DPP Calls for Legislative Clarity on Disclosure in Assault Trials

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Catherine Pierse, has urged for enhanced clarity in laws regarding the disclosure of materials in sexual assault trials. This appeal follows significant Supreme Court decisions that emphasize the responsibilities of prosecutors, defence teams, and trial judges concerning the handling of sensitive information, including counselling records.

During her address at the annual national conference for prosecutors in Dublin, Pierse reflected on what she termed a “cultural shift” prompted by two recent Supreme Court rulings. Both cases underscore the necessity for legislative reforms in this area. “I very much support that view,” she stated, recognizing the need for a more structured approach to disclosure.

Supreme Court Rulings Highlight Disclosure Responsibilities

The Supreme Court ruling in the case of DPP v WC clarified that serious intrusions into an individual’s private life are generally not subject to disclosure unless they are directly relevant to the case. The court affirmed that an accused person’s right to remain silent does not justify withholding information essential to the defence’s strategy. Consequently, it is the trial judge’s responsibility to resolve any disputes regarding these matters.

In another ruling, DPP v AM, delivered in May 2023, the court highlighted the stringent requirements for disclosing counselling records and other sensitive material. Pierse pointed out that this decision affirmed victims’ rights to legal counsel before consenting to any disclosure waivers. “The days of the prosecution navigating a sea of data to identify relevant information should be coming to a close,” she remarked.

Pierse emphasized that moving forward, it is crucial for prosecutors to proactively collaborate with defence teams early in the process to ensure a balance between the privacy rights of victims and the fair trial rights of the accused.

Implications of Recent Cases and Ongoing Challenges

The DPP v AM case has led to procedural changes within Pierse’s office and the police service, An Garda Síochána, aimed at ensuring victims receive appropriate legal advice before making decisions on disclosure. Nonetheless, Pierse noted that the AM ruling primarily addressed disclosure issues, not the earlier stages of acquiring records. Variations in judicial interpretations of the ruling present additional challenges, indicating that there is still much work to be done before comprehensive guidance can be provided.

The AM case involved a man convicted in late 2021 at Kerry Circuit Criminal Court for sexually assaulting his grandniece, referred to as ‘C’, when she was twelve years old. Prior to the trial, the defendant’s original legal team withdrew, and his new lawyers sought extensive disclosure, including records from any mental health professionals consulted by C. While some documents were shared, others, including records from counselling sessions that occurred five years post-offence, were disclosed only after the conviction.

In his appeal, the accused claimed that the late disclosure of this information adversely affected his right to a fair trial. The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, stating that a compelling basis must be demonstrated for any required disclosure and that the evidence in question had limited relevance. The court concluded that there was no plausible argument suggesting it would have significantly influenced the jury’s assessment of C’s credibility.

As the landscape of sexual assault trials evolves, the call for legislative clarity and procedural reform remains critical to ensure justice for victims while safeguarding the rights of the accused.