Virtual Omerta on Omerta

The Irish Director of Public Prosecutions does not give reasons for any of his decisions. This has long been a bone of contention, which was particularly well-gnawed in the wake of the Brian Curtin saga - we don't know why the judge was prosecuted under a clearly invalid warrant. In the wake of all that, James Hamilton undertook a review of the process, looking at other countries to see whether or not the system can be improved. But, according to a radio interview Mr Hamilton gave yesterday morning, it appears as if no change will be forthcoming. His primary reason is that, on some occasions, it will not be possible for one reason or another to explain the decision - for example, an informant might be involved. And if the DPP says, "I can't give a reason in this case" people will invariably start to speculate. This is a forceful argument (his other argument about the implications for the accused's constitutional right to a good name can, with some imagination, be overcome). But it has to be set against the distress caused to families of victims of crime who are often left with no explanation as to why the murderer of their loved one was not prosecuted. There is no easy answer to this: perhaps the most sensible solution would be to give reasons in certain cases on a trial basis, lasting maybe 12 months. Rather than deal with problems in the abstract, as the report will do, can we not live and learn?