John Bruton
Question:3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he has received the report of the Public Prosecution System Study Group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17754/99]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Public Prosecution System.
John Bruton
Question:4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the administrative and staffing changes likely to arise in the offices of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief State Solicitor arising from the publication of the Victims' Charter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17755/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:5 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the changes envisaged in the operations of the offices of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief State Solicitor arising from the report of the Public Prosecution System Study Group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17762/99]
Jim Higgins
Question:6 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Taoiseach the steps, if any, which will be taken to bring about greater co-ordination and cohesion between the offices of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief State Solicitor in view of recent comments by the former Director of Public Pros ecutions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19561/99]
Ruairí Quinn
Question:7 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if an investigation is being carried out into the possible misappropriation of a cheque for £100,000 within the Chief State Solicitor's office; if so, the current position on the investigation; the changes, if any, to administrative procedures within this office introduced as a result; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18904/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 7, inclusive, together.
The report of the Public Prosecution System Study Group has been considered by Government and presented to the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Government accepted the study group's key conclusions and recommendations that the present prosecution system should not be replaced by a unified system but should be enhanced to improve co-ordination and effectiveness.
The study group addressed the issue of greater cohesion in the criminal justice system. Among the recommendations in the report are the transfer of responsibility for the criminal division of the CSSO and the state solicitor service to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Government has accepted this in principle and implementation will be agreed by the Minister for Finance and the Attorney General. The report also contained a number of recommendations designed to improve the information and communication capabilities of the system and these will take place over time.
I welcome the Victims' Charter recently published by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. In relation to the offices of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief State Solicitor, the charter reflects the practice of these offices for many years. The charter will have the effect of formalising this practice and will generally make the public more aware of the services provided. This may involve an increase in the demand for such services and any resulting staffing and administrative issues will be addressed as the need arises.
The Garda Síochána has completed an investigation in the Chief State Solicitor's office into alleged misappropriation of cheques over a period of years. A file has been sent to the DPP for a decision on the matter. In the circumstances, the Deputy will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment any further on the issues in the case.
There is provision in the Victims' Charter to allow victims to demand a review of a case where the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided not to proceed with a prosecution. How will that provision operate?
I am sorry, I did not grasp the question.
How will the provision in the Victims' Charter operate, whereby a victim of a crime will be entitled to demand a review of a case by the DPP where the DPP, having investigated the case, decides not to prosecute a particular individual? What will be the consequences of such a review? Will it involve the possibility of the decision being reversed? In what way will the independence of the DPP be maintained in cases where there may be a large amount of public pressure?
I am advised that the Victims' Charter reflects the practice that has applied in the DPP's office for a long number of years, as stated in his first annual report, because this is an issue which has been raised many times. Requests for reviews of decisions by those with a legitimate interest are looked at sympathetically by the DPP's office and this has been the practice over a great number of years.
As regards what procedure is then adopted, I cannot answer that. It is totally a matter for the DPP. However, this case was made to the outgoing DPP and last year I heard him speak on it when he held an international conference. His view was that whether the judgment was made, when people hold strong views his office should listen sympathetically. In some cases perhaps it will have some influence on how the office will deliberate subsequently. In other cases it is a matter of them explaining the position or stance the office has taken. What I heard him say – I am not sure it forms the background of this report – is that he is trying to deal with cases as sympathetically as possible. In most cases that means he cannot do much about it.
Is the Taoiseach saying, therefore, that this aspect of the Victims' Charter will not change existing practice? Is he aware of a report in The Irish Times of 14 September, which stated clearly that victims of crime would now be able to demand a review of their case and that victims had not been able to do so previously in the sense of having a right at least to a reply to their letter?
I am told that this formalises what will happen but that people pressed before for it. If people pressed before for it and they always got their way, I do not know why it was always a burning issue with the people. I cannot answer that question. I am told that it was dealt with sympathetically. If somebody has a stated case which they believe is a legitimate view and the DPP's office believes it is so, under the Victims' Charter the office will listen to that case.
The question here is: will there be feedback to the victim as a result of the review?
As I understand it, the victim will get the review, the sympathetic hearing and the opinion of the DPP. I am told that that is not necessarily new but that it will formalise the position.
Is the Government aware of the widespread public concern about the treatment of a citizen, Ms Nora Wall, whose name is in the public domain?
It is not in order to refer to individual cases. These questions are about the system, not about individuals.
I am talking about a dramatic failure of the system.
An individual case should not be raised at this point.
I appreciate that you are protecting a citizen of this Republic, Sir, and I share that concern, but in this instance the system has failed.
This is not in order.
In an attempt to be in order, therefore, is the Taoiseach aware that on occasions the system has failed dramatically, causing widespread concern? How does the Government address the issue of, on the one hand, maintaining the independence of the Office of the DPP from political influence, which is an aspiration we all share, although Fianna Fáil opposed it in 1974, and at the same time ensuring that the operation of that office, in general as distinct from individual cases, is held accountable to the Oireachtas? How can we address both of those concerns simultaneously? Having regard to the widespread concern in respect of the extraordinary case about which we read recently, does the Government have any proposals to address that issue?
With regard to the action the Government can take, we will produce legislation, whether it be related to criminal law or any other aspect of the legal system, provide adequate staffing to the relevant institutions of the State – in this instance the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions – and establish the necessary research and other facilities. The Deputy will be aware that I cannot comment on the case to which he referred because I do not have responsibility for the conduct of individual prosecutions. The report on the public prosecution system, with which some of these questions deal, and the results of the study group, which arise from earlier work carried out by former Attorney General, Mr. Dermot Gleeson, were designed to streamline the prosecution system, make it more efficient and effective and ensure that a better service is provided.
I appreciate the Taoiseach's remarks and I broadly support the efforts being made. However, will he indicate the location of the line – if one exists – between independence and accountability? Does independence in this area mean absolute autonomy without reference to any other institution in this State?
The often quoted answer to that question, particularly since the election in 1974 which led to the introduction of legislation in respect of the Director of Public Prosecutions, is that the holder of the office is totally independent in his functions.
That is the correct way to have it.
(Mayo): Is the Taoiseach aware that, when resigning, the former Director of Public Prosecutions said that some appalling mistakes had been made in his office due to the lack of co-ordination and cohesion between the office of the DPP and the Office of the Chief State Solicitor? I know the Taoiseach announced measures to address that problem, but when will these come onstream to bring about this greater co-ordination and cohesion? The Taoiseach also stated that the report “also contained a number of recommendations designed to improve the information—
The Deputy should not quote during Question Time.
(Mayo): I am quoting from the Taoiseach's reply.
It is not in order to quote.
(Mayo): My question relates to his original reply. When can we expect to see the additional proposals and new measures designed to improve the capabilities of the system over a period?
Since we received the report and the Attorney General's examination of it, the Government has, in principle, approved it. Those matters must now be discussed with the various industrial relations interests in order to allow these sizeable changes to be made to the offices in question. The criminal division of the Chief State Solicitor's office is probably the largest section of that office and employs between 30 per cent and 40 per cent of its staff. Total responsibility for that division will be transferred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, as will the State solicitors' system. This will depend on the speed with which discussions and negotiations can be concluded but I estimate that this will take some time. As the report states, new facilities and additional resources will be required and negotiations in this regard will have to be entered into with the Department of Finance. However, there is support for the proposals and the negotiations with the trade unions are about to commence, if they have not already commenced.
(Mayo): The former DPP also stated that if he had a tabula rasa, the current criminal justice system is the last one he would devise. Under existing arrangements, the DPP cannot marshal his troops, namely, members of the Garda Síochána on the day of a trial. However, when it comes to accountability, full responsibility lies with him. Is it envisaged that this will change by virtue of bringing the two offices together?
The report, which the Deputy has had an opportunity to peruse, is interesting, it answers many of the questions that have been raised and it contains details of studies carried out in other countries. However, the study group was far from convinced that major changes in the broad structure of the current system would be justified and it set out its arguments in that regard. The view of the group was that the present system works reasonably efficiently, very economically and is an equitable and acceptable system. It points out possible improvements. It refers to the fact that the Garda deals with 500,000 cases every year and points out how these should be dealt with. It recommends that officers of different rank should deal with these cases and it speaks about training. In the overall assessment, the group does not favour a unified system. Following the Gleeson investigation into the law offices of the State and the Deloitte & Touche inquiry that went with it, it was recommended that this issue be examined. It has now been examined comprehensively by an expert group – I thank the people who gave their time to the group over 12 months – and its recommendations will go a long way towards improving the system. The group did not recommend a unified system or recommend that the 500,000 prosecutions per year in the Dublin District Court be transferred to the DPP. The group set out, at some length, why it does not believe that is necessary or desirable.
I know the Taoiseach cannot comment on the fraud that took place in the Chief State Solicitor's office, with regard to a possible prosecution, but the Comptroller and Auditor General's report stated that a review of the operation and administration of the system, particularly the payment of cheques – they will be responsible for an increase from £3.5 million to £6.8 million in the current year, as provided for in the Estimates – will be undertaken and perhaps changed once the Garda report or investigation is completed. That is independent of any action the DPP will take. Does the Taoiseach's brief indicate what form of review has taken place and what changes, if any, there will be in the administration of these payments which now amount to the substantial sum of £6.8 million?
When the irregularities were highlighted, a number of weaknesses in the sys tem were identified. There has been a preliminary review and there has been more comprehensive checking of the facilities. I understand there was a way of getting around the system but that has been eliminated. I do not wish to comment on the case referred to, but other aspects have been identified and the office is in the process of updating systems and control and requisitioning procedures to ensure, to the best of our ability, that fraud cannot take place.