DPP breaks policy by apologising, says solicitor

THE Director of Public Prosecutions’ issuing of an apology and explanation in connection with a case file reveals he is prepared to depart from his stated policy of refusing to give reasons for decisions, a high-profile solicitor has claimed.

The DPP’s office is adamant the issuing of an apology when a mistake is made and a prosecution becomes statute barred does not run contrary to the general policy refusing to give reasons for decisions.

But a solicitor at the centre of two of the most high-profile cases involving families demanding answers over the failure to prosecute believes the DPP has departed from the policy.

Michael Finucane, who represents the sister of one of two women murdered at Grangegorman and the family of Joan McCarthy, said: “The DPP adheres to a policy in the face of serious criticism but also takes it upon himself to depart from policy.”

Mr Finucane cited the case of Nora Wall, the nun first jailed for life after being convicted of rape, then released after it emerged the accusations were completely unfounded.

While the DPP did not give actual reasons for the collapse, he passed on to the Attorney General a point by point explanation for using a particular witness. This was then published.

The Brannigan case - highlighted by the Irish Examiner yesterday - where the DPP issued an apology and revealed the reason why a prosecution against an individual ended up being statute barred, further suggests he does depart from the policy, said Mr Finucane.

But the DPP, who has appointed officials to carry out a review of the policy and is set to issue a discussion document next year, is adamant there is no connection between cases which have run out of time and the policy.

“Where a time limit has expired there is no longer a decision to make. There is nothing to decide since there can be no prosecution,” his office said.

The policy exists for three reasons:

To avoid prejudice to suspects and even witnesses.

To avoid stigmatising an individual as a criminal without a trial.

If he does it in one case, he has to do it in all.

The DPP’s office cites a 1994 Supreme Court judgment as backing his position, though a 2002 decision allows for a victim to request a review of a decision not to prosecute.

In Britain, the general policy is not to give reasons except in certain cases which “cry out” for an explanation.