Vol. 513 No. 4
58 Ms Clune asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the plans, if any, he has to establish an inquiry into the role of the Garda and others in the case of a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2604/00]
As the House will be aware, the circumstances surrounding the prosecution referred to were the subject of a report requested by the Attorney General from the Director of Public Prosecutions. This report described in detail the circumstances surrounding the events to which the question refers. The Taoiseach subsequently answered questions on the report in this House on 7 December 1999 and because of the substantial response given on that date by him I do not propose to cover the same ground again today, particularly as I have no function in either of the offices involved, the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions.
In regard to the Garda investigations the Deputy will be aware that where allegations of a criminal nature are made the gardaí are duty bound to investigate them and forward, as appro priate, a file to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Minister is satisfied from the information provided to him by the Garda Commissioner that this was done and that all necessary facts relating to the investigation were passed on by the gardaí to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
(Mayo): This is the Nora Wall case. Does the Minister of State accept that if ever there were grounds for a sworn inquiry these are they? Does she accept that the Director of Public Prosecutions specifically instructed the Chief State Solicitor that a particular witness was not to be called, that senior counsel forgot to advise or misunderstood, that senior counsel was not advised or reminded by junior counsel, that the Garda assumed that the senior counsel had been in touch with the Director of Public Prosecutions about the witness and, therefore, did not remind the senior counsel, that the solicitor for the Chief State Solicitor in court on the day was not the solicitor who prepared the book of evidence and that the professional officer who issued the direction to prosecute was absent? As a result of the ham-fisted incompetence of the various agencies involved in bringing this case, an innocent person was hauled before the courts on 23 occasions and spent four days in Mountjoy having been given a 20 year life sentence.
The Minister has no role in regard to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney General. These offices are fully independent of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Minister has no role in taking prosecutions or, for that matter, in investigating either office. The errors that led to the events referred to by Deputy Higgins have been dealt with in detail in the report of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Taoiseach recently outlined in the House the administrative, procedural and staffing implications for the offices of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief State Solicitor. I cannot see what, if any benefit would be gained by an additional inquiry into the matter.
Will the Minister of State agree that this case underlines the point made in another case I cited in Priority Question Time, the need for greater transparency in the prosecution service, and will she undertake to review the legislation? While we all accept the need to separate politics from decisions to prosecute, there must be a transparency in these vital decisions if the administration of justice is to retain the full confidence of the people. Does the Minister of State accept that point of view?
We would need to be careful, given that the Minister does not have a role in the offices of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General. We all know that transparency is important but the offices are fully independent of the Minister and he does not have a role in taking prosecutions or in investigating either of the offices involved.
The legal position is that the Minister does not have any role, but would the Minister of State accept that it is not good enough that there is not accountability or transparency in issues such as this and that there is responsibility on the Minister to amend the law to require transparency?
(Mayo): While the Minister cannot interfere directly with the prosecution process does she accept that the Garda is directly under the command of the Minister? Does she accept that the Chief State Solicitor is an appointee and directly under the Government as is the Attorney General? If we are not to have an inquiry – I ask you to look at that again – may we at least have an apology for the damage and vilification heaped on this woman?
While recognising the points made by the previous speaker, and I agree with him, this practice has pertained from time immemorial. The Director of Public Prosecutions is not answerable to anyone. Will the legislation announced by the Government prior to Christmas change the situation where decisions of the DPP – I am aware it was not a decision of the DPP which lead to this dreadful case – will now be open to scrutiny? This is a welcome change.
On the question of the apology, I understand that counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions apologised to the person concerned on 22 November 1999 at the Court of Criminal Appeal. I understand also that the issue of a formal apology was addressed by the Taoiseach in his reply to the House on 7 December last. Therefore, I am not in a position to comment further on the matter.
