DPP secrecy policy - Decision on consultation welcome

THE decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to consider reversing the controversial policy of refusing to explain his decisions should be warmly welcomed.

DPP James Hamilton has today published a consultation document inviting opinions in relation to proposals to alter the long-standing secrecy surrounding his office.

A six-week consultation period had begun with victims’ support groups, legal experts, law enforcement officers, and individuals. More than four years of research has gone into preparing the consultation document. This involved examining the practices of other countries with similar legal systems, such as Britain, Australia and Canada.

Victims of crime are often baffled by the state’s failure to prosecute, and the DPP has invited people to express their views in confidence to his office on how it could be more open. “If I was a victim I would want to know what was happening,” explained Mr Hamilton. “And if something wasn’t happening, I would want to know why not.”

Of course, any changes could have serious implications. They must not be at the expense of anyone’s right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.

The DPP explained that he would be open to divulging information that would not endanger the reputations of suspects who do not get a subsequent chance to defend themselves in court.

If the DPP explains his reasons in one case, he will inevitably come under pressure to explain other cases. This could pose serious problems, if providing information risked exposing a Garda informant. There would also be instances where the DPP might conclude that particular witnesses who might be totally sincere but yet too unreliable to put on the witness stand.

There are other cases, however — such as the Malcolm MacArthur case going back to 1982 — in which reasons were never given why no charges were made in relation to the killing of Donal Dunne. This was grossly unfair to the Dunne family, and it was also unfair to the public, because questions still remain in relation to possible political implications a quarter of a century later.

The need for more openness is a delicate issue of vital public importance. The easy course, since the office of DPP was established in the early 1970s has always been to do nothing. Mr Hamilton’s readiness to throw some light on the proceedings of his office is warmly commended.