Skip to main content
Normal View

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 21 November 2006

Tuesday, 21 November 2006

Questions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

1 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if his attention has been drawn to the call made by the Director of Public Prosecutions for the establishment of a dedicated legal policy unit within his office; if it is intended to provide the finance and resources to allow such an office to be established; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28373/06]

View answer

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

2 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the number of staff, broken down by grade, employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; the way these compare with the establishment level; if he is satisfied that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has sufficient staff to discharge its functions adequately; if he has received a request for additional staff for the office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29407/06]

View answer

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Question:

3 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if it is proposed to enhance the operation of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34475/06]

View answer

Enda Kenny

Question:

4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he proposes to restructure the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35500/06]

View answer

Joe Higgins

Question:

5 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if there are plans to make changes to the operation of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. [35928/06]

View answer

Trevor Sargent

Question:

6 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he has considered changing the functions or structure of the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37076/06]

View answer

Oral answers (17 contributions)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.

The authorised staffing complement of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions stands at 174. Three vacancies in the office are in the process of being filled. I propose to circulate in the Official Report the information requested by the Deputies on the number of staff, classified by grade, employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Minister for Finance is considering a request from the Director of Public Prosecutions for the provision of extra resources, including resources for the establishment of a dedicated prosecution policy unit. The adequacy of existing staff levels will be addressed in this exercise. Matters of structure and operations within the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions are the responsibility of the director and it would not be appropriate for me to be involved.

Legal Posts and Grades

Post or grade

Staff complement by grade

Serving

Vacancies or excess

DPP deputy

2

2

0

Directing division

Professional officer II

4

4

0

Professional officer III

8

7.7

0.3

Professional officer IV

6

6.8

0.8

Legal researchers

2

2

0

Solicitors division

Chief prosecution solicitor

1

1

0

Principal prosecutions solicitor

4

4.8

0.8

Senior prosecution solicitor

8

6.5

1.5

Prosecution solicitor or assistant principal I

7

6

1

Prosecution solicitor

27

27

0

Principal legal executive

1

1

0

Deputy principal legal executive

1

0.8

0.2

Assistant principal legal executive

3

2.9

0.1

Higher legal executive

6

6

0

Legal executive

4

4

0

Special law officer

1

1

0

Trainee law clerk (Trainees)

1

1

0

Total

86

84.5

1.5

Administrative Posts and Grades

Post title or grade

Sanctioned posts

Serving

Vacancies

Library

Law librarian

1

0.89

0.11

Assistant librarian

1

1

0

Library assistant

1

0

1*

General administration

Principal officer 1

1

1

0

Assistant principal 1

2

2

0

Assistant principal

3

3

0

Assistant principal or system analyst

1

0.8

0.2

Higher executive officer

7

6.5

0.5

HEO or system analyst

2

2

0

Executive officer

12

8.9

3.1

EO or system analyst

2

2

0

Staff officer

6

6

0

Clerical officer

44

48.1

4.1

Service officer

5

5

0

Total

88

87.1

0.9

Overall totals

174

171.69

2.31

*CO covering this post while library assistant on career break.

I welcome the more open disposition of the current Director of Public Prosecutions and the number of changes he has introduced, such as availability of books of information, a recent "Prime Time" interview, which is not the first interview he has given, and so on. The DPP pointed out that his office is often called upon in respect of matters of legal policy. He stated:

With the increasing complexity of the criminal justice system, my professional staff are now regularly being called upon to address matters of legal policy. To date, this has been managed from within existing resources. However, I am of the opinion that it is now time to address these issues in a more structured and focused way.

What is the Taoiseach's understanding of the DPP's statement? To what issues of legal policy is he referring? Is it the Government or the Attorney General that requires him to address those issues? Is it intended to set up a legal policy unit in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions? Has a request been made to the Taoiseach in this regard? Has a request been made for more resources? Has the Government a view on the DPP's statement when he thought aloud that there is a need to establish what he called a dedicated legal policy unit?

The matter is receiving attention in my Department. My officials are broadly supportive of this. As it is a resource issue, my officials are dealing with it with the Department of Finance and the DPP. There are no staff dealing with legal policy in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. This has proved to be an enormous drawback, as the director pointed out.

The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform frequently refers issues to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for its observations, as do others. The DPP finds it difficult to deal with these referrals because of the increasing amount of legal work unrelated to specific prosecution files work and without having a dedicated staff. The director considers that the formulation of an internal office prosecution policy is not being given sufficient priority because of the absence of a dedicated unit. He has also stated that such a unit would also support the director on general legal policy positions to be adopted in arguments before the courts, particularly in the appellate courts. The interaction between the prosecution service and victims of crime raises issues of policy which such a unit could address.

In his discussions with my Department, the DPP has stated that such a unit would be required to deal with the legal policy relating to prosecutions and matters such as proposed legislation and proposals emanating from the EU and other international bodies, such as the OECD, GRECO, the EU anti-corruption agency, and OLAF, the EU anti-fraud agency. The DPP's office finds it difficult to deal with the increasing amount of legal work unrelated to these issues. The director also considers the formulation of internal office prosecutions has not been given sufficient priority. He stated that this is a vital area where a unit could stand back from the day-to-day prosecution work to examine policy initiatives and give advice when requested. He also stated that GRECO and OLAF regularly seek his direction. His office needs a dedicated unit to deal with these initiatives on an ongoing basis.

Is the Taoiseach speaking mainly of prosecutorial policy? Is the DPP being asked to make an input to policy preparation? The Taoiseach said the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform contacted him on various matters. Are the DPP's views being sought on the matter of legal policy as distinct from prosecution policy?

Does the Taoiseach wish to comment on the DPP's comments in his recent interview that it would be desirable for judges to provide more clarification and rationale for sentencing decisions? Does the Government have a view on that?

The DPP has stated that he might be asked for his views on legislation dealing with prosecution. He has set out his view on that issue in several speeches. The present DPP has been forthcoming on these issues.

It is clear from his scripts that he views the amount of angst caused to families, other relatives and friends when detail is not supplied as a worrying trend. He argues equally that there are times when that is difficult because if it is not given in every case people distinguish between one case and another. He seems to come down in favour of the argument that it would be better to give more detail so that the public, particularly those involved, are able to see a more factual position.

In one speech he made several provisos showing how difficulty this is in many cases. From a non-legal point of view it is a good thing if the public can see more detail of the rationale behind decisions, making them more understandable.

Is the Taoiseach aware that one of the reasons for enhancing the DPP's office is the need for the office to explain properly why so many cases are not pursued? Is the Taoiseach aware that fewer than one in ten victims of sexual violence comes through the system and that fewer come before the courts in this jurisdiction than in 20 other European Union member states? That detail comes from the Rape Crisis Network Ireland.

Given that the DPP is the gateway controlling the number of reported cases going before the courts, would the Taoiseach agree that the DPP must prepare and report on decisions made through its office to ensure a better understanding of the basis for these decisions? Recognising that need, does he agree that we need further support-enhancing measures to create a more effective, open and understandable Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions? This goes to the kernel of the question.

Does the Taoiseach agree that if failures in evidence-gathering constitute a barrier to bringing cases before the courts this should be identified by the DPP's office and rectified? Does the Taoiseach agree the office has the primary responsibility to clearly point out the deficiencies in the investigation and preparation of cases submitted for its consideration?

I will not get into a discussion on policy areas and why or how the DPP makes decisions. He is an independent office holder under the 1974 Act and it would be entirely wrong to discuss issues relating to his administration or staffing. He put forward a case where his present staff complement should be increased, especially in the policy unit.

Where a trial has taken place, it is not the director's practice to disclose the existence of material which was not put before a court of trial because it was inadmissible or not probative to the case. If the director were to do this, it would involve disclosing prejudicial material and would leave persons affected by disclosure with no effective means to combat any damage to their reputation.

The policy of not giving reasons in public for decisions not to prosecute is not just part of the 1974 Act, as I stated previously on Question Time, it predates the Prosecution of Offences Act and the establishment of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. A number of principles underpin this policy. As I stated in reply to Deputy Rabbitte, if reasons were given in one or more cases, it would be difficult to give them in all cases. Otherwise, wrong conclusions would be inevitably drawn in regard to those cases where the reasons are refused. If, on the other hand, reasons were given in all cases and those reasons were more than bland generalities, due consequences would be difficult or impossible to avoid. That is the reason, as the DPP has outlined.

Nobody is looking for named cases to be identified but where a pattern of policy decision is evident, that that would be——

The question does not relate to policy, it relates purely to administration for which the Taoiseach has responsibility.

Where there is evidence of a pattern.

I accept Deputy Ó Caoláin's point. While I acknowledge the long established principle of not giving reasons in public, I am aware the Director of Public Prosecutions is currently examining where there may be scope for giving further information to victims of crime with regard to prosecutorial decisions. He has stated that himself. Until he does that, I do not have any further information.

Does the Taoiseach accept the thrust of Deputy Rabbitte's question, that there should be a dedicated legal policy unit within the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions? Arising from that, is it the Taoiseach's view that there are weaknesses in the criminal justice system. I welcome the fact that the DPP has spoken out in a number of areas. I especially welcome his description of sentencing by judges as being like a lottery and the suggestion that perhaps, in appropriate cases, explanations should be given by members of the Bench as to the reasons for their range of sentences. A range of those tariffs should be set down by the Oireachtas and, respecting the independence of the Judiciary, a sentence given either above or below that range would, at the same time, require him or her to give an explanation in that regard.

Does the Taoiseach accept there are weaknesses in the system at present? Does he believe that the setting up of a specific policy unit within the DPP's office would be helpful? Does he share the DPP's view that it would be appropriate for judges in these circumstances to explain their sentences, which has been put forward by Fine Gael for some time, much to the amusement of some Fianna Fáil Ministers?

I have replied to the question about policy. The Director of Public Prosecutions has put forward a case on why he believes a policy unit would be desirable and beneficial to him. My Department generally supports that and is engaged with the Department of Finance and the DPP's office in making the case for the relevant staff to deal with this area. There are other issues too. There has been a general increase in the volume and complexity of the legal work with which the director's office has to deal, as a consequence of which an increase in staff was sought over a wide range of areas. The work areas in respect of which the office is seeking additional staff is not just in this area, it is also in the directing division, prosecution policy unit, confiscation of assets, judicial review, District Court, European arrest warrants, Court of Criminal Appeal, bail applicants, the High Court, transfer of State solicitors' service, out-of-hours service and additional representation of gardaí. While the office has a large staff, a case has been made for more staff and that is being examined. Undoubtedly the workload is increasing.

The issue of judges or the DPP giving more information is a matter for both bodies. As Deputy Kenny is aware, when the House lays down mandatory sentences and fixed sentences the courts will take that into account but I do not think they look too kindly on accepting what we suggest; other than the House giving guidelines in legislation, there are all kinds of flexibilities on these issues. I have outlined the negative consequences of giving a specific reason for a decision to prosecute as opposed to a bland generality. For example, that the evidence did not permit a prosecution could in many cases cast doubt on the innocence of a person and thereby violate the presumption of innocence that can be displaced by a trial in due course of law in open court where the accused is equally represented. Giving reasons could damage or prejudice the good name or reputation of a potential witness, for example, by stating that a witness was not thought to be reliable. While it always appears easy on the face of it to say the Judiciary or the DPP should give information, when one looks at the DPP's statement there are many areas where he points out that this is not an easy task. What he is saying is that, where possible, these matters should be dealt with. He has stated that he will return to give a more complete view on that issue.

The call from the DPP for a more transparent sentencing policy is welcome. In regard to the actual office and the question in hand, is the Taoiseach taking seriously the Law Society's concerns based on the fact that in 2005 some 37% of cases were not proceeded with, apparently due to lack of resources? Given that the workload is increasing how is it possible to justify in the Estimates a decrease of 1% in overall funding for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions? Its work has increased not only in terms of caseload but in terms of responsibility for the Chief State Solicitor's office transferring from the Office of the Attorney General to the DPP. The DPP's office also has to advise on the extended responsibilities of the Garda ombudsman and the inspectorate. Is there a case for increasing transparency in regard to sentencing policy and how the DPP's office works? I am aware a certain amount of information is available through the Freedom of Information Act. This would enable us to see the reason it needs greater resources than are being provided.

As I have stated there has been a large increase in staff because there has been a large increase in the amount of work. The negotiations at the Chief State Solicitor's office are, hopefully, drawing to a conclusion but they have not been finalised. Representatives of the State solicitors service and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions have met with the State solicitors associations to discuss the offer but those matters are not completed. That has cost the office in its own right and obviously that matter will be raised. It was not just a prosecution policy unit. In a whole range of services he is looking for additional staff and that is under discussion. If that is decided or any element of it is decided, he will obviously get the resources for that.

Other than what the director has said — he has stated that he will examine the areas and that he would look at where there might be scope for giving greater information to victims of crime with regard to prosecutorial decisions — I do not think in any of these cases freedom of information would be welcomed by the DPP or his staff. It would be far too complex for that.

Why is there a decrease in funding of 1%?

The resources are large. It would be necessary to look at what was in the base figure for last year compared with this year. The figure for this year is the full cost figure of the office for this year based on the complement of 175. It does not include the additional staff the director is seeking at present. The Department of Finance examination of that is not yet complete. The Office of the Chief State Solicitor is dealt with separately. It has a claim outstanding which has been going through the industrial relations mechanism all year. Hopefully it will be resolved before the end of the year so that office can be dealt with in the same way. At present it is not included in the figures.

Top
Share