DPP decisions not to prosecute

mountainyman

Can one demand and receive reasons why the DPP are not prosecuting a case and if so what standing do you need?

MM

NoQuarter

In Cyril hobson v DPP [2005] IEHC 368 Peart J stated:

I am satisfied from the consideration of Eviston* that the respondant was entitled to review his decision whether because he recieved a representation from the father of one of the victims, or for any other reason. I am also satisfied that it is not incumbent upon the respondent to give reasons for any decision or change of decision.

*Eviston v DPP [2002] 3 IR 260



However I'm only a thick as pigsh1te daytime griffith student so i wouldnt really listen to that! :rolleyes:

EdgarAllenPoo

Careful now Stew.

NoQuarter

GDM wrote: »

Careful now Stew.

thats enought backseat modding from you!

EdgarAllenPoo

Hey, that's not what I do in a backseat;)

johnnyskeleton

You and your cyril hobson case...

The DPP (in line with most other prosecuting authorities) has refused to give reasons for his decisions either in specific cases or in general. But in recent years other in other common law countries the prosecuting authorities have started to give reasons.

Hence, the DPP has opened up the question and has asked for submissions on whether or not he should give reasons for his decisions and if so, to whom?

On the one hand, victims of crime are demanding to know why a prosecution was not carried out, on the other hand, the DPP doesn't want to turn around to them and say "We think you're a skank and probably consented".

The DPPs annual reports give a very general breakdown of why he doesn't prosecute (I think in about 75% of cases it is due to insufficient evidence, the remainder being due to public interest, sympathy for the offender, death of the offender or a witness and occasionally due to legal difficulties).

As things stand, anyone can request to know the reasons, but the DPP is not required (nor is it his policy) to give out such reasons. He might inform someone closely related to the case (e.g. injured party) and is highly unlikely to give out reasons to a random member of the public or the press. In most cases it is reasonably clear why the DPP is not prosecuting.

NoQuarter

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

In most cases it is reasonably clear why the DPP is not prosecuting.

Because Cyril Hobson said so?!??! :eek:

Tom Young

mountainyman wrote: »

Can one demand and receive reasons why the DPP are not prosecuting a case and if so what standing do you need?

MM

Simple answer - no. There is a consultation on this at the moment, which I think is fundamentally flawed. If its not correctly undertaken it will do nothing more than create further vilification of people who should be given the benefit of the presumption of innocence.

mountainyman

I am really thinking about DCC and Fyffes especially wrt the Supreme courts comments which were part of the Ratio IIRC,

Duffman

Have a look at these:

H. v DPP [1994] 2 IR 589

Barron J held that the DPP could not be compelled to institute a prosecution or to give reasons for his failure to do so.

Also, Section 46, Freedom of Information Act, 1997 - It specifically excludes application of the act to the DPP.

The rationale for this is that the DPP is supposed to be totally independent. If he had to explain everything you could imagine situations in which he might think twice before reaching a decision.

There have been some ECHR cases in which arguments were raised about DPPs acting or failing to act but as far as I know the ECtHR has never had to rule on it (Pretty v. UK is the one that comes to mind but I can't remember much about it).