Written Answers. - Departmental Correspondence.
Dan Boyle
Question:
127
Mr. Boyle
asked the
Minister for Health and Children
the reasons he has failed to respond to the letter from the DPP seeking guidance on the way in which to proceed with prosecutions against those responsible for infecting blood products used by haemophiliacs; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[27590/03]
Emmet Stagg
Question:
151
Mr. Stagg
asked the
Minister for Health and Children
the reason he failed to respond to a letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions arising from the referral to the DPP of the report of the Lindsay tribunal; if the letter has now been replied to; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[27579/03]
John Gormley
Question:
213
Mr. Gormley
asked the
Minister for Health and Children
the reasons for his failure to reply to the letter of the Director of Public Prosecutions which sought guidance on the way in which to proceed with prosecutions against those responsible for infecting the blood products for haemophiliacs; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[27649/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 127, 151 and 213 together.
On foot of a Government decision on 22 October, 2002, I forwarded the report of the Tribunal of Inquiry into the Infection with HIV and Hepatitis C of Persons with Haemophilia and Related Disorders, chaired by Judge Alison Lindsay, to the Director of Public Prosecutions DPP, on 31 October 2002, requesting that he consider the report's contents.
On 21 November 2002 the DPP wrote to the Attorney General noting that, since he had no investigative function or powers, when a report of a tribunal is forwarded to him, his practice was to assess the report to see whether there was a possible basis for criminal charges and if so, to forward the relevant material to the Garda Síochána for investigation. The DPP also pointed out that further investigation by the Garda Síochána is invariably required because statements made to a tribunal established under the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 cannot be used in subsequent criminal proceedings. The DPP also stated that a tribunal, as a fact finding body which makes no determination of criminal or civil liability, which is not bound by strict laws of evidence, and which draws its conclusions on the basis of probability rather than satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt, does not necessarily act on the basis of evidence that would satisfy the more exacting requirements of proof in criminal cases. The DPP went on to inquire whether there were any papers in the possession of the Department of Health and Children or otherwise in existence which would help in identifying possible criminal offences which may have been committed and which could assist him in his assessment of the report.
The Attorney General wrote to me on 2 December 2002, enclosing a copy of the letter from the DPP and requesting that my Department would forward to the DPP any documentation or information that it might have in its possession, which would assist him in his assessment of the report. The DPP subsequently wrote direct on 13 December, reiterating the request for any assistance that my Department could provide.
On receipt of the letter from the Attorney General, I consulted with senior officials of my Department who informed me that no documentation had been prepared by the Department or by its legal team at the tribunal either during the tribunal's hearings or following the publication of its report which sought to identify possible criminal activity. In view of this and having regard to the fact that the role of my Department had been subject to investigation by the tribunal, our conclusion was that it would not be appropriate for me or my Department to express any view to the DPP on what might be subject to a criminal investigation. Unfortunately, due to a breakdown in communications, the DPP was not advised of the position until the past few days.
It was never my understanding or that of my Department however, that any further action by the Office of the DPP would await receipt of a reply to this correspondence. That has only become clear in the very recent past. My Department has now responded definitively to the DPP on this matter.
