Vol. 512 No. 3
1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the administrative, procedural or staffing changes to arise in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions arising out of his report to the Attorney General on the organisational aspects surrounding the handling of the prosecution of a case against persons (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24909/99]
2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the administrative, procedural or staffing changes to arise in the Office of the Chief State Solicitor arising out of the report to the Attorney General on the organisational aspects surrounding the handling of the prosecution of a case against persons (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24910/99]
3 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the steps, if any, being taken to address the administrative shortcomings of the Offices of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief State Solicitor identified in the report of a case (details supplied); the further steps, if any, being taken to deal with the shortfall in resources and the heavy workload in the Chief State Solicitor's office which the DPP concluded contributed to failures in the case; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25140/99]
I agree with that. In all cases, people should not be declared guilty until the case is over. The reasons are fairly lengthy and I can only quote those given by Mr. Hamilton. The decision to call the person arose initially because counsel failed to recall the direction from the DPP's office not to call this witness following which he directed that she should be called.
In turn, there was a failure on the part of the other lawyers involved in the case to notice the contradiction between direction from the DPP's office and counsel's advice on the proofs and to take corrective action on that point. In addition, the initial instruction to the Office of the Chief State Solicitor to notify the accused of the intention not to call the person was not acted on.
Mr. Hamilton went on to say human error occurs inevitably in any system in any organisation but what is important is to take reasonable measures to identify such errors when they occur. He went on to say that so far as is known, it is the only occasion in 25 years of existence of the DPP's office on which such an error of a witness being wrongly called occurred and that this may be relevant to any judgment of whether it was a reason to anticipate such in any event being likely to occur. Mr. Hamilton went on to give some lengthy positions. He said, nevertheless with the benefit of experience gained as a result, it is possible to identify a number of improvements, which he went on to outline.
In summary, he said – it is probably the best way to explain this to the House – the problems which have been identified arise principally from weaknesses in the systems of communication between the three sets of lawyers involved in the case – the DPP's professional officer, who gives directions as to the prosecutions on the director's behalf, counsel, who conducts the case in court, and the instructing solicitor who is responsible for ensuring that the directions of the DPP's office and counsel are carried out, that counsel is properly instructed and the case is ready to proceed to court.
The steps now being taken, if followed, reduce the likelihood of a similar error arising again. In addition, the recommendations of the Nally report on the public prosecutions system are implemented. The establishment of a new solicitor to direct the public prosecutions accountable to the director and the transfer of responsibility for the local State solicitor's service to the director will improve the communications and the arrangements for responsibility and accountability as between the DPP and his professional officers and the solicitors who handle the cases.
Is part of the problem that there were three sets of lawyers involved? When three sets of people are involved, communications difficulties are almost inevitable.
That is true. As the Deputy knows, the Nally recommendations, which I mentioned, said it would be better if the same solicitor handled a case through the system. The recommendations and the subsequent meetings on staffing issues indicate that it would mean a considerable number of additional staff. From memory, the office would require another 25 staff to deal with that, not to mention ancillary staff. It is being looked at.
The decisions of the Nally report to remove the prosecution service and the State solicitor service nationwide, from the Chief State Solicitor's office to the DPP, is being examined and staffing levels are being looked at. What would remain in the Chief State Solicitor's office is being reflected on. It would be an enormous transfer, but that decision has been accepted in principle and the operational procedures are taking place.
I do not want to hide the fact that although the office has staff, unfortunately, the grading situation is leading to a position where people are working for a year or two and those who meet the standard are selected and head-hunted. This is happening to a degree which has not been experienced before.
Does the State intend to formally apologise to Nora Wall for the bungling? As regards the letter of 1 October from James Hamilton, the DPP, from which the Taoiseach extensively quoted, he chose deliberately not to quote the last sentence which was that the failures in the performance of the duties of the CSSO were largely related to a lack of resources. In the official reply the Taoiseach gave to the House, he said the question of resources was being reviewed. Other than the appointment of a new solicitor to the DPP, he did not indicate whether extra resources would be made available. Irrespective of the allocation of the posts and restructuring of those posts within the DPP's office, can the Taoiseach say in principle whether a decision has been made to make extra resources available? He said in an aside to a supplementary question that when the national claims agency legislation is put in place it will further reduce the burden on the CSSO. However, that legislation has been delayed for more than a year, though bearing the incompetence of the Minister for Finance in mind, that is not surprising.
The issue of an apology has still to be addressed. The DPP has commented on this, as has the Attorney General. Admittedly, a formal apology has not been made. I did not read the full letter, but I gave a clear reply to Deputy Bruton, stating that the heavy overload of work is a problem.
Will the Taoiseach read the last paragraph? We will then have that on the record.
Certainly. I have only read about three paragraphs of a seven page letter, but I will read the last paragraph:
Finally, in my opinion, the failures on the part of the Chief State Solicitor's Office which contributed to this incident must be attributed in part to the shortfall in resources at that office and over-heavy workloads carried by its officers. These problems have worsened in recent times and require to be addressed as a matter of urgency.
In my reply I pointed out some of the reasons for that office being tied up. The staffing issue is being examined, as I said. A group—
My point is that I know it is being looked at, but has the Government made a decision in principle to make extra resources available?
The Government accepts that if the Nally report is to be accepted, which the Government has approved in principle, it will take extra resources. The working group now dealing with this has had a number of meetings. This briefing note is now somewhat out of date, as the group has had at least three meetings. It consists of the Attorney General, the CSSO, the DPP and the Department of Finance. It has identified additional staff needs and my briefing note states that 24 solicitors, five technical and 13 support staff are needed. That is being discussed, not only in the context of this work, but for the transfer of the whole prosecution service. The chief State solicitors of each county can then go to one office and the existing office will be restructured to deal with the remaining work. There will be substantial resources.
Is the Taoiseach aware that there are particularly long delays in the DPP's office in respect of files forwarded by the Garda arising out of investigations into allegations of child sexual abuse? Given the new procedural and administrative arrangements, will he consider a separate division of the DPP's office being dedicated to such cases?
It will not be for me, but I will raise that point. There are longer delays on the civil side, but I accept that there are delays. That workload of the office has increased massively every year in the 1990s. Despite all the technology that the previous Attorney General, Mr. Gleeson, brought in and the fact that that policy was carried on by Mr. Byrne when he was Attorney General, the sheer volume of work has grown. Almost 30 extra members of staff have been taken on in the past two and a half years and before that an enormous number of staff had been taken on – there are now approximately 220 to 230 people working there. The office has grown massively, but there is still a huge workload. This is the third review in three years and it has now identified a need for another 23 or 24 solicitors.
(Mayo): In this case with such a high profile, counsel failed to recall the DPP's instruction that a specific witness was not to be called, junior counsel forgot to advise senior counsel, the Garda assumed senior counsel had been in touch with the DPP's office, the solicitor in court on the day was not the solicitor who prepared the book of evidence and the professional officer who issued the direction was on holidays. Will the Taoiseach agree that in a case where an innocent person is wrongly convicted, we are not talking about a weakness in communication but downright incompetence? If such a litany of blunders occurred in the private sector, heads would roll.
I do not want to add anything other than what the new DPP stated in his report. According to the outgoing DPP and the incoming DPP, I must reflect that to the best of their knowledge it is the first time in 25 years this has happened. It was a series of substantive errors, there is no doubt about that.
In reply to my last question the Taoiseach said that additional resources will be required by the office. Can I take it from that he is saying the Government is committed to making additional resources available when they are sought?
I wish to refer to the question posed by Deputy Jim Higgins. In view of the litany of incompetence he outlined, does the State intend to pay counsel for their bungling in regard to this case or has a direction issued from the Attorney General's office to the DPP that the people who screwed up so majestically on that occasion will not be paid by the taxpayer for adding insult to injury?
On the staffing issue, I do not want to mislead Deputy Quinn. The working group is considering the number of staff who will be required and that is still under negotiation. Resources will be made available, although I do not know what the final number of staff will be.
Additional resources will be made available?
There will be additional resources, that is not at issue. They are trying to work out—
Will we pay for the incompetence?
What is cleared by the DPP is not a matter for me.
Will the Taoiseach agree that the State and the media, which have done an injustice to the accused in this case – in the media's case, by judging them guilty before that was proven – should volunteer an apology without having to be brought before the courts again in a civil case by the defendants? Will he also agree that any compensation or apology should be given freely now and the agony ended rather than dragging the matter through the courts, yet again with the State and the media having to be asked reluctantly to apologise for attaching the word "evil", in three inch headlines, to the accused in this case only to find that they were acquitted?
I gather from what the Taoiseach said that he does not feel responsible, but can I take it he is abdicating responsibility in terms of whether a composite degree of incompetence as outlined by Deputy Jim Higgins will be paid for automatically by the State? Surely the Taoiseach of this Republic has some influence in saying to the relevant paymaster that in this instance they should not to be paid?
I clear the accounts in the DPP's office. I do not want to be frivolous about this, but I am sure the accounts have been paid.
Does the Taoiseach think they should be paid?
They are not that efficient.
Maybe not. I am sure that today the individuals concerned are representing the State and the various parties in cases. The Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General have made their remarks about the case. I do not believe it is the subject of a court case, but I may be incorrect in that. I do not believe there will be further action.
There may be a civil case.
If the issue of an apology arises, that will be done—
I think the Taoiseach misunderstood my question.
Allow the Taoiseach to conclude his reply.
—although I would be advised on that matter.
Is this a case of the lawyers telling us what to do again? This arose in relation to the "States of Fear" argument. Notwithstanding what the advice may be or any civil suit that may ensue, given that for the first time in 25 years a person was manifestly wronged in the name of the State, is there not a case that the Taoiseach should offer at least a minimal apology on behalf of the office for which he is now answering questions?
If such action was taken against a person who was totally innocent, I would apologise and regret it. However, if subsequent actions arise, they might require a more detailed apology. That is a matter for another day.
Will the Taoiseach indicate whether the defendants in that case, including Nora Wall, have sought compensation from the State, whether a civil action has yet been instituted and, if no such action has been instituted, whether an offer by the State to pay compensation will be made without the necessity for civil proceedings to be taken?
I do not have details on those matters. As far as I know, no action has been taken or issues raised by the defendants in this case.
In the absence of a civil action being taken, will the State make an offer to pay compensation for the wrong done to the individuals concerned?
It is a separate question. I am not aware of what correspondence has passed between the legal representatives.
It is not in the brief.
No.
