The Director of Public Prosecutions has warned the media of the risks of pre-trial publicity interfering with the right of an accused person to a fair trial.
In the foreword to her office's annual report, published this morning, DPP Claire Loftus reminded journalists of their "high degree of responsibility" in ensuring that prejudicial coverage does not lead to the collapse of criminal trials.
“I want to take this opportunity to say something generally about the risks of pre-trial publicity interfering with the right of an accused person to a fair trial,” she wrote.
“The media and commentators have a high degree of responsibility to ensure that not only do they not commit a contempt of court by publishing or broadcasting prejudicial material but also that such publicity is not the cause of a trial being postponed for a long period, or even indefinitely. These risks increase as any trial date approaches.”
In 2008, the DPP’s office adopted a new policy of giving victims’ families reasons for decisions not to prosecute in fatal cases. The office has dealt with 41 requests for reasons, the report shows, including eight last year.
The expansion of the project to other types of cases has been widely expected since last year, when the EU last year adopted a directive that gives crime victims the right to receive information in relation to any decision not to prosecute a suspect. The directive must be transposed into Irish law by 2015.
In her foreword, Ms Loftus writes that because of her office’s limited resources and the need to fully prepare for the transposition of the directive into Irish law, “I do not anticipate an expansion of the current reasons project in fatal cases to other areas of decision-making in the near future.”
She added: "I will review the situation when the implications of giving effect to the directive for both ourselves and the Garda Síochána have been fully analysed."
In 2012, the report shows, the DPP received files in relation to 11,942 suspects in which the office was asked to direct on whether to prosecute. Of these, it decided not to prosecute in 39 per cent, mostly commonly because it believed the evidence in the file was not sufficient. In 28 per cent of cases it was decided to prosecute on indictment in the Circuit, Central or Special Criminal Court and in 31 per cent the office directed that the offence should be prosecuted in the District Court. The remaining two per cent are still under consideration.
A breakdown of the main reasons for a decision not to prosecute shows that in 79 per cent of cases it was due to insufficient evidence. Other reasons included “public interest” (two per cent), “time limit expired” (one per cent) and “injured party withdraws complaint” (four per cent).
If the DPP’s office believes a sentence imposed by a trial court was unduly lenient, it can apply to the Court of Criminal Appeal to have the sentence reviewed. The report shows that it did so in 21 cases last year, compared to 55 cases in 2011 and 54 cases in 2010.
Some 28 appeals by the DPP were heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal last year; 15 were successful, 10 were refused and three were struck out or withdrawn.
The total cost of running the prosecution service for 2012 was €38.8 million – an increase of € 2.1 million on the previous year. Fees paid to barristers accounted for 32 per cent and another 32 per cent was paid in salaries and wages to staff in the office.
The State Solicitor Service accounted for 16 per cent of the total and a further 13 per cent represented the amount paid in legal costs awarded by the courts.
However, the report states that the average cost per case has fallen from €35,562 in 2009 to €23,877 last year, while the fees paid to prosecution barristers was reduced by 26 per cent between March 2009 and October 2011.
Some 191 people were employed by the DPP’s office at the end of last year.
