The Commission on the Future of Policing in Ireland (CoFPI) published its report in September 2018 outlining a clear vision and roadmap for strengthening policing, security and community safety. The report recommends that all prosecution decisions should be taken away from AGS and the practice of Gardaí prosecuting cases in court should cease.

This recommendation was accepted in principle by the Government, subject to further evaluation of the implications, including for resources. A High Level Review Group (‘HLRG’) on the role An Garda Síochána in the Public Prosecution System was established in September 2020 to conduct this evaluation. The HLRG was chaired by former Secretary General to the Government, Dermot McCarthy and comprised representatives from relevant stakeholders, including Government Departments, the Judiciary, An Garda Síochána, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, State Solicitors’ Association, the NGO sector, academics, and legal practitioners.

Chapter 1 provides an overview of the background to the work of the HLRG, its terms of reference, membership and work.
Chapter 2 provides detail on the role of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and its role in the Irish public prosecution system. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) was established under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974. The Director is independent in the performance of her functions. The duties of the Director are to enforce the criminal law in the courts on behalf of the people of Ireland, to direct and supervise public prosecutions on indictment (formal written accusations) in the courts, as well as to give general direction and advice to An Garda Síochána (the Irish police force) in respect of their prosecutions work and to give specific direction to AGS in cases where requested.
Chapter 3 provides detail on the role of An Garda Síochána (‘AGS’) in the Irish public prosecution system, undertaken in the name of the Director of Public Prosecutions. In accordance with section 8 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 members of AGS may undertake prosecutions in relation to summary cases (less serious cases which can be heard in the District Court) in the name of the DPP. While most prosecutions undertaken by AGS may be in respect of comparatively minor offences, this work represents a major undertaking for the organisation and AGS are responsible for the bulk of prosecution decisions and prosecution presentations at court.
Chapter 4 provides detail on a time and effort research study undertaken on behalf of the HLRG. The time and effort study was carried out by the Department of Justice in conjunction with An Garda Síochána. The study was in response to challenges in quantifying the time and resources involved in AGS carrying out their work on behalf of the DPP in the Irish public prosecution system. This exercise was designed to provide the information required to allow a quantification of the resource requirement at present, and the potential resource implications of any proposed new approach.
Chapter 5 provides detail on an international comparative study undertaken on behalf of the HLRG. The HLRG considered that it should have regard to evolving international standards and best practice in the field of public prosecutions. This research was particularly relevant to the brief of the HLRG as the Commission on the Future of Policing Ireland (‘CoFPI’) report had observed that ‘most comparable jurisdictions recognise that investigation and prosecution processes should be separate’. The research took account in particular of the experience of Common Law jurisdictions and those which operate under the general jurisprudence of European victims’ rights law or equivalent. Particular attention was paid to the experience of jurisdictions where changes have taken place in the conduct of prosecutions, especially with regard to the role of the police. The research confirmed a growing acceptance of the desirability of separating the prosecution and investigation processes, but did not find any uniform approach to achieving this, or to the appropriate degree of separation. The study also revealed that changes in public prosecution systems can be highly complex, deeply challenging and extremely expensive.
Chapter 6 outlines the policy options explored by the HLRG, the evaluation criteria, and includes the HLRG’s reflections on the current public prosecution system. The HLRG considers that while there is scope to improve the operation of our public prosecution system and deepen public confidence, there is much to commend in the current system as well as potential pitfalls in engaging in a large scale reworking of our public prosecutions approach. Chapter 6 sets out the three policy options and proposes a Reform Model aimed at encouraging and supporting the ODPP and AGS to continue and enhance reform measures to ensure greater efficiency, transparency and accountability in the public prosecution system.
Chapter 7 discusses the recommended option, the Reform Model and describes what this process of reform will look like at a high level, recognising that improvements must be iterative given the sensitivity of the subject matter, stresses the challenges in terms of resources faced by the key stakeholders involved, and recommends a high-level implementation plan.