Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Mar 1997

Vol. 476 No. 3

Ceisteanna—Questions. - Prosecution Statistics.

Liz O'Donnell

Question:

1 Ms O'Donnell asked the Taoiseach the number of Garda investigations into allegations of child sexual abuse which resulted in a decision not to prosecute by the Director of Public Prosecutions due to the lapse of time in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6804/97]

I have been advised by the Director of Public Prosecutions that the amount of time required to study all the files that arrived in his office during the past five years and produce the statistics requested by the Deputy would be very considerable and out of proportion to any benefit that might be obtained from such study. The annual report the Director will produce from this year onwards will deal with the relevance of delay to the question of instituting criminal proceedings.

I am very disappointed with the reply the Taoiseach has given to this important question. Is he aware lapse of time has been a significant factor in contributing to decisions not to prosecute in regard to child sexual abuse cases? Is he aware the Supreme Court has clarified the law in this regard stating that lapse of time need not be an obstacle to proceeding in child sexual abuse cases, particularly where there has been dominance of the child by the abusing adult. Does he agree there is significant public interest, not least among the victims whose cases have not been prosecuted because of a lapse of time and that it would be timely and not out of proportion to the resources to which he refers for the victims to know whether they might have their cases reviewed now that the law on this matter has been clarified?

I share the Deputy's disappointment that it was not possible in the few days available from the time the question was put down to the requirement for me to answer it, for the information to be obtained. To obtain it, each of the files would have had to have been examined to establish that lapse of time was a factor in non-prosecution. However, I hope as a result of the installation of improved information technology in the Director of Public Prosecution's office, it will be possible henceforth to provide this information. I will ask the DPP when his first annual report is produced in June not only to deal with the issue of delay in the preceding 12 months but to look over the five year period in light of the Deputy's question and deal in as much detail as he can with the issue. The purpose of the Deputy's question will be fulfilled in substantial measure.

Without being drawn into an attempt to interpret the law, and it is not my function to do so, in the case of an indictable offence, lapse of time per se is not an obstacle to prosecution. In regard to offences of summary jurisdiction, lapse of time is a factor in regard to taking a prosecution. The issue in each case is not whether the offence is indictable — the offences in this instance are indictable — and the length of time per se, it is simply an issue of looking at the strength of the evidence in each case. The strength of the evidence can be somewhat affected by lapse of time but that can only be judged in each case. There is no general bar on cases because of lapse of time.

Deputy O'Donnell referred to the recent Supreme Court decision and I acknowledge it is an important decision in this area. However, as I am sure the Deputy is aware, in this case the DPP sought to prosecute and did not allow any question of lapse of time to interfere with his decision to prosecute. The matter was brought to the court by the respective accused and it was as a result of that initiative that the judicial decision was made. Lapse of time was not an obstacle to the DPP's initial decision in this case.

I accept that, but does the Taoiseach agree there are cases where people are still waiting for the wheels of justice to turn? This is not just a statistical matter. It is a problem for many victims whose cases have been rejected because of the lapse of time rule which has operated in the DPP's office for a number of years. Does he agree they are waiting for the State to vindicate their rights to justice? In the Supreme Court case to which the Taoiseach referred, the State was willing to prosecute but in previous cases where such action was taken by accused persons, the State did not go all the way. In a very celebrated case, the previous case involving lapse of time, the accused abuser succeeded in stopping the prosecution by way of judicial review of the DPP's decision and the State did not appeal the High Court decision to the Supreme Court, thus allowing a well known accused to escape justice. Will the Taoiseach agree that this matter should be considered as soon as possible? He suggested that we should await the annual report but people want to know——

The Deputy is embarking on a speech.

——if they can resubmit their cases to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration in light of the clarification of the law on this matter.

I understand and accept the concern of individuals who, as children, were the victims of abuse and who are very unhappy that prosecutions were not taken in their cases. I am not a practising lawyer but my advice is that a lapse of time is not on its own an obstacle to a prosecution and never has been in the case of an indictable offence. This also appears to have been the understanding of the DPP in the two cases to which the Deputy referred. The DPP initiated a prosecution in both cases and it was the court which decided in one case that a prosecution might not proceed.

The State did not appeal that decision.

I will deal with that point later. The Deputy asked a number of questions and I will do my best to answer each of them.

All files are preserved in the Director of Public Prosecution's office and if there is a change in the legal interpretation of any matter relevant to, for example, the evidential requirements for a successful prosecution and a further judicial decision on the matter which might alter the view taken by the DPP, the file can be reopened by the DPP. The victim is perfectly entitled to ask the DPP to look at the case again. A person who believes a prosecution should have been taken and that the DPP might make a different decision in light of the recent court case to which the Deputy referred should contact the DPP and ask him to assess the case.

I cannot say why an appeal was not lodged in the case to which the Deputy referred. The prospect of an appeal is determined to some extent by the strength of the evidence and judgment in a particular case. I cannot go further other than to say that the decision in each case is made on its merits. There is no question of not appealing cases where it is considered reasonable and proper to do so.

This is an important matter and the individuals and families concerned have a right to be vindicated by the legal system. The publication by the Director of Public Prosecutions of an annual report which deals with the facts in regard to the work of his office will assist greatly in promoting a better public understanding of the very difficult and important work carried out by this office in the prosecution of offences.

I accept the points made by the Taoiseach about the annual report but unfortunately it will not deal with the trauma suffered by those involved in child sexual abuse cases. The DPP's office was set up 23 years ago and, apart from a number of minor changes, there has been no change in its functions. There is a need to look at the workings of the office in terms of legislation and child abuse cases, particularly those involving minors.

In cases where the DPP instructs the Garda that no prosecution is to be taken the parents deal only with the Garda. This is a very impersonal way of dealing with these traumatic cases. In child sexual abuse cases it is effectively a question of one person's word against that of another, unless there is corroborative evidence. In cases where there is no prosecution the Garda has to deal with families as best it can. There may be valid legal reasons for not taking a prosecution but families do not understand them. In a number of recent such cases in which I was involved, the Garda could not properly explain the reasons a prosecution was not taken. There is a need to reconsider the communications system between victims and their families and the arms of the State which, in effect, decide their future.

The Deputy made a number of reasonable points. As he said, contact is between people who allege they were victims of crime and the Garda Síochána, not the DPP's office. The reasons for this are substantial in terms of the independence of the prosecutorial decision. I agree that this system can be very unsatisfactory from the point of view of victims. In cases involving complicated legal concepts in regard to the adequacy of evidence in proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt and the burden of proof in criminal cases, a person with no legal qualifications may find it difficult to explain these in such a way that the victim understands them not only at an intellectual level but also in a more profound way.

I agree that this area needs to be discussed. I hope that the increased co-ordination between the various legal offices of the State which will result from the work of the group chaired by the Attorney General and the discussion of the annual report of the DPP will lead to improvements in the procedures. I cannot say at this juncture what way these improvements will occur. There is a substantial level of scrutiny of the operations of the DPP's office and there have also been considerable improvements in terms of the resources available to that office. There is considerable appreciation in the House of the value in having an independent decision-making process in regard to prosecutions which is not influenced by transient political or other considerations.

We have dwelt overlong on this question. I want to disabuse Members of the idea that we can debate this issue today. We cannot. I call Deputy O'Donnell for a brief and relevant final question.

I put it to the Taoiseach that, regardless of how one looks at this problem, figures are available for the rate of prosecutions in child abuse cases, although we did not get them today. For example, in 1995 there were only 202 prosecutions in child sexual abuse matters. That is a very low rate of prosecution if one considers that approximately 4,000 allegations of child sexual abuse are made to our health boards every year. In a six month period in the Eastern Health Board area alone, 415 cases were referred to the Garda.

The Deputy is imparting information rather than seeking it. I invite her now to conclude.

I have to impart information because the Taoiseach did not give any figures.

That is not what the Deputy asked.

The remarkably low rate of prosecution indicates a need for a review of prosecution policy as it applies to child sex abuse cases.

That should be adequate, Deputy.

Will the Taoiseach give a commitment that will be carried out?

It is important the Director of Public Prosecutions should make the judgment independently in regard to each case. I have already said the improvements in and clarifications of the law can be a basis for individuals to seek to review decisions not to pursue prosecutions. I invite any victims to contact the Director of Public Prosecutions if they believe a review of a decision would allow them reopen their cases. I do not know if there is a great benefit in producing reams of statistics because they often conceal more than they reveal but it is important that the procedures in this area be humane and considerate. The concerns expressed by Deputies O'Donnell and Dermot Ahern are relevant and I will ask the Director of Public Prosecutions to take them into account in his independent decision-making process.

Top
Share