The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has urged "great caution" in public comment on criminal cases before the courts, warning that the risk of prejudicing upcoming banking trials was "particularly acute".
At the annual prosecutors conference in Dublin at the weekend, Claire Loftus also said the establishment of the Court of Appeal could lead to greater consistency in sentencing and reduce the number of appeals her office took over undue leniency. Ms Loftus said that, as her office received increasingly complex and high profile cases, it could not lose sight of its responsibility to vindicate a defendant's right to a fair trial.
“It is essential for the media and all persons who pass comment on, or discuss, in whatever forum, matters which are pending before the criminal courts, to exercise great caution and not trespass into areas that will result in prejudice for an accused,” she said. “The risk increases as a trial date approaches. Where the banking trials are concerned, this risk is particularly acute.”
A number of banking trials were pending in 2016, and Ms Loftus said they were having “major resource implications” for her office.
On the Court of Appeal, to be established later this month, Ms Loftus said having a fixed panel of judges hearing all criminal appeals – as opposed to the ad hoc arrangement of rotating judges in the Court of Criminal Appeal – could improve consistency. This should reduce the number of undue leniency appeals taken by her office and sentence severity reviews initiated by defence lawyers.
However, she said the more efficient appellate system would result in more appeals being heard each year and the DPP's office had allocated extra staff to ease the transition. The additional barristers' fees would put pressure on the DPP's budget and she said she had raised this with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.
The director also referred to a number of recent judgments from the Court of Criminal Appeal, which suggested the DPP should offer assistance to judges in the sentencing process.
Ms Loftus said the DPP’s role in sentencing was “important but limited” and she did not believe it would be appropriate for her to suggest the precise length of sentence to be imposed by a court. “I do not favour the very detailed sentencing guidelines such as they have in England and Wales, much less sentence-based plea bargaining common in a number of other common law jurisdictions.”
Ms Loftus defended her office’s handling of rape cases, saying it was “only very rarely” that it decided not to prosecute due to concerns about the credibility of a complainant.
“Of course sometimes we will have concerns, for example, that it would be unsafe to prosecute because of inconsistencies in what is alleged,” she said, “but in the vast majority of cases it is not because we do not believe the complainant’s account. It is just that there is insufficient evidence to justify charging a suspect and putting all parties through a trial when there is no reasonable prospect of a conviction.”
