Although the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has been in place for close to a quarter of a century its 1998 Annual Report published yesterday is, remarkably, the first of its kind. Those seeking scandal and revelation will be disappointed; the report is a politely-worded overview of the work of the DPP's office. For all that, it does shed some light in the darkness. Critically, there are lengthy sections in which the DPP explains his modus operandi; at the very least, this should help to clarify the work of a sometimes misunderstood office of the State. The report also underlines, in stark terms, the huge volume of work completed by the DPP's office every year. Some 14 professional officers dealt with a staggering 7,068 files in 1998.
In his report, Mr Barnes also refers to what he terms "some significant obstacles to the successful investigation and prosecution of serious crime" which remain. But it is, he adds carefully, for other authorities to decide how these difficulties can be ameliorated.
The DPP, Mr Eamonn Barnes, may hold one of the most sensitive and important legal offices in the State but he only very occasionally intrudes on the public consciousness. His most controversial ruling, perhaps, remains his 1983 decision not to prosecute Malcolm MacArthur for the murder of Donal Dunne. In recent years, the DPP's office and its perceived lack of accountability have been the subject of some criticism; three years ago there was political controversy about the performance of the office, particularly with regard to the processing of child abuse cases.
Mr Barnes has held firmly to the view that he should refrain from giving reasons for decisions not to institute or proceed with criminal proceedings. A statement issued by Mr Barnes in 1983 at the time of the MacArthur controversy is reproduced as an appendix to yesterday's report and it enunciates his policy to this day. There is a coercive reason for the practice of nondisclosure, he says; "If reasons are given in one or more cases, they must be given in all . . . to announce that (some) factor was the sole reason for non-prosecution would amount to conviction without trial in the public estimation".
Despite the political clamour which his decisions sometimes attract, the case made by the DPP for nondisclosure is a persuasive one. The decision to refrain from explaining decisions has one other substantial benefit; it underpins the independence of the DPP's office. As Mr Barnes notes in his report: "The independence of the office is essential and constitutes a formidable safeguard for the citizen against arbitrary, unjust or improperly motivated prosecution". The essence of his office, he says, is the "calm, objective and impartial discharge of functions which involve very important issues of justice for those affected by them".
Recently, to his credit, the DPP was seen to assert his independence when he appealed the suspension of the sentence in the Sheedy case, something which helped to bring the case to the public's attention.