Bertie Ahern
Ceist:3 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach whether any review has been carried out on the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, with particular regard to the prosecution of sex abuse cases. [15453/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Office of Director of Public Prosecution.
Liz O'Donnell
Ceist:4 Ms O'Donnell asked the Taoiseach the procedures which he has initiated to enhance the accountability and efficiency of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15591/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together. The Director of Public Prosecutions has again assured me that sex abuse cases are given very careful attention and prosecutions are decided upon by him whenever that is considered appropriate. The Director is satisfied that the proper criteria are being applied within the office when such prosecutions are being considered and that a formal review of procedures which apply within the office is not necessary. Informal reviews have however taken place and will continue.
The office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in common with other Government Departments and offices, has embarked on a strategic management initiative process, which will include a close examination by private sector consultants of its efficiency. Any appropriate suggestions for improvement of efficiency will be implemented. In addition, the Department of Finance, with the full support of the office, last week commenced a review of its structure and organisation. When the report of that review is available later this year it will be considered urgently by the Government.
The Department of Finance, in response to an urgent request for extra legal staff, has sanctioned the immediate recruitment of a third legal assistant and a fourth legal assistant for the office to alleviate understanding on the legal side. The review by the Department of Finance, as mentioned above, into the structure and organisation of the office will include consideration by the office of the production of annual or other reports on the work it has done.
Will the Taoiseach agree it is unacceptable for serious offences against children to go unprosecuted for essentially technical reasons? If the Director of Public Prosecutions finds there are deficiencies in the present state of the law — such as that evidence from children might not be acceptable — which prevent him from prosecuting, will the Taoiseach give an undertaking to the House that he will change the law?
As the House is aware some time ago legislation was passed in regard to offences against children. It related to the presentation of evidence by children and other related matters. If the Director of Public Prosecutions identifies areas of law reform that need to be undertaken where justice is not being served by the present system, certainly the Government will take any such recommendation from the Director of Public Prosecutions very seriously and will seek to act upon it. It is important to bear in mind that each case is different, that the Director of Public Prosecutions must be independent and just in his assessment of the evidence both from the point of view of the victim and from the point of view of the prospective accused and also must be realistic about the proofs that will be required to secure a successful prosecution before deciding to proceed.
Is it not the case that the Director of Public Prosecutions, in his recent public announcement identified such areas? Will the appropriate Government officer, presumably the Attorney General in this case, direct the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute in any case where there is a prima facie case? Surely in those cases there should be a direction from the Attorney General?
The Deputy should recollect the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1974, which makes the Director of Public Prosecutions independent in the exercise of his office. He is not subject to direction from the Attorney General. Direction from the Attorney General was the case prior to that legislation. The establishment of an independent Director of Public Prosecutions was a step forward which was widely supported on all sides of the House at that time. It would not be a good idea if the Attorney General was to give directions. There are provisions in the Prosecution of Offences Act for consultations to take place between the Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions but these are not consultations at which directions can be Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions but these are not consultations at which directions can be given to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Director of Public Prosecutions is independent and should remain so.
I welcome the measures being introduced by the Taoiseach in this regard. Can I take it that the Taoiseach now accepts the argument which he denied over the last two years that the necessary independence of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions can survive a greater degree of accountability and answer-ability than currently exists? Will he accept that at a time of great controversy regarding the non-prosecution of certain sexual offences, particularly sexual offences against children, either through non-reporting or through inexplicable decisions of the DPP not to prosecute, there is a need for an overall policy review of the prosecution policy as administered in the office of the DPP? Will that be included in this review of the DPP's office?
In regard to the first part of the Deputy's question, it is a good thing to provide the Director of Public Prosecutions with the resources necessary to enable him to provide regular published reports on the work undertaken. However, the work of the DPP should not be subject to accountability to the House in regard to either decisions to prosecute or not to prosecute in particular cases, or categories of case. We should not politicise prosecutorial decisions. I know this is a matter on which there are divided views. There are other jurisdictions where the DA is quite often subject to marked and openly admitted political pressure from his electors to prosecute in particular cases — if some of the dramas on our television screens are to be believed as being a fair representation of law in certain American states. That is not the way we should go. It is desirable to maintain independence from political pressure in regard to prosecutions but the House could be given more information. One of the reasons it did not get the information, as the Deputy is aware from answers she has received to questions, is that staff resources are not available to collect the statistical information. I hope as a result of the review now being undertaken more information can be provided but not of a type that would encroach on the independence of the DPP in regard to prosecutorial decisions.
In regard to the second part of the question, prosecution policy will not be covered in the reviews I have undertaken. These are reviews in regard to the workings of the office, the efficiency of despatch of business within the office and the objectives of the office. Accountability other than in respect of individual cases or categories of case will be covered. The question of prosecution policy is a matter for the Minister for Justice rather than me.
To return to my earlier point, has the DPP not pointed out the deficiencies in current law, particularly where evidence from children is not acceptable? Has the DPP not signalled to the Government that this is an area requiring a change of law? Is the Taoiseach not concerned that where there was a statement of admission, and no other evidence, prosecutions were not proceeded with?
I have already answered the first part of the Deputy's question. Any recommendations made by the DPP for changes in the law will be examined.
Are they being examined?
They will be examined by the Minister for Justice — I do not promote the legislation in this area. There are difficulties in founding any prosecution on confessions alone. Deputies only have to look back to important cases where miscarriages of justice were alleged in this and in the neighbouring jurisdiction, where convictions were based on confessions alone, to see there can be problems in this regard. It is important to allow the DPP assess each case on its merits.
Why is the Taoiseach so loath to allow some review of prosecution policy in the context of sexual offences? Is he not aware, for example, that lapse of time is constantly being used by the DPP's office as a reason not to prosecute in child abuse cases? Will the Taoiseach not agree that lapse of time will always be a feature of child abuse cases and to use that as the sole reason for not prosecuting can no longer be supported given what we know about child abuse cases and the length of time it takes people — in some cases it may take 20 years — to report the allegations?
I appreciate the point the Deputy is making but it is important to recognise that the DPP must make a decision in the light of the evidence in each case and how robust that evidence will be under cross-examination in court. It is not simply a matter of ignoring lapse of time. The relevance of lapse of time will vary from case to case. There is no doubt that in some cases people's recollection will be very clear, graphic and verifiable, less so in others. In some cases there will be corroborating evidence, in others there will not be such evidence. In cases such as this it is best to leave the matter to the independent judgment of the DPP in each case. We should not set target rates of prosecution for particular offences where the DPP is expected to prosecute 40 per cent of the files he is sent in a particular category because that is considered to be the politically acceptable way to deal with the offence as a means of expressing our concern about that type of offence. That sort of generalised approach is not desirable. It is more desirable, in the interests of civil liberties — and my concern is with civil liberties — to allow the DPP make independent judgments in each case.
That must be the end of questions to the Taoiseach for today.
A Cheann Comhairle, may I ask a brief supplementary?
I am sorry, I am proceeding now to questions nominated for priority to the Minister for Health. Question No. 9 is in the name of Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn.