Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Infirmary Road, Dublin 7. Tel: Fax: Web:

Transcription

1 Annual Report 2017

2 This Report is also available in the Irish Language, Infirmary Road, Dublin 7. Tel: Fax: Web:

3 CONTENTS Foreword AT A GLANCE... 7 PART 1: OVERVIEW OF THE OFFICE 1.1 Overview of the Office Outline of the Criminal Prosecution Process Organisation Structure PART 2: SUMMARY OF FILES RECEIVED AND OUTCOMES 2.1 Prosecution Files Received Results of Cases Prosecuted on Indictment Applications to the Courts Extradition Requests Mutual Legal Assistance PART 3: LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS 3.1 Legal Developments Victims of Crime PART 4: OFFICE ADMINISTRATION 4.1 Office Expenditure Extract from Appropriation Account Prompt Payment of Accounts Act, Freedom of Information Annual Energy Efficiency Report Irish Language Scheme

4 FOREWORD I am pleased to present the annual report for saw the very welcome enactment of the Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act transposing the EU Victims Directive into domestic law. In chapter 3.2 of this report we outline how the Office has responded to its obligations in this area. A full review was carried out of our procedures to ensure that they comply with the legislation, and the Office continues to raise awareness with all those involved in dealing with victims and their families on behalf of the Office. The Office receives a large number of requests for reasons for the decision not to prosecute and dealt with 638 such requests in Nearly 40% of these requests related to sexual offence complaints. The Office dealt with nearly 200 requests for a review of the decision not to prosecute. In eight of those cases the decision was reversed and a prosecution directed. Again just over 40% of the cases where a review was sought involved sexual offences. As these figures illustrate, the volume of work involved in dealing with victims is significant. There are additional demands on resources where cases are prosecuted and charges are being processed through the courts, especially at trial stage. We take our obligations to victims and their families very seriously. We are continuing to review the resources required to ensure victims and their families have the least traumatic experience possible of the criminal justice system. Another area where there is considerable pressure on resources is in relation to the international work undertaken by the Office in order to progress prosecutions. This work covers broadly two areas seeking evidence from another country and extradition. As is evident from the figures set out on page 39, the number of requests for evidence abroad processed by the Office doubled in 2017 as compared to This illustrates the very significant work involved at an international level in gathering evidence abroad under the Mutual Legal Assistance system. We also regularly seek the return of suspects wanted for offences in this jurisdiction. This is dealt with by way of application for European Arrest Warrant where the suspect is in the EU, or by way of extradition request to the relevant state elsewhere in the world. Details of the work done by the Office on European Arrest Warrants and Extradition requests are set out on pages 37 and 38. The increasing workload within the International Unit outlined above has created serious pressure on resources in this area. Stretched staff resources resulted in a backlog developing in 2017, most noticeably in the area of applications for European Arrest Warrants. I am pleased to say that in recent months we have been in a position to take steps to address this situation. Sanction was received from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform 4

5 for the creation of a new senior post. This enabled a new Prosecution Support Services Division to be established in June of this year. As you will see in the organisation chart on page 11, this Division, led by Catherine Pierse, Solicitor, comprises the International Unit, the Policy, Research and Library functions, and the Victim Liaison Unit. This new Division will permit a renewed focus on these important areas. We are reviewing as a matter of urgency the additional resources required in order to meet the growing demand, particularly in relation to victims and international work. The focus on the international dimension is of course particularly relevant in light of the pending Brexit. This has very serious implications for the prosecution of crime and criminal justice generally in this country. Having effective extradition arrangements between this jurisdiction and the UK is extremely important, having regard to the amount of interaction between the two jurisdictions. In 2017 the vast majority of European Arrest Warrants sent abroad were sent to the UK. As of 31 March 2019 the current arrangements, which are very efficient in securing the return of persons wanted for prosecution, will no longer operate. It is therefore crucial that an agreement is reached on an alternative system prior to that date. I know that the Department of Justice and Equality and the Government are acutely aware of the imperatives in this area. One hopes that a practical solution will be found so that mechanisms are put in place to enable us to seek the extradition of an accused or seek important evidence from that jurisdiction. This is particularly important having regard to the shared border with Northern Ireland, and the ongoing necessity for prosecutions in respect of dissident subversive activity. There continues to be pressure on the budget of the Office. In 2017 net expenditure totalled just under 41 million, up from 38.6 million in The largest area of expenditure at 16.4 million in 2017 was in respect of fees paid to Counsel engaged to prosecute cases before the Courts. This was an increase of over 1.5 million over the 2016 figure. While significant fees were again incurred in 2017 on large and lengthy trials arising from the banking crisis, increased activity levels in both the Dublin Circuit Court and the Central Criminal Court accounted in the main for the increased expenditure. The overall volume of trials now being dealt with before the courts at all levels means that there will be a need for at least the current allocation for Counsel s fees to be provided in The Central Criminal Court for example is expected to have six sitting judges for the foreseeable future. While the trials in relation to the banking crisis have now concluded, the Special Financial Unit which was set up in 2011 to deal with these cases will continue in operation and will now focus on other large financial crime cases in close liaison with the Garda National Economic Crime Bureau. The Office continues to adapt and develop in order to meet the challenges that impact on the way we do our business. At present the Office has a number of IT projects for which funds have been allocated, looking at various ways in which the work of the Office and communications with other agencies can be done more efficiently. I am grateful to the many staff in the Office who have taken these various change management projects forward to ensure that we can provide the best prosecution service on behalf of the people of Ireland. In conclusion, I want to thank the staff in my Office, the State Solicitors around the country and the many prosecution counsel who were involved in the operation of the prosecution service during 2017 for their continued commitment and hard work. Claire Loftus Director of Public Prosecutions September

6 MISSION STATEMENT To provide on behalf of the People of Ireland a prosecution service that is independent, fair and effective 6

7 2017 AT A GLANCE 40.9million Total cost of running the Prosecution Service in ,666 Total number of prosecution files received in Total number of staff working in the Office of the DPP 66% Percentage of cases on which a decision is made within 4 weeks 94% Overall conviction rate maintained 638 Number of requests for reasons for decisions not to prosecute 988,297 Amount recovered from proceeds of crime and returned to public funds 7

8 PART 1: OVERVIEW OF THE OFFICE 8

9 1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE OFFICE The fundamental function of the Director of Public Prosecutions is the direction and supervision of public prosecutions and related criminal matters The majority of cases dealt with by the are received from the Garda Síochána, the primary national investigating agency. However, some cases are also referred to the Office by specialised investigative agencies including the Revenue Commissioners, Government departments, the Health and Safety Authority, the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, and local authorities The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has four divisions: i) The Directing Division determines, following an examination of an investigation file, whether there should be a prosecution or whether a prosecution commenced by the Garda Síochána should be maintained. The direction which issues indicates the charges, if any, to be brought before the courts. In some cases further information and investigation may be required before a decision can be made. To prosecute there must be a prima facie case - evidence which could, though not necessarily would, lead a court or a jury to decide, beyond reasonable doubt, that the person is guilty of the offence. ii) The Solicitors Division, headed by the Chief Prosecution Solicitor, provides a solicitor service to the Director in the preparation and presentation of cases in the Dublin District and Circuit Criminal Courts, the Central Criminal Court and Special Criminal Court, the Court of Appeal and the High and Supreme Courts. Outside the Dublin area 32 local state solicitors, engaged on a contract basis, provide a solicitor service in the Circuit Court and in some District Court matters in their respective local areas. iii) The Prosecution Support Services Division incorporates the Prosecution Policy and Research Unit which provides legal and policy research, develops prosecution policies and advises on legal policy documents referred to the Office for consideration; the Library Unit which provides information and know-how services for both legal and administration staff; the Victims Liaison Unit which is responsible for ensuring that the Office meets its obligations in relation to the support and protection of victims of crime as set out under the Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act 2017; and the International Unit which deals with areas of international criminal law, including extradition, European Arrest Warrants and requests for mutual legal assistance. iv) The Administration Division provides the organisational, infrastructural, administrative and information services required by the Office and also provides support to the Directing, Prosecution Support Services and Solicitors Divisions. 9

10 1.2 OUTLINE OF THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION PROCESS AN GARDA SÍOCHÁNA & SPECIALISED INVESTIGATING AGENCIES Conduct independent criminal investigations Conduct most summary prosecutions in District Court in relation to minor offences (subject to DPP s power to give directions) Prepare and submit files to the Solicitors Division of the DPP s Office (Dublin cases) or to the local state solicitor (cases outside Dublin) in relation to more serious offences SOLICITORS DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE DPP (cases to be heard in Dublin) LOCAL STATE SOLICITOR (cases to be heard outside Dublin) Conduct certain summary prosecutions in District Court and appeals to the Circuit Court Submit investigation files to Directing Division of the DPP s Officer for directions Prepare cases for Court DIRECTING DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE DPP Examines files received from Solicitors Division and local state solicitors Directs initiation or continuance of a prosecution Provides ongoing instruction and legal advice to the Solicitors Division and local state solicitors until case at hearing is concluded Advises the Garda Síochána and specialised investigating agencies and gives directions on preferral of charges SOLICITORS DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE DPP (cases to be heard in Dublin) Prosecute in accordance with directions received Attend and prosecute hearings in District Court Prepare books of evidence in indictment cases LOCAL STATE SOLICITOR (cases to be heard outside Dublin) Brief and assist nominated barrister conducting prosecution in trial courts Attend trial and report outcome to Directing Division Liaise with agencies and parties involved in the criminal process Direct on and conduct Judicial Review cases Prosecute appeals in the Circuit Court and Court of Appeal (Criminal) PROSECUTING COUNSEL Appear in Court and conduct prosecutions on indictment on behalf of and in accordance with the instructions of the DPP COURTS Case at hearing (arraignment, trial) Case outcome (conviction/acquittal) Sentencing 10

11 1.3 ORGANISATION STRUCTURE (as of September 2018) Director of Public Prosecutions Claire Loftus Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Barry Donoghue PROSECUTION SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION SOLICITORS DIVISION DIRECTING DIVISION ADMINISTRATION DIVISION Head of Prosecution Support Services Division Catherine Pierse Chief Prosecution Solicitor Helena Kiely Head of Directing Division Elizabeth Howlin Head of Administration Division Declan Hoban International Unit Michael Brady Policy & Research Unit Eithne Muldoon Library Unit Paula Murphy Victims Liaison Unit Gareth Henry Appeals Section Gráinne Glynn Circuit Court Section Ronan O Brien District Court Section Raymond Briscoe Judicial Review Section Séamus Cassidy Superior Courts Section Liam Mulholland Special Financial Unit Henry Matthews Unit Heads David Gormally Domhnall Murray Peter McCormick Padraic Taylor Change Management Co-Ordinator Helen Cullen Communications Unit Orlagh Flood Finance Unit John Byrne Human Resources & Training Unit Claire Rush I.T. Unit Marian Harte Organisation & General Services Unit Joe Mulligan 11

12 PART 2: SUMMARY OF FILES RECEIVED AND OUTCOMES 12

13 EXPLANATORY NOTE IN RELATION TO STATISTICS 2.1 Part 2 is broken down into five distinct sections: i) Charts to (Part 2.1) relate to the receipt of files in the Office and include details on the types of directions made; ii) Charts to (Part 2.2) provide details of the results of cases prosecuted on indictment by the Director in respect of files received in the Office between 2014 and iii) Charts to (Part 2.3) provide details of applications made to the courts in relation to appeals in criminal cases, reviews of sentence on grounds of undue leniency, confiscation and forfeiture of criminal assets, and European Arrest Warrants. iv) Chart (Part 2.4) provides details of the preparation/issue of extradition requests, seeking the extradition of individuals who are not present in European Arrest Warrant member states. v) Chart (Part 2.5) provides details of requests for mutual legal assistance processed by the Office of the DPP. 2.3 In this report we have attempted in most instances to include updated versions of the data set out in previous Annual Reports in order to give a fuller account of the progress made since that data was previously published. Because of the continuous change in the status of cases - for example, a case which was pending at the time of a previous report may now have concluded - information given in this report will differ from that for the same cohort of cases in previous reports. In addition, data from two different years may not be strictly comparable because as time goes on more cases are completed so that information from earlier years is necessarily more complete than that from later years. Unless otherwise stated, data included in these statistics was updated in September Caution should be exercised when comparing these statistics with statistics published by other organisations such as the Courts Service or An Garda Síochána. The statistics published here are based on our own classification and categorisation systems and may in some cases not be in line with the classification systems of other organisations. 2.2 All the yearly demarcations in the statistical tables refer to the year the file was received in the Office. The reason for going back so far in charts to is to take account of the time difference between a decision to prosecute being made and a trial verdict being recorded. If statistics were to be provided in respect of 2017 case outcomes, a large proportion of the cases would still be classified as for hearing and the statistics would have little value. Cases heard within a short period of being brought are not necessarily representative. 13

14 2.1 PROSECUTION FILES RECEIVED Chart shows the total number of prosecution files received by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions from 2002 to The chart does not include work undertaken by the Office in relation to other matters not directly related to criminal prosecution files such as: requests for legal advice from the Garda Síochána, local state solicitors or other agencies; policy related matters; or queries of a general nature. CHART 2.1.1: Total Prosecution Files Received YEAR FILES

15 The Solicitors Division of the provides a solicitor service to the Director and acts on her behalf. The division also deals with cases which do not require to be referred to the Directing Division for direction. Chart represents the number of cases dealt with solely within the Solicitors Division and includes District Court prosecution files, appeals from the District Court to the Circuit Court and High Court bail applications. The figure for District Court Appeals represents the number of files held, not the number of individual charges appealed. One defendant may have a multiplicity of charges under appeal. The Solicitors Division also deals with judicial review applications. While some of these applications are dealt with solely within the Solicitors Division, others require to be forwarded to the Directing Division for direction. However, because the dedicated Judicial Review Section is based in the Solicitors Division the total number of judicial review applications dealt with are included in this chart. Judicial reviews may be taken by the Director or be taken against her. CHART 2.1.2: Files Dealt with by the Solicitors Division 2017 % 2016 % 2015 % District Court Prosecution Files % % % Appeals from District Court to Circuit Court % % % High Court Bail Applications % % % Judicial Review Applications 192 4% 210 5% 246 5% TOTAL % % % % 5% 21% 22% 5% 19% 28% 28% 38% 47% 45% 38% District Court Prosecution Files High Court Bail Applications Appeals from District Court to Circuit Court Judicial Review Applications 15

16 Chart represents the number of files received in which a decision to prosecute or not to prosecute must be taken. The chart compares the number of files received with the number of suspects who are the subject of those files. This is because many files relate to more than one suspect. It is important, therefore, to look at the total number of suspects as well as the total number of files. CHART 2.1.3: Breakdown of Files Received for Decision Whether to Prosecute Files received for decision whether to prosecute Number of suspects who are the subject of those files Number of files for direction received Number of suspects who are the subject of those files 16

17 The following chart shows a breakdown of the disposal of files received in the Directing Division in 2015, 2016 and 2017 (as of September 2018). An Garda Síochána and specialised investigating agencies submit files either directly to this office or to the local state solicitor, for a direction whether or not to prosecute. Depending on the seriousness of the offence and the evidence disclosed in the file, a decision will be taken as follows: No Prosecution: A decision not to prosecute is made. The most common reason not to prosecute is because the evidence contained in the file is not sufficient to support a prosecution. The figures however include all decisions not to prosecute. Prosecute on Indictment: It is decided to prosecute in the Circuit, Central or Special Criminal Courts. Summary Disposal: The offence is to be prosecuted in the District Court. Under Consideration: Files in which a decision has not been made. This figure includes those files in which further information or investigation was required before a decision could be made. NOTE: The figures for 2015 and 2016 have been updated since the publication of previous Annual Reports. The reduction in the files 'Under Consideration' figures compared with those given in previous years reflect developments on those files since then. 'Prosecutions on Indictment' include those cases in which defendants elected for trial by jury and cases where the judge of the District Court refused jurisdiction, even though the Director initially elected for summary disposal. CHART 2.1.4: Disposal of Directing Division Files by Number of Suspects Subject of files Received Direction Made 2017 % 2016 % 2015 % No Prosecution Directed % % % Prosecution on Indictment Directed % % % Summary Disposal Directed % % % TOTAL OF FILES DISPOSED Under Consideration 84 1% 29 0% 7 0% TOTAL % % 0% 29% 29% 29% 39% 41% 43% 31% 30% 28% No Prosecution Prosecution on Indictment Summary Disposal Under Consideration 17

18 A decision may be made not to prosecute in relation to a particular file for a variety of reasons other than the main reasons set out in this chart. The death or disappearance of the suspect, the death or disappearance of the complainant or the refusal of a complainant to give evidence are some examples. These are referred to as other in the chart below. CHART 2.1.4a: Breakdown of Main Reasons for a Direction Not to Prosecute Main Reasons for No Prosecution 2017 % 2016 % 2015 % Insufficient Evidence % % % Juvenile Diversion Programme 76 1% 62 1% 66 1% Public Interest 80 2% 87 2% 84 2% Sympathetic Grounds 1 0% 3 0% 7 0% Time Limit Expired 39 1% 34 1% 42 1% Undue Delay 48 1% 43 1% 76 2% Injured Party Withdraws Complaint 302 7% 294 6% 278 5% Adult Caution 79 2% 93 2% 112 2% Other 290 6% 313 7% 455 9% TOTAL % 2% 7% 6% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% % 2% 5% 2% 0% 1% 2% 1% 9% 80% 80% 78% Insufficient Evidence Juvenile Diversion Programme Public Interest Sympathetic Grounds Time Limit Expired Undue Delay Injured Party Withdraws Complaint Adult Caution Other 18

19 Chart 2.1.4b is a breakdown of directions to prosecute on indictment, by the county in which the offence was committed. It includes cases directed to be heard in the Circuit Criminal, Central Criminal and Special Criminal Courts. Please note that a number of cases are still 'Under Consideration' (see Chart 2.1.4). These include cases where a file was received but further information was required. It is not possible to determine how many of these cases may eventually result in a direction to prosecute on indictment. CHART 2.1.4b: Breakdown of Number of Prosecutions on Indictment Directed per County of Offence Population 2017* Population 2016* Population 2015 * Population 2014* Number of Prosecutions on Indictment Directed per County Cases per 1,000 Persons 3 Year Rolling Average Population 2013 * Carlow 57,489 56,932 55,613 55,405 55, Cavan 76,887 76,176 70,498 71,621 72, Clare 119, , , , , Cork 543, , , , , Donegal 160, , , , , Dublin 1,350,000 1,347,359 1,305,300 1,274,600 1,262, Galway 257, , , , , Kerry 147, , , , , Kildare 226, , , , , Kilkenny 100,203 99,232 97,168 96,804 96, Laois 86,088 84,697 83,637 82,895 82, Leitrim 32,343 32,044 30,631 31,119 31, Limerick 196, , , , , Longford 41,544 40,873 40,490 40,131 39, Louth 130, , , , , Mayo 130, , , , , Meath 198, , , , , Monaghan 61,959 61,386 58,264 59,192 59, Offaly 79,241 77,961 79,617 78,911 78, Roscommon 64,400 64,544 62,647 62,877 62, Sligo 66,147 65,535 62,994 63,997 64, Tipperary 160, , , , , Waterford 117, , , , , Westmeath 90,227 88,770 89,456 88,663 88, Wexford 151, , , , , Wicklow 145, , , , , TOTAL 4,792,500 4,761,865 4,635,400 4,609,500 4,593, *Population figures for 2016 are taken from the census figures for that year. The 2017, 2013, 2014 & 2015 figures are based on a proration of the estimated regional population figures as published in the Central Statistics Office s Population and Migration Estimates issued in 2017, 2013, 2014 &

20 Chart shows the time between the receipt of a completed prosecution file in the Office and the issuing of a direction as to whether a prosecution of a suspect should be taken or not. It has been decided to show this information by suspect rather than by file since in the case of files containing multiple suspects, decisions in respect of all suspects may not be made at the same time. Files vary in size and complexity. Also, in some cases, further information or investigation was required before a decision could be made. The time taken to issue directions is calculated on the basis of only those files which have been disposed of. Files still under consideration are therefore shown as a separate category in the table below. CHART 2.1.5: Time Taken to Issue Directions Time Taken 2017 % 2016 % 2015 % Zero - Two Weeks % % % Two - Four Weeks % % % Four Weeks - Three Months % % % Three Months - Six Months 911 8% 699 6% 814 7% Six Months - Twelve Months 328 3% 361 3% 256 2% More than Twelve Months 18 0% 76 1% 71 1% TOTAL FILES DISPOSED Under Consideration 84 1% 29 0% 7 0% TOTAL % % 3% 1% % 3%1%0% 7% 0% 2% 1% 22% 49% 22% 51% 21% 52% 17% 17% 17% Zero - Two Weeks Two - Four Weeks Four Weeks - Three Months Three Months - Six Months Six Months - Twelve Months More than Twelve Months Under Consideration 20

21 2.2 RESULTS OF CASES PROSECUTED ON INDICTMENT Charts to provide information for prosecutions on indictment taken by the Director in respect of files received in the Office between 2014 and As referred to in the initial explanatory note, care should be taken before a comparison is made with figures provided by any other organisation, as they may be compiled on a different basis The figures in these charts relate to individual suspects against whom a direction has been made to prosecute on indictment. Statistics are provided on a suspect-by-suspect basis rather than on the basis of files received. This is because directions are made in respect of each suspect included within a file rather than against the complete file as an entity in itself. Depending on the evidence provided, different directions are often made in respect of the individual suspects received as part of the same file. References in these charts to 'cases' refer to such prosecutions taken against individual suspects. Although individual suspects on a file may be tried together where a direction is made to prosecute them in courts of equal jurisdiction, each suspect s verdict will be collated separately for the purpose of these statistics Statistics are provided on the basis of one outcome per suspect; this is irrespective of the number of charges and offences listed on the indictment. Convictions are broken down into: conviction by jury, conviction on plea, and conviction on a lesser charge. A conviction on a lesser charge indicates that the suspect was not convicted for the primary or most serious offence on tshe indictment. The offence categorisation used in the main charts is by the primary or most serious offence on the indictment. Therefore, if a defendant is convicted of a lesser offence, the offence or offences they are convicted for may be different from that under which they are categorised in the charts. For example, a suspect may be charged with murder but ultimately convicted for the lesser offence of manslaughter or charged with aggravated burglary but convicted of the lesser offence of burglary. A breakdown of convictions on a lesser charge is given in respect of cases heard in the Special and Central Criminal Courts in charts 2.2.3a and 2.2.4a. Where a suspect is categorised as acquitted, this means that the suspect has been acquitted of all charges It should also be noted that statistics set out in these charts relate to what happened in the trial court only and not in a subsequent appeal court. In other words where a person is convicted and the conviction is subsequently overturned on appeal, the outcome of the trial is still shown in these statistics as a conviction Care should be taken in relation to interpreting the rates of conviction and acquittal in respect of recent years, as a higher number of cases will not have reached a conclusion. The picture furnished by these statistics will be less complete and therefore less representative than those in respect of earlier years. Cases heard relatively early may not necessarily be a representative sample of the whole. 21

22 Chart shows the results of prosecutions on indictment taken in relation to defendants in respect of whom prosecutions were commenced in the years 2014 to 2016 (as of September 2018). The figures relate to: Conviction: A conviction was obtained in respect of at least one of the charges brought in the case. Acquittal: The defendant was acquitted on all charges. Not Yet Heard: These are cases in which a decision to prosecute has been taken and the matter is before the courts. NOTE: Figures have not been included for 2017 as the great majority of these cases have yet to be dealt with by the courts and the outcomes for the few cases where results are available may not be representative of the final picture covering all the cases. CHART 2.2.1: Case Results - Prosecutions on Indictment Outcome 2016 % 2015 % 2014 % Conviction % % % Acquittal 145 4% 185 5% 190 6% Not Yet Heard % % % Struck Out/Discontinued 126 4% 149 4% 181 6% TOTAL % 4% 6% 16% 11% 26% 5% 6% 4% 66% 75% 77% Conviction Acquittal Not Yet Heard Struck Out/Discontinued 22

23 CHART 2.2.1a: Breakdown of Convictions and Acquittals (excluding cases still to be heard) 2016 % 2015 % 2014 % Conviction by Jury 96 4% 164 6% 136 5% Conviction Following Plea of Guilty % % % TOTAL CONVICTIONS % % % Acquittal by Jury 93 4% 118 4% 104 4% Acquittal on Direction of Judge 52 2% 67 3% 86 3% TOTAL ACQUITTALS 145 6% 185 7% 190 7% TOTAL % 2% 4% 4% 3% 6% 4% 3% 5% 90% 87% 88% Conviction by Jury Acquittal by Jury Conviction Following Plea of Guilty Acquittal on Direction of Judge 23

24 Chart breaks down the prosecutions directed on indictment to be heard in the Circuit Court. The cases categorised as 'For Hearing' are those for which a verdict has not yet been recorded. In some of these cases, a trial may have begun but proceedings have been halted by a Judicial Review application. In other cases the defendant may have absconded before the trial and a bench warrant and/or extradition proceedings may be in process. Other cases, especially those of a complex nature, may not yet have come to trial. The greater proportion of cases 'For Hearing' makes the figures in more recent years less representative. This provision is also applicable to Charts and Where a trial results in a jury disagreement the case is treated as still being 'For Hearing' unless a nolle prosequi is entered. CHART 2.2.2: Outcomes of Cases Prosecuted in the Circuit Criminal Court TOTAL Conviction by Jury Conviction on Plea Conviction on Lesser Charge Acquittal by Jury Acquittal by Direction of Judge For Hearing Other Disposals Fatal Accident at Work Manslaughter Other Fatal Offences TOTAL - FATAL OFFENCES Burglary Fraud Robbery Theft Other Offences Against Property TOTAL - OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY Buggery Child Pornography Sexual Assault Defilement of a Child Other Sexual Offences TOTAL - SEXUAL OFFENCES Dangerous Driving Causing Death Unauthorised Taking of Motor Vehicles Other Road Traffic Offences TOTAL - ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENCES Drug Offences Firearms and Explosives Offences Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Public Order Offences Revenue Offences Sea Fisheries Other Offences GRAND TOTAL

25 CHART 2.2.2a: Breakdown of Other Disposals from Chart Nolle prosequi entered Struck out Taken into consideration Successful application to dismiss charges Suspect absconded and not expected to return Jury discharged and permanent stay on indictment Suspect deceased Suspect unfit to plead Jury discharged and permanent stay on indictment Not guilty by reason of insanity TOTAL CHART 2.2.2b: Total Cases Finalised in the Circuit Criminal Court and Percentage of Convictions TOTAL Percentage of Convictions Fatal Accident at Work % 100% 100% Manslaughter % 100% 100% TOTAL - FATAL OFFENCES % 100% 100% Burglary % 96% 99% Fraud % 97% 100% Robbery % 98% 98% Theft % 97% 95% Other Offences Against Property % 95% 97% TOTAL - OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY % 97% 98% Child Pornography % 100% 100% Sexual Assault % 80% 73% Sex with an Underage Girl % 86% 78% Other Sexual Offences % 88% 90% TOTAL - SEXUAL OFFENCES % 85% 81% Dangerous Driving Causing Death % 67% 85% Unauthorised Taking of Motor Vehicles % 97% 100% Other Road Traffic Offences % 88% 94% TOTAL - ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENCES % 88% 93% Drug Offences % 99% 99% Firearms and Explosives Offences % 96% 96% Non Fatal Offences Against the Person % 88% 86% Public Order Offences % 86% 86% Sea Fisheries % 88% 79% Revenue Offences % 100% 100% Other Offences % 98% 85% GRAND TOTAL % 94% 93% 25

26 Chart outlines the result of cases directed for prosecution in the Special Criminal Court. CHART 2.2.3: Outcomes of Cases Prosecuted on Indictment in the Special Criminal Court TOTAL Conviction by Judges Conviction on Plea Conviction on Lesser Charge Acquittal by Judges Other Disposals For Hearing Membership of Unlawful Organisation & Related Offences Directing an Unlawful Organisation Firearms and Explosives Offences Murder Providing Assistance to Unlawful Organisation False Imprisonment Threat to Kill Facilitating the commission by a criminal organisation of a serious offence Withholding information Assault Causing Harm TOTAL CHART 2.2.3a: Breakdown of Convictions on Lesser Charge for Persons Charged with Membership of Unlawful Organisation and Related Offences Primary Charge Lesser Charge Convicted of TOTAL Conviction After Trial Conviction on Plea Membership of Unlawful Organisation & Related Offences Firearms and Explosives Offences Membership of Unlawful Organisation & Related Offences Assault Causing Harm Membership of Unlawful Organisation & Related Offences Handling Stolen Property Membership of Unlawful Organisation & Related Offences Passing Counterfeit Currency Firearms and Explosives Offences Threat to Kill TOTAL

27 CHART 2.2.3b: Breakdown of Other Disposals from Chart Suspect deceased TOTAL CHART 2.2.3c: Total Cases Finalised in the Special Criminal Court and Percentage of Convictions TOTAL Percentage of Convictions Firearms and Explosives Offences % 100% 100% Membership of / Directing an Unlawful Organisation % 100% 100% Other Offences % 88% N/A TOTAL % 96% 100% 27

28 Chart outlines the result of cases directed for prosecution in the Central Criminal Court and breaks down all cases by the most serious charge directed against the defendant. Supplementary charts break down the 'convictions on a lesser charge' and the 'other disposals' outcomes. CHART 2.2.4: Outcomes of Cases Prosecuted on Indictment in the Central Criminal Court TOTAL Conviction by Jury Conviction on Plea Conviction on Lesser Charge Acquittal by Jury Acquittal by Direction of Judge Other Disposals For Hearing Murder Attempted Murder Rape Attempted Rape Aggravated Sexual Assault Assisting an Offender Sexual Assault Assault causing harm Competition Law TOTAL

29 CHART 2.2.4a: Breakdown of Convictions on Lesser Charge Primary Charge Lesser Charge Convicted of TOTAL Conviction by Jury Conviction on Plea Murder Manslaughter Murder Possession of article with intent Murder Possession of article in course of dispute Murder Assisting an Offender Murder Violent Disorder Rape Aggravated Sexual Assault Rape Assault Causing Harm Rape False Imprisonment Rape Sex with an Underage Girl Rape Sexual Assault Rape Indecent Assault Attempted Murder Possession of Firearms with Intent to Endanger Life Attempted Rape Sexual Assault TOTAL

30 CHART 2.2.4b: Breakdown of Other Disposals Nolle prosequi entered Suspect unfit to plead Suspect deceased Successful application to dismiss charges Judge issued prohibition order Struck out Not guilty by reason of insanity TOTAL CHART 2.2.4c: Total Cases Finalised in the Central Criminal Court and Percentage of Convictions (Including Convictions on a Lesser Charge) TOTAL Percentage of Convictions Murder % 100% 97% Attempted Murder % 100% 100% Rape % 79% 68% Attempted Rape % 100% 100% Aggravated Sexual Assault N/A N/A N/A Sexual Assault N/A N/A N/A Assault causing harm N/A N/A 100% Competition Law N/A N/A 100% Assisting an Offender N/A 100% N/A TOTAL % 83% 82% 30

31 Chart breaks down the case verdicts for each Circuit Criminal Court. Unlike Chart 2.2.2, it does not include cases 'for hearing' or cases where the outcome is other than conviction or acquittal. Please note that in some cases, a trial may be held in a circuit court for a county other than that in which the offence was committed. CHART 2.2.5: Outcomes of Cases Prosecuted on Indictment in the Circuit Criminal Court by County TOTAL Conviction by Jury Conviction on Plea Conviction on Lesser Charge Acquittal by Jury Acquittal by Direction of Judge Carlow Cavan Clare Cork Donegal Dublin Galway Kerry Kildare Kilkenny Laois Leitrim Limerick Longford Louth Mayo Meath Monaghan Offaly Roscommon Sligo Tipperary Waterford Westmeath Wexford Wicklow TOTAL

32 CHART 2.2.5a: Total Cases Finalised and Percentage of Convictions TOTAL Percentage of Convictions Carlow % 94% 88% Cavan % 97% 93% Clare % 87% 97% Cork % 94% 96% Donegal % 89% 100% Dublin % 96% 96% Galway % 93% 95% Kerry % 94% 96% Kildare % 82% 84% Kilkenny % 95% 97% Laois % 85% 89% Leitrim % 91% 67% Limerick % 98% 97% Longford % 100% 95% Louth % 89% 81% Mayo % 94% 90% Meath % 96% 87% Monaghan % 100% 100% Offaly % 93% 88% Roscommon % 83% 71% Sligo % 94% 74% Tipperary % 91% 91% Waterford % 81% 82% Westmeath % 86% 89% Wexford % 92% 95% Wicklow % 92% 84% TOTAL % 94% 93% 32

33 2.3 APPLICATIONS TO THE COURTS Charts to provide details of applications made to the Courts in relation to appeals in criminal cases, reviews of sentence on grounds of undue leniency, confiscation and forfeiture of criminal assets, and European Arrest Warrants. APPLICATIONS TO THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL) The new Court of Appeal was established in October 2014 following the 33 rd Amendment to the Constitution and the enactment of the Court of Appeal Act The Court sits between the High and Supreme Courts and took over the existing appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in civil matters and the Court of Criminal Appeal in criminal matters. The first criminal appeal case was heard on 10 November Chart below details the number of appeals lodged since the establishment of the new Court. The Appeal by DPP column outlines the number of cases in which the Director was an applicant, including, for example, undue leniency, acquittal, and fitness to plead appeals. The remaining columns set out the number of cases in which the Director was a respondent and relate to severity of sentence and conviction appeals. CHART 2.3.1: Appeals to the Court of Appeal (Criminal) since November 2014 Year Appeal by DPP Severity of Sentence Conviction Conviction and Severity TOTAL CASES November - December January - December January - December January - December TOTAL

34 APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW OF SENTENCE ON GROUNDS OF UNDUE LENIENCY Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1993 provides that the Director of Public Prosecutions may apply to the Court of Appeal (Criminal) to have a sentence imposed by the trial court reviewed, if it appears that the sentence imposed was in law unduly lenient. Chart below details the number of applications lodged in the last ten years. Chart 2.3.2a outlines the results of applications by the year in which the application was heard. CHART 2.3.2: Applications for Review of Sentence on Grounds of Undue Leniency Year of Application Number of Applications Lodged CHART 2.3.2a: Results of Applications by Year Heard Year of Application Heard Successful Refused Applications Struck Out or Withdrawn TOTAL 34

35 CONFISCATION AND FORFEITURE OF CRIMINAL ASSETS Taking away the assets of convicted criminals, as provided for under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1994, has proved to be an effective tool available to the Prosecution in diminishing the proceeds that are obtained from criminal activity. The Office of the DPP provides advice and support to prosecution practitioners in relation to confiscation and forfeiture applications. The Office also participates with other departments and agencies in reviewing the procedures and structures for criminal asset seizure in the State. Asset seizing files received in the Office under the Criminal Justice Act 1994 ranged from forfeiture order cases, to confiscation order cases, to freezing order applications. The total number of cases opened in 2017 is set out in Chart below. CHART 2.3.3: Asset Seizing Files Opened in 2017 Asset Seizing Files Opened 2017 Section 39 Forfeiture Applications (Revenue and Gardaí) 43 Section 61 Forfeiture Applications 1 Sections 4 and 9 Confiscation Applications 5 Section 24 Freezing Applications 3 TOTAL 52 Section 39 Forfeiture Orders: Under section 39 of the Act a Judge of the Circuit Court may order the forfeiture of any cash which has been seized under section 38* of the Act if satisfied that the cash directly or indirectly represents the proceeds of crime. * Section 38 of the Act authorises the seizure of cash where a member of An Garda Síochána or an officer of Customs and Excise has reasonable grounds for suspecting that the cash (including cash found during a search) represents any person s proceeds from criminal conduct. The cash seized by a Garda or an officer of Customs and Excise may not be detained for more than 48 hours unless the further detention of the cash is authorised by a Judge of the District Court. Applications can be made to Court to continue to detain the cash for periods of up to two years. Section 61 Forfeiture Orders: Section 61 of the Act allows for forfeiture of any property used to commit, or to facilitate any offence, in either the District Court or Circuit Court. This can be done in relation to a wide variety of assets, such as cars used to transport criminals to and from crime scenes, as well as money and instruments of crime such as drug preparation equipment found at the crime scene, or near to it. Section 4 Confiscation Orders: Under the provisions of section 4 of the Act, once a person has been convicted on indictment of a drug trafficking offence and sentenced, the court of trial must determine whether the convicted person has benefited from drug trafficking, the extent to which he or she has benefited, and the amount that is realisable to discharge a Confiscation Order. The Court can then make a Confiscation Order for that figure. Section 9 Confiscation Orders: Section 9 of the Act allows the confiscation, on conviction, of the benefit an accused person has gained from any indictable offence other than drug trafficking offences. An inquiry may be held by the Circuit Court into the benefit gained after the person is sentenced. The Prosecution must prove that benefit generated is directly related to the offence with which the accused is charged. 35