A High Court judge has demanded an explanation from the DPP about why the Director had consented, earlier this week, to bail being granted to a man said to have psychiatric problems who had allegedly threatened a woman in relation to proceeding with a complaint of rape and also threatened to kill her family.
If he had acted on Monday on the DPP's consent to bail, in circumstances where the woman and her family were terrified, the man would get bail and, where it was clear bail should not be granted, there could have been "tragic consequences", Mr Justice Kelly said. He said he had a real concern about public safety and public-health issues raised by the case.
After the judge raised concerns on Monday about granting bail, the bail application was adjourned to yesterday when counsel for the DPP said they were now opposing bail.
After hearing evidence from a prosecuting garda yesterday, counsel for the man said they were withdrawing the bail application.
Expressing serious concerns about the entire matter, the judge ordered lawyers for the DPP to have an explanation for him, at a special hearing next Tuesday, as to how the DPP had initially opposed bail for the man in the District Court where bail was refused but then agreed to bail at the High Court bail sittings at Clover Hill court house on Monday.
Yesterday, after being prompted to make certain queries by Mr Justice Kelly, the DPP opposed bail. Counsel for the DPP said the situation had arisen because of a breakdown of communications between the DPP's office and gardaí involved in the case.
The judge stressed that the prosecuting garda, who had been on leave as a result of his wife's serious illness, was totally blameless in the matter and had in fact only been made aware yesterday morning of the High Court bail application.
Mr Justice Kelly said it was clear there was "a very substantial failure" in the system which could have resulted in tragic consequences. He wanted a full explanation as to why he was initially told on Monday bail could be granted with the consent of the DPP.
In the absence of an explanation, the whole bail system carries an extremely substantial question mark over it, he added. While the courts made the ultimate decision on bail, they had to rely on information from the DPP.
He added that the bail application was made on notice to the DPP on July 16th and the State had, therefore, appropriate notice of it.
