Vol. 459 No. 8
3 Ms O'Donnell asked the Minister for Justice if she will respond to the call by the Director of Public Prosecutions in the September issue of Communiqué, the Garda Síochána management journal, for a unified prosecution agency to overcome the duplication of work and delays in the present prosecution system: and if she will make a statement on the matter. [15104/95]
14 Mr. O'Dea asked the Minister for Justice if her attention has been drawn to the remarks of the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding the desirability of a unified prosecution agency for criminal prosecutions; and the plans, if any, the Government has to introduce changes in the criminal prosecution system. [14307/95]
41 Mr. Foley asked the Minister for Justice if she will introduce a unified prosecution agency; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [18951/95]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3, 14 and 41 together.
I understand that the work and functions of the Chief State Solicitor's office are being examined as part of the Strategic Management Initiative process in the Office of the Attorney General. The work and functions, in particular, of the Chief State Solicitor's office in relation to the criminal prosecution system and the question of a unified prosecution agency will be addressed by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in the context of its own Strategic Management Initiative. In addition, as mentioned by the Taoiseach in a reply to Parliamentary Question No. 3 of 24 October 1995, the Department of Finance has commenced a review of the structure and organisation of the Director's Office.
While the Government would be prepared to examine any proposal which might lead to improved efficiency in prosecuting criminal cases, the House will appreciate that consideration of the desirability of a unified prosecution agency must await the outcome of the strategic management work and the other study to which I have referred.
The Director of Public Prosecutions — an eminent officeholder who has been in office for 20 years — has called for a unified prosecution service to overcome the duplication of work and delays in the present prosecution service which he described as absurd. Has the Minister met him to discuss these comments on a sensitive matter and, if so, did she discuss other aspects of the operations of his office which are the source of public concern, including for example, the need for liaison with victims of crime?
I have not met the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss the article in the magazine mentioned or any of the other statements made by him in public. As the Deputy is aware, the Office of the DPP was set up in 1974 and it is independent of the Department of Justice and the Executive. It would be inappropriate for me to appear to be in some way guiding or directing the DPP on the action he should take on any case. I cannot do that. I have met him socially from time to time, but I have not met him officially to discuss his comments. It should be noted that his article was extremely lengthy and makes good reading. He went into great detail about the type of justice system here. It would appear that he is arguing for an examination of the system in terms of moving from an adversarial to an inquisitorial system similar to that which obtains in other jurisdictions. That would involve a major change and would require examination. The operation of the Office of the DPP is subject to the provisions of the strategic management initiative and the practical running of the office is subject to examination by the Department of Finance. When those examinations have been carried out, we may see improvements in the practical running of the office.
In his article the Director of Public Prosecutions raised the fact that there was a split in the present system as between the decision making process in which he is involved and the initiation of a case which is organised by State solicitors around the country. What is the Minister's view of those difficulties? Why does she consider that she is precluded from having a meeting with the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss what I consider are valid and legitimate concerns publicly expressed by him? I do not understand why the Minister considers that the independence of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions precludes her from having discussions with him when he wants to have discussions with somebody to discuss the inadequacies in the prosecution service.
I explained why it is not appropriate for me to talk to the DPP about the changes which he believes might come about. There may be a time when I consider that is appropriate. The DPP is independent of the Department of Justice and I am not in a position to tell him how he should change the system. He has his methods of examining the system and that is taking place currently.
Regarding the other issues he raised about changes in structures, those structures have existed since the establishment of the Office of the DPP. The strategic management initiative is being carried out and I imagine all these issues will be examined. I have responsibility for the criminal justice side of his work. As part of the examination of that office, the existing structures are being examined. When that examination is completed I will take whatever action I consider appropriate.
The Minister does not accept that the independence of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions can survive a greater degree of accountability and consultation with the Executive. Does the Minister consider it improper of the Director of Public Prosecutions to go on the Marian Finucane programme when he has never been allowed to address this House or a Dáil committee? Is she aware that the Select Committee on Legislation and Security has invited the Director of Public Prosecutions to attend one of its meetings and does she approve of that?
We are having an extension of this question now.
We are indeed. It is not appropriate for me to comment on anything the DPP did. As a result of that programme a number of questions were raised in this House. The Taoiseach made it clear that legislation on compellability has been altered to allow the DPP to appear before committees. We have not stopped the DPP from addressing committees, he has declined to address them. Under the legislation on compellability he will be answerable——
Has he declined?
I do not know. I am not a member of a committee that invited him to appear before it. The Deputy appears to imply that he has declined to attend or will not attend a meeting. I do not know if a committee of which the Deputy is a member has invited him to appear before it.
It has.
If he has declined to attend it, that has nothing to do with me.
He has not declined.
Good. Perhaps he will appear before it.
He said on the radio show that he was not asked.
Perhaps the chairperson of the committee would clarify the position. I am not going to get into an argument with the Deputy about whether he was invited. He has never asked my advice about whether he should appear before a committee and I have never proffered him any advice.
