No reasons given for DPP decisions.

endakenny

In The Sunday Times, 31 Oct 2010, I read that the DPP has decided not to prosecute a Catholic priest even though it's the ninth file sent to him with regards this priest. I'm aware that the DPP doesn't give reasons for his decisions but, surely, the number of statements made against "Father B" should justify a trial. After all, the DPP decided to prosecute Michael Feichin Hannon, whose conviction turned out to be a miscarriage of justice, on the unsubstantiated allegations of one girl. Does the DPP not realise that he has a moral obligation to explain to Mr Hannon why he decided to charge him.

MagicSean

I don't know the facts of this case but in general if the evidence against someone is comprised solely of an uncooberated statement of events 20 years ago, any conviction will be unsafe. It's unfortunate but this is how our justice system works.

[QUOTE=endakenny;68776609 Does the DPP not realise that he has a moral obligation to explain to Mr Hannon why he decided to charge him.[/QUOTE]

What moral obligation is that then?

murrayp4

The DPP has started a pilot scheme whereby decisions not to prosecute are explained to the families of alleged victims. It may be expanded in the future

johnnyskeleton

endakenny wrote: »

In The Sunday Times, 31 Oct 2010, I read that the DPP has decided not to prosecute a Catholic priest even though it's the ninth file sent to him with regards this priest. I'm aware that the DPP doesn't give reasons for his decisions but, surely, the number of statements made against "Father B" should justify a trial. After all, the DPP decided to prosecute Michael Feichin Hannon, whose conviction turned out to be a miscarriage of justice, on the unsubstantiated allegations of one girl. Does the DPP not realise that he has a moral obligation to explain to Mr Hannon why he decided to charge him.

The DPP need only find that there is a credible complaint of criminal conduct in order to prosecute. Without knowing the ins and outs of the case you are referring to, it is entirely possible that, although 9 complaints have been made against him, not one of them is credible. The DPP has other reasons to refuse to prosecute, but the main one is that he doesn't think the evidence is there.

k_mac wrote: »

I don't know the facts of this case but in general if the evidence against someone is comprised solely of an uncooberated statement of events 20 years ago, any conviction will be unsafe. It's unfortunate but this is how our justice system works.

Not really. Prosecutions of that nature have been allowed. The conviction would not necessarily be unsafe, but the jury may have to be warned that it is dangerous to convict on the uncorroborated statement of the alleged victim of sexual assault/rape, and the jury will have to be warned that the delay makes it even more important that they are certain before convicting.

endakenny

murrayp4 wrote: »

The DPP has started a pilot scheme whereby decisions not to prosecute are explained to the families of alleged victims. It may be expanded in the future

If it is, it is highly unlikely that it will be retrospective. The pilot scheme only applies to cases involving fatalities after 22 Oct 2008.

endakenny

Deleted User wrote: »

What moral obligation is that then?

Why prosecute on the basis of only the word of an individual. As far as I know, no-one corroborated Una Hardester's allegation. There was also no evidence that an assault took place i.e. penetration, torn clothes, bruises, fingerprints. The truth came to light only because she owned up after bumping into one of Mr Hannon's relatives. Because she was under 12 at the time, she cannot be prosecuted.

GerardKeating

endakenny wrote: »

In The Sunday Times, 31 Oct 2010, I read that the DPP has decided not to prosecute a Catholic priest even though it's the ninth file sent to him with regards this priest. I'm aware that the DPP doesn't give reasons for his decisions but, surely, the number of statements made against "Father B" should justify a trial. After all, the DPP decided to prosecute Michael Feichin Hannon, whose conviction turned out to be a miscarriage of justice, on the unsubstantiated allegations of one girl. Does the DPP not realise that he has a moral obligation to explain to Mr Hannon why he decided to charge him.

So in the past the DPP prosecuted someone in error before, and is now more caution in prosecuting someone in (possibly) a similar case?

endakenny

endakenny wrote: »

Why prosecute on the basis of only the word of an individual. As far as I know, no-one corroborated Una Hardester's allegation. There was also no evidence that an assault took place i.e. penetration, torn clothes, bruises, fingerprints. The truth came to light only because she owned up after bumping into one of Mr Hannon's relatives. Because she was under 12 at the time, she cannot be prosecuted.

That's a good argument for the DPP being more careful. Not in any sense does that argument impute a moral obligation.