Deputy Mitchell would be the first to agree that, if reasons were to be given in one case — even in circumstances in which public controversy surrounded such a case — such explanation would have to be extended to all cases. I do not think any of us — and neither, I am sure, would Deputy Mitchell — would want to interfere with the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions in such cases. Members should remember that we could be creating circumstances in which the perception of guilt could well be associated with somebody in relation to his or her conviction if one were to announce a particular reason for not proceeding with a prosecution.
There could be many reasons for the decision. For example, if a witness had disappeared from the jurisdiction and that was the reason given for not proceeding, some people could draw the conclusion — and this would be contrary to natural justice — that the person was guilty but the evidence was not available to convict him. One would want to tread very carefully before making changes in this area. I believe strongly in accountability but I have to be very careful in proceeding along a particular line. The reasons for non-prosecution do not necessarily relate to guilt or innocence and in that regard we should be concerned.