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.