can make whatever changes are necessary or request additional information. The file is then sent to the DPP. I do not carry out the investigation. I do not have information with me on hard cases which collapsed because the book of evidence was not prepared in time etc., but if the Deputy tables questions I will try to get information for her. However, I do not know whether that information is available.

It is clear that the report is only in the public domain because it was leaked. Was the report submitted and finalised last November and, if so, was it intended to publish it before it was leaked to a newspaper?

I cannot answer that question as the report was not presented to me. The Deputy should table a question to the person to whom the report was presented on whether it was intended to publish it.

It is extraordinary for the Minister to say she had no knowledge of this report, which contained a damning indictment of the maladministration in the Chief State Solicitor's office, with implications for the criminal justice prosecution service. Is the Minister saying she knew nothing about the report? I ask her to give me a straight answer.

I did not say I knew nothing about the report. I do not know if the person who commissioned it intended to publish it. The Deputy said that the report came into the public domain as a result of a leak and that is the case.

I can and shall take Questions Nos. 4 and 5, tabled by Deputy O'Donoghue, in ordinary time.

Top
Share