Major court ruling changed evidence test

In this case, the Supreme Court came up with a new test to be applied to the inclusion or exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, including evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights.

According to the new test, evidence which is taken in deliberate and conscious violation of constitutional rights should still be excluded, except for in exceptional circumstances which are already considered in the existing legal theory.

“This is a very important decision for the prosecution of crime because over the preceding 25 years, there were many cases which were submitted to this office which were the subject of a decision not to prosecute because of the inadmissibility of crucial evidence due to the very strict exclusionary rule,” said Ms Loftus.

The DPP’s report also lists several cases last year where the constitutionality of a piece of our law was challenged.

In one case, JF v DPP and Other, the High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s constitutional challenge to the notification requirements contained in the Sex Offenders Act 2001. The court ruled the requirements placed on the plaintiff were not disproportionate because the purpose of the scheme is to protect the general public.

In relation to children in our legal system, there was one case included in the report which affects them.

In R R v DPP, the High Court held that the Circuit Court was still able to impose a sentence on a juvenile even though he had been remanded in custody for a period in excess of that provided for in section 100 of the Children Act 2001.

The High Court then noted the State had a special onus to deal with cases involving children as quickly as possible but that rare cases, such as this case, can occur, therefore allowing the court to go beyond the time limit set out in section 100.

In relation to our road traffic law, one decision regarding the inclusion of further evidence after the closure of the trial reflects a major development in the Irish legal environment.

In O’Keeffe v DPP, heard in the Court of Appeal, the appellant had previously been convicted of an offence of drink driving where a district judge had allowed a prosecution witness to be recalled to give evidence after the prosecution case had closed.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that a district court judge had the discretion to allow further evidence, on technical or procedural matter, even after the prosecution had closed their case.

Key figures from DPP report

• €37,699,205 — total expenditure of office in 2015.
• €14,022,032 — total fees paid to barristers who prosecuted cases on behalf of the office in 2015.
• €12,150,357 — total cost of salaries of staff employed in the office in 2015.
• 186 — the number of staff in the DPP, as counted on January 1, 2015.
• 333 — the number of requests from citizens for reasons as to why the office decided against prosecuting. These requests were made after the EU directive on victims’ rights came into effect in November 2015 and up until June 2016.
• 14,307 — the number of files the DPP received in 2015, this is compared with the 14,014 files they received in 2014 and 13,761 in 2013.
• 11,975 — the number of suspects who were the subject of the 14,307 files received in 2015.
• 3,877 — the number of times the DPP decided not to direct to prosecute in 2015, due to insufficient evidence.
• 0 to 2 weeks — length of time it took the office to issue directions on 6,125 files.
• 51 — the number of murder cases directed for prosecution in 2015. 68% of cases were directed on within one month of the office receiving the file in 2015. 90% of cases were directed on within three months of the DPP getting the file in 2015.
• €3.4m — the amount the High Court seized in criminal assets in 2015.
• 106 — the number of European Arrest Warrant files received by the office, from An Garda Síochána in 2015.
• 17 — the number of people surrendered due to European arrest warrants in 2015.
• 65 — the number of rape cases directed for prosecution in 2015.
• 1,261 — the number of cases directed for prosecution by the DPP in relation to offences against property in 2015.
• 10 — the number of extradition warrants gardaí applied for, that came in from countries outside of the EU in 2015.
• 5 — the number of cases disposed of because the defendant was found to be “not guilty by reason of insanity”.