The Director of Public Prosecutions has suggested changing his office's decades-long policy of not giving reasons for decisions not to prosecute.
In a document published today on the DPP's website, James Hamilton seeks submissions from interested parties on how this could be done without infringing the rights of accused people and witnesses.
The policy of not giving reasons not to prosecute, especially in high-profile cases or those involving violence and death, has frequently been criticised by victims and their families, as well as by politicians and commentators.
In 1983, Mr Hamilton's predecessor, Eamonn Barnes, issued a public statement on the issue, in which he outlined the reasons for the policy. He said if reasons were given in one case they would have to be given in all, and the reasons given, if they appeared to be of a technical nature, could amount to a conviction without trial of a suspect in the public estimation, while depriving the suspected person of a careful examination of the case against him in court.
"If some method could be devised whereby the director could, without doing injustice, inform the public of the reasons for his decisions, he will very willingly put it into operation," Mr Barnes said. "Unfortunately, the director is unaware of any method in which reasons can be given without, in many cases, doing injustice."
This position was reiterated by Mr Hamilton in 1998.
However, he says in the document published today that a number of factors had raised the need to consider a change in policy.
These included a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in 2003 which required reasons for decisions to be given by the state to relatives of those killed by the use of lethal force; the emergence of mechanisms in other common law jurisdictions where reasons were given, at least to victims and their relatives; the increasing recognition that victims should be informed of decisions that affected their lives; and the recognition that public confidence in the justice system would be enhanced if there was greater understanding of prosecution decisions.
He outlined a number of possible ways in which these demands could be met. Minimal modification of the original policy, in order to incorporate the requirements of the European ruling, could be undertaken. More extensive change, where reasons for non-prosecution would be given to victims and close relatives, could be introduced but restricted to specific offences such as rape and murder.
A broader approach would give detailed reasons where possible across a wide range of cases, and, where that was not possible, giving reasons of a general nature. No reasons would be given where it would lead to prejudicing the rights of the accused or anyone else.
He posed eight questions that should be addressed by members of the public and interested parties. These included asking whether the policy should be changed at all; if it was, whether reasons should be given to the public at large or just those directly involved in the case; whether the reasons should be of a general nature or more detailed; should such communications from the DPP attract legal privilege; and how could this be done without encroaching on the rights of others.