DPP to family: I am sorry for blunder

THE Director of Public Prosecutions has issued an unprecedented apology to the husband of a young woman killed in a car accident, in which he admits an administrative blunder led to an individual not being prosecuted.

It is believed to be the first time the DPP has personally apologised to the family of the victim for failures that led to his office being unable to prosecute.

DPP James Hamilton, in a letter to widower Aidan Brannigan, 44, confirmed details of how the summary prosecution for careless driving became statute barred. He admits the summary prosecution was not initiated within the legal time limit.

Legal experts have described the admission as extremely rare, if not unprecedented.

Mr Hamilton wrote the letter some months ago to Mr Brannigan, a Monaghan farmer, more than eight years after his wife Ann died following an horrific multiple car collision. She was in her early 30s. They had no children.

The letter of apology and explanation follows a High Court action by Mr Brannigan that was settled.

The letter’s existence is revealed publicly for the first time today.

The decision to issue the apology and reveal that an “administrative mishap” caused the non-prosecution could set a precedent.

Other victims’ relatives, or individuals facing charges that are dropped without explanation or apology, may now make a claim for similar treatment, one criminal law expert argued. This possibility has been played down by the DPP’s office.

In a statement, Mr Hamilton’s office stated that when a prosecution becomes statute barred, there is no possibility of one happening in the future and therefore no potential prejudice. In summary cases, a prosecution has to be initiated within six months of the incident but there is no time limit for more serious offences.

His office added that when a prosecution runs out of time because of a mistake, then it is proper to apologise. The office would not say if it had happened before, but in the letter he described the mistake in the Brannigan case as “wholly exceptional”.

The DPP has signalled he wants to give families some reasons for decisions taken by his office. A working group attached to the DPP’s office is studying practices in other jurisdictions.

In his letter to Mr Brannigan, Mr Hamilton said that when appointed he became aware of the case and it caused him disquiet.

The DPP said the failure to prosecute was due to an administrative mishap and that there were no sinister associations. The mishap was a wrong date for the car accident. As a result the DPP finally made a decision on the case six months and eight days after the accident.

Mr Hamilton expressed profound regret the intended prosecution was allowed to become statute barred.

He was happy to apologise.

“I would hope that by doing so I demonstrate my commitment to the principle of diligence in the proper application of the criminal law in cases such as this,” he wrote.

It is understood Mr Brannigan feels somewhat vindicated by the response, having been angry at what he believed was the State’s failure to deliver justice.