The Director of Public Prosecutions has said some crime victim support groups have failed to engage with her office on arrangements for furnishing of information ahead of trials.
She also predicted her office would have to spend more in lawyers’ fees as a result of additional court sittings and a number of large upcoming trials.
Speaking at the National Prosecutors' Conference at Dublin Castle at the weekend, Claire Loftus said she was pleased a memorandum of understanding (MOU) had been agreed between her office and the HSE on disclosure.
This provides for the furnishing of documents, such as counselling notes, in a consistent manner when the DPP requests them in advance of criminal prosecutions.
She said a number of similar deals had been struck with other agencies and groups, including the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre and One in Four.
“I am happy to report that the operation of these MOUs has had an immediate effect and has reduced the delays and consequent trauma caused by last-minute adjournments because the case is not ready to proceed,” she said.
However, the DPP said some organisations which provided services to victims had yet to enter into MOUs with her office.
“This has caused difficulty in practice. Some of the organisations take the view that, even where the victim consents to furnishing documentation as part of disclosure, those who have provided counselling can decide that the material should not be handed over,” Ms Loftus said.
“While the material in all such cases has eventually been provided, this has often been at the very last minute while the trial has been about to commence. This of course is very unsatisfactory for all concerned, especially the victim.”
She encouraged the groups, which had taken this position “notwithstanding the wishes of their own clients”, to engage in dialogue with her office.
In the address, Ms Loftus noted the result of the recent referendum on a Court of Appeal and the intention to establish a division of that court to deal with criminal appeals.
This would "undoubtedly relieve" the delays in appeals at the Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeal, she said, when the new court was established in October 2014.
She noted, however, that additional court sittings would increase the costs to her office as more cases were processed.
“This, coupled with a number of large trials, will inevitably have an effect on our expenditure on professional fees, notwithstanding the series of cuts over the last number of years,” she added.
