Jury duty: To be convinced beyond reasonable doubt

IN its letter to Alice McDermott, the DPP said two separate legal officers examined the files submitted on her case by the gardaí.

It said the first file was considered by a “professional officer” and reviewed by a “second more senior professional officer” who decided against prosecution.

The second file was examined by the same officer, who considered the first file.

It was again examined by “a more senior lawyer” and it was decided the “original decision not to prosecute should stand”.

According to the role of the DPP, published by the office, there must be enough evidence to pursue a prosecution. “If there is not enough evidence to convince the court that the person is guilty a prosecution will not go ahead. Lack of evidence is the most common reason for decisions not to prosecute.”

The document adds: “The prosecutor has to remember that the judge or jury have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty. It is not enough if they think the accused person probably did it.

“For this reason it is important to know if there is independent evidence which supports the injured party’s story,” such as a witness or forensic evidence.

“If a decision is made not to prosecute, the victims may feel that they have not been believed, but this may not be the case. Even where the prosecutor believes the victim’s story, the evidence may simply not be strong enough to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”

It said that even where evidence is strong, a case may not be prosecuted because of a long delay since the offence was committed.

The DPP has a policy, operating for many years, of not giving reasons why a case is not being prosecuted.

“There are many cases where giving a reason in public could amount to condemning a person without a trial.

“Sometimes the reason may be something which would be unfair to make public, such as the medical condition of a witness.

“If reasons were given in some cases but not in others, people would be likely to jump to the wrong conclusions.”

A review of this policy, ordered by the DPP James Hamilton, is ongoing for a long time and is expected later this year. This may, or may not, result in a change.